User talk:Leo1pard/Archive 2

Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12091811&postcount=20.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the copyright belongs to me, because I had the information posted on another article, before the user in 'Insidehoops.com' copied it from there. Leo1pard (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla


A tag has been placed on Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12091811&postcount=20. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk to me) 14:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the copyright belongs to me, because I had the information posted on another article, before the user in 'Insidehoops.com' copied it from there. Leo1pard (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Animal versus animal has been nominated for discussion
Category:Animal versus animal, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Sandstein, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Clubjustin (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Leo1pard (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Caspian tiger page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=729338189 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F729338189%7CCaspian tiger%5D%5D Ask for help])

Don't worry about comments on my talk page
Hi I have been busy and have not been active in wikipedia editing for a long time after bringing the few big cat articles to GA and FA standards. I didn't check your edits on Amur tiger page but from your efforts and edits in other articles like tiger vs lion I think you are generally a good editor. Keep up the good work. Note however that wikipedia is not a site for those animal vs animal wars in details and these articles will easily become the targets of vandalism and unless you can keep track on these articles continuously, they will likely deteriorate quickly and even be manipulated to spread false info which isn't what we want to see. If you ask me, it took me far much more efforts to correct Tiger vs lion page than bringing the main Lion and Tiger pages into FA/GA standards. I appreciate your great effort but these less popular animal vs animal pages simply have too few good editors to edit but too many vandals to destroy. As such I don't recommend putting more animal vs animal pages like your Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla - you will be most likely editing alone without too much help from other editors. Big Cats  -   talk   22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I read your edits on amur tiger page. It is a common knowledge that amur and bengal tigers represent the largest felines and most reliable sources that also compared tigers and lions mentioned that. While it may not be your original intention, it appears that you cherry picked a single Mazak research that doesn't include lion sizes as a source to suggest amur tigers are not the biggest feline. Also your addition of the size of the exceptionally large lions weighting up to 249.5kg while omitting the exceptionally large amur tiger sizes which are obviously larger than the largest lions further gives readers the wrong impression that lions are indeed larger than amur tigers. Those edits are syntheses and cherry picking of sourced material that the original sources didn't mention. Wikipedia is not a site to publish original research.   Big Cats   -   talk   23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say that lions and tigers are the same size, and no, not all information say that tigers are the biggest cats, rather, that they are the largest species of cats, if you check what I said more accurately, and no, that is not original research, I was saying what was in the sources. Leo1pard (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My goodness, your comments on what you did mislead me about what you actually did to those articles, but thank for not doing what I thought you did. Leo1pard (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Caspian tiger
Thank you for fixing my error, I jumped the gun thinking the Caspian Tiger was extinct earlier due to the dated picture making it seem as though the tiger was extinct in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. My assumptions have led me to a premature conclusion because of how camera technology was in the past. I was basing the extinction time frame upon camera technology... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.207.5 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Style
Re your edits to Zoo, please check MOS:CURLY which says that straight quotes are to be used. It's also probably not a good idea to change the layout style of an established article without a good reason—things like inserting spaces and blank lines. That's in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK Leo1pard (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Saul into Talut. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bear versus bull (Reality) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bear versus bull (Reality). Since you had some involvement with the Bear versus bull (Reality) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Sandstein  13:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)