User talk:Leo1pard/Archive 4

Page view graphs
Can I ask what the point is behind this sudden rash of page view graphs? This is certainly not a recommended or even moderately common feature of talk pages unless the article is either wildly popular or there's some special interest in how many hits it gets. Otherwise this is just clutter and of minimal importance to editors. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That I am the one who created talk-pages like that for the Far Eastern leopard, but this user, WWGB, | blanks them out. Leo1pard (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, what is this tool FYI that you speak of? Leo1pard (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Now that you mentioned it, I might as well put it here. Leo1pard (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, stubbornness and ownership behaviour? Those are just about the worst motivations you could have named... (FYI is meant to read as "for your interest" - if you personally want to see the view stats, just use the site tool). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Who said those? Leo1pard (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And now you are redirecting talk pages of multiple articles to another unrelated talk page? Sorry, have you gone nuts? If there is no suitable content for these, I am going to put the lot up for CSD. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong, they are related. For instance the Amur leopard is also called "Siberian leopard," so do not do it. Leo1pard (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed these redirects (and generally gone back to the graphs-only version, because the way things have been going, that is the least wrecked state available right now). Really, don't redirect talk pages; it can only lead to confusion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean
Are you talking about my new articles on shows, or improving articles on actors? Not sure what either would be as a redirect since actors often work on multiple shows and shows often broadcast on multiple stations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant new articles. As you have just seen, new articles may be rather quickly put up for discussion on their deletion, so what I would often do is not to make a new page as an article, but as a redirect to an existing article, before I can put in enough references and information to make it a worthy article. Leo1pard (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Occasionally, even articles that have been there for longer may be put up for discussion on their deletion, so I would keep the option to redirect them to others open. Take the article Writing motivation, which was created in 2006! Leo1pard (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Uncited additions to Tanzanian cheetah
Hi, I see you have been editing for some years. However, recently you have been making uncited additions to Tanzanian cheetah, so perhaps it is time to remind you that the policy on Verifiability is core to Wikipedia; every addition must be cited to a reliable source, another core policy. Any editor may remove uncited materials at any time, so it is in your interest to comply with these policies. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did not add the | information that you deleted to the article, I merely | adapted and put that information in that paragraph, from the paragraph before the Section "Enemies and competitors".

The paragraph "Cheetahs are diurnal animals (active mainly during the day), whereas the stronger apex predators, such as hyenas, African leopards and lions are nocturnal (active mainly at night). Hunting is the major activity throughout the day; peaks are observed during dawn and dusk indicating crepuscular tendencies. Groups rest in grassy clearings after dusk, though males and juveniles often roam around at night. The cheetah usually stalks to within a few feet, then chases the animal down at high speed. The cheetah will make its prey trip and fall during the chase, then bites the underside of the throat to suffocate and kill it. It prefers to eat its food quickly to avoid losing it to stronger predators such as lions, leopards and hyenas."

is an adaptation from

"Tanzanian cheetahs are diurnal animals (active mainly during the day), whereas the stronger apex predators, such as hyenas, leopards and lions are nocturnal (active mainly at night). Hunting is the major activity throughout the day; peaks are observed during dawn and dusk indicating crepuscular tendencies. Groups rest in grassy clearings after dusk, though males and juveniles often roam around at night.

...

The East African cheetah hunts at daylight, often during early morning or in the evening. It usually stalks to within a few feet, then chases the animal down at high speed. The cheetah will make its prey trip and fall during the chase, then bites the underside of the throat to suffocate and kill it. It prefers to eat its food quickly to avoid losing it to stronger predators such as lions, leopards and hyenas." Leo1pard (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically, I merged and adapted 2 paragraphs, I myself did not add the unreferenced information there. Leo1pard (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

New Mexico black bear listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Mexico black bear. Since you had some involvement with the New Mexico black bear redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kleuske (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:New Mexico black bear


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Talk:New Mexico black bear, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kleuske (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles "saved" in sandboxes

 * from Arabikadaloram
 * from Ram Baburaj
 * from Red Run (film) (pending proposed deletion)
 * from Gireesh Mano (pending proposed deletion)
 * from Prathi Poovankozhi (pending proposed deletion)
 * from Lavakusha (film)
 * from Mannamkattayum Kariyilayum
 * from Swamiji (film)
 * from Honey Bee 2.5 (at AfD since 8 Feb)
 * from Cad-Capture Group (deleted by community consensus via AfD)
 * from Arivu
 * from Cappuccino (2017 film)
 * from Ignacio Kliche (at AfD since 7 Feb)
 * from Guinness World Records in video game (at AfD since 7 Feb)
 * from Aana Alaralodalaral
 * from Rusty Keeley (deleted by community consensus via AfD)
 * ‎from Dinesh Upadhyaya (at AfD since 5 Feb)
 * from Maarten Baas
 * from West Bengal State Coop Bank (at AfD since 25 Jan)
 * from Hurly-Burly (community AfD closed w/consensus to merge)

I think there may be a big problem with the sandboxed things listed above. First, you have copied existing articles in what's called a cut paste move which violates our requirements for author attribution for copyright. Second, it seems to circumvent the community's desire to have many of them deleted without either contesting the PROD or following normal AfD process. You really should IMO delete these sandboxed articles and instead request WP:REFUND after a deletion debate is completed. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The only mention that I see of sandboxes in there is regarding particular cases, here, here and here. None of them suggest that there is anything wrong with sandboxes having the same information as articles, whether existing or deleted, and it is not like I am going to use these sandboxes to recreate articles that have been deleted, or are under the risk of deletion. The discussions regarding deleted articles are about the articles themselves, not personal sandboxes, and I do not see how using sandboxes to store the same information as articles that were deleted or are under the threat of deletion is problematic, especially as sandboxes are not supposed to be articles, given the statement "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable" on top of every one of these sandboxes, so are you sure there is an issue regarding these sandboxes? Leo1pard (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think if this were in front of an administrator (which I am not) she would follow WP:UP and permissibility of these sandboxes would come down to intent and duration . If the intent is to improve the article offline for a bit, that's permissible. But that would necessarily be followed by posting back to the original article and eventual deletion of the draft. Obviously this is not possible for the deleted articles, so IMO the sandboxes for deleted materials should be immediately removed. If the sandbox's purpose is for a private copy indefinitely for any reason, that's not permissible per WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:NOTWEBHOST plus the attribution issues noted earlier. If the purpose is for recreation of a deleted but not improved article, that would also be disruptive as well as impermissible for attribution. So as I see it there's only one alternative that works: for sandbox copies of existing articles, actively improve the sandboxed material with the intent to post it back, or delete it. And for deleted articles, WP:REFUND instead of cut-paste copy. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How about something like this? Leo1pard (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LISTPEOPLE (good lists) and compare and contrast to WP:COATRACK (bad lists). Which one does "list of all notable Indians" look like? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Partially what is in this. Leo1pard (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm at my limit of what I can explain here. Do you mind if I ask an administrator to look and see if I'm way off base? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested input on this disucssion at WP:ANI ☆ Bri (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, over here. And by the way, that was before the user was blocked. Leo1pard (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Nobody there seems to be interested, but I intend to change the sandboxes anyway. Leo1pard (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion as an administrator is that you should not have done this. You did not follow the instructions at WP:CWW and all of your sandboxes are copyright violations. If you want to have a copy of a deleted article put in your user space with the intent of improving it for resubmission to the encyclopedia, the proper way is to request that the article be "userfied", either in the deletion discussion before it closes, or if the article has already been deleted you can ask the deleting administrator. In both cases you will need to convince us that you plan to address the issues leading to deletion, not that you just want to have a copy in your user space forever (WP:NOTWEBHOST). I'll give you some time to do this now, but I will shortly be back to delete these per WP:G12 if you have not followed up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As of now, not all of them, but anyways, I did not know that the issue of cop-paste applies to sandboxes as well, until Bri told me about it. Anyways, I intend to make modifications to them. Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of them: you copied work by other contributors without giving attribution to those contributors. That violates Wikipedia's content license. As a side note, for the list of Malayalam films you're working on, you might be interested in List of Malayalam films of 2017 and the other existing lists by year on that subject. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they can delete sandboxes. See this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Persian cheetah
Hello, Leo1pard. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Persian cheetah, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Pam D  09:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Libyan lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Libyan lion. Since you had some involvement with the Libyan lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tunisian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tunisian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Tunisian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tanzanian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tanzanian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Tanzanian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mauretanian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mauretanian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Mauretanian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Namibian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Namibian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Namibian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rhodesian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Rhodesian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwean lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zimbabwean lion. Since you had some involvement with the Zimbabwean lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Amazonian jaguar listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazonian jaguar. Since you had some involvement with the Amazonian jaguar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Zambian lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zambian lion. Since you had some involvement with the Zambian lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Botswanan lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Botswanan lion. Since you had some involvement with the Botswanan lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  21:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Moroccan lion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moroccan lion. Since you had some involvement with the Moroccan lion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shaam (disambiguation)


The article Shaam (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Now redundant to the disambiguation page at Sham."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Henry Clay Foster listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Henry Clay Foster. Since you had some involvement with the Henry Clay Foster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese tiger listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vietnamese tiger. Since you had some involvement with the Vietnamese tiger redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  12:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me ...
... why you would replace the granular parameters "last" and "first" by "author"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Apart from the first author, to reduce the space occupied by references with over two authors, and hence the length of an article with plenty of them, such as Cheetah, which got reduced by over 1500 B. Leo1pard (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is space a higher value than granularity? - General advice: don't put so many changes in one edit. Make one edit for changing authors, and another for dashes, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sloth bear, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''The inclusion of this material has been challenged. If you want to argue that it's not WP:UNDUE to mention a YouTube video then take it to talk per WP:BRD '' Meters (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't care about neutrality we need evidence only
We writes Wikipedia to give the people references about what we are talking about. The differences between tigers and lions continually interested the public, especially which would win in a fight. It's not to be a pro-lion if there is no evidence that it is the tiger that wins most of the time but that there is evidence that it's the lion who wins most of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Who said that a lack of WP:Neutrality would make things easier for the lion? Leo1pard (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

According to you Clyde Beatty was Biased towards the lions, Clyde Beatty was bias?

Every tiger fans like you don't like Clyde Beatty, because he proved inadvertently that the lion kills the tiger 9 times out of 10. They don't like him because he favors the lion, they don't like him because he's right. He only favored the lion after he had definitive proof which would win in 1 on 1 before and after the Big Cage in 1933 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/76673362.

Those experts you mentioned who favors the tiger like John Varty, Big Cats Rescue of Tampa, National geographic, and John Smith Clarke the tamer, cannot even produce one footage on the tiger beating a lion like Clyde Beatty did with The Big Cage in 1933; they can only produce subjective comments to up their lies and their favorite animal. (i didn't finished i will come soon)(leoleo7495) leoleo749513:13, 16 March 2018


 * Nonsense, who said that I said that Clyde Beatty was 'biased' towards lions? I kept a reference to him in Tiger versus lion, albeit with a change. Leo1pard (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

''Nonsense?? if you consider Clyde Beatty as a non biased towards lions why you didn't write the entire wikipedia Tiger versus lion with his books in which he describes most of the fight between the lions and the tigers he has seen during is whole career as a tamer ??? you should write this wikipedia Tiger versus lion with Clyde Beatty's references from his books because he gives more details in describing how the two big cats are during the fighting, and he's right when he proved inadvertently that the lion kills the tiger 9 times out of 10 https://www.quora.com/Of-the-two-feline-cats-which-is-more-powerful-Bengal-Tiger-or-African-Lion''.

If you are agree with Clyde Beatty you should mention definitely that the lion wins most of the time and the tiger can win but it's uncommon because the tiger is not designed for fighting but for hunting because internet users when they read Tiger vs lion it's because the differences between lions and tigers continually fascinated and interested the public and particularly they want to know in this page of Wikipedia who would win in a fight.

''And you should confirmed why the lions wins most of the times with the references from Clyde Beatty's books because he based his opinions upon the experience. And you should explain with unbiased references why the lions are superior in fighting than the tiger with the unbiased references from the entire team of tiger territory a site that has 200 pages of studying information dedicated to the tiger has a confirmation that lions are superior to the tiger in fighting because lions are designed for fighting and that why they are superior to the tigers in fighting, and the tiger are superior to the lions in hunting because they're designed for hunting like it's mentioned in the link below according to most of the experts http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict7.html''

''And i would like to tell that most of the people who favor the lion over the tiger are at first tamers and secondly zookeepers; and you didn't mention them in the Wikipedia Tiger versus lion; So i will give to you the list of the tamers and zookeepers who favor the lion over the tiger and you should mention them in the wikipedia Tiger vs lion:

Beatty Cole a Trainer, Lee Yong Phil a Zookeeper in Everland Zoo, Carol Soo Hoo a Zookeeper in San-Francisco Zoo, Dave Hoover a trainer, Burt Nelson a trainer, Sir Samuel Baker, Marco Peters a trainer, Louis Roth a trainer, Alfred Court a trainer(all of them are cited in this link if you watch below this link)https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/animalsversesanimals/lmion-s-vs-tiger-s-who-is-the-superior-fighter-in-t-t3351.html, Dave Salmoni in Youtube video favor the lions (even most of the video in Youtube favour the lions you should also mention that in Tiger vs lion article),Terrel Jacobs a trainer according to him a lion rip a tiger https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19391108&id=ReFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xxVQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2949,6681702&hl=en, Giuliano Russini a Biologist Zoologist explains that the tiger is inferior to the lion in muscle mass and in fight http://www.photomazza.com/panthera-tigris?lang=enleoleo7495 leoleo7495


 * What Clyde Beatty said is briefly mentioned here, as with what others said, which is why I said 'nonsense' when you said "According to you Clyde Beatty was Biased towards the lions ... Every tiger fans like you don't like Clyde Beatty," though I could add what others said. Leo1pard (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to YouTube videos could exist in the article, but due to issues like the possibility of tampering, they might not be always used to write down information as if they are trustworthy. Leo1pard (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All claims needed to be supported by facts otherwise it is irrelevant. The best way to make a judgment is to see them in action.

Lion vs Tiger historical battles in Youtube:

1-Black and white film tiger vs lion fight. Tiger loose retreats running after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRLYzRvYkE

2- A white lion run after a tiger and defeat another tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibtOVnkPars

3-Jungle Jim a black and white movie, lion winner run after tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYSWIzhS_Rw (I will come soon i didn't finish this list of videos)

4- The Lost Jungle 1934 part 3 black and white film. lion male is winner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbrrzJLURVI

5-Victorious old male lion against two younger adult male withe tigers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRcmeaL1pFw

6-1929 black and white film Gir Forest lion kill tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhd4F6YO90

7-Two cases of single lion male killing 3 tigers, one lioness defeating two male tigers and cases extraordinary powerful male lions in circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_DJzRSuXA0

8-Single male lion enter a group of 7 tiger or more and made them all retreats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csd_sxQ4wzw

9-Three whites tigers males run away from one lion male

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcYXLR_QyGE

-10 A Asiatic lion attack a Siberian tiger and after a short fight the Siberian tiger submits front of the Asiatic lion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8irc0codB8

-11 One small asiatic lion beat up and chase away 7 white tigers and defeated the dominant white tiger male

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDbeRD8YuIM

-12 Submissives tigers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njh7UoJCdAM

-13 Asiatic lion chasing a bengal tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao5FMNjgPLQ

-14 African lion beat Bengal tiger male - in Everland zoo fight-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB8XMZgAGw

-15African lion kill a Bengal tiger male in a circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGvmr6N45-g

16- in this following clips Asiatic lion and lioness beat tiger Bengal tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqdCpqQ4sY

17-The zookeepers have said the male lion is the most dominant of the two cats, this is most evident at feeding times...in this video below lion male control the food tiger force to back up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jedrGq2DUQk

18-In an another zoo in the same enclosure the male lion impose his law to the tiger and steal the tiger's food, tiger flee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxRQWPRVDsY

19-Asiatic lion dominating two tigers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTdmZV7wS6Q

20-Siberian tiger run away from Asiatic lion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ_ns7BnNoQ

-21Siberian tiger submitting to a Asiatic lion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GENwhoMJ4

-22 Lion chases and owner thetiger which run from lion for his life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwJyP-3E6y0

-23Lion, lioness, and tiger in the same enclosure. Male lion warn tiger not come close lioness and tiger obey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1D-fJEWYOM

-24 Tiger are submissive part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njh7UoJCdAM

-25 Submissive lions is a joke, tiger are really submissive next to the lion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHYoQVcw1gU

-26 Female lion dominates white male bengal tiger. The lioness had the best over the white tiger and the jeep separated two cats. I say a times it's better to compare tigers with lioness who is like tigers no fighting specialist but more a hunter. The male lion belongs to a higher league. Generally what is stronger than a lion is another lion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_mcPesVeuc

-27 female lion slamming tiger's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LQ-gAY8q4

I didn't FINISH i will come soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(I didn't finish i will put also all videos of the tigers beating or killing lions, please don't do anything i'm not biased toward the lion)
 * Similarly, there are videos of tigers beating or killing lions, even apart from what I mentioned before, so I could put these as links to the article, somehow. Leo1pard (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoo
Thanks for the edit on South African Zoos template. May I interest you to be member of WikiProject Zoo? Also saw that you seem to collect a lot of old records (Clyde betty etc) Im interested in any records of elephants for my database at http://www.elephant.se/ Dan Koehl (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, let me look into it. I did edit African bush elephant regarding the largest specimen in Angola, the information is there. Leo1pard (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

thālith al-ḥaramayn
Why is the fact that thālith al-ḥaramayn ثَـالِـث الْـحَـرَمَـيْـن means "the third of the two holy places" in need of any special citation, when it would be obvious to anybody who knows some simple basics of Arabic noun grammar, and is able to look up nouns in an Arabic dictionary? There are a number of similar assertions in the article which did not have citation needed tags added.

By the way, there are a number of Islamic scholars who would agree that Jerusalem is quite holy, but would strongly object to comparing its holiness to that of Mecca and Medina. Ibn Taymiyyah was one of the most vehement about this, but I don't think he was the only one. AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Check WP:BUTITSTRUE. Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that condescending dose of snark which does not particularly help toward resolving anything. Do you know Arabic at least to the extent of being able to look up nouns in an Arabic dictionary, or are you not able to do that?  If the answer is that you aren't able to, then maybe you're not the most qualified person to edit the ḥărăm article in the way that you've been doing.  If the answer is that you are able to do this, then why are you creating unnecessary difficulties over something that we both know is true?  In either case, honestly answering my question will do much more to usefully resolve the issue, rather than snarkily and smarmily linking to a mere essay (i.e. NOT an official and binding Wikipedia policy)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I could have looked up "ثَـالِـث الْـحَـرَمَـيْـن" if I wanted, but the problem is not that I put in "", but that | since adding that piece of information on the 18th of September, 2005, you have not bothered to add references to support what you said about this matter, even though you are required to do so, and you should be thankful that I | decided not to erase your work, but only change it with the support of references. If I was one of those strict editors, I would have erased your unreferenced work, since that is allowed. Leo1pard (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There are many assertions in many Wikipedia articles which are unreferenced. The standard is not that every assertion must always be referenced or deleted.  About 3/4ths of the text in Wikipedia articles would be immediately deleted if that were the case.  If you look at WP:CITE (an official policy), you can see that while citing is almost always a good thing, there are different levels of priorities -- some things which have much greater need of citation than others.  I'm not sure that basic meanings of words that can be easily looked up in a number of dictionaries are a high priority.  You left uncited assertions about the meanings of words in the Etymology section, so why is it only the meaning of ثالث الحرمين which must be cited?
 * HOWEVER, as the article now stands, it's the quasi-paradoxical nature of the phrase which for which a citation is being demanded, and not really the basic meaning of the phrase. That's fair, and I'll leave the tag in place in its current position,.. AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "ثَـالِـث الْـحَـرَمَـيْـن" happened to be in a paragraph that I chose to edit, including by adding references, whereas for another paragraph that I made virtually no change to, it was left as it is, and I joined an unreferenced paragraph with another one that had a reference. Leo1pard (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Template:Characters and names in the Quran. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sam Sailor 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Addis Ababa Zoo) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Addis Ababa Zoo, Leo1pard!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This article focuses on the lions in the zoo. It would be useful if you expanded it to include other, non-lion information."

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Noted. Leo1pard (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you deleting sourced photos that have been published without copyrights on public forums or Flickr?
Why are you removing great photos showing Saudi Arabia? There seems to be targeted campaign to prevent people from showing the historical depth and natural beauty of Saudi Arabia? Why is that?

You removed numerous fantastic photos from the Saudi Arabia and Hijaz pages. First the previous consensus reached history section was removed with great photos and now this?--OxfordLaw (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)--OxfordLaw (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But I kept at least one photo that you put in Hejaz which did not have the issue of copyright, so can you not see why I did what I did? Why should photos that might get deleted from Wikimedia Commons due to the issue of copyright be kept there if they are going to disappear from Wikimedia Commons anyway? Leo1pard (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear, the photos were left untouched after the issue was raised on Wikimedia Commons. They will not be deleted. They have been credited, they were published on public forums and on Flickr.--OxfordLaw (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you make valuable additions to the Arabian Leopard Wikipedia page and also create a separate page about the Arabian Lion?
Hello Leo1pard

I noticed your great interest in lions and animals as a whole and wondered whether you could contribute to the existing Arabian Leopard Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_leopard

And maybe create a separate Wikipedia page about the extinct Arabian Lion.

https://snarla.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/arabian-lions/

http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/198201/the.arabian.lion.htm

http://saudi-archaeology.com/subjects/lion/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D_25yXARk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae6Xk_r-7fA

Thank you a lot in advance.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been contributing to Arabian leopard, but with regards to Arabian lion, since Arabia is in Asia, the Arabian lion can be considered to be an extinct subpopulation of the Asiatic lion, like a Kenyan lion can be considered to be a subpopulation of the East African lion, so this information could fit in Asiatic lion. Leo1pard (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

I am not an expert when it comes to lions but I have previously read, the sources that I posted claim it too, that an distinct Arabian lion existed that was a fusion of the African and Asiatic lion.

A bit like how the Arabian horse, Arabian oryx, Arabian leopard and Arabian wolf and gazelle, etc. are unique species. --OxfordLaw (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * African lions themselves are divided into different subspecies, and the Barbary lion of North Africa and West African lion, amongst others, were found to be related to the Asiatic lion, which currently survives in India, and the Arabian peninsula is located between India and North Africa, so I would at least believe that the extinct Arabian lion is related to the Indian, North African and West African lions. Leo1pard (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Northern lion
You have me completely confused. The Barbary lion is said to be Panthera leo leo. You say the Norther lion is P. leo leo. So how are these not two different common names for the same subspecies?? --Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lion subspecies have been revised, so according to the new classification by the Cat Specialist Group in 2017, the Barbary lion of North Africa is part of the subspecies Panthera leo leo, which now includes the Asiatic, West African and (northern) Central African lions, see pages 71–73: Leo1pard (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ?? And you say the Northern lion is P. leo leo, too, so why have two separate articles if the latest scientific consensus is that they are the same subspecies?? --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is that the Barbary lion of North Africa is a part of this subspecies, like the Asiatic lion is a part of this subspecies. Sensu stricto, the Barbary lion, also known as the "Atlas lion", was the lion that inhabited the Atlas region of North Africa, so whereas Asiatic, West African and northern Central African lions may be regarded as Northern lions, they are not Atlas lions, because they are not from the Atlas region where the Barbary lion had been. Something similar has happened to tigers. I expect that you know that a Siberian tiger (formerly Panthera tigris altaica) is not a Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), but the Cat Specialist Group has grouped them together under the Mainland Asian subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris). Leo1pard (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Then the article should make it clear that you are talking about different populations of the same subspecies and tell us why this particular population should have a separate article from the rest of the subspecies (i.e., what sets them apart). As it stands, it just confuses the reader (like me). --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So, Northern lion is like Mainland Asiatic tiger right?

Commons
I saw your comment about my photos in my commons talk page (here). Your comment against me was ironic and I didn't like it. I want to have teamwork between us as we both care about editing animals such as tiger and lion. I hope next time to get understanding quick about our editings and a more polite way ;). --Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What's ironic about that? I know that those photos are not of the fight between a Barbary lion and Bengal tiger in an Indian amphitheatre in the late 19th century, in which the tiger beat the lion, but of an Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger (likely involving more than one lion and tiger) in a jungle pit in the 20th century, in which the lion was depicted as beating the tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Southern jaguars has been nominated for discussion
Category:Southern jaguars, 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. DexDor(talk) 15:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:History of lions in Mesopotamia, from its old location at User:Leo1pard/sandbox/History of lions in Mesopotamia. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:African lions has been nominated for discussion
Category:African lions, 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. DexDor(talk) 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards


The article Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A random comparison of three species based on some superficial characteristics, but excluding other felids with the same or similar charactieristics for unclear reasons (e.g. the oncilla or serval)."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that you said that I did not provide any reliable sources, after I did, shows that it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Leo1pard (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

About articles
Hi Leo1pard, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. And about our articles, I will save both of them in my sq-wiki sandbox, they can't delete them there. I will save your articles as if it were mine! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

discussion
I exercise extreme caution in approach to talk page discussions, and try rewriting any comments to only address the improvement of content; omitting 'you' is a good practice. My approach to contributions here is to read good sources and add the facts I find in the appropriate place, there is no shortage of articles for improvement. On occasion I see others seek out sources to support assertions by scraping search results or misread incidental mentions.

I mention this here because I foresee unpleasantness and disruption emerging, and several instances of misrepresentation of sources … which sucks, then lecturing and badgering of users from that same contributor, that is, I am afraid to say, you. Sincerely, cygnis insignis 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have read plenty of 'good sources', including these,            and I would use them to improve content, discussing it in talk-pages when necessary, and when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Transliteration
Okay, so you do have a talk page. By all means, add transliterations, but changing phrases on their first use to include characters like ā is in no way helpful. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In relation to this, please keep the use of Arabic-script to an absolute minimum, especially when the relevant terms have their own articles. See also how it is done when Japanese is involved, which unlike Arabic is even more difficult (if not impossible) to reconstruct from its romanisation. In fact, you really do not have to add the original Arabic if you are using its strict transliteration, because is easy to reconstruct it just using said transliteration. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw you followed up on my remark above. I appreciate it, thanks :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Leo1pard (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Salama bin Butti
Hi. I changed the assertion regarding Salama bint Butti's origin and provided two published - and respected - references to her origin from Liwa. I must say, standing up genealogical information on blogs published in Comic Sans isn't really the best way to provide good, well-sourced information for Wikipedia, IMHO! Happy to chat about it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Central African lion clade"
Look what BhagyaMani have done to "Central African lion clade" article. So i see no point to redirect "Central African lion" to African lion. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please have patience. BhagyaMani has been like that for years, he doesn't always care what's in discussions. Leo1pard (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

About "You being me"
As everyone doubts you are a sockpupet, (, or anyone else), I want to say that I have about 5 months editing on Albanian Wikipedia, and Leo1pard doesn't know any single word in Albanian. I just feel that BhagyaMani follow me in any single edit that I made, where he constantly move my edits with the pretext that I have misunderstood refs. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Not everyone said that, but good point. Leo1pard (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Category creation
Hello, Leo1pard,

I'm tagging a lot of empty categories you created for deletion. In the future, please do not create categories that have no pages associated with them. You can tag articles/pages with categories that "should" exist and then the red-linked categories will be listed and we can decide whether to create categories for them then. But do not make category pages before there are articles/pages that utilize them. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Need "help"
Help me with this — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that another title is more appropriate for that, to more accurately describe what references like that of Bertola et al. said. Leo1pard (talk) 17 27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then, change the title! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Out of hand
This is getting out of hand, I didn't expect that this would happen, so please stop making more discussions on stuff like the lions for which genetic results gave mixed results, which cannot be explained in just a few lines. I warned this is not a simple thing, I have years of experience in this, these new discussions should not have happened in the first place, we have had enough discussions already. And Casliber, let me ask you something, you were not interested in these more specific articles, before being asked to intervene, am I right? Leo1pard (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC); edited 06:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one asked me to intervene. I was aware some of the daughter articles but not quite how many there are/were. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So what started as a response to being asked for advice eventually led to you getting involved in the other articles, by making discussions about all of them, therefore contributing to these issues dragged being on for close to two weeks after I made a complaint on the 6th of November regarding a different but related matter, and became so complicated that you would complain with the expression 'sigh' about getting involved in them, based on the premise that it was all going to be 'simple', and you would generally edit Wikipedia to relax and enjoy yourself, even though I, as a person who has been involved in these articles for a long time, warned that this would get more complicated than people who are not so familiar with them would think? Leo1pard (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC); edited 12:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So what point are you making? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That even though you were not interested in all these specific articles in the first place, you got involved in them after being asked for advice, and because of these, the issue which I complained about close to two weeks ago was not resolved, but other issues that I wasn't keen on being tackled at the time came up, and have been going on longer and getting more complicated than initially desired. You shouldn't have made more and more discussions about other articles, but you could have just focused on Panthera leo leo, Panthera leo melanochaita and articles that were more closely to them than others which were not specifically about these. Look at the time that has passed since I made that complaint on the 6th of November, and you made those RfCs about P. l. leo, P. l. melanochaita and related articles, these have been dragging on for close to 2 weeks, and getting more complicated, was this what you wanted in the first place? Leo1pard (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So what point are you making? Is this about you or the document. it processes, the investment of concerned users, or another user and their interactions? At what point are you going to say that my time is better invested in other concerns, and whatever point I am trying to impress has been heard? Two questions, but you need not answer to anyone but yourself, the solution is in your hands, it always was! cygnis insignis 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the gene tests gave mixed results for some lion populations, but I disagree that it needs its own article(s). And, Leo1pard, I do have a vested interest (and academic interest) in the many lion articles. I would also like to add that I am glad that some outsider editors have come in to force a resolution. I do not wish to become involved in an edit war or other argument. Best, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you were expecting that discussing whether or not information from relevant sources like this:

"In the 19th century, a number of subspecies were described for lions in Northeast Africa. For example, zoological specimens from Nubia and Somalia were described or proposed by zoologists under the trinomina Felis leo nubicus and Felis leo somaliensis. In later centuries, these trinomina were alternatively considered to be synonymous with the scientific names of the North and East African lions. A test done in 2012 on 15 lions at Addis Ababa Zoo and lions from 6 wild populations demonstrated that the captive lions were genetically different to wild lions in other parts of East Africa, but similar to wild lions from Cameroon and Chad. Among six samples from captive lions which were of Ethiopian origin, five samples clustered with other East African samples, but one clustered with Sahelian samples. ... Lions of northern Uganda have not been analysed genetically, and might belong to the Northern subspecies. In northern Uganda, lions are present in Kidepo Valley and Murchison Falls National Parks. The Central African lion is a population of lions in Central Africa that has been grouped under the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), but was also found to be related to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),  depending on the subpopulation, and is fragmented into small and isolated groups since the 1950s. ... Its hair samples were collected for phylogenetic analysis by Barnett et al., and compared with tissue samples of lions from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo that were killed in the 20th century. Results indicate that this individual, besides extinct lions in Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of the Congo, is closely related to the ancestral lion population of the area, and that its DNA shows a typical Southern lion haplotype. It is considered possible that this lion dispersed to the area from Namibia or Botswana. A phylogeographical analysis conducted by Bertola et al. depicted a number of lions in places adjacent to East and Southern Africa as belonging to the southern group, with others in Central Africa belonging to the northern group. In particular, the northern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is adjacent to the East African country of Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, is believed to have both genetic groups."

Can be placed in any of the articles for which discussions were underway since the 6th of November, without getting into complications, such as that making more discussions on other articles would not complicate what is going on in any of the pre-existing discussions? Look at what has happened to the pre-exisiting discussions from the 6th of November, it is over a week since they were started, and they got more complicated as more people come in to say more things, which were not relevant to the discussions when they were created on the 6th of November. Before things get any more complicated, particularly in the discussions that were opened on the 6th of November, due to the haste in making discussions on articles that were not originally discussed there, based on the false premise that sorting things out would be simple, these new discussions on the genetically complicated lions must close, and the focus should now be on finishing what was initially under discussion. Leo1pard (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC); edited 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Western rosella
The article you edited in currently under review, and as are you engaged in your pointed disruption and belligerent attempts to draw attention to your agenda, that was indeed a bold edit. Given your emboldened demands of others, I reverted it, as I stated before, with prejudice, and without viewing your changes. This is where we are cousin, please stop this approach. You can join the discussion of improvements at the active review, but do not take that as an invitation from me to find some other way to intrude on improvement of unrelated content and cast aspersions at editors recognised for their outstanding contributions. You can say what you like about me, here or elsewhere, but I may not read it. cygnis insignis 17:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop harassing me by making unhelpful edits like this, considering that I mentioned MOS:NOBOLD, or alleging that that was to draw attention to my agenda. When you spoke to me for the first time here, I replied, but instead of having a healthy conversation with me, you go on to make prejudiced arguments against me here and there. You can talk to me, but I am warning you to stop these prejudiced arguments and edits, as you yourself have put it. Leo1pard (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * You've actually done in that article a number of things that I wanted to do myself, which I had mentioned in the talk-page, and for which I had filed a notice at the AN/I, due to the repeated actions of the other user whose edits you essentially reverted. Leo1pard (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)