Hi @SilverTiger12:, Why did you remove my recent contributions to the article. What is wrong with the content? I attribute all content to reliable sources.
1- The content that Myanmar has both the Bengal tiger and the Indochinese tiger, is supported by a source that is a journal article in a magazine (Cite journal is popular in Wikipedia, so it is considered a reliable source).
2- The content that mentions the depiction of 3 cubs attributed to news (there is the same content in the same article regarding Thailand, so why were these contributions accepted and my contributions removed).
3- The additions you made to estimating the number of tigers in Myanmar with 22 are important additions that contain supplementary information that must be mentioned, including that this census included only adult and semi-adult individuals, meaning that 22 does not include all Myanmar tigers.
4- The content in which it was mentioned that the tiger habitat in Myanmar is dangerous and cannot be surveyed due to the conflicts is an important addition that explains why not all tigers in the country were counted as in the previous content which stated that only 8% of the tiger habitat was included in the census. I think this addition is important and it is supported by a Myanmar's news website (and I think it is considered an acceptable source)
5- The tiger census in Laos and Vietnam is attributed to a reliable source, which is the WWF, which all animal articles cite, and also it is the last official census for the two countries and there is no other census. So I think it is not acceptable to remove such content attributed to a reliable source.
6- The extinction of the tiger in Laos is attributed to an journal article and is therefore attributed to a 100% reliable source and it is not understood why it was removed.
7- The content of its extinction in Vietnam is attributed to a Vietnamese news website, so I think it is acceptable.
8- The last conclusion in which he mentioned that the Indochina tiger has only survived in Myanmar and Thailand is attributed to a reliable source, which is Mongabay which, as mentioned in his article, is one of the best green websites, so it is definitely a reliable source.
So please take back my recent contributions. If the defect of contributions is their length, you can shorten them, and if this is not the place for them, move them to the appropriate place, and if the content violates copyright, you can reformulate it in a way that does not violate copyright. As for removing all of these valuable contributions entirely, even though they are backed up by reliable sources, I do not find it acceptable.محمد ماجد السورميري (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have been removing your additions because they are copyright violations, which are considered a severe problem. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. See also User talk:BhagyaMani#Remove my contributions -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @SilverTiger12 and BhagyaMani:, regarding my recent contributions that were removed for copyright violations, well I have reformatted the content and made the following changes to them:
1- The content Myanmar had both the Bengal tiger and the Indochinese tiger, I rephrased it to become as follows:
Tiger distributed across the Myanmar and among every provinces. The country is home to two tiger populations, Bengal and Indochinese tiger. In 1996, the composition of the two populations was 60% of the Bengal tiger and 40% of the Indochinese tiger. The natural ecological divide for these two populations in country is assumed to be the Irrawaddy River, but there is no scientific proof for that statement. Only DNA test can prove.[1]
With regard to the content of stripes provided for in the same reference above as well, amendments were made to it to become as follows:
Indochinese tiger and Bengal tiger can be identified by the number and pattem of their stripes. The Indochinese tiger has 22-24 stripes, more frequently 20, while the Bengal tiger has 18-20 stripes, very occasionally 21.[2]
But I suggest moving this content to the characteristics section instead of the distribution section.
2- Regarding the content of sightseeing the three cubs in Myanmar, the following changes were made to it and became as follows:
Camera trap surveys between 2014 and 2019 revealed about three tiger cubs were photographed in the Htamanthi Wildlife Reserve.[3]
3- Regarding the content of the last census of tigers in Myanmar, estimated at 22 individuals, I suggest adding these important content, which contain important supplementary information in my opinion, so that the content becomes as follows:
Camera trap surveys between 2016 and 2018 revealed about 22 individuals in three sites that represent 8% of potential tiger habitat in the country, which estimated 12 million acres, that is, it constitutes about 7% of the country's area. And also, this census included only adult and subadult individuals, so population may be higher.
4- Regarding the content on the danger of surveying the habitat of tigers in Myanmar, I amended it to become as follows:
But due to the remote of some areas and others the off limits due to armed conflicts, data collection is dangerous. So it is difficult to know the real number of population and survey tiger habitat in the country.[4]
5- Regarding the content of the 2016 global census in Laos and Vietnam, I do not think that there is any breach of publication.
Population of tigers in Laos and Vietnam has declined significantly, according to the global census of tigers in 2016, there are only 2 left in Laos and less than 5 in Vietnam only.[5]
Also, this census is the last census of tigers in the two countries, so there is no other census, so I think that removing the content is not justified, and the census is recent, only 6 years old.
6- Regarding the content of extinction in Laos, in fact the source is the same as the one cited in the content of the existence of 14 tigers between 2013-2017, but if you visit the source, its content contradicts what is mentioned in the content, the content mentions that they are probably extinct in Laos, originally the title is “Documenting the demise of tiger and leopard, and the status of other carnivores and prey, in Lao PDR's most prized protected area: Nam Et - Phou Louey”,
Note the title states the demise of tiger and leopard, and it also states the abstract:
"This study assesses the current diversity of mammals and birds in NEPL, based on camera trap surveys from 2013 to 2017, facilitating an assessment of protected area management to date. We implemented a dynamic multispecies occupancy model fit in a Bayesian framework to reveal a community and species occupancy and diversity. throughout Lao PDR."
That is, the 2013 census only noticed two individuals and no one has seen them since that time, so I suggest changing the paragraph of the presence of 14 tigers in the country to become as follows:
There is news of its extinction in both countries. In Laos, no tiger has been seen since 2013, when its populations were estimated at only two, and these two individuals simply vanished shortly after 2013 from Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area, denoting they were most likely killed either by snare or gun.[6]
7- Regarding its extinction in Vietnam, it radically changed the content to become as follows:
In Vietnam, a 2014 IUCN Red List report indicated that tigers possibly extinct in Vietnam.[7]
I also replaced the reference, now citing the IUCN Red List which is a reliable source that mentions tiger habitat as possibly extinct in Vietnam.
8- Regarding remaining only in Myanmar and Thailand, I changed the content to read as follows:
Thus, probably the Indochinese tiger now only survives in Thailand and Myanmar.[8]
So please, republish my contributions as above, because I think I changed them in a way that is not copyright violations.محمد ماجد السورميري (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Goodrich, J.; Lynam, A.; Miquelle, D.; Wibisono, H.; Kawanishi, K.; Pattanavibool, A.; Htun, S.; Tempa, T.; Karki, J.; Jhala, Y. & Karanth, U. (2015). "Panthera tigris". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015 e.T15955A50659951. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en. Retrieved 14 May 2022.