User talk:Golden Prime
Welcome!
|
January 2014[edit]
Your recent editing history at Tiger versus lion 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Golden_Prime reported by User:Flat Out (Result: ). Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Flat Out, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Tiger versus lion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Tiger versus lion while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained at my talk page, your first article edit] after being released from a block for edit-warring, was to return to the same article and revert the editor you were edit-warring with. I have given clear reasons for my reverts Rv do not restart edit warring. discuss at talk or seek independent opinion, and edit warring, editing while logged out. I can't be any clearer. If you want to get anywhere on this article seek consensus with other editors on the article's talk page. You can not force your opinion by reverting to your preffered version. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Tiger versus lion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Please note that posting of personal information extends to attempting to connect people on Wikipedia with other accounts on other websites, when the user has not identified the account as theirs on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:George Ho. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do not restart your edit warring on this article. You have twice reverted for dubious reasons after removing sections of sourced content without a reason. Please consider this your only warning and try discussing any concerns you have at the article's talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
ANI notification[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EasyTherePilgrim, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Flat Out let's discuss it 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
False accusations[edit]
Golden Prime (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You guys aren't even going on by your own guideline rules, you have me as a puppeteer, PROVE IT THEN! Other wise remove my block, I did no such thing, I also have seen people harass others 10x more than I did and are still not indefinitely blocked, what kinda propaganda is this?
Decline reason:
The meandering diatribe below does little to convince me that you comprehend the pre-existing indefinite block on this account related to personal attacks. That should probably be addressed before discussing the sockpuppet accusation. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
Yes, exactly what I mean, if people are allowed to buddie up on a person and push buttons, then of course edit warring and flaming will follow, I take clear actions with what I said, and yet its still remains as the truth, I have no time to go around to every wiki mod and repeat myself over and over and will leave it exactly how it is, which is they bend the rules to have hidden their ulterior motives, I no longer need to edit the lion vs tiger topic, and will just converse with others who seek the truth, so a lifting of my block is in order kuru. And Kuru, you are wrong, if we go by whats in place, then I am only blocked because it states right here because of using multiple accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golden_Prime
Again I challange anyone and everyone here to provide proof that I have multiple accounts, I can I assure you I dont, thats not my style.
I have been accused of sock puppeting, yet they still havnt brought one single piece of tangible proof, even though the other person claimed he was from mexico, which I am from the states. The main reason why I was initially blocked was because of Bigcat82, as his false accusations, bias moderating, lies, misinformation and more lies...7 different people have noted he was bias, and still he is allowed to control the lion vs tiger section with only repeating its not reliable or not a peer journal, none of this is true, for instance, his account where he put on lion vs tiger has been sitting there for going on 6 years and still no one has even peered into it, it is a straight up lie that he said the lion was killed, here is the full article of the 1909 fight:
Miss informs people, and twists facts, he uses this tactics on the roman accounts, leaving out who won in pompeii and following it in with a non credible source William bridges is not a historian, but he uses it to capitalize on the archaeology book, in fact that book roots to the fact the lion defeated the tiger, as roman/italian sites says the tiger is being attacked by a lion: [url]http://www.romanoimpero.com/2010/01/pompei.html[/url]
He routes it to the usual that it was a leopard, but the leopard mosaic is in the house of doves, the lion standing over a prostrated tiger is in the house of faun. Several members point out his major flaws such as Bbbeto, as he states its not that the sources arnt reliable he just doesnt want anything that favors the lion and will show the lion as the usual winner, its not that they arent peer jorunals, its that the support the lion, he has erased over 20 things not seeable now on the talk page and edit page, it doesnt matter if its from a trainer, if they support the lion he will call it unreliable and the rules dont apply...what rules? Its only his rules, there hasnt been a consensus done by 10 people at once going on over 6 years? Is this what wiki is for, for who ever is the more persistent and the better liar to be able to control wiki? Its just his
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
) and he should be banned from editing that topic, since he is already a part of over 20 forums specifically on topic where he has been caught lying, for instance he just said he has graduated from 10 university's...
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigCat82[/url]
Really he graduated from 10 of the top university around the world? Show us just one of them, name the university, show us who you studied under, show us a copy of your diploma, he is a pathological liar, look under the bear contributions countless of people call him specifically a tiger fan, look at the talk page there, the lion vs tiger contribution, only he is ever erasing things of favoring the lion, Wikipedia mods should be ashamed for having a person use its search engine for a person pumping out his own propaganda and bias POV for this amount of time unchecked. He now says that no experts favor a lion, really? Define expert, if we look at what wiki has as expert: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert[/url]
We can see that an expert is someone who has pro-longed experience or observation, the topic is about them fighting, so they have to have excerpts and citations of them seeing a fight...no excerpts of them exist for the tiger so far, yet he disputes people who does, and is considered experts.
-Clyde beatty -Terrel jaccobs -Bert nelson -Peter taylor -Dave hoover -Damoo dhotre -Marco Peters -Isablela thomas -William blackburne -George conklin -Dave salmoni -Samatha stephens -Dr antle from big cat rescue -Dr Frank mendel
There are alot of experts who favor the lion, yet he will just lie and lie and lie that they dont, just like the accounts, there are 50 tigers killed by lions just from Clyde beatty alone:
Lions have killed tigers hundreds of times, theres even photo evidence of the combatants: [url]http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/83094750?searchTerm=tiger%20pries%20and%20dies%20lion&searchLimits=[/url] [url]http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/135423123?searchTerm=lion%20tiger%20fight%20turin&searchLimits=[/url] Yet the only one he accepts is the one to make like the lion is incapable of killing a tiger by highlighting they were small, female, ambushed ect...giving the appeal that lions dont stand a chance, when in fact they are taller at the shoulder, heavier as a species, has more genuine experts who favor the lion over the tiger upon experience, has killed more times then vice versa. The article doesnt have to show a one sided one but a fair assessment should be brought in by atleast 10 peer reviewers, of people who actually read the actual dam article instead of leaving lies, and misinformation by the biggest bias liar on the web. In fact i just left crumbs there, I am not gona participate in aiding this topic on this search engine again, you guys can manipulate the system and misinform people all you like, I will take this info to a proper site where people like Bigcat82 and flatout aka false accusers and liars cant do anything about changing the truth.
Golden Prime (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)