User talk:Tijkil

April 2019

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. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

A lot of people did mistake my name as a nazi name, but it wasnt. I am sorry for any misunderstandings. Eichman Heydrich (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Renamed and unblocked, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And I'd really like to see an explanation for your choice of "Eichman Heydrich" as a username. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion Who cares?.. Just a German name that is all, that is not being used any longer. Tijkil (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't "just German names." Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

AcroterionThere is no Nazi with that name..Tijkil (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh really? I didn't mention Nazis, and who are you trying to fool? Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiger versus lion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Morning News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

2-subspecies rule in trouble

In 2017, as you know, the Cat Specialist Group recognised only 2 subspecies of tigers (and lions), but then in 2018, CSG members Luo and Driscoll published a study claiming that tigers were divided into 6 living clades, hence 6 subspecies. Now, a new study, which includes CSG members, suggests that lion subspecies may need to be revised, at least in Central Africa, so who knows, will some CSG members call for the 2-subspecies rule to be revised for tigers? Leo1pard (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tiger versus lion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tiger versus lion. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Longhair\^talk 07:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Craig Packer

Talk to me. I am curious about how my edit is misleading KejuFuru (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

KejuFuru,

Point 1: You only put 1 portion of the source making it seem like he favors lions in a fight and that was his CONCLUSION on lion vs tiger when he was simply listing advantages either animal can have ("perhaps confer an advantage to a lone male lion" where has Packer said such a thing? It sounds like he completely favors them), Packer even said the lion might have an advantage, it's not an absolute statement.

At the same time he also said the tiger has other advantages like being a solitary fighter (while lions fight in groups), you completely left that out and while accusing me of "showing only 1 side of the information", pretty ironic.

Point 2: It doesn't belong in that section. It's about coexistence in the wild and in that paragraph it's talking about what will happen if prides of lions would live with tigers, and Packer was put in there simply to say that a pride of lions will outmatch a tiger if they coexisted. It sounds very out of place, and out of nowhere as the sentence was about groups and other stuff, and very misleading like I said in point 1 as he doesn't favor a lone lion against a tiger, and never said that.

Point 3: Packer can't be moved into a "favoring the tiger" or "favoring the lion" section because he doesn't actually state who wins, just lists advantages for either. Packer stated in an email straight that he favors a tiger to win in a fight but that can't be put in an article.

So conclusion: Either remove it from that part of the article, or change it saying a lone tiger has this advantage, and a lone lion as this other advantage, as is stated on the university website. Tijkil (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing it is just showing viewers half of the information! With the edit both advantages of the animals are mentioned, earlier it just had the advantages of the tiger. At the end it still favours the tiger “ Craig Packer is of the opinion that for Asiatic lions to survive in an area with Bengal tigers, the lions would have to be moved there as intact groups rather than as individuals.” How does this not mean that he favours the tigers? Listen, if you think the way it is written is misleading then edit it in a constructive way and mention the other tiger advantages he mentioned but don’t remove what he mentioned about the lion advantages. I have also included the word perhaps, which means there is a slight possibility of that happening. KejuFuru (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Answer to: “ So conclusion: Either remove it from that part of the article, or change it saying a lone tiger has this advantage, and a lone lion as this other advantage, as is stated on the university website.” Yes I am fine with it, you can edit it and mention other tiger advantages he typed there, but if you remove what advantages he typed about the lions then I’ll leave you a warning. Go ahead, feel free to add the 1 more advantage he mentioned about the tiger, but don’t erase my edit. KejuFuru (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tiger versus Lion. DO NOT revert anyone's edit without proper research. The exact same sentence and source are being used TWICE in 'Clyde Beatty' section. i) "In 1936, Popular Mechanics stated that Clyde Beatty has had only four lions killed by tigers through out his career." ii) "In 1952, Clyde Beatty stated he has had four lions killed by tigers though out his career" Tell me if you still think this isn't a repeat because the exact same words and sources are being used here! Therefore, one of these has to be removed so the readers don't get confused. I hope you understand. Any further reverts without properly explaining how this is not a repeat in the edit summary may result in a block. KejuFuru (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm so scared mr true administrator of Wikipedia trying to remove sources for no apparent reason, I'm so scared of you. Tijkil (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. 171.66.135.95 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)