User talk:Tiggerjay

January 2025

Accusiations from a disruptive user who was boomeranged at ANI

Please do not post anymore on my talk page at all, even after January 20, even after the consensus is determined on Deb Hutton. I asked you yesterday, today you choice to discuss Deb Hutton on there, instead of using the article's talk page. I asked you again today, and you made a reply again despite being clearly aware of the request. Thank you! Legend of 14 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @Legend of 14 you are absolutely welcome to post here at any time. As far as “your talk page” I will engage on their pursuant to the policies of Wikipedia. As such, you have been notified (as required by policy) on the AfD nom for this article, and all discussion regarding this article can be handled there. TiggerJay (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @Legend of 14 with regards to your request for your talk page to not be used by me, your rights of WP:USERTALKSTOP is not available as a means to avoid notification of disruptive behavior -- see STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE and WP:NOBAN. You were also warned that it was a bad idea by another user. When I chose to bring Hutton to your page it was properly disclosed [1], and I of course responded to your question (Please share why...) which you cannot claim now you're were not wanting me to answer on your talk page. The only final edit was, again, a NOBAN compliant AfD notice. You have zero rights to complain that violates your control over a page you down even own (see who owns your tlak page). It is also just a bit ironic that you feel that you can ban people from being contentious items to your talk page, but feel it is completely acceptable to do the opposite. TiggerJay (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I do not like the tone your communication has taken with me. I feel like many of your communications have a condescending tone and your complaining about the same actions over and over again is unproductive. On AfD, you have chosen to raise my ANI notices, January 2025 section on my talk page and notices on BLPN despite them having no baring on whether Deb Hutton should be deleted. It should not have been brought up. It was very possible for you to say that you were deferring to other editors without once again complaining about my past conduct. I'm going ask that you not use article discussions like AfD as places to discuss about past grievances against me. Thanks! Legend of 14 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I cannot control how you feel when I'm simply explaining why I am not going to further respond to your BLUDGEONING the AfD process. I provided the rational by stating that your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building (i.e. CONBUILD), and supported it with evidence, thus to not be seen as casting ASPERSIONS. If you don't like what the evidence points towards, then you should be more concerned with correcting your behavior instead of attempting to complaining about the fact that is has been brought up. Moreover, things like attempting to bury the evidence presented; of course you have the absolute right to per NOTWALLOFSHAME, but would proffer that it does not reflect positivity when such as post was referenced in a project discussion. Oddly enough the single referenced article that has specifically to do with the AfD in question is the conversation you deleted. I also hope you find it incredibly ironic that you feel like you can have talk page discussions about editors behavior on their talk page, but do not accept the same actions on your own? Again, another example of failing to get the point on how consensus building works. TiggerJay (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thread moved to ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This thread was previously at the help desk. Departure– (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that over to ANI, and hopefully they have become more aware of the disruption they have caused. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Stanley Green

Why on earth have you relisted this discussion when there's a clear consensus? The page is listed to be TFA next week, and the banner at the top of the article would have been removed with the closure of the discussion. We can't have an article on the MP which has a banner plastered over the top. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

First regarding the TFA, the 7 days would expire prior to TFA if my math is correct, plus a relisting doesn’t mandate a full seven days, and can be closed at any time, including right now, especially since after the relisting it appears that the nom is effectively withdrawing the RM. As for why relist, it is determined because while there was consensus against the RM as proposed, dispute apparent bludgeoning, there was still talks about possible alternative moves. When there are length discussions that are still ongoing, as recent as 12 hours before the relist, it makes sense to relist versus close. TiggerJay (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat -- I hope that helped answer your question. Also note that given the nom's effective withdrawal, I have gone ahead and closed it given your TFA concerns. TiggerJay (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, how are you? Where to get sources when creating a Wikipedia article? Thank you. Happy editing! (VVWiki8 (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC))

@VVWiki8 - welcome to Wikipedia. You must be careful when contributing as you cannot copy-paste from other websites without permission. Your contribution to Pacific Ocean was word-for-word copied from another website. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE for more information. If you have any specific questions after reading those pages, feel free to ask! TiggerJay (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I will be careful. Thank you. Happy editing! (VVWiki8 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC))

Thanks, but I created a Pacific Flora and Fauna section using a reliable source. I didn't know again, help me. Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC))

Reliable sources is different than copying directly which is prohibited. Please see the two articles I linked above that are preceded with WP. Read those pages and then feel free to ask questions. TiggerJay (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll see. Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC))

What do you think is more important to become a Wikipedian? (VVWiki8 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC))

As suspected, this account was a sock, it was fishy but not quite passing a duck based on my research. They have been blocked. TiggerJay (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen - Thank you very much, that looks delicious! TiggerJay (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Citelead candymaking

I thought cite lead was for articles in the lead paragraph. .what problem did you have with the source used for the citation or.was it it's placement Sharnadd (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

First -- thank you for coming to my talk page... If you are referring to this diff then the reason was provided in the edit summary, per MOS:CITELEAD, specifically referencing because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead. Those citation generally belong in the article body and there is no need to include them in the lead. Even looking at some one as controversial as Donald Trump, may I point on that there are zero citations in the lead, as it properly is a summary of facts (even if controversial) that are supported in the article itself. While you might be trying to introduce controverial content into Candy making -- in the sense that there is contention over it in the talk page. Once it is added to the article generally those things belong in the body, at which point they do not need a citation in the lead. Typically we'll see such citiations in the lead when someone is trying to POV push to "lead" the article in a specific direction. But despite it's name, the "lead paragraph" is really/effectively a "lag paragraph" in the sense that it should follow what the article body is saying in summary form. TiggerJay (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I didn't realise I thought it was in the second paragraph of the article and that didn't get classed as the lead. Thank you I will get some secondary sources. For the talk page on candy making Sharnadd (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Disney XD Poland

Shouldn't the title be "Disney XD (Poland)", not "Disney XD (Polish)"? This was the consensus in the move discussion and is the format the other pages on the other Disney XD channels use. Sushidude21! (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sushidude21!: You are correct, that was a typographical error, and will be corrected pending a RM/TR... Standby, and thank you for point that out. TiggerJay (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sushidude21! --  Done TiggerJay (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)