User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 9

I honestly have no clue what I pressed for this edit to happen. Thanks for reverting it -NottNott|talk 11:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be verified, That's why is reported, there is nothing wrong with putting a unconfirmed report of a 306kg lion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC) What's yoour problem? Why you delete the reliable source of a 408kg tiger? I will write that again if you dodn't provide me explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You copy-pasted this statement from the source. Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations to understand what's wrong with this!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my sources! Where you think the majority of reliable sources of animal weight come from? From books! I'm starting to think that you only did that beacause was me! Please put the precious information in those pages again!

Don't worry, not personal. I don't even know you! And would like to suggest that you learn how to reference properly, and also refrain from disrupting content and respective references. --BhagyaMani (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.. but can you just corect that instead of simply delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I just did!! And in Asiatic lion, I had edited your sentence and moved it to the subsection ===Exceptionally sized lions===. Open your eyes before you accuse people of vandalism: Asiatic lion#Exceptionally sized lions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't saw that, I'm really sorry! And yes is much better like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that by far most referenced sources in this article are peer-reviewed articles or books published by scientists. In contrary, the 408 kg weight that you copy-pasted from Brakefield was apparently stated in Vaillant. But in latter author's book I cannot find it, so assume that this person may also have taken this weight from older sources; hence this weight is not verifiable: neither date, nor location given. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes but we can all agree that in fact there is uconfirmed reports of tigers over 400kg, In guiness book 1983 by Wood he stated that there was a report of a 400kg tiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong about the reliable source of 7m gharial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition broke a referenced source, namely Maskey et al. (1994). And you neither provided author and other usual info in your refs. I remember to have suggested to you to learn how to reference properly, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. In future, just append your edits, but do not brake text that is refernced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the longest gharial was not 6.25m, was 7m. And is kinda of hard to reference properly, is like this: {{Wood, 1983}}?

Again : see Wikipedia:Citing sources and other Help pages!! There are tutorials for everything you need to know, just READ it. You can of course also study how other refs are formatted. --BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way: if you really want to know who are the RELIABLE authors about gharial, then see the respective Red List account at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8966/0 and the bibliography therein!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BhagyaMani, There are more than one Gray. Writing J. E. Gray I made the article more precise. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leo1pard keeps promoting the false claim that "tigers and lions are the same size/lions are bigger" on big cat pages, including the Big Cat page. It's a fact that tigers are the largest cat species and it seems like whenever one of the main page editors reverts his edits, he admits defeat on that page(or at least the section of the page he made the claim on, as sometimes he will try to post the claim on a different part of the page until that gets reverted by one of the main editors to), only to post the same claims on other pages as if hoping the people reverting his false edits don't notice. Can something be done to stop him from doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQIT (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AQIT: thanks for your message. I also noticed that this user is very focused, almost obsessed, with sizes and comparing measurements of tigers and lions. I am not. It may not be possible to stop him from doing this. But suggest that you verify his claims, e.g. by reading the referenced sources, and correct the figures that he presented, if these are wrong. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that lions are bigger than tigers overall, it is just that, just as there's something slightly incorrect about the idea of the Siberian tiger being the biggest tiger, viz. that Bengal tigers are heavier on average than Siberian tigers in the wilderness, which BhagyaMani knows (which is why both of us treat the idea with caution), caution must be dealt with the wider issue of lion vs tiger, because it means looking at the weights of different types of lions and tigers, and the results are more complicated than one may think. That said, AQIT, I hope you're not one of those people who want to promote the idea of the Siberian tiger being the biggest tiger or cat, without acknowledging that Bengal tigers outweigh them in the wild. Leo1pard (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address AQIT's concern!!! His intention was obviously NOT to discuss who is bigger, but that you keep posting false claims that need to be reverted. I suggest you read his message again! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which claim? That the biggest lions or tigers are 'similar' in size does not mean 'exactly'. Or do you mean the claim about the Bengal tiger vs the Siberian tiger? Leo1pard (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again: this is NOT about sizes or measurements, but about posting false information. I did not check the history of the articles in question, so don't know which specific claims AQIT referred to. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here an example: he once claimed that a source on the Siberian/Amur tiger page that was linked behind the fact that tigers are the largest cat species was the originator of the "tigers are the largest cats" claim(despite it being a well-known fact long before that source was printed) simply because it was the only source attached to the fact on that page, and then claimed said source only claimed that because they didn't know about these "allegedly huge lions" and hybrids such as ligers. Yep, he blatantly lied and posted false information on an article in order to try to discredit a source and the fact that tigers are the largest cats. There are others in which he implies sources make certain claims that they actually don't as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQIT (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AQIT, a liger can surpass a tiger in weight and size, and both BhagyaMani and I know about issues like that of Bengal tigers and a particular subspecies of African lions outweighing Siberian tigers in the wild. What you said is similar to what certain people said 2 years ago, and since then, BhagyaMani and I have come to understand more about lions and tigers than what those people said then, so kindly do research on the different types of lions, instead of giving an argument that suggests that you don't know any better than what was said by those people 2 years ago. Leo1pard (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point to it, but the IUCN page does sport a rather big EX sign, and the article states nothing to the contrary. What's the reasoning here please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acc. to revised taxonomy, P. t. sondaica includes Sumatra tiger, which is not EX. So I suggest to reformulate the lead and to clarify this circumstance, also in the subspeciesbox. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that'd be a good idea - given the sources currently in the article, it's understandable where these edits come from. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's more clear now after my recent edits? What do you suggest how to handle entry in subspeciesbox: CR as for Sumatran, i.e. also sondaica? Making sondaica EX there would not be correct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping out most of authors names, and complete dates, is pointlessly destructive and makes source location and verification more difficult. You should be adding this material, not destroying it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BhagyaMani. Thanks for the addition to "Asian elephant." A reference is indeed needed, but it should involve one of those references that disagree with the view that elephants are intelligent. The one you gave supports that view. The elephant cognition article provides a few, and there are many more in the academic literature. So I suggest replacing your reference with another. Let me know if you agree, please. Thanks. Brachney (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Brachney[reply]

This ref to Aldous 2006 has been there for several years, don't even remember whether I added it or somebody else. Let me restructure this paragraph, so that you can add a ref for disagreement with the view of Asian elephants being intelligent. Ok? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the issue was a supplement. I'm sure that's true, but if you look at the bottom of

Thanks for your message, Mortee! This journal is issued regularly, i.e. on volume basis, to differentiate between a supplement, which is an irregular monograph like this one with only articles on Persian leopard. Would the parameter |issue=Supplement 7 addresses this circumstance, what do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882 just had a similar idea and solved it. Perfect!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, glad to hear it › Mortee _talk 16:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to ping you to a new section in the Asiatic lion article's talk page, but am not sure that it worked, so I'm including the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asiatic_lion#Taxonomy AuH2ORepublican (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you not the be hesitant to do stuff like this, because I know things that you may not, and I know other things. Leo1pard (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

o wow, I'm so afraid now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying that, like you did to another person in April 2013? Leo1pard (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indeed not hesitant to articulate my thoughts about superfluous stuff in wikipedia when I come across it. Several of the pages that you created were deleted, because others too thought they were unnecessary and dispensable. If you have knowledge to contribute that others do not have at their disposal, then contribute it. But in the past few weeks you did not. Instead you a) moved and copy-pasted content from one to the other page on lions, and b) involved other editors in fruitless and nonconstructive disputes, often with {{reflist-talk}} lists that are equally redundant as they foremost contain refs that are anyway referred to in the resp. articles already. You were filling up more talk pages than actually contributing meaningful content. Now I wonder : what exactly are the 'other things' that you claim to have?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk to me about what you think, but the way you've been doing things, like calling me a 'kid', implying that I'm a school kid, or doing things that imply that you want to ignore what I talked to you about beforehand is not good, like how you treated Anna Frodesiak in 2013. Just as you said "o wow, I'm so afraid now", even though I meant to talk to you about not being hesitant to drop this attitude, and not aggressively doing things that would test my patience, such as trying to get what I would do to disappear, and I would have reasons to do what I was doing, you did something similar to Anna in 2013. Leo1pard (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani: Stop it. Read the bottom of Talk:Sotik lion, twice. Do not refer to other editors as "kid" or says "Which school class are you going to".

Both of you: Do not edit war. Disengage.

Thank you. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are really working on the same things. Here's a suggestion: If you can, work happily together. Get along. Be nice to each other. Apologize. Forgive. Rather than reverting each other, stop and discuss and work it out. That is what smart, mature adults do. Considering you are both smart and mature and adults, you certainly can do it. I have faith in you both.

Best wishes, and thank you for the really good edits you both make. Wikipedia appreciates you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anna!!! You are right, we must stop this. And I'm not interested to continue this dispute. It doesn't serve a purpose. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to hear that. I do hope you two can get along. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--♦--♦--♦--♦--♦--♦--

Dear @Anna Frodesiak: you created and edited sooo many pages and have literally been a 'busy bee'. Kudos! Therefore I'd be happy if you let me know your thoughts about the following: if you add info and refs to a page, and then notice that another editor repeatedly copy-pastes this into a duplicate page (i.e. one with very similar content): would you just feel honoured to be imitated and trusted blindly?or would you react, and if so how? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words.

I would feel nothing probably. If the content is appropriate elsewhere, then fine. Sometimes that is the case, oftentimes, not.

Furthermore, anyone is free to use any content you create in any way they like, provided that they attribute it. See Wikipedia:Attribution and specifically Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

I'm not sure what I'm looking at here. I see lots of refs added, but content too? If so, what content? How much? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm not sure what you are looking at, hmm. The whole section 'Ecology and behaviour' (i.e. content and refs) from the first page has been copy-pasted (slightly revised) into the 2nd page, same section 2nd paragraph, and also into page African lion, same section, 2nd paragraph. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me diffs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anna Frodesiak: the list with diffs may not be short, I’m afraid, and I’ll compile step by step today. Please let me know when you get bored by this, and I’ll stop, since I much prefer to contribute content.
Some background info for you: since late August this year, I maintain the pages about the two recognized lion subspecies Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita. The understanding of their geographical distribution changed when lion taxonomy was revised in 2017 (see Kitchener et al. 2017 ref’ed in both pages). This group of authors did not give new vernacular names to the subspecies, therefore imo the use of Latin names as page titles are appropriate.
The other editor has a different opinion re use of names and created a page titled ‘East-Southern African lion’, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East-Southern_African_lion&diff=next&oldid=858303919 on 6 Sept without page talk discussion, but essentially a very similar content as in Panthera leo melanochaita. More soon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the following list with diffs, I refer to the page titled Panthera leo melanochaita as 1) and to duplicates in East-Southern African lion as 2), but sparing small details like refs that I checked and changed in 1):

• see content of 1) on 6 Sept: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=next&oldid=858371733 and my additions until morning of 8 Sept, oldid=858595721. Large parts from 1) were copy-pasted into 2) on 8 Sept: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East-Southern_African_lion&diff=next&oldid=858609683
• a redirect placed in 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=prev&oldid=858651527 on 8 Sept
• additions in 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=prev&oldid=859948607 duplicated in 2) on 17 Sept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East-Southern_African_lion&diff=next&oldid=859806292
• additions on 17 Sept in 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=next&oldid=859958897 until https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=prev&oldid=860003132 copied into 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East-Southern_African_lion&diff=next&oldid=859971949 see after line 325 ff. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next, I will refer to the page titled Panthera leo leo as 3), to duplicates in ‘Northern lion’ as 4), and in ‘African lion’ as 5) starting with:

• a redirect placed in 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_leo&diff=next&oldid=858468077 on 8 Sept
• 5) revised on 15 Sept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&type=revision&diff=859696652&oldid=859201272 with large parts of content from 1) and 3) and / or 2) and 4)
• additions on 17 Sept in 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_leo&diff=next&oldid=859940830 copied a few hours later into 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=next&oldid=859940306, see after line 315

More soon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• additions in 3) on 17 Sept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_leo&diff=next&oldid=859963174 copied into 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_lion&diff=next&oldid=859971941
• addition in 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=next&oldid=860146370 copied into 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=next&oldid=860178217, see between lines 505 and 512

I think I caught most of the duplicated content now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered another one:

• additions in 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&diff=next&oldid=860280397 and the following diff from 19 Sept copied into 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=next&oldid=860435239 on 21 Sept

I changed a few images in 1) when I found the same ones used with same captions in 2) and/or 5). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BhagyaMani.

Okay, I see two issues, only one of which is my concern.

When User: takes content from one article and puts it into another, without rewriting it, and it appears from diffs that he has done that, there needs to be attribution. For that, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Whether or not the content should appear in two articles at once is another matter. Like I said at your talk page, somtimes it is okay, often not. Considering this is about cats, that I know little about cats, and that I do not like cats because they have a serious attitude problem, it is best to ask the cat people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats about that.

So, thanks for the diffs. Just one or two pointed out the missing attribution. The rest you can show to people at Project Cats for opinions there.

Best, Anna Frodesiak 20:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

And I thank you. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be able to do a cleanup of the tiger article; like making sure it is properly sourced and adding missing page numbers? LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the exact page which supports the statement. You added the entire page range of the book. LittleJerry (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These statements summarise his observations explained over several pages. I don't have time to read the whole book now only to find these pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your not going to give the exact pages then i'm going to have to replace them again. Please do not revert until you get the exact numbers. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added this ref some 6+ years ago. And now you are the 1st who questions its validity. Do you think it's fake? Do you mistrust me to such an extent that you consider my edits unworthy of keeping? Or are you just one of those who always and again start edit wars over refs? What are your motives? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is wiki policy to gave exact page numbers. Don't take things personally. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I just thanked you, because I agree with your proposal and line of arguments. Will comment later. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: are you ready for another versus page that I came across a few days ago? If so, just send a thank and I'll post the link. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is that? LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted the link in Lion#See also. Enjoy!! And feel free to revert. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry So that you two can have another round of arguments, and you know how tough it gets? Is that what you want, another round of arguments, or do you prefer not to have another argument with me, which reminds me of what you said some time ago? Leo1pard (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anna Frodesiak: I'm sorry that you are now the one who is flooded with protest and such looong arguments. Happened to me so many times that I preferred to not respond, unless pinged. Perhaps you now understand why I recently wrote about 'filling up more talk pages than actually contributing meaningful content'. I reiterate that my no-reply to such TLDRs never indicated agreement with arguments, but always no interest to further engage into discussion. Happy editing! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you edit the articles of those discussions, like me, particularly if it would have complexities which would lead to long discussions, such as the fact that the Cat Specialist Group had trouble deciding to which subspecies should lions in the Horn of Africa belong? When I sensed the complexity of that issue, that was enough for me to talk about it in Talk:Lion, and you joined along. Anna has not edited articles like Lion, and she has not been involved in those discussions, but you have, like me, whether or not I pinged you so that we can talk about it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I highly appreciated Anna Frodesiak's advice: disengage. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, Could you please explain the edit you did on Panthera leo leo on the 29th of September at 21:36 GST, I would like an explanation as to the need to blank most of the article.

Denver| Thank you (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Denver20: I was just about to contact you in this regard and hope you agree to discuss at the Panthera leo leo talk page?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Central African lion, and checked that relevant parts are provided in West African lion and the other pages on the P. l. leo populations. But if you or anybody else thinks it necessary or relevant to keep the loong version of Panthera leo leo, that's fine with me too . -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

Hi @BhagyaMani: Well yes I had earlier a feeling about the need of keeping the whole article but since you have already split the content, I feel it’s very much justified to honour your work and effort and keep it the way you have. Thank you for your efforts and Happy Editing! Denver| Thank you (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding what you have done. Leo1pard (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I’m sorry that you have now become a target and are swamped with accusations. This user has been more productive on talk pages than on resp. pages. Therefore, my impression is meanwhile that s/he is foremost interested in picking an argument with each and every wikipedian, at least with regard to big cats. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

BhagyaMani, these comments are best for the ANI thread. They don't really carry much weight on your talkpage, and serve merely to break up the conversation. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and pleeease understand that I don't want to again get into an argument with this user. You are welcome to re-use above links if you think they are in any way helpful for admins' decisions. I think that my opinion doesn't matter in the wall of text now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi see Template:IUCN, the accepted template to use seems to be "cite journal", so for Gambian mongoose that would be

 | {{cite journal | author1 = Sillero-Zubiri, C. | author2 = Do Linh San, E. | last-author-amp = yes | year = 2016 | title = ''Mungos gambianus'' | journal = [[The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species]] | volume = 2016 | page = e.T13922A45199653 | url = http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T13922A45199653.en | accessdate = 18 October 2018}}

Thanks, Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Thanks. Note that the ids and urls changed recently. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN have updated their website and changed the URLs so neither the {{IUCN}} or {{cite journal}} references work. It needs "species" instead of "details" and the id needs the number at the end of the electronic page number (as you recently added in lion). I've made a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#IUCN_References.   Jts1882 | talk  08:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

o boy, then i suppose there are hundreds of wiki pages effected. I just came across a few y'day: contents and version nos. didn't change, ONLY design and urls. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882: Do you think it would be possible to revise the {{IUCN}} template ? + include a |doi= parameter into this one. This was so comfortable and easy to use, and short; if url changed, you only needed to update the id and perhaps the version no.

I just noticed that the ONLY change at iucn rl website is the PAGE, e.g. if |page=e.T18148A50662095, then the |url id =e.T18148/50662095, i.e. the A in the page no. has been replaced by a / in the url. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. You may have noticed the changed template I used for tiger (replacing {{

cite iucn}}. It takes the electronic page number and generates the new url from the two numbers. This is a temporary fix. I've drafted a Lua module to replace the {{IUCN}} but most {{IUCN}} template uses don't have the electronic page number (I note you've added a few recently). You can test it using {{IUCN/sandbox/lua

}}. I've already added the doi there, but those are giving deadlinks. I assume the IUCN will fix this, though.

I think it best to wait for further input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#IUCN_References as this may need a bot to make automatic updates.   Jts1882 | talk  13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! You may have seen that i tested it in the leopard pages. Alas, the template for ref to iucn rl seems to become longer with each new version. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cameroon lion, formerly P. l. kamptzi is include in Panthera leo leo population^[2]
• Congo lion, formerly P. l. azandica is include in Panthera leo melanochaita population^[3]

Whoever you are who left this message without signing : Pocock did NEITHER refer to what you call 'Cameroon lion' NOR to what you call 'Congo lion'. The ones in Cameroon are Central African and the ones in southern and southeastern Congo are clearly NOT. READ your refs before you cite them as sources!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Cameroon lion section of the Central lion or changing it. I did not have anything else left only to accuse you to an admin as a vendalism. Thank you! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) When Pocock writes "the Indian lion is the same size approximately as Central African lions" he is not referring to any particular "race" of lion, he is just say the Indian lion is the same size as lions found in Central Africa. It's not clear which part of central Africa he is referring to. In that work he only deals with the Indian race and says nothing about African races of lions. You cannot say he includes the Congo and Cameroon lions within Central African lions as he does not discuss the African lions further.

P. l. azandica is found in the Azande region of northeast Congo. This area falls within the Central African lion clade.   Jts1882 | talk  15:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: respond on the Central Africa lion talk page to the issues raised there about the refs you used regarding Cameroon lion and Congo lion. This talk page is the proper place to discuss these issues. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, so I do not have to go digging, could you give me the diffs showing the source and target of these most recent within-Wikipedia copyvios? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, please have a brief look at these lists of my edits in a) Central African lion, 282 since July 2017 https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=BhagyaMani&page=Central_African_lion&server=enwiki&max= b) West African lion, 126 since Oct 2013 https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=BhagyaMani&page=West_African_lion&server=enwiki&max= c) Barbary lion, 283 since Nov 2013 https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=BhagyaMani&page=Barbary_lion&server=enwiki&max=

So my initial contributions are hidden among some 600 edits. I'll dig through them tomorrow, when back at my bigger monitor. Thanks for being so considerate!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to make it easy, please give one diff showing source and one diff showing target. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the following list with diffs, I use a) the sign ‘+’ for my initial contributions that grew and changed over time (excluding minor edits like editing refs and adding int links), and were eventually copy-pasted as a block; b) ‘>’ for ‘into the target diff’. To facilitate overview, I collate the diffs in sections.

• Part 1: from Central African lion
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=793840144&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=793854740&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=794221364&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795503261&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795503731&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795504586&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795505683&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795506080&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795510106&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795511148&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795595544&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795985119&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=799849773&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=809362389&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812855896&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=814548658&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=814685537&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=816129368&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=838788639&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=838788924&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=838790369&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=838794631&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=845527645&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=845528437&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=845531507&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=845533275&diff=prev
  • > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=853837919&diff=prev and
  • > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=859696652&diff=prev

-- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Part 2: from Central African lion, again
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=855744375&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=855745256&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=855748198&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=855755550&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=855781153&diff=prev + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=856011122&diff=prev
  • > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=prev&oldid=859768177 and
  • > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_lion&diff=next&oldid=860467645

More soon. Do let me know if you are bored by this loong lists, and I'll stop digging. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One example is fine. Please give me one source and one target. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Sorry but I don't have time to help you with this task, as there's over a hundred outstanding new copyright reports that need to be checked. This represents 5 to 10 hours of work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to help me checking!! I can do this, and provide lists with diffs here, so you can act whatever you deem fit and proper. Just let me know what you think. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resources are precious, BhagyaMani. Please provide a single diff like I asked if you want my help. Nobody on Earth will look through all that above and you should not spend hours digging up diffs. Please read what I wrote above and provide that only. I just need evidence that this is happening after a warning so I can act. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit complicated, I'm afraid Anna Frodesiak, because rarely has a SINGLE sentence or paragraph been copy-pasted, but often large blocks of content at once. The alternative is to show you this for

• Part 1, i.e. the state of Central African lion page before copy-pasting content : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=856152250&title=Central_African_lion, from which blocks were copy-pasted > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=prev&oldid=859768177 and > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_lion&diff=next&oldid=860467645.

Is this better to follow up on? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Two diffs. Click "history". Click "diff". Show me where you added the content in one article then where he added the same content in another article at a later date. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example

• My addition to
  Caracas drone attack: "...Several sources reported that a drone carrying explosives attempted to attack Maduro and other government officials...
  "
• Source Nicolás Maduro: "...Several sources reported that a drone carrying explosives attempted to attack Maduro and other government officials..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example.

If you click just ANY of the diff=prevs between the + signs, and then any of the two > target diffs, you will see the content as part of the laaaarge blocks that have been copy-pasted.

For example : this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=861702896&diff=prev == Ecology and behaviour == is part of the copy-pasted block, i.e. into both > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_lion&diff=prev&oldid=859768177 and > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_lion&diff=next&oldid=860467645 but you'll need to scroll down in the target diffs to see it.

-- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was confusing. :)

If I'm reading right, you added "...Three radio-collared females had home ranges of between..." to

Central African lion on 29 September 2018. That exact string of text was added to African lion and Northern lion at previous dates. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

YES, exactly!! We are getting there . And this one, which is also one of the diffs listed in the above Part 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=793854740&diff=prev I added 2 paragraphs, one starting: 'In 2017,

phylogeographic studies ... '. Both are part of the copy-pasted blocks into the 2 target pages. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting back to the text "...Three radio-collared females had home ranges of between...", did you not copy paste that without attribution? You took that text from another article, right? Where was your attribution? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not take this from another wiki page, nor is this sentence copy-vio'ed from the ref'ed article, but is a summary of a 7-page long scientific article. I did not even add this sentence and ref to the main lion page, because latter is soo packed with info already. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Sorry. The source is attached. I'm doing three things at once here on and off wiki. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not paying attention. No, the source is attached, but the text itself is rewritten from the source. The original text is from a Wikipedia article, not the source. The string "...Three radio-collared females had home ranges of between..." should not appear in the source like that. So, attribution is required from the source, which is Wikipedia. Does that make sense or am I losing my mind? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. 1) Yes, the text /info is based on the ref'ed source that follows the sentence. 2) But I did not copy this paragraph from any other wiki page, so it was a NEW addition to this page, but NOT a duplicated one. So far, I understood : if copy-pasted into another wiki page, then only it needs attribution on this other page??? Argh, communication is one the most difficult sometimes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears not new, but rather duplicated.

• Your 29 September 2018 addition to
  Central African lion: "...Three radio-collared females had home ranges of between...
  "
• Source was added 16 September 2018 to
  African lion: "...Three radio-collared females had home ranges of between...
  "

That appears to be a copyvio, plain and simple. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added this sentence on 17 August https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795985119&diff=prev : this page was redirected inbetween, namely on 16 Sept : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=859792293, and after I reverted the redirect on 29 Sept : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_African_lion&diff=next&oldid=859792293, I piece by piece collated the initial content again from my offline doc. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the matter.

So, you are saying that the text originated from Central African lion here and then ended up in African lion and was then put back into Central African lion? If that is the case, that is still a copyvio because the text may have changed. If it did not, fine, but still attribution is required.

I must say that I have never seen such chaos and confusion than with this group and these articles. I see walls of text, LTDR everywhere, piles of links, redirects, reverts, edit warring, etc... Please, keep things simple and try to sort things out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am sorry for this confusion, Anna Frodesiak!!! Nor have I seen such a chaos in any other wiki page on my watchlist. But I was not the one who decided to place a redirect, without any discussion, and start an edit war on pages. Today again, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_African_lion&curid=49791477&diff=867430830&oldid=867082870 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_African_lion_clade&curid=58264136&diff=867430838&oldid=867232012 -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

@Anna Frodesiak: I am actually concerned there is socking going on, but I am not an experienced sock-hunter. I origianlly worked on lion and have been able to settle that article, but the subarticles are doing my head in....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber. I too have noticed the smell of socks, but have yet to dig into the laundry basket. I will start digging as soon as I can. And I am happy to hear that it is not just me who is starting to find all of this hard to track and make sense of. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my thinking is this Leo1pard and Punetor i Rregullt5 remind me of me when I was a kid - I'd love to find evidence of splitting, hitherto undescribed separate species etc. Both accounts are interested in and are trying to promote the distinctness of various lion populations - see Talk:Lion#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? for more info on that. Unfortunately trying to keep up with the walls of text is very tiring and my time is limited. Also, see [1] and User:Punetor i Rregullt5/sandbox/Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards and User:Punetor i Rregullt5/sandbox/Jaguar versus leopard....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this sandbox too, and had the idea that its content is a leftover of the deleted page. True is that edits of these two guys overlap on 3 lion subpages. Once I addressed + asked a question to the junior one, and the other one replied, much to my surprise. Often, the junior's arguments are very similar, if not congruent with those of the elder editor. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Diffs are better than page versions in many cases.

Pointing out exact strings of text is useful when showing someone a page version or diff.

Cheers.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the fact that you revert my edits in every single article.

• Firstly, why do you call lions in India as "
  Congolese lions
  "?
• Secondly, the ref that was used in "
  here
  , and, you're the one who put it there, so I don't know why in this section you moved that?

So please, stay away from Wikipedia, thank you! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a nice thing to say. Please be nice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani and Punetor i Rregullt5, please be very, very nice to each other. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite trying to talk to you in the open like in Talk:Lion, because of a number of things that have happened behind my back, including a suspicion of sockpuppetry which I had tackled beforehand, I am forced to watch what people like you say about me or Punetor i Rregullt5 to other people, including Anna Frodesiak or Diannaa, or be careful of what I have to do. In the open, you prefer not to always talk to us about what you want, for example, you were opposed to what was being discussed here without making your intention clear, until you made changes like this, and behind our backs, you like to say that we are doing 'deplorable' things like 'edit-war', even if it was a case in which I did not revert an edit of yours that reverted an edit that I did in agreement with another and had spoken to you about, or form friendships to tackle people like me, like when you accused me of edit-warring when speaking to another user. Please do not repeat this. If we speak to you in the open, then speak to us there, no more backbiting. Leo1pard (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!! I'll cherish this one more than a barnstar!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I'm glad you like it, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please add any ideas here. This is not something I have done alot of. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it as soon as I can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice overhaul. I restored some sourced info about cats and Islam, which is very relevant for post-paganism Egypt, and also cleaned up the citations, which were doing several deprecated things (using |year, using |author for non-organizational authors, using author parameters for editors, using aliases of parameters instead of actual parameters, not spacing people's initials, inconsistent date formats, etc.). The citation issues may have been someone else's doing in the first place, but at any rate they were in a style that's been obsolete since something like 2008 and which we've been steadily replacing with ones that match the current citation template documentation. Substantively, it's a much better article now, so good work on that. I didn't even realize there were copyvio problems in it, though I did recall that it read a bit like a blog piece instead of a proper encyclopedia article. — 

Am glad you like it!!! And thanks for cleaning up the refs. Frankly, I was a bit too lazy for such details, and considered it far more challenging to collect, read and summarise all the info. So read many more articles than actually referenced. Do you think this page is worth being upgraded to a B-class article now?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if you would take the time to explain something to me. What is thanking? I have been getting notifications of it in my "Notices" tab, but I don't get what it is. Since you thanked me recently, could you please explain? Thanks.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilverTiger12: I thank, when I agree with and like somebody else's contribution, and also when somebody else corrects a typing mistake I made and / or improved a ref that I added. It's basically an acknowledgement. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for explaining it to me. As for the out-of-place link, I felt that it had no business in a strictly scientific article like Wanhsien tiger.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BhagyaMani. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely a strategic advantage, elephants, tigers, or cats, maybe dogs have been more help than hindrance, but it all makes a good story. The author who reminded me of that legend, the version where cats are armour rather than hand grenades, said, "To march to battle carrying a cat—a cat that must have been eminently unwilling to go—would have required more courage than to face an enemy." I'll try to recall where I read some other potential content. Regards, cygnis insignis 11:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly little short of a miracle to gather that many cats, dogs and ibises to impress the Egyptians so much so to stop defending operations in this battle. So this story is probably itself a deceptive one, aiming to ridicule the Egyptians for their 'backward' animistic culture. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibises, fearsome beasts when you are up close, an opponent could easily lose an eye. Ibis have adapted to urbanisation in Australia and are now called 'bin-chickens' (the alleged australian sense of humour). I'm surprised I overlooked that perspective, cultural bias, and imagine that was one of the motives for the retelling. cygnis insignis 12:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this legend out of the history section, also because Polyaenus wrote this up more than 600 years after the battle took place, so is far from an eye witness account. And probably had less historistic than entertaining value as a farce at the time: makes the Egyptians look like simpletons. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles are helpful and a constraint, is an eminently notable pseudo-historical fact a part history? Some say it all is, history that is, but they would say that :) An idle distraction from your good works, apologies and regards cygnis insignis 13:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no need to apologise: enjoyed it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quite amusing experiment was carried out a few years ago by Egyptian agriculturists. They released jungle cats in granaries, and after 6 months found out what their ancestor already knew a few thousand years ago: they decimated the number of rodents considerably. So the scientists proposed to use cats as biological pest controllers instead of rat poison. Hahaha. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/census/documents/Nepal/Nepal-Census-2011-Vol1.pdf This is more authoritative reference on the status of Bajjika. Bajjika is NOT dialect of Maithili in Nepal. Hence Nepalese areas where Bajjika is spoken cannot be included as part of Maithili language.

sorry but why did you revert my edit? Chokko Starfish (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Categories + any other content are superfluous in redirected pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Bog Dog then? Chokko Starfish (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:REDIRECT says "Redirect pages can contain other content below the redirect, such as redirect category templates, and category links (which provide a way to list article sections in categories)." Chokko Starfish (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is always worrying information in the news about lions, so glad that I misunderstood this edit summary. cygnis insignis 11:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, what did you misunderstand? I decided to move this paragraph because a) this info has nothing much to do with lion evolution, and b) the ref'ed info in ISIS dating to 2006 is so old, and most of these lions are probably not alive any more. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like me, he probably considered the possibility that ISIS were capturing lions as sex slaves.   Jts1882 | talk  12:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]