User talk:56FireLeafs

September 2021

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

-- The Anome (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

56FireLeafs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Trollilol45678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I was unfairly banned. They said that this account impersonates someone when in reality it does not. And I never contributed negatively to Wikipedia. I was just deleting unnecessary information from an article that did not needed it. I feel that the blockwas unfair and hope you can unblock me.

Decline reason:

You are blocked because your username violates the username policy. Impersonation is mentioned simply as an example of a violation, not necessarily what you did. Your username does suggest that you will not be a constructive contributor. If you are, then propose a new username. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

56FireLeafs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Trollilol45678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I want to change my username. But how do i change it. Can you show me?

Decline reason:

You are either trolling or lack the competence to edit here. PhilKnight (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from "Trollilol45678" to "56FireLeafs"

Rename from "Trollilol45678" to "56FireLeafs" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Monster erotica, you may be blocked from editing. Sandstein 08:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Sorry if I broke some rules. Its just that I know that some info in the Monster Erotica page is rather unnecessary so I decided to remove it. Can you let me?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sandstein 20:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) I left a new message on the Talk Page. Can you please give me an explanation why you I cannot make those edits?[reply]

November 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Monster erotica. Sandstein 17:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you valid reasons to change the information. But you where being biased to "muh articles" and even ignored the last message i send you.

Its been days since you have not respond to my answers. You tell me not to edit without your permission but I seek your permission and you never answer me.

I already told you that you must not remove sourced content just because you think it is wrong. Wikipedia says what reliable sources say, not what editors think is right. Please come back after you have read and understood the page WP:V. Sandstein 08:37, 14 November 2021

(UTC)

What am saying IS right. And those pages are not reliable as they where written by either monster erotica writers themselves or naive people who believe their lies. Trust me, am just gonna delete a few things and thats it.

November 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Teratophilia have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Teratophilia was changed by 56FireLeafs (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.917517 on 2021-11-19T01:01:17+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teratophilia. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Teratophilia was changed by 56FireLeafs (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.945254 on 2021-11-20T01:24:57+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Panthera blytheae, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Liger, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very valid reason to remove info from the Liger article. You see the article talks about Panthera Hybrids being susceptible to "diseases". This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers. For starters, this animal rights groups never gave any actual evidence of weather they did had diseases or not. Second, this is in reference to the Liger, not Panthera hybrids as a whole. Third, they stated that only with captive animals, but they never said anything about wild Panthera hybrids. Not to mention that sayin g that Lions cannot breed with Tigers is incorrect. Its scientifically confirmed that all species within the same genus are able to be attracted, mate and successfully crossbreed. There is also evidence that Panthera hybrids where very common in ancient times:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/. Not to mention you gave a reference to Carol Bazkin, who has a reputation of being hypocritical for saying that she did not want to see big cats in captivity yet she does exactly the same. Not to mention there is the possibility she feed her husband to tigers. There is also evidence that Humans mated with Neanderthals, this is no different from Panthera hybrids.

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:56FireLeafs - questionable edits. Thank you.

When leaving comments on talk pages

Please sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
Please properly thread / indent your talk. See WP:THREAD. Might want to read help:talk pages and, if you wish, wp:talk page guidelines.
A useful source: help:Introduction.

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Understood, i promise to do it next time. 56FireLeafs 8:10 January 16 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Bovini. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You removed content from Bos nine times in the last couple of days, even though four editors disagree with you. Your defense seems to be that you are convinced that you are "right" although that is not an exception to the policy that forbids edit warring. You did not bring forth a single reliable source in support your position. While other editors were working to actually improve the article, your tactic was "revert, revert, revert." Not acceptable. Looking at your edit history, I see that you have a history of disruptive and confrontational editing going back to the moment when you selected your original username. I encourage you to spend the next 72 hours pondering your future as a Wikipedia editor. Are you going to change your ways and become a collaborative, productive editor? Or are you going to continue your disruptive style of editing, which is bound to lead to an indefinite block? The choice is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Regarding your comments on talk:Sloth Bear, you should be aware this is looking to be a reversion back to the behavior you were displaying on Bos, that resulted in Cullen328 blocking you a month ago. You need to provide WP:Reliable sources for assertions of the weight you are making, and you need to correctly own your comments with a signature.--Kev min § 00:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Talk:Sun bear? Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Cullen328, I do indeed mean Talk:Sun bear.--Kev min § 01:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the claim of Sun Bears being in Ursus is that the study used mitochondrial genome analysis. The problem with mitochondrial genome analysis is that there are many groups of organisms with Incomplete Lineage shortage. Ursus appears to posses ILS as well. Not to mention that morphologically and behaviorally sun bears are more similar to sloth bears than any Ursidae species, meaning that the two are more closely related to each other than to Ursus species (which means that sloth bears and sun bears may have to be reclassified as part of the same genus in near future). Not to mention Ursus species have an normal sized tongues while sun bears have long tongues, which proves that they are not in the same genus. To confirm the ancestry of an organism we must use phylogenetic analysis and not mitochondrial genome analysis. 56FireLeafs (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your (published) source for assertion that MRNA is questionable IN Ursidae? You have provided no actual sourcing for your position, and your assertion that MDNA is not a subset of DNA analysis shows a lack of understanding. These are the same lines of assertion that you used when the placement of bison was discussed. You again are not looking beyond behavior or physical "look", which are irrelevant, as shown by DNA analysis. When exactly did tongue length become a phylogenetic marker and not simply an apomorphy of a species evolved for a specific niche.--Kev min § 01:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source in the title: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104321

So yes, MRNA is Ursidae is questionable due to Incomplete Lineage Sorting. Mitochondrial genome analysis only works for determining genetic relationships while Phylogenetic analysis is used to determine ancestry.

"and your assertion that MDNA is not a subset of DNA analysis shows a lack of understanding. These are the same lines of assertion that you used when the placement of bison was discussed."

Thing is, i did not really knew about the phylogenetic analysis study done on Bos and i just recently compared multiple extinct and extant Bison species with other Bos species and found that they where very similar. Which proves their in the same genus.

"When exactly did tongue length become a phylogenetic marker and not simply an apomorphy of a species evolved for a specific niche"

Thing is that tongue length is somewhat of a very determining characteristic. The fact that Ursus species posses normal tongues and don't eat termites while sun bears have long tongues and do eat termites suggest their not in the same genus. If anything sloth bears appear to be more closely related to sun bears than Ursus species. Not to mention that neither Sloth or Sun bears exhibit many behaviors that are NOT found in Ursus species. 56FireLeafs (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I readily admit that I have no deep expertise about these topics although I have a layman's interest in bison, cattle and bears. I will not intervene in the content issues, because my involvement is as an administrator, and so I am focused on the behavioral issues. What I do know and can act on is statements like which means that sloth bears and sun bears may have to be reclassified as part of the same genus in near future. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy language that can be found at WP:CRYSTALBALL, which states that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. 56FireLeafs, please consider this a formal warning that speculation by random Wikipedia editors about things about that might happen in the future can have no impact on Wikipedia content and should not be introduced into discussions about Wikipedia content. Your unreferenced speculation is not appropriate . So, if you do not want to be blocked from editing, you must stop this behavior and provide references to reliable sources for all the content related assertions you make on Wikipedia. I hope that's clear. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually hold up, where exactly does the Sun bear article make the assertion that sun bears are a species of Ursus? (Hint it doesn't) if you are looking at the first line of the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section, that is using the Basionym that the species was first described as, and the very next sentence covers the move to Helarctos. Your whole argument is based on false assumption it seems. ONLY polar bears, black bears, and brown bears are placed in Ursus. Sloth bears are placed in the genus Melursus and Sun bears are placed in Helarctos. No source at all in the article lumps Helarctos into Ursus.

i just recently compared multiple extinct and extant...

Stop, you are not a trained or qualified mammologist, biologist, or paleontologist, and lay observations like this are at no point ever acceptable for use on wikipedia.--Kev min § 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement right above that Thing is that tongue length is somewhat of a very determining characteristic. The fact that Ursus species posses normal tongues and don't eat termites while sun bears have long tongues and do eat termites suggest their not in the same genus. If anything sloth bears appear to be more closely related to sun bears than Ursus species. is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are obligated to bring forward reliable sources when you make such bold assertions about article content. Do you understand that? This is not a rhetorical question. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Motty

Your recent editing history at Motty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The issue at Motty is the same issue, you have repeatedly failed to provide any actual sources, you are only wp:POV editing form your personal perspectives. Why should your editing privilege's be retained if you persist in not complying with editing policy?--Kev min § 05:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is the editors of Motty also failed to provide actual reliable sources as well. I based my claims based on scientific research done in members (both extinct and extant) of Elephantidae. So am gonna point out everything wrong with the page.

"African and Asian Elephants have the same number of chromosomes":

First of where is the evidence for it? Second of all, there are TWO species of African elephant: Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis. Which one specifically are they talking about? Third, the rule was that species with different chromosomes can produce offspring but that males would be sterile. Now they say separate species can only reproduce only if they have the same chromosomes. This is a mayor contradiction. Also, different species will never have the same number of chromosomes. That's why they are called different species.

"Palaeoloxodon breed with Asian Elephants based on Mitochondrial genome analysis"

Mitochondrial genome analysis is flawed as Elephantidae suffers from Incomplete Lineage Shortage (which would explain why the DNA of many Elephantidae species is very confusing).

"Breed: Asian and African Elephant"

Yeah this is not a breed, this is a hybrid of two elephant species. Primarrily its an Asian Elephant as Motty's mother was an Elephas Maximus individual.

Now i want you to read my paragraph and take in consideration what am saying. Wanting to keep a page as the same because people consider it correct and flawless while failing to listen to other people's suggestions based on their scientific research is a sign of narcissism. Which is rather hypocritical from a userbase which is known to be very progressive and seeking of change. And as i stated, the research on Elephant DNA is flawed due to Elephantidae having Incomplete Lineage Shortage. Also now that i remember you threaten to block me only for pointing out the flaws of Elephant DNA research and the article while my opponents got away with it. This proves your having a biased. 56FireLeafs (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking of sourced material is not research, its WP:Vandalism.

This is a mayor contradiction. Also, different species will never have the same number of chromosomes. That's why they are called different species. This is very very wrong, on many levels. I shows a basic misunderstanding of the fizzy nature of the biological concept that is "species". Before you do ANY more biology editing you need to read Species and pay close attention to the section "Definition" and the subsections there discussing the MANY species definitions. Chromosomes are far from the end all be all of species defining.

You really do need to stop hyperfocusing on Incomplete Lineage Shortage, and then making massive WP:OR/WP:SYNTH leaps. That type of "personal research" is what has resulted in you being blocked already. If you are going to claim problem with the MDNA, CITE a source that does. YOU ARE NOT A RESEARCHER, you HAVE to provide sources for any assertion you make. Period. I will note your response here shows you do not understand Cullen328s warning in the section directly above, and it looks as if you may be WP:NOTHERE.--Kev min § 14:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that different species will never have the same number of chromosomes is there. Also they still forgot to differentiate between Loxodonta Africana and Loxodonta Cyclotis. 56FireLeafs (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further disruptive removal of well-referenced material, failure to cite reliable sources, edit warring and editing against consensus.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Although i should of given consensus for my edits, I don't consider blocking me indefinitely to be fair. For starters, Zebu ARE a separate species since they descended from Indian Aurochs, so they cannot be a Bos Taurus subspecies. Second, indefinite blocks are supposed to go to people who want to mess everything up, i just wanted to edit information based on facts and evidence presented. Third, Incomplete Lineage shortage is most likely present in Elephantidae, its obvious which would explain the confusing genomes amongst this tree, yet you keep denying it for some reason, even if you don't believe me it should still be considered a possibility. Fourth, the problem with "SITE RELIABLE SOURCES" is that A) Many Wikipedians never sited reliable sources yet they got away with it B)Many sources sited are not reliable C)Many sources that where once reliable are now outdated. But most of all, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source itself so its pointless to just act like it is. Am not saying that not giving consensus was ok, but the fact that many articles need to be polished and that editors should have the right to give their thoughts to revaluate an article is there. You can reduce my block to three days or even a week, but pls don't block me indefinitely, from now on i will give consensus but i hope people can listen to what i have to say. 56FireLeafs (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)}}

[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, then you must submit a properly formatted request, following the instructions above precisely. Another administrator will review your request. I am not going to unblock you because I do not think that I made a mistake. Your comments above indicate that you do not understand Wikipedia's policies. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I see that many articles need to be polished so i gave my point of view about why, however i did not gave consensus which was very wrong of my part. From now on i will give consensus and discuss the article on the talk page. I ask to be unlocked or at least reduce my block to a few days. 56FireLeafs (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)}}

[reply]

You have not yet submitted a properly formatted unblock request. Read the instructions. You are not supposed to include the "tlx". Be sure to thoroughly read and carefully follow the guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]