User talk:BhagyaMani

The Fauna Barnstar
I hereby award you, BhagyaMani, The Fauna Barnstar for your constant and tireless work improving and protecting articles related to mammals in general and felids in particular. Thank you and keep up the great work. --Seduisant (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a nice surprise!! Thank you ! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful material

Respect

I do respect knowledgable and friendly people, but have none for those with rude manners using a vile language. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For you service in the past years on improving all the various articles related to wildlife. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush

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

A kitten for you!

DIYeditor has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

For your work on kitty articles! —DIYeditor (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, DIYeditor!! I'll cherish this one, it looks almost like my favorite! Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 😄 Bluefox21911 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Million Award for Gharial

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Gharial (estimated annual readership: 250,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Enwebb (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU!! Good to know that so many people learn about gharial every year!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Black-footed cat

The article Black-footed cat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black-footed cat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Clouded leopard

The article Clouded leopard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clouded leopard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of William Harris -- William Harris (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER, thanks a ton !! And enjoy the Xmas season -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You too! Now you are free to work on your next one(s). William Harris (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris: Happy New Year !! Thanks to your encouragement I did work on the next one : a cat, of which G. Werhahn found a scat during her expedition to find one of your favourites, the Himalayan wolf : the Pallas's cat, nominated for GA y'day. Enjoy reading -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! That cat looks like a biter! William Harris (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pallas's cat

The article Pallas's cat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pallas's cat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Clouded leopard

On 16 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clouded leopard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the clouded leopard (example pictured) is the first cat that diverged from the common ancestor of the Felidae more than four million years ago? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Clouded leopard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas Liber !! And Happy New Year !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pallas's cat

On 30 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pallas's cat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pallas's cat (example pictured) has up to 9,000 hairs per cm2 (58,000/in2) of fur? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pallas's cat. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pallas's cat), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hook update
Your hook reached 13,987 views (1,165.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mugger crocodile

The article Mugger crocodile you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mugger crocodile for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For taking Mudumalai National Park to good article status

The Special Barnstar
For your amazing contributions in Mudumalai National Park and several other articles. You're an awesome contributor and an inspiration to all of us, indeed. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

nature in Nepal

Thank you for quality articles about nature conservation in Nepal such as Shuklaphanta National Park (begun) and Blackbuck Conservation Area, for cats such as Indochinese leopard, for collaborations such as Indian roller and Red panda, for Aurochs saying "Thanks a ton for your cooperation and patience!!", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2697 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! What an awesome surprise!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also thank you for reminding me of Shuklaphanta! It is such a beautiful NP, and it may be time to bring it a bit more into the limelight. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
For your joined efforts with LittleJerry to bring red panda, one of the cutest and weirdest animals on Earth, to FA status. The other half for LittleJerry. FrB.TG (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU !! Enjoyed working on this with LittleJerry. — BhagyaMani (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red panda

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 June 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Hi Bhagyamani, your edits on article Tiger are appreciated.

There's this one edit on current global population of tigers which I don't want to revert right away - the rationale behind putting it at the beginning of article was that reader gets this vital information at initial stage. However, it has been moved under conservation section now. Just wanted to let you know.

Keep up the good work. 👍 Anand2202 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemigalus derbyanus

Hi. I've reverted a few of your edits at Banded palm civet because, quite frankly, they don't seem like an improvement. We can discuss the issue at the article talk page. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been on my watchlist for several years, which is why I'm not eligible as GA reviewer. But I agree with 20 upper's assessment to not promote it to GA, also because of your neglect of some guidelines like MOS:LEAD; inconsistent formatting of references + use of websites as reference without an author. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I of course appreciate your work to improve the article. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take it to GA, then go ahead. I won't be editing that article anymore, because I'm clearly not competent enough to take it to GA, given I've failed it twice. /srs 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I think it is anyway not suitable for GA at present, because there are not enough sources available. Usually, GA pages contain at least some 50 if not more reliable sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger books

I purchased a copy of Tiger: The Ultimate Guide but you can access it here. There's also this book which is already cited in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move the mention of fossils in Palawan + Borneo from the Evolution section to either Distribution or into table on subspecies, because their place in evolution was never figured out + they were not subsumed to a particular fossil subspecies. Your thoughts? – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. They have not been listed in the two subspecies system. Putting them there would be OR. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make a size chart for the article like there is for lion? LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: you mean a table? I don't see a chart in that section. BhagyaMani (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. LittleJerry (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make a new range map based on the IUCN including the former and current range. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still plan on adding the home ranges in India? LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one ref is sufficient, as home ranges in Indian subcontinent do not differ as widely as in some other range countries. I'll rather add sth on activity pattern, as this topic seems not covered at all to date. Or do you want to do that? BhagyaMani (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that. And then conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I tackle this section, we need to find a consensus how to restructure this. Imo, everything concerning threats needs to be moved to a separate section titled Threats, as we did in the jaguar page. Then the table with pop sizes in range countries neither belongs there. But conservation in my understanding includes protection status in range countries, conservation strategies + action plans, mitigation of threats such as habitat protection and establishment of wildlife corridors, reintroduction projects, awareness campaigns + involving local people. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. You write Conservation and Threats the way you want. I think the table should remain in the conservation section. I'm guessing a "Threats" section will make the current "Body part use" subsection redundant, but I will keep and work on the "Hunting" subsection as it is done from a historical perspective. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the range countries to focus on for conservation should be India, Russia, Indonesia and China and maybe Nepal and Thailand. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Want you plan on doing with "Threats"? Because it doesn't look like they should be separated. Should the "Body part use" be moved there? I'd like to know what SilverTiger12 thinks. LittleJerry (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to expand this section later on. If you want to move parts of the "Body part use", go ahead. But I suggest to use more recent publications than the ones dating to late 1990s as sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove that subsection when you're finished. I'm assuming you'll go into detail on Chinese medicine. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Just give me some time. There are quite a handful+ articles that I'll have to look into. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hows it coming? LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've been so busy with reviews + writing up project stuff in real life. Will add s'more refs asap. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion but I'm thinking maybe it would be easier to merge conservation and threats. Organize it this way: Start with the IUCN conservation status and why they are considered endangered, then talk about historical declines and current threats, conclude with conservation actions/protections and some successes. This could make things easier and more organized. this paper mentions that tigers have increased in South Asia and Russia but declined in Southeast Asia. LittleJerry (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that #Threats should be a separate section. See my message from 14 Feb above. I'll have some time to expand on both sections in the coming days. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about submitting this to peer review at the beginning of April? LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early April is too early for me, as at the mo I can only work on this during weekends. BhagyaMani (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read this fresh from press : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/is-the-javan-tiger-panthera-tigris-sondaica-extant-dna-analysis-of-a-recent-hair-sample/5F407FD1D97836F8C26DE46CCFA08D73 Quite a surprise that despite quite a few camtrap studies in West Java in recent years, an individual + its parents + probably grandparents survived undetected for ~30 years?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need the habitat chart. We can just summarize the main findings of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have left for Threats/Conservation? I could help some. LittleJerry (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re threats : i think this is pretty much covered with examples of the 4 threat classes in range countries. Re conservation: needs updates on protection status in Thailand + Malaysia, on most recent conservation plans of Nepal, Thailand, Malaysia, Sumatra + Russia. The entire paragraph on Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy with refs to book chapters dating 1999 is imo outdated + should either be replaced or at least expanded referring to the latest action plan for 2019–2029. Then also needed are some examples for wildlife corridors established in say past 10 or so years; not all, but perhaps just a few transboundary ones that have also been monitored. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done most of them. I'll leave it to you to work on Russia and Indonesia. After conservation is done, I'd like for you to work on or rewrite the lead paragraphs so they better reflect how the article currently is. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do this week. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to remove the 2nd last paragraph in conservation section with ref dating 2009, UNLESS you have any info that this Tigers Forever program is still ongoing + what has been achieved since then. Either we list ALL the new protected areas established in past 15 years ore none. Your thoughts? – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph on research methods in field is not relevant in this section, imo. These methods are anyway addressed in other sections en passant including the int links. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the terms 'territory' versus 'home range' : true is that territory was used in hunting jargon + today still in regards to HOW an animal defends *the area in which it is at home*. The difference is well explained in the 2 linked pages. Have a look also at the multitude of scientific articles on this *area*, not only re tiger, but also re other species : when it comes to estimating sizes of this *area*, the commonly used term is 'home range'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. LittleJerry (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re revision of lead : I will add another paragraph on protection status + conservation measures later, once we sorted out this section. I opt to restructure this as follows : one paragraph on legal protection status in each current range country; then one on the conservation strategies + action plans ratified in range countries – these two then basically refer to paper work, largely theory. Then the 3rd paragraph on conservation measures actually implemented in the field, i.e. wildlife corridors, compensation schemes for livestock loss + other threat mitigation measures involving local people. We also need a paragraph on breeding programs in zoos + rehabilitation + reintroduction of tigers raised in captivity. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I think captive breeding for conservation is only relevant for the South China tiger. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also breeding programmes for Siberian + Sumatra tigers within the European Endangered Species Programme + for Malayan tiger in the north American Species Survival Plan, all claiming to be conservation breeding programmes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm still not happy with this sortable table in the conservation section, because figuring out population size is NOT a conservation measure, but a result of research that starts with deploying dozens of camera traps, identifying individuals + then running computer-based models to estimate population density and occupancy + then only inferring no. of mature individuals. So how about a subsection under #Distribution and habitat with info on population densities in the various habitats of range countries? There is a wealth of sources that we did not even tap into yet. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: #Distribution and habitat. Okay, go for it. But we should put the population numbers somewhere. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once ready, we can move this table there + also add to it the size of occupied areas in range countries. I think this will be much more informative than just pop nos. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I don't know if population density for individual countries is all that important for average readers. I've never had to do it nor do I recall other editors doing it for animal articles. Too many numbers and technical information. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A prerequisite for estimating population density is that the species is terrestrial + that individuals are identifiable; so is not performed re a large no. of species, e.g. elephants, red panda, birds + fish. Anyway I suggest to wait for reviewers' comments : if they also think that this aspect is not important, we can remove this later on. Ok? BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a section on parasites and pathogens? LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should. If available, not only re captive but also wild tigers. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one : https://meridian.allenpress.com/jwd/article/57/2/393/451344/Serologic-Survey-of-Selected-Pathogens-in-Free, hopefully not a predatory one (?) BhagyaMani (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check also for toxoplasmosis; there are several articles. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now over 8600 words, it would probably be best to keep it under 9000. I think for captive breeding we should just stick to the South China tiger. Other programs can be talked about in the Tiger conservation article r the articles on the subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest lets check whether there are any newspaper or magazine articles or refs without author, year + publisher info that we can discard. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will also overhaul + update the text on the outdated 1994 Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy, i.e. basically shorten this. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re over 8600 words : do you count words in text only, or including refs? BhagyaMani (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8600 words in the text. Not counting sources. We don't need to trim cites, though does the last line of Threats need that many? LittleJerry (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your word count now? And can we shorten the sections on cultural depictions in favour of material that is not linked to separate pages ? BhagyaMani (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're a little under 8400 words now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're under 8300 words. We've got breathing room now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pity that you removed the tigress that carried Padmasambhava to the Tiger's Nest monastery. Because I once visited this extraordinary place, and the monks were so kind to open the temple, where the statue of the tigress with Padma on her back is kept, although I did not have an official permission to see this. And they also invited me for salty butter tea in the uppermost corner of the monastery overlooking the green valley below, what a treat !! BhagyaMani (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Added to Cultural depictions article. Are we almost done? Will it be ready for PR next week? LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re ready for PR next week : I think we now covered all aspects, except captive breeding. But I suggest to lets see whether reviewers think this important + ask for such info. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could add a few sentences on the South China tiger and its captive breeding and possible reintroduction to the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from what you added re commitment of Chinese gov to reintroduce, I did not find anything on actual reintroduction project. But apparently, it requires captive breeding of several tiger generations to alleviate the big problem of inbreeding depression. Since reintroduction seems a few decades away, I wonder whether it is worth mentioning this at all now ? BhagyaMani (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it for now. Anyway, I ready for PR. LittleJerry (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon BhagyaMani (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic lion

Hello, I noticed that you undid my adjustments on Asiatic lion. Please share your side of the story with me. According to a Google Scholar search, the word "Asian lion" is often used. However, a search on Indian lions produced different results, so I believe that may be ruled out. These findings suggest that "Asian lion" may need to be included in the article. Also, what exactly do you mean by "last best". Kindly give me a ping, as I'm likely to forget about this. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you have a look at the references listed on this page : only one of more than 100 cited sources has the name 'Asian lion' in the title, but none the name 'Indian lion'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

Hello, regarding your revert on the Tiger,

First, the sentence, "In Hinduism, the tiger is the vehicle for the goddess of feminine power and peace, Durga, whom the gods created to fight demons" is unsourced. I have added a source to back it up, not sure what issue you have with that.

Secondly, have added a sentence, "Hindu god Ayyappan believed to be the son of Vishnu in the form of Mohini and Shiva is supposed to have ridden a tiger." with proper sources. Can you explain why you reverted the same without any credible reason?

I am restoring the same until you give me a valid reason for the revert. For an experienced editor like you, hope you should be well aware of giving appropriate comments in the edit summary.

Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first time you added a sentence about Ayyapan, Vishnu, Mohini + Shiva followed by Thapar 1997. When I checked the source, I did not find any of these names, see also my respective EDIT SUMMARY. The source you provided this time for these names is not verifiable, as preview s not available. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magentic Manifestations, the statement IS backed up. All the text in the article is backed up by the following cites. In this case it is Green 2006 pages 60, 86–88, 96. I'm sorry but we are in the process of preparing this article for FAC and I would appreciate it if you would refrain. LittleJerry (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BhagyaMani I understood the reason for your revert the first time, hence I gave different sources which consciously explained the same. For both the references, previews are indeed available. Links attached: 1, 2. Hope there are no such concerns on the source part now.
@LittleJerry Understand that, hence I did not push through with any of the edits/modifications done earlier. Regarding the edit in question, fail to understand why a citation would contribute negatively towards a FAC as it is definitely not an overkill.
Will leave it to you guys for the time being as I see that you two are putting in an effort to get this to FAC and I know how intermediate edits can be troublesome.!
Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Lynx

Hello! I am wondering why you reverted the recent edit on Canada lynx. The source provided doesn't seem to set off rs alarm bells, but maybe I overlooked something. Thanks in advance for the response. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly referenced, this FA page does not need a WP:BAREURLS. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the response. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 14:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar: diurnal, crepuscular and nocturnal

I know perfectly well that citations are not needed in the lead; but they are needed in the body of the article, you have not got them. It is no good finding a citation that says the animal is nocturnal and crepuscular in southern Argentina; it needs to be for all areas if you want to assert it in the lede. Please cease edit warring, and discuss it on the talk page.Ttocserp Ttocserp 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger continued.

Hello. I'll be taking a short wiki-break to mentally heal. In the meantime, maybe you could address UC's point about the subspecies. Also, it appears that nomenclature for the six subspecies is still being used. See here LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can do that this coming weekend, as I have a couple of meetings during the week. Re nomenclature + subspecies: some authors use the old nomenclature, but we need to check whether they actually discuss taxonomy + present evidence that the 2017 revision of cat taxonomy is flawed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paper by Allberry et al (2024) in that search has a nice summary of the multiple subspecies position in the introduction and makes the bold claim that most conservationists still recognise the traditional subspecies. The subspecies section generally handles it well, although it sort of assumes the traditional view of the many subspecies. Perhaps the "tradition view" of nine species should be presented early on, perhaps inserted as the second sentence in the section. Then the validity can be questioned (current second sentence).
I don't know if the claim that most conservationists still recognise the traditional subspecies is fair, but there was always some opposition to the lumping by the SCG (e.g. by Liu who I think was part of the group). It's good that we've kept the population articles as I wouldn't be surprised if the SCG is not the final word. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jts1882, for your comments!!! Will surely look into this later.
Sometime 2, 3 or so years ago, someone sent me a draft for review on genetic analysis of some Indian lion samples who still used the junior syn. persica. I explained that this taxonomy has been revised and never saw this draft published anywhere. So I think that many authors + journal editors are not even aware of the Cat SG's 2017 revision. Btw: same is true for Sunda leopard cat, still + often referred to as bengalensis. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment at Javan tiger talk page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be closing the PR and nominating it for FAC soon. LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late reply : I've been busy with other projects in real life, but will have more time to join back in after 20 May. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the prose is good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is : after all your effort + attention to detail!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a summarization of the conservation section in the lead if you want to take a look. LittleJerry (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this slightly + also the last paragraph, in particular the MOS:EGG link. And I appreciate that you removed the debated ref re the allegedly "de-extincted" Javan tiger. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the pet trade of tigers still an issue in the US? I removed this from the lead, because if this applies ONLY to the US and not any longer since the ban, it is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead, imo. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchener (1999) does state that island tigers are darker and have more stripes than mainland tigers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also cautioned that sample size – in this case: just 15 skins – is too few to generalise. – BhagyaMani (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any more information on tiger breeding and gestation? LittleJerry (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think the reference to Sankhala (1967) is fine. Several authors mentioned cubs, i.e. youngsters up to one year old, photographed during camera trap surveys, but none estimated month of births. BhagyaMani (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a little more on the role of zoos in funding for conservation? LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian + Bhutani govs do not rely on funding from foreign zoos. The ZSL is represented in Nepal, but does not provide funds for projects, which need to be raised from other donor orgs. WCS used to be engaged in tiger related projects in Myanmar but withdrew shortly after the coup. One project in Thailand was partly supported with funds from a US zoo. But the major donor orgs for majority of projects in SE Asia are WWF + Panthera Corp. I did not find anything about role of zoos for funding tiger conservation projects later than 2010, btw by Sarah Christie. So rather outdated for this page, imo. BhagyaMani (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if one or several zoos published a press release about funding a particular project, then the question is still, whether this is appropriate to reference on this page, as this does not represent a general trend. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain this at FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need your help for this next batch. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over to you : does Thapar explain or speculate on difference of mortality between young males + females? That would require long-term close observations of many, I presume. BhagyaMani (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should scrap the cite referencing Thapar (2004) re Young males have an annual mortality rate of up to 35 percent. By contrast, young female tigers die at a rate of only around 5 percent, .. These percentages are not supported by later sources that I just added. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survival rate of cubs in Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve was even much higher, where only 1 of 21 cubs died in 7 years of monitoring, and no difference between survival of males + females. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The STEINMETZ article you posted would be better served in the competitor subsetion. The results are interesting, LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking that we could wait until next years Tiger Day for the article to be TFA. LittleJerry (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the new edit warrior : I had also asked ϢereSpielChequers a few hours ago to help, who then left a message on their talk page. Alas, to no avail yet. I hate to see our and reviewers' efforts spoiled by one obstinate newcomer. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re TFA : if you want to wait that long, we could do a did you know that .. ? BhagyaMani (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing for readers, right? Then instead of defending the text on comparison with lion, we should take the recent concerns + comments on the tiger talk page more seriously. I think by moving tiger weights + sizes to the beginning of this paragraph and the comparison bit to the end makes the argument about "debate on averages" easier to understand. I hope you agree. BhagyaMani (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I recall that Kitchener (1999) remarked something along the lines of apparent cline in sizes from north to south based on his analysis of skins. It maybe worthwhile to insert this before the statement on insular dwarfism ? so to underline the reasoning for comparison of averages with lion. Think about it and purrr. – BhagyaMani (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New book

That you might be interested in and it's open access! Shyamal (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shyamal ! BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian mongoose nonsense

I have asked an admin chosen from the top of the active list (WereSpielChequers) to do something about this. Going to bed now; if no admin response, you might consider dropping a note to another one, because this is getting rather tiring. Cherrs --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Tiger

Congratulations, BhagyaMani! The article you nominated, Tiger, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on such an important subject! Thank you for your contributions. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my edit without a reason?

[1] I added the modern Turkish "black ear" (Kara kulak) which was meant by 'Karrah-kulak' or 'Kara-coulac'. It's spelt as "karakulak" in modern Turkish and it should be included. I don't know why you keep reverting me without a valid reason. Necatorina (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is already included in the text as per the referenced source. WP is NOT a dictionary, so modern spelling is not relevant here. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting by free will without adequate reasons

The so-called "good status" Gharial arricle wont become "bad" merely because of some relevant information regarding its morphology as compared to other crocodilians. The source is provided by a reliable organisation's (IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group) Conmittee Report. By the way, the claim about 160 kg (350lb) being the average weight is also backed by the same reference (from IUCNCSG). You do realise that 160 kg as average weight is misleading to the readers because the concerned species can potentially weigh up to 1 tonne. That, is why I added the 560-kg individual for perception of its size, and its morphology as compared with other crocodilians by giving the nile crocodile's example. If it seems poorly formatted, some persons are there to correctly format it, else there is citation bot. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, one article is not Intellectual Property Right of a particular person. Everyone can contribute to make the article better, so instead of striking out information, the goal should be to keep the article updated. Adpr99 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pair

Please see this. The underlying concept is notional agreement. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a few examples in literature, i.e. a book or an article, for a pair being followed by a plural verb form. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following searches return plenty of examples, from reputable newspapers, one British and one American.
Searching around arguments can be made either way in many cases, and there are some differences in British English and American English. I think the best argument for using 'was' is if the tigers in question were a mating pair and could be seen a single unit in that sense. I don't feel too strongly, but it did look strange to my eyes as written. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you believe wikilinking "several conservancies" to the Wikipedia article about these exact conservancies is somehow an easter egg? --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has 0 to do with believing. The instruction is clear : Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. So just don't pipe the link. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a pretty bad explanation (and betrays your claim it isn't about belief). This piped link in this case is literally as intuitive as possible.
Thanks for actually agreeing and therefore round-about reverting, given that the link was appropriate. If you believed the pipe was the problem you probably should have just de-piped it in the first place, but your comma placement isn't accurate either. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piping links is a bad habit, can be avoided in most cases. And serial commas are not required. BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the copyvio at Crab-eating macaque that you detected

Thank you for reverting edits at Crab-eating macaque based on the inclusion of copyright-violating material by another editor. Can you point me toward where they copied the material from, so I can verify the copyvio and revdel it? —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I had only looked at page history and didn't see either your tag at the top of the page or the two edits that were gross violations. The later edits, which I'd looked at initially, don't appear to be copyvios. However, there are some other concerns with the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C.Fred : you find this book chapter under this link : https://pismin.com/10.1017/CBO9780511974434.003. This editor copy-pasted just selected sentences, not all of the text, see e.g. paragraphs under Types of human-macaque interface zones on pages 26 onwards. In earlier additions too, text was copy-pasted from previous sections of this chapter, e.g. the one on Ethnophoresy on page 15 onwards, which I amended y'day already, before I discovered this book chapter under the pismin link. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I have noted user:DIG.MUKHERJEE does not play by advised best practice and not just for Kangchenjunga historically. Probably time for you to escalate to a separate administrator for help as the third reversion rule can hit the best intended and experienced. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mugger Crocodile

What was wrong with my edit? Eiehel (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding the word 'simply' was not an improvement; therefore I reverted to the last best version, as already stated in my edit summary. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I added but I had added that because I had done a bit of change in the second sentence like I had switched two words that's why I had added the said word Eiehel (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mugger" was a shortened word hence I had used "simply" Eiehel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Bhagya Mani can I do the same edit again without writing "simply". Would you accept it? Eiehel (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mistake in any of the lead sentences. So what exactly is your critique that you insist on changing something? BhagyaMani (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]