User talk:NickPriceNZ

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tiger versus lion, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All edits and page versions are preserved in the article history (the tab "history" on top of every page). Your edit is here . Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the first time i have tried to contribute to wikipedia so apologies if I am a little ignorant. What will be an issue with this article is that although there is plenty of published research about lions and tigers, there is none or almost none on comparing the two as combatants, as that's hardly a serious scientific field of research. I will find verification for alll the information possible, but much will have none available. For example the fact that a lion is less gracile than a tiger is simple maths - comparing the relative forelimbs size to those of the hindlimbs. There will be no research on this topic, no one writes a thesis on wether or not lions are more gracile than tigers, and yet it is clearly and demonstrable true. For such facts what is the wikipedia standard? Should i include comparative fore and hind leg averages and the relative ratios for lions and tigers as proof? Or is that a little over the top? Would it be possible to find some other wikipedia contibutors who are also zoologists and have them check the page and we could discuss with each other and find consensus? I think it's an interesting page and a great way to catch youth interest in zoology, but it clearly needs a bit of love and attention from some people who are well learned in the field of zoology. Thanks again for all the help, it's quite exciting to be involved in all this. NickPriceNZ (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not accept original research, i.e., we just summarize reliable sources. While this hinders entering some trivial, well-established facts, this is an important policy that saves us from other troubles. A usual place for discussion is the talk page of the article in question. Some articles are rarely visited; in such case, I would ask a relevant wikiproject(s) (they are listed at the top of each talk page), such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats or even WT:MAMMAL. You can reply here, I see it in my watchlist. Materialscientist (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks a lot, you've been really helpful. NickPriceNZ (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the talk page is NOT a place for you to repeat your questions, and no one is responsible for answering them, or answering them to your satisfaction. You have exploited the talk page for your personal views and publishing your original research with no valid reference. And the point is, all your lengthy views and questions are still in the talk page, and they already appear multiple times. Further repetitions to flood the talk page with the same thoughts are clearly of bad intention as you are no longer a new user here and there is no reason for your repeated violations. It is a common tactic for fanatics to flood the cyberspace with their "findings", fake research materials, and you have been showing this pattern for a long time. I have seen lion fanatics flooding body building forums to push their views on lions, political forums to publish their findings on lions, etc. No matter what your intention is, your violations are not allowed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCat82 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please respect Wikipedia rules, thank you
Your have posted your messages in the talk page (though many violate talk page rules) under the section "Please somebody fix this awful page or delete it", and the same points also appeared in many different sections of the same talk page, by you or other users. Even if you are rejected, ignored or you think the answers are not to your satisfactions, your points are already there and you are heard. The article talk page is for everyone, not for yourself, and there are other unanswered and unsettled issues raised by other users there. Your lengthy repetitions disrupt any discussion progress in an orderly manner and thus deprive the rights of other users to improve the article. No one is more important than the others in Wikipedia and you should respect the rights of other users as well. Other users followed Wikipedia rules and only stated their concise requests and questions once or twice at most, but since you flooded the talk page with your lengthy inappropriate repeats in different sections, their genuine requests will likely be missed or unnoticed by future contributors. In fact the section created by you "Please somebody fix this awful page or delete it", the title alone violates the talk page rule but you have already been tolerated. That your old violations have been tolerated and your messages were not deleted doesn't mean that you can commit repeated violations.

If for any reason you feel you need to repeat your messages, you must remove your old repeated messages to clean up the talk page which is very messy now due largely to your old messages (many of those are not concise and/or violate talk page rules), although this cannot be done on many of your old messages as many got replies from others already, deleting them will disrupt the information flow and make future contributors misunderstand the replies left there. You have been ignoring Wikipedia rules by repeatedly pushing original thoughts to the article, using the article talk page to publish your personal views on the topic and treating it as a discussion forum. Whether you understand or not, you have been already tolerated and further violations will be deleted without further explanation.

BigCat82 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for posting to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   13:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blue Rasberry, If I post here will you see it? NickPriceNZ (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oct 2014
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. BigCat82 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are not allowed to attack other editors anywhere in Wikipedia, including talk pages and page history summaries. Also Wikipedia is a collection of common knowledge and facts. It is not a discussion forum and you must refrain from exploiting Wikipedia to publish your thoughts and opinions. BigCat82 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking time for "Lion versus tiger"
Hi, nowadays I am the main editor for Tiger versus lion, if you check the recent history of edits, and I saw a user's suggestions for improvement, and frankly, I was slightly surprised by some of what the user said, like about lions having the largest forelimbs of all cats (never mind hybrids like ligers), and that that was a reason for them being slower than the other cats, like tigers, I thought that the heavy mane was responsible for that, like was stated by someone else in the Section "The lion's mane."

Although it is true that at first, it was quite biased, as it was created by an apparently hardcore fan of the tiger, the bias has reduced over time, partly as I have taken care to mention any area where either cat has an 'advantage' over the tiger, like that the tiger's paw-swipe would be faster than that if the lion, but that the paw-swipe of the lion appears to stronger, at least when comparing a Barbary lion (whose position of being the largest lion is disputed) and a Bengal tiger (which is the second largest tiger worldwide, but on average, the largest tiger and felid, in the wild, according to sources mentioned, and the heaviest tiger ever recorded, in the wild, was apparently a Bengal tiger, not a Siberian tiger), and between whom a fight was recorded, of course an organized fight in an amphitheater, not a fight in the open wilderness, because if the tiger, which is in Asia, is likely to meet any lion in the wild, then it is the Asiatic lion, not the African lion, and there is a whole story to that, most of which I wrote down.

Kindly do put down the references, but also check if any of them conflict with any of sources that are already in the article, like about what exactly slows down a lion, compared to other Felidae.

Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Leo1pard

I'll find the relevant sections and actually quote them verbatim in the talk page with a proper reference to which paper they come from then you can add them or not according to what you think. Where it's data from a table I'll just quote the relevant information and you can check it from the paper reference.

Quite glad the elders of wikipedia finally did something about bc82. That guy was just so rude and abusive.

NickPriceNZ (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi sorry it turns out I deleted all my e-copies and threw out all my physical papers on this topic. I thought I had found them but it was some other papers that aren't much use for this topic. It would just be too much time and work finding it all again so I'll bow out of contributing for now at least. Congrats for much improving the page though, I fell it still misses a lot of crucial references to behavioural differences and the evolutionary pressures the animals face as a result, but at least it is much better than before. NickPriceNZ (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Big Cats  -   talk   00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. This again? Dude you trolled the Tiger vs Lion page for so long and so badly that your abuse and threatening of potential contributors was the defining feature of that page for several years, and it was obviously so bad that eventually they had to block you from that page. Kind of fair justice considering that threatening to block/ban everyone new to wikipedia that ever disagreed with you was one of the things you did on a regular basis. Trying to do the exact same thing again now only shows that you have learnt nothing, and will get you no-where. Given your past practise it is perfectly fair for me to ask whether or not you are banned from editing any contribs I might make before spending my time making them. I wasn't trying to rub salt in the wound or be petty or vindictive or anything, just trying to ascertain whether or not any attempt at balanced contribution was possible before I spend valuable time collating again all the research that I had deleted (because I had realised it was impossible, even with nothing but the most conservative academic paper backed facts, to add anything contrary to your view without you just trolling me and deleting all my edits) and writing up summaries of them for wikipedia. You used completely biased dishonest practise unsuitable for wikipedia and just stuffed up in the past, admit it, stop doing it, move on and let it go. NickPriceNZ (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindly watch out for tiger-fans' attacks
Hi, some tiger-fans seemed to be upset at what I did in the articles Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger, which was to add information or references on huge lions, which could weigh up to 249.5 kg or more in the wilderness,       and thus rival Bengal tigers, which generally weighed 180 - 258 kg, and Caspian tigers, which generally weighed 170 - 240 kg, or perhaps even hybrids like ligers,  which can outweigh even Siberian tigers, though I did not mention all of these references on those pages. Kindly watch out for what they do in these pages, or their talk-pages, and likewise for those relating to lions. Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Then, I made changes, I included those references. Leo1pard (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The very first few words on the tiger page is "The tiger (Panthera tigris) is the largest cat species", therefore the largest tiger subspecies are going to be taken as the largest cat species automatically. While I do agree that the comparative size of lions and tigers is certainly less black and white than the internet suggests and tigers should probably be described as 'generally regarded as the largest non-hybrid cat species' perhaps with something added afterward like 'there is little reliable scientific evidence as to whether they really are bigger than lions' I doubt there will be much traction or consensus with the changes you want to make.  Even if the largest ever recorded wild lion was bigger than the largest recorded wild tiger the size comparison should ideally be done on average sizes right? Even then the accuracy of average sizes of wild lions and tigers needs to be discussed in the context of how often weighings of wild specimen actually occur.  If you can find the article (I think it's actually a book) where Dr Sundquist mentions this issue it may help you a lot with getting your point across but I suspect that there will be too many people that just want simplified tidy answers to everything who will resist any attempts to change the current widespread view that tigers are the biggest.  Of course the tiger fanatics won't help much either..... but good luck and hope you at least get a good robust discussion on this topic started.

NickPriceNZ (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks, and also keep this reference Even if I had to correct the information on the page of the Caspian tiger, about the 3 large tiger subspecies being the largest cats in these times, I guess that it's not worth mentioning that piece of information on other pages of tigers, considering how they may react, maybe just on our old article, or something like that. Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunquist and Sunquist
Hi, did you mean this book?

Leo1pard (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't be 100% certain but i"m 99% sure that's the one. I borrowed it (or a similar book) from my university back when I was studying there and read parts of it, but it was a few years back now so my memory is hazy.  If you can get your hands on a copy then it should be pretty easy to find the reference within.  Happy hunting :) NickPriceNZ (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)