User talk:Bernate

November 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. This is regarding your editing at Asiatic lion. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:DrChrissy, you may be blocked from editing. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 22:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LoudLizard Yes, because wikipedia is a place you can remove things that go against your agenda and not co-sign with the rules, please cite a restriction that I have done (specifically) by adding the two links and two images. At this point, since there is no restrictions, her removal is vandalism. Bernate (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:DrChrissy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah WHERE IS MY CONTRIBUTION STATED BY WIKI THAT IT IS A RESTRICTION? WHERE! Bernate (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a break and cool down, man... I have no idea as to what you're talking about. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Bernate, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Bernate, good luck, and have fun. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Asiatic lion

Don't ping admins like that. We have no special powers to judge content disputes. Doing that is extremely disruptive and a good way to get yourself blocked. The whole section is far too long and next to impossible to understand. I suggest you close it off using {{Collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Then start again but be a lot more concise. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One admin said it did not canvass any restrictions, but I am now aware with what another mod had introduced by thrid opinion templates so I wont add in any more admins. Bernate (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with comments like this, which you made at Talk:Asiatic lion. The accusation of vandalism against another editor is a serious one; groundless accusations of vandalism may be considered personal attacks. Please review WP:Vandalism for more on what acts are considered vandalism—and what acts aren't.

Really, your comments on the article's talk page should focus on the content of the article and not the conduct of other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred Okay, my bad, at this point Iprobably even won't respond to that person, because they have a very disruptive point of view, instead of growing the page, they seem to want to minimize it, even though some pages are like 100x larger/longer.

Bernate (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is another dangerous word to throw around. Growing the page is not always the same as improving the page; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. The article should be a cohesive length of prose describing the subject, not a farm of links to related websites. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.FredThis is why the 2nd discussion is titled as Asiatic lion in competition with other predators of india in captivity and the wild. Why can't these be a part of it? How is it not related? Again, Iprobably will not respon to those two users because they already made their case (to be honest they are poor reasons) I will thence allow for the RC to have more people to evaluate them, which I asked you if you knew others of, besides just the science and history, shouldnt their be far more related to the topic? If so, what are they. Bernate (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think sci is the best category. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mass-tag uninvolved admins

Hello, I'm CRGreathouse. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. You pinged the admins beginning with A, and were told that was inappropriate. Nothing deterred, after your block had expired, you went on to the Bs. Again you were told that wasn't appropriate, and you responded with massive assumptions of bad faith, claiming that you needed to ping a lot of admins because otherwise other editors would "suppress your agendas instead of being truthful" ("suppress" was probably meant to be "express"?) — and went on to ping the Cs. You have shown no consideration for other people's time, no interest in collaboration or in Wikipedia's rules. You assume everybody's out to get you, and have seriously disrupted that talkpage. And now you're continuing to attack Dr Chrissy, which was the reason for your first block. It doesn't look like the 24-hour block did any good at all — you simply waited it out and have carried on as before. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bernate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can't really say anything any way now can I? I did leave a remark saying that I will not be responding, but obviously you capitalized on that to ban me any way, right? I did nothing in what you stated, all I asked for this time around was to show where Wikipedia RESTRICTS what I have done, can you back chrissy up and show me? Of course not, because you have the same agenda, if not, then why didnt the other admins block me? They even stated canvassing is not what I did, since me seeking admin evaluation was genuine, unlike yours which is insincere since you added in multiple puns several times, all I was trying to do was help aid the page, you do not own Wikipedia, you are just a higher admin, and one that contradicts himself as well. I already told the other level headed admins that I will NOT be adding in pined admins already, but of course you read it and thence put forth this ridiculous bias moderating and added puns as if you your self is a trigger happy over zealous bias mod, since none of the other admins seen it as a agenda but a sincere attempt to grow the page...and so what, you are saying the reasons they removed was actually restricted and or ACTUALLY GOOD REASONS??? Puh

Bishonen Guess you missed the convo with C.Fred, but nah, you probably seen it and just wanted to add in more of your bias puns, because god forbid if anyone refutes your arguments you can just ban them. Pfft. Bernate (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request demonstrates a battleground mentality, but does not address the reason for your block. Continuing to attack other editors, including admins, is not going to get you unblocked. Please believe me when I say that unless your behavior is more restrained after your block expires, there is a very real chance of further blocks being imposed for much longer periods. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Puns? Bishonen | talk 02:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah that's what I thought, abuse your authority, as if that even matters."You assume everybody's out to get you" lol where did I say ANYTHING of remote similarity to that? I smashed two peoples FALSE claims, now you act as if I told everyone that they are wrong and I am right. Bernate (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't put it in so many words, but you did state that everybody else is wrong and you are right. Now, there are at least three personal attacks in your unblock request and the message above. Would you like to retract them? —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? I was merely quoting talk, lets recap in what I PROVED wrong:

Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts is an information article. It states Don't overload articles with images. from DrChrissy

Where, where did I overload? I added 2 not 2 thousand, where did I over load? C'mon show me, this is not a valid reason, hence it is not even remotely genuine, then why should suspect that these people are using any type of "GOOD FAITH"? To further it she cited this: "and these are off-topic)" from Elmidae...HOW IS IT OFF TOPIC??? C'mon, show me how is me posting information about the ASIATIC lion, in the page called ASIATIC LION, not on topic? and one more..."I suspect what is above is a massive copyright violation." from (Dbrodbeck) how exactly can you call good faith when these people are provided with the links, and DONT EVEN CHECK THEM, that is not what I call anything near good faith, that is what I call bias, that is what I call agenda, ulterior motives, disruptive, vandalizing, ect.

How can you prove wrong and SUSPECT something that has its information RIGHT IN THE FRONT OF IT: https://ia801302.us.archive.org/17/items/cu31924016407698/cu31924016407698.pdf

NO....COPY...RIGHTS...RESTRICTIONS

This is the immense ridiculousness I am dealing with here, please show me how in any way form good faith? You must have not read the part I told chrissy that I would leave it as that, that I wont respond, that I will take back what I left on her talk page, but of course none of this matters because you have PROVEN, I was not in the right. And of course to you this will go down as another attack, and not a actual refute. Big difference, I did not dispute it, I refuted it.

(talk) 02:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And for this specific bias against from me, I will inform all the admins for a different range of opinions, not so much on the bias from bishonen, but because the supression of the lions accounts:

Sadads (talk · contribs · logs)

Salix alba (talk · contribs · logs)
Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · logs)
Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · logs)
Samsara (talk · contribs · logs)
Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · logs)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · logs)
Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs · logs)
SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · logs)
Schissel (talk · contribs · logs)
Scott (talk · contribs · logs)
ScottDavis (talk · contribs · logs)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs · logs)
Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · logs)
Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · logs)
Sgeureka (talk · contribs · logs)
Shirt58 (talk · contribs · logs)
Shubinator (talk · contribs · logs)
Shyamal (talk · contribs · logs)
SilkTork (talk · contribs · logs)
Sj (talk · contribs · logs)
Sky Harbor (talk · contribs · logs)
Slakr (talk · contribs · logs)
Slambo (talk · contribs · logs)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · logs)
Smalljim (talk · contribs · logs)
Smartse (talk · contribs · logs)
Smith609 (talk · contribs · logs)
Smurrayinchester (talk · contribs · logs)
Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · logs)
SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · logs)
Spellcast (talk · contribs · logs)
Spencer (talk · contribs · logs)
Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · logs)
Spike Wilbury (talk · contribs · logs)
Spinningspark (talk · contribs · logs)
Starblind (talk · contribs · logs)
Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · logs)
Stephen (talk · contribs · logs)
Steven Walling (talk · contribs · logs)
Stifle (talk · contribs · logs)
SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs · logs)

lets all hold hands with bias, and instead condemn the truth and facts. Elmidae Bernate (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended ("S" admins, etc.)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeatedly pinging uninvolved admins after specific warnings against this behavior, harassing other users, and generally wasting editors' time. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I count seven users who warned you about pinging admins:

Anachronist
Andrewa
Bishonen
CambridgeBayWeather
CRGreathouse
Dbrodbeck
Tamwin

before you pinged the last group. Seriously, relax -- I think everyone is ready to work together if you just give them a chance.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic lions versus tigers

Hi, I would prefer that those images or information about the topic "Asiatic lions versus tigers" should be for another article that deals with that topic. Kindly leave that to me. Leo1pard (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on lions and tigers

The article that deals with the topic of "Asiatic lions versus tigers" is, well, "Tiger versus lion," and it has a sub-section for that, but kindly leave that to me, because I know how to deal with information like that, and you do wish to see your work successful, and not go in vain, after all, do you not? Leo1pard (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work salvaged

Hi, I am pleased to say that I have salvaged your work, and please learn lessons from it. Notice that I try to keep a neutral point-of-view when discussing a sensitive issue like that, and look at the way that I presented the information. Leo1pard (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]