I hereby award you, BhagyaMani, The Fauna Barnstar for your constant and tireless work improving and protecting articles related to mammals in general and felids in particular. Thank you and keep up the great work. --Seduisant (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What a nice surprise!! Thank you ! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
BhagyaMani, contrary to what you might think, you do not own any articles around here. I am going to call on admins to look at your behaviour, you do hardly any work, besides reverting everything that everybody else does on the pages that you tink you own. Your edits on Barbary lion are nothing else but a childish compulsion that drives you to want to have the last word. If you are really concerned about the quality of the article, you would have seen before reverting my first edit that in at least two places on that page there are indocations that the barbary lion lived on way past 42. That fact has already been pointed out on the discussion page. I suggest you follow discussion when you get too involved with an article. If you were not to obsessed with reverting everyone else you might be more productive and we would all win. As it is, it does not look look good that you repeatedly wipe your user discussion page to conceal negative comments about your behaviour, which also led you to request the removal of your user page. Now grow up. Have a good weekend. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a mirror? Then look at your own behaviour : you were the one who changed the intro without prior discussing and are not ready to compromise now. I integrated your changes and wishes about phrasing. You keep on splitting this paragraph, although info in both refers to the same source. This article has been on my watchlist since two years, and I contributed several references to formerly unsourced, sometimes unchecked copy-pasted content.
How I use my user page doesn't concern you, does it? Content was deleted on my request as somebody didn't know about the meaning of talk pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi BhaygyaMani. Please look at this statement, "was among the biggest lion subspecies". I don't know how many subspecies there ever were, you are the expert on this; were there that many? Because to me, "among" implies that this is not the only one of the "biggest subspecies", there were others, this one was one of them. This means that if there were a number of bigger/ biggest subspecies, there would be a much larger number of smaller subspecies. This would imply that there were many subspecies. So, my question again, were there that many subspecies? Thanks, and have a great week ahead. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Meyer's description of barbaricus several naturalists described lions from other parts of Africa under different scientific names, often on the basis of just a skin. But over time, the concept of 'subspecies' changed. It's been only since the late 1980s that through genetic analyses was found that lion populations in Africa are so closely related that they are now grouped as one and the same subspecies. So it would indeed be more appropriate to write that some individuals apparently were bigger than lions in other parts of Africa; size is an indicator for prey base but not for 'subspecies' -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, BhagyaMani. That was indeed cery informative. Even worthy of mention in this on main lion article, about "over time, the concept of 'subspecies' changed. It's been only since the late 1980s that through genetic analyses was found that lion populations in Africa are so closely related that they are now grouped as one and the same subspecies". Good stuff. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)