User talk:BigCat82

lion v tiger

Hi, and thanks for letting me know about this. I no longer am watching that page, but i will start again for a short time. I am not online much these days and do not make a very effective deterrent to the kind of issue you describe. What I will do is try to get the edits reverted and give the appropriate warnings to the editor, and also try to engage him in dialogue. I am not an admin but if it appears appropriate I will request page protection from one. Hope that helps! John from Idegon (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You said my footnote quoting Ken Spiro was not relevant. But have you checked all the other footnotes on 'tiger versus lion'? Not a single one of them even goes to a link that has any relevance whatsoever. At least my link was to the appropriate location. All those outlandish claims, like a tiger killed 30 lions....and the link goes to a bookstore homepage. What a joke! EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please get familiar with reliable sources - your link to websites, forums or your cherry picking some sentences from a reliable source for a new different meaning etc cannot be cited as a reliable source in wikipedia. The rest of the sources in the articles are valid and reliable. BigCat82 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not add original research to the tiger vs lion article, I provided sources for my edits. Despite what you claim, you seem to have a clear bias towards tigers. I am not obsessed with this "who would win" debate, I just edited the article because it was biased.

You've got mail!

Hello, BigCat82. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Dear BogCat82,

sorry I didnt answer emidiately ( the thing is I never etiding Wiki before, so I needed some time to figure it out). Let me introduce my self, my name is Anuzin Rosic, and I am PR of Marija Serifovic for eastern and western Europe,you can check that info on her official site.I have to change false and add a fresh new information to her wikipedia page on english, russian and serbian, also I need to rephrase some lines bicouse they sound really bed and uncorrect ,also I think that some things that are wrotten on her page are shameful for wiki page bicouse that info came from gossip magazins in Serbia.... I know I made a mistake by correcting tekst whitout informing You, but like I sad, undertand that I didnt know I make a mistake at that time. Thank you for understanding and cooperation in a front. Waiting for your reply. Kind regards, Anuzin Rosic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuzin (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear BigCat82, This is in response to your message on my Talk page concerning the Aristides de Sousa Mendes page I have restrained from further editings, as per your wise adivse. As you will see from the article's Talk page I am an editor that has, in good faith, recurrently and spontaneously seek independent advice and have followed it. The same cannot be said about the other account, that keeps on deleting my material (no wonder because the account is a single purpose account created just to delete). In my view relevant facts are being erased from the article. I find it rather odd that a married man has a mistress and a daughter from his mistress but his biography completely ignores it! That a consul is expelled from the US and his biography ignores it! That a consul is expelled from service for two years because he was abusing of public money but his bio does not say anything about it…... Could you please help getting an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution? ThanksJPratas (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear BigCat82,

I am a little bit confused, there was no promotion on my page edit and only based on factual and accurate information in the UK remortgage arena. Please can you elaborate how you feel that the article was less than neutral as I did not alude to any organisation promotion. Regards, --Louden88 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"There will be associated costs involved when remortgaging such as valuation, arrangement and often at times booking fees" - this is written in impartial tone and is good. But the rest of your edit, "It would be wise to compare the cost of different lenders as often the headline rate doesn't necessary reflect the cost of setting up the mortgage. Your mortgage adviser should be able to work out the overall cost from lender to lender. Also check ou the term of the mortgage deal as you don't necessarily want to be switching from lender to lender every couple of years and incurring costs each time", were all partisan commentaries which are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please just summarize the facts in impartial tone and your future edits will be fine. BigCat82 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fails academic review

Please read this. This work is fringe theory and not accepted at all. Fails scholarly review by peers...should be pulled out until it gains acceptance but more so because it is being spammed into articles to push advocacy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

PNAS itself is a peer reviewed journal with a moderately high impact factor. I didn't go through the site you showed me in details as internet sites in general are not considered reliable and cannot be used to refute the work published in a peer reviewed journal even if the sites hosted by some scholars. You can pull the work out if and only if the work has been totally refuted by other studies published in journals with a similar or higher impact factor - and as per Wikipedia editing policy the burden of proof is on you if you want to delete that section - until you show another published work here you cannot just pull his work out by claiming his work fringe theory. Even if the frog study is proved to be flawed, it is better to add content stating so than just deleting the section to achieve NPOV. BigCat82 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)FICGreece (talk)== Your message on my talk page ==

Dear BigCat82, This is in response to your message on my Talk page concerning the editing of FOX Life Greece page. I am representing the channel in Greece and I was given the task to alter the content based on latest info that concern the company's channel. Please do not ban me from editing as I have to insert all latest valid information concerning broadcasting rights, content, affiliate platforms, etc. Thank you in advance!FICGreece (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FICGreece (talk • contribs)

Revert on Port mirroring article

Hello, thank you for reviewing the changes I made to the port mirroring page. I do appreciate the link to the referencing for beginners, I will certainly review that. This was my first edit of an article, so getting pointers from more experienced Wikipedians is certainly appreciated. The article as it was before I took to editing was also bereft of references. I am not mentioning this as a point of debate, but it was the reason why it did not occur to me to provide references. Thanks again for taking the time to offer advice! Molsen123 (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your edit can still be found here, in case you want to rewrite it with reliable sources. Also using the point form is not the norm for an article introduction like the one you edited. With patience and practice you will quickly become a great contributor here. BigCat82 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Again

This is pursuant to your message on my Talk page concerning the Aristides de Sousa Mendes’ article. Since your warning I’ve restrained myself from editing and I’ve limited myself to using the article’s talk page and within the Wikipedia guidelines. However, other editor is so keen on his POV that is deleting the “dispute” warning. He is prepared to go to such extremes that he is even willing to dispute that there is a dispute! I don’t want to be accused again of Edit warring, but this is not exactly edit warring. The same user has also been deleting warnings from the Article's talk page. This is a different ball game.JPratas (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear BigCat82, unfortunately editor JPratas is intent on causing harm to the Sousa Mendes page. He holds a fringe POV that Sousa Mendes was not a hero and did not save thousands of lives. He thinks the Holocaust started in 1942. He thinks that the Portuguese government edict keeping Jews out of Portugal during WWII was benign. He thinks the refugees' lives were not in danger and that they were not running for their lives. He disputes facts that are stated in the preponderance of the literature. He posts unsigned threats on my talk page. I hardly think that he is in a position to be accusing others of non-neutrality. Yes, I have been deleting his "non-neutral" tags and warnings, as I have to consider the source. Thank you for your time! Please help us put this problem to rest. Many thanks. Beebop211 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Long story short. If there are reliable independent sources explicitly saying he was a hero, any editor can put that information into the article. If there are reliable independent sources questioning it, or even calling him traitor, instead of deleting the content saying he was a hero, the additional information should be added to achieve NPOV. Note that if most sources say he was a war hero and only a few saying he wasn't, it is acceptable to include only the majority view and avoid giving any undue weight to the minority views. I didn't follow everything from the beginning as the talk page is getting too lengthy atm which makes it quite difficult for a third party contributor to follow, but it does seem to me that JPratas you are trying to push some controversial information into the article as the sources you quoted seem to be less reliable and hard to verify. I may be wrong as I haven't followed the dispute. BigCat82 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BigCat82, for getting to the heart of the matter. Your help is great appreciated. Beebop211 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think the issue is limited to determine if he was or wasn’t a hero. I am not questioning that. Many people consider that Oskar Schindler was a hero but still they don’t hide that in his early life he was a Nazi, drunk, unfaithful to his wife, etc. And if the majority of sources say that Mendes’ received a lifetime allowance 3 times the salary of a teacher, then it should be included in the article. His complete payroll is available online. This dispute had been closed in November!!! Should I upload the letter where Mendes’ himself writes that he is receiving $1593/month? don’t want to drag you into this dispute. The thing is that the dispute sign is being removed.JPratas (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Only if it's relevant to the current content of the article. Even if it is well sourced, the information may not be suitable to add to the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. BigCat82 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I just ran the exchange rate for the figure that JPratas mentions: 1593 escudos/month. For the year 1950 that was equivalent to $20 (US)/month. So even if he received this amount each month it was a pittance and not worth discussing. The fact is that Sousa Mendes descended from pre-war opulence to post-war destitution. That is undisputed in all independent reliable sources, and confirmed by the eyewitness testimonial of Isaac Bitton who served the Sousa Mendes family meals at the refugee soup kitchen in Lisbon. Beebop211 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your general statement BigCat82, in this case there is a long chapter titled "Trial and Punishment" therefore it should state the punishment as it was, not cut information to make the punishment look greater than it really was.

The$20 simulation is original research and is wrong. Mendes' biography says his salary was 3 times the salary of a teacher.JPratas (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

JPratas, Escudos mean nothing to the English language reader (including me), so require conversion to familiar currency to have meaning. If I am wrong, can you please be so kind as to tell me what was the dollar value of 1593 escudos during the period in question (pre-1954)? Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an actor Vandalism and do not accuse me!!!

I do not accept it when accused of vandalism. I do not vandalism because the anonymous users who do vandalism by entering false data that looks as if true. For example, data on the number of passengers. How can there be the number of passengers who flew from the airport, while its airport is unfinished. In addition they include the name of the airline that he definitely fly into the airport as Tigerair Mandala when the airline did not fly to the island of Borneo, and there is no official announcement from the airline will fly to the airport. Besides the airport was not finished why they make it as if the airport has been completed and can be issued a visa on arrival. Though the Indonesian immigration officers just have not put them at the airport are not yet finished.

I just delete the false data that can confound the reader. Maharaja Wiki (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

you have been destroying info box syntax, deleting correct info and properly sourced content by falsely claiming them incorrect or vandalism in the edit summaries to evade detection of your vandalism. You can't get away with this easily. BigCat82 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Warning abuse

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Janasommer (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of unsourced controversial content three times when I was patrolling the pages you edited and is not a violation of rules, while you have been reverted the edits from different editors at least 4 times, a clear violation of edit warring, not to mention your restoration of unsourced, controversial content which is a clear violation as well. You couldn't accuse someone of being a murderer with no source at all and that's why your edits must be removed. I assume your fake retaliatory warning was made BEFORE reading my messages on your talk and the article talk, and I am not taking further actions in the next 24 hours. But if you continued to violate the policy you will be expected to be shown the doorway. BigCat82 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion 'Jaune Toujours'

Dear BigCat82,

You nominated my article about Jaune Toujours for speedy deletion. Even before I had time to contest this nomination the page was removed. I don't think Jaune Toujours is an irrelevant band. Although they are a Belgian band they have an international appeal and played across Europe, the UK, Benin and Canada. They played the Global Activist Festival during the Euro summit in Brussels together with Ojos de Brujo en Babylon Circus, were support act for [[[Manu Chao]] and Radio Bemba Sound System, represented Belgium at the EBU festival in Norway, the WOMAD festival, Womex, the Cambridge Folk Festival and for BBC3. In Canada they played shows in Vancouver Island, Fort McLeod and Calgary. Their latest full-album Routes received a 3 star review in The Guardian and a 4 star review in The Independent on Sunday. If you have any advice on how to make this a decent article I'll be glad to hear it.

Kind regards

BertVoor (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if the brand is notable as per wikipedia notability policy, please try to edit it in your sandbox or user template before submitting it. Also avoid peacock words, and adding unsourced content, and I am sure your new submission will be accepted if they are notable as you claimed. BigCat82 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tiger

Thanks for your help. I'm ill now and can't do much. Could you take over and help the other others on the GAR? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you are interested in the Tiger GA and I assume from your username that you are knowledgeable about big cats. One of the review comments was that there was "a worryingly large number of cites to random online factsheets." Are you in a position where you are able to replace any such cites with a book reference? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can get through this. I really can't do much now. Too much stress from personal life. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How's it coming? Are we almost done? LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, would you be able to find information on the color/striping patterns of the other tiger subspecies (aleast the Bengal)? LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you can add it if you want. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and could you add in information on when the tiger slit from the linages of the other cats? LittleJerry (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Siberian tiger

Hello - The subject article has been protected by User:Vsmith, but not before the intractable IP reinserted the POV bear content. I'm just on the periphery of this scene, but you may want to go back to the article and clean it up now that it's protected. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)