Bagheera baghira

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Felis chaus maimanah is not of subspecies of Felis chaus. Zukowski 1914 described as Felis maimanah, but assigned to this new species to the Asian steppe cat (Felis silvestris caudata f. murgabensis) Haltenorth 1953 Die Wildkatzen der Alten Welt. Itself the only individual type "Felis maimanah" is located in the Indian Museum in Calcutta. Region Maimanah (Maimane) located in the territory of the local extension forms murgabensis area; so now in the field at the same time recognized subspecies of the Asian wildcat subspecies Felis silvestris caudata. If you already. As a very credible sources indicate publication: Wildkatzen der Alten Welt. Haltenorth Th. 1953 I do not know what can be a reliable on the website: http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=726311 But one thing I know for sure, that the information about "maimanah" do not write the truth. Again, I refer to the publication: Wildkatzen der Alten Welt. Haltenorth Th. 1953 Moreover Zukowsky discovered and described "Felis maimanah" according to the existing single specimen deposited in the Indian Museum in Calcutta. But this discovery did not take place in 1915 as erroneously stated: http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=726311 But just that in 1914, Zukowski was actually discovered and described individual variation of "murgabensis' in north-western Afghanistan. As well as individual variation actually currently recognized subspecies Felis silvestris caudata personally. And by Theodor Haltenorth of 1953 is anyone's irrefutable fact! And personally confirm. Because I study felines spent more than 20 years of his life.

I repeat. Felis maimanah is individual variation of subspecies Felis silvestris caudata. Then it assigns Zukowski 1914 and the Theodor Haltenorth 1953. If you already. And you try to push this unnecessarily so. taxon "maimanah" as subspecies of jungle cat. Even so, right there, should not belong. Indeed it!

Sorry that it asking. But what is that so controversial? I thought that Wikipedia is free. But instead of pulling me only words. This is not at all nice to you. For years, I try to help Wikipedia. And not once did I have on this site often contributed. But you like these words very dirty trick knees. This I really think about you. So therefore weigh free access. A disrespectful to my words. And the fact that one can choose only what suits you. And that to me. And throw me under his feet as a warning. You do not have anything to write. When you weigh so my free access and willingness. With respect to access each one expert who already knows something. I expect the same from you. That is a fact, so much for you? I ask. Please respect that I was studying felines spent more than 20 years of his life. And that has some of them still know. If I had not allowed a form of "maimanah" assigned to the species Felis silvestris and specifically under one of its subspecies: Felis silvestris caudata. So just because they already know something about it. Well, not thinking about what you're doing it wrong? Probably not. So you say it. And avoid the already absolutely will. If you already. First, disparage work Zukowski of 1914. On the first set that individual forms into species Felis silvestris as well as to the subspecies Asian steppe cats Felis silvestris caudata. Second, disparage the works of Theodor Haltenorth. And both. From 1953. A more in 1957. Here appointed. Theodor Haltenorth is also the discoverer of the Cretan wildcat, subspecies Felis silvestris cretensis of 1953. Finally, it also disparages, who thus their quotes. That's the wrong doing. If you have not realized it yet.

Because "maimanah" and it certainly is not the subspecies of jungle cat, but to species of wild cat, more than form subspecies Felis silvestris caudata. How to determine Zukowski 1914 and Haltenorth Th. in 1953. After all it. And by and pick up a form asking "maimanah" level subspecies of the jungle cat species, the deeply disrespectful to their professional work and their experiences. And it will never forgive. Because, you most probably works around not really read. And if so, just between the lines.

My respect, Bagheera Baghira. Although it should be, the last thing you ever write!

No longer you more to what I write. Because you will not keep me against humanly, and you did not act with me, and by that I'm only human. At least I expected so much, that it will be considered. But I see that you think you deserve even that much. Then it is not even the slightest amount, that I have ever had the willingness to expand Wikipedia contributions to such your approach. And, no offense. Such treatment, in the future no longer invoke. If ever it occurs.

I gave you a chance again, it's up to you as to me you deal respectfully and sensitively. If not, and you earnestly pursue violent manner just his, that "maimanah" is a valid subspecies of jungle cat, so forget that we had with each other ever any debate, or connections. If this is possible, even to this call. Truly.

Edit warring on Jungle Cat

Hello - you are currently involved in an edit war on the Jungle Cat page, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Please take your discussion about the disputed content to the Jungle Cat talk page and not in the article itself. DO NOT revert the sourced content until the dispute is resolved.

Continued edit warring may result in being blocked from editing. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maimanah skin

Bagheera baghira : since you keep insisting on maimanah not being a subspecies of Felis chaus I have compiled the sparse info available about maimanah, and am sure that you misunderstood the German texts that you keep referring to.
Scully indeed suggested in 1887 that this particular skin is of Felis caudata, but he also wrote that he is not sure about this as he didn't have caudata skins for comparison. Zukowsky on the other hand had caudata skins and thus was in a position to compare measurements : he clearly stated that the Maimanah skin is larger in head and body than of caudata but with a shorter tail. Therefore, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott subordinated maimanah to Felis chaus already in their first (1949) edition of the "Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758–1946" -- a taxonomic assessment that has NOT been questioned ever since. But if you know of any scientific article about this issue that was published recently -- do let us know at the Jungle Cat talk page -- Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pull words from the concept. Under such conditions, the fact we do not have anything to say at all. And such a violent way, to assert its truth, is that misery!

And in addition, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott is in (1949) and in the edition of the "Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758-1946"; could still go wrong. Being wrong is human after all. But you obviously can not admit a mistake. Is not it? In ridiculing other people probably have talent. Congratulations to you how you can handle it perfectly. And no offense. Please nice.

It was certainly not my intention to ridicule you. The question is not whether Ellerman and Morrison-Scott could have been wrong regarding their assessment of the Maimanah skin and Zukowsky's description, but that it has been accepted within the international community of zoologists. Thus it would have been a mistake to ignore this (like you did by arguing the converse). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you did not complete the sentence. Missing the decisive argument, that punch line. What really should be the aim. If you already. That neither international community of zoologists, did not produce the most correct solution. A Wikipedia biggest mistake is the fact that they have nothing at all to worry about, than the endless fence with words, and still not be a drag. And to answer you, in fact it is the sincerity and friendship, but folly which conceals your only revenge. If you already. So this will last you please cherish your words! For one day, will pull for them, and the others will. And yet you very kindly to do so. Unlike you, I do not speak my words to the wind.

I thought of you, that you are honestly and correctly thinking, but I see so much you fell. Instead of thoughtful communication you have chosen a very violent approach. You see already that I am not your member, but willing to help. But the only thing I see here is just that, you are able to only one misstatement of the workshop international community of zoologists; only a very nasty way to gamble and pull the words of other people.

And I am deeply disappointed in you. In the depths of your own heart. I've always enjoyed the fact that I can to help Wikipedia, therefore be useful. And you know what? I'm sick of you, and it has in fact how you behave towards me. And finally, you are turn my back.

I just thought that you will behave towards me politely to the man. I found people here just rotten heart. Who show me a way, as if it had not. And the fact that you've always shot from the knees, thus your constant to drag my own words. Since the debate began.

You were the first to have started with the war on the editing, and you use to me, as the man who only wanted to know the truth about skins "maimanah". And what may result from it? That you do automatically all the evil which may result from it, turned to me. It is yours "very regrettable worthy style." And that is the reason the reason why even bother logging and password on Wikipedia. The fact that you have a great reason to celebrate. A fact to congratulate you for what? In my eyes, you lose a human face and also my good reputation of you, the whole Wikipedia. Truly.

You are so utterly written off from the sanctuary of my heart. I will never be able to trust. For who knows how to pull only the words, which others and therefore deserve? If you already! - Believe you never will. And you know what? Get your words only those pigeons on the roof. Still do not have no more value. Indeed it!

- And why should I have to you, therefore, have to take into account? Once you have them to me even once had! Well mainly because! Truly. Last Greeting ... Bagheera Baghira, who for his word really is.

Lets get this correct: YOU started the editing war by deleting a well-sourced entry without giving a reason for your deleting text and without citing a valid source. For more info see this article about citing sources -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a lie straight from the workshop as embroidered Wikipedia. That's not even worth the responses. Indeed it!

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jungle cat. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jungle cat 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. Anaxial (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

your recent deletion in my talk page

I request you to stop deleting entries in my talk page : this is none of your business. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:BhagyaMani, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Webclient101^talk 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Felis chaus maimanah without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Felis chaus maimanah with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Plasma (Talk) 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Felis chaus maimanah, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo Shame on you! I see that you do not have anything at all to do than to repeat after Webclient101 as a parrot! You just got to my disrespect! Bagheera Baghira

Re your message: Your message to me does not make any sense. I am not related to Webclient101 nor am I aware of any articles that both Webclient101 and I have edited. I did revert your change Felis chaus maimanah because it was not an appropriate action. If you have issues with the content or validity of the article, discuss them on the article talk page. Do not blank the article as you attempted to do three times. If you feel that the article should be deleted, then you may start a discussion to do so through an articles for deletion discussion, but you will have to provide a better reason to delete a sourced article than it being an "invalid subspecies". You will need to provide the necessary references to prove that the existing references are incorrect or being misinterpreted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Felis chaus maimanah were very grossly misused the information I originally provided by Wikipedia. Bagheera Baghira