User talk:TiggyTheTerrible

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave me a note!

Suggestion

I think the discussion at Talk:Zoroastrianism has devolved into hostility. I suggest to find alternate dispute resolution methods rather than keep discussing in the active discussions going on there currently. I suggest trying the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. For other options you may be interested in checking the dispute resolution policy. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Thinker78. I'm not sure if I should do that as I don't want to escalate or get people in trouble. However, you may be right that it's the only real way as a compromise doesn't seem to be on the cards. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution noticeboard is an amicable venue simply meant to heavily moderate a discussion when parties don't find a consensus on their own. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78Fair enough. Thank you Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory) are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MuboshguSorry, yeah, I'll try to move that to this page. However, I find it curious you only removed my post. Not their far larger post. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the removed comment bellow, in case you want to discuss it.

I really doubt that Fox News is unique in being a bad source. Some false claims from CNN:

Implied that Trump threatened a 'bloodbath' using a classic 'false supporter' to voice the arguments of the opposition for them to then attack] this is easily debunked by simply watching the full context of what he said. And also realising that this is a common economics phrase.
Calling the Biden laptop story a Russian hoax in the run up to the 2020 election, when it was very real.

CNN still refuses to air footage where Trump told people to protest peacefully on Jan 6th. Claims that it was an insurrection are massively overblown. An insurrection would imply they opened fire en mass on the capital, when in fact footage shows it was a classic "occupy" protest that got out of hand and led to vandalism and violence. There was violence, but a large proportion of the protest was peaceful. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where we discuss perennially reliable and unreliable sources. CNN is reliable. Fox News for politics is not. There are links to past discussions there. I don't know what "larger post" you're referring to. I hatted the previous discussion as going off topic. When you added more to it, I reverted you. That simple. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MuboshguCNN certainly preferable to, say, MSNBC, but I wouldn't have thought you'd trust an outlet owned by a Trump supporter. CMM's opinion and political sections are just as propaganda-filled as Fox. Just in a different direction. Their 'Bloodbath' coverage is a good example of the false balance trick they pull. You're meant to agree with the second woman.

Wouldn't simply stopping the conversation with your own post is vastly preferable to editing those of other people? Especially when that one comment is not going to do very much compared to the many others that are larger? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your objections at Spygate

appear to be related to reliability of sources, as Muboshgu suggests is better suited for RSN. references to "CCN" are unlikely to support your argument, but I'm sure that was just a typo soibangla (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread

Hey I started an AN/I thread about Researcher1988's behaviour at Zoroastrianism and in the course of it they raised that they thought they were protecting the page from vandalism. I'm not 100% sure but I suspect they meant your edits. I spoke to a third party and they thought it'd be appropriate to notify you. Link here - I am not broadly notifying people involved in the edit conflict and would recommend against doing so. But since you're being mentioned (obliquely) you should have the opportunity to speak for yourself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 Thank you for letting me know. I was in two minds about doing that, but I'll go and pitch in about it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Path forward

I'm thinking this may need to go first to dispute resolution and then to arbitration unless some action is taken based on the ANI thread... Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise I feel the ANI thread may yet come down in favour of a topic ban, but you could be right. I suspect Researcher will be back under some other name sooner or later. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achiving talk pages

There are 8 archive pages at Talk:Zoroastrianism. New archives do not go in archive 1. They go in archive 8 or even 9. Please let the autoarchiver sort this. Skyerise (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SkyeriseSorry, I was getting tired of scrolling down such a long page looking for changes and the archiver I have suggested Archive 1 as a name. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It archived a bunch last night and the rest should go over the next few days, then I'll lengthen the archive period again. Didn't want to make it too short and archive too much... Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay! Thank you! Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're due for one of these updated alerts. This is not meant to imply that there is currently an issue with your editing. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Misandry for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]