User talk:Leo1pard/Archive 3

Edit summaries[edit]

Hey there. Be sure to be more descriptive in your edit summaries. For instance, "Added so and so's name in native language script" is way better than just "addition"--the latter is as good as leaving no summary most would argue. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Leo1pard (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali article[edit]

Hi, thanks for participation in Ali article. However, please discuss about any major change in the talk page of the the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf[edit]

The article Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication why this person is notable: he was someone's son-in-law, someone's father, and a merchant. Nothing more, it seems.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 20:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PamD 17:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit Warring on Lion page[edit]

Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on Lion. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. Greedo 8 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even make 3 reverts on that page, as far as I see, but anyways, this is good advice. Leo1pard (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

African lion[edit]

Ways to improve Somali lion[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Leo1pard, thanks for creating Somali lion!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic lion versus Indochinese tiger[edit]

They did coexist, and I'm not sure a source that considers elephants to be ungulates is exactly reliable.Sumanuil (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not personally say that the Asiatic lion and Indochinese tiger did not exist, but I cannot put in personal opinions without reliable references, and the reliable references that I have so far would deny it. Do you have reliable references on that? Leo1pard (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Leo1pard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]