User talk:TiggyTheTerrible: Difference between revisions

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TiggyTheTerrible, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as TiggyThe FairyFox (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lost that account ages ago. I think I've just worked out why - there's a space in the name and it was supposed to be one word. I just make random accounts when I lose access. Please check when I last posted on that account. Also: how nice of you to assume bad faith when I'm just pointing out how fallacious these links are. People who campaign to allow dads to see their kids aren't Nazis. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived wrongs. Are you saying that the edit to Talk:Manosphere at 09:15, 27 April was not made by you? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't edit from that account yesterday, the account is compromised. If you'd like I can block it. —valereee (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place to right wrongs, they say, while scrutinising my now disposed of account that has the same name as this one and is obviously not being used as a sockpuppet. Why is it that it's okay for Wikipedia to perpetuate this without critical thought when, on other topics, it can be used to lay into a particular subject at will? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts to edit the same discussion is normally considered a violation of our sockpuppetry policy, so it's reasonable of Sangdeboeuf to make sure you are aware. The best and easiest way to avoid confusion, and any potential policy violation, would be to clearly link any other accounts you are using or have used, either with the {{User alternative account}} template or a similar disclosure as per the bottom of the WP:SOCKLEGIT section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm doing that, unless I somehow was logged in with that account on one browser and this one on another. I think it's pretty obvious from the name I'm not trying to sockpuppet. If I was, they wouldn't be so similar. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the contribution history of both accounts at Special:Contribs/TiggyTheTerrible and Special:Contribs/TiggyThe FairyFox. Both accounts contributed to the same discussion. I would strongly recommend verifying that all edits were made by you, since it sounds like you are unsure. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do the above? Because that account is continuing to edit, and if it's no longer you editing from it, we've got a problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Oops. it turns out I'm logged in as the latter on desktop and I didn't even notice. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was somehow logged in on that account on one browser and I didn't even realise because Wikipedia basically looks the same regardless. If you want to ban the fairy one go right ahead, it's got an annoying typo anyway. If anyone has any doubts about this being innocent, check the talk page and see that I was replying as if I was only using one account. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming, that is a relief. There is nothing wrong with having an alternate account, and if you'd like to continue using it sans typo it could be renamed, but as I said above I would recommend explicitly declaring the alternate account on the userpage. I know the names are somewhat obvious, but many of us interact with hundreds of usernames a day and so it is best to be explicit rather than relying on other editors to have good memory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I only need one. I've just logged out and have no intentions of using it further. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Please indent your replies on talk pages so other users don't have to do it for you. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your most recent post, which was another instance of you using talk pages as a forum as well as failing to properly indent your replies. You've been asked to adhere to Talk page guidelines by both me and GorillaWarfare. Continuing to misuse talk pages is disruptive. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm on the app, and nothing looks indented to me. I have no idea how to even make that work properly on here, and I thought it was automatic. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of this over a year ago so this is a reminder per WP:AWARE.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in blatant synthesis at the gender differences in suicide page, which is against the Wikipedia guidance. Don't say what the resources don't support. Other problems with your edits are that you aren't true to what the resources say even when you aren't synthesizing the information (for example, you changed the information to say "The reported difference in suicide rates for males and females may be partially a result of the methods used by each gender." when many resources say more lethal methods used by males is partially the reason), you use definitive language for limited research to present men as the bigger victims, you give priority to primary resources when you shouldn't, especially for medical information, and there's other issues. Please edit respectably. If you have good points for changing information, make those points on the talk page and wait for discussion. Don't war over things. GBFEE (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it comes across that way, but I only added those words because I was cincluding a citation spesifically regarding men using those "less lethal" methods and I didn't think that the page should contradict itself. Does this mean that you would be okay with the line about the study I added so long as the first line remains untouched? I didn't seek consensus as I saw the talk page was entirly empty and assumed that there was nobody to seek a consensus from. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Male privilege. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you mean by misleading. I removed one thing. I was going to add the other thing as well, but I stopped and copy-pasted it onto the talk page instead. Unless I somehow messed up, the only difference in the page is the one I put in the edit summary. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary There is no support for this line in the source [1] was transparently false, since the text you removed in that edit was very clearly supported by the cited source. If anything the text needs to be copy edited because it's too closely paraphrased from the original. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text gives those things as generic examples. Not examples of male privilege. There is also no proof in text backing up their claim. The best you can do is "this was the case in 1970" which I doubt, but I don't see it as relevant anyway as the article is in the current tense. A quote in context would be fine, but that's plainly not what's happening. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the misconception that the 2008 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society [2] was published in 1970? If so, that would explain a lot. Also, go back and read the text that you cut in context. These are also generic examples of "positive privilege," just like in the source. You seem to also believe that this source is unreliable, which is another can of worms I don't feel inclined to open for you. But you are invited to inquire with WP:RSN if you wish. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I intended to give that impression. But what I said was that the sources in that section of the book appeared to be from that period, and it was hard to tell where exactly the information is coming from due to lack of citations. My view is that the text therein is historical feminist theory that should not be written about in the present tense. It also has the issue that the line that is being cited there is changing meanings entirly between the book and the article Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at is that I think that, at the least, that line should be made into a separate sentence and clarified. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned not to add WP:SYNTH again and again across article talk pages such as Talk:Male privilege and Talk:Gynocentrism, at Teahouse, and indeed above on your user talk page. You have however shown a profound inability or unwillingness to WP:LISTEN, and have persisted in wasting other editors' time. This behavior appears to be associated with a stated aim to right great wrongs with regard to the gender and sexuality topic area, as evinced here and here. Please take a step back and refrain from further disrupting Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I've basically given up here. You don't have to get unpleasant. If you guys hadn't ignored & dodged my numerous questions, and had given me more in-depth feedback on individual edits, you would have had a much easier time explaining to me what you thought I was doing wrong. Though, honestly, that thing regarding theory on the Male Privilege article did not fill me with any kind of confidence that I was being spoken to honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not stop with the bludgeoning, you are looking at being sanctioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TrangaBellam: What bludgeoning are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, I've been on the receiving end of all the blugeoning delt out today. Spesificlly from an editor who has been caught following me around wiki, blindly reverting any and all changes that I make. For example, some much needed statistics I added to two lynching articles. (see the talk page of the main lynching article). They then made up shaky reasons after the fact to try and justify removing them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TiggyTheTerrible. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ahmed Belkhodja, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HistoryofIran:, apologies if I didn't do it right. The first and second sources are both books. I'm paraphrasing the first twenty or so pages of the first book. The third source was likely misplaced, I agree. If you like, I can quote parts. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sure, please create a section in Talk:Zoroastrianism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I've added it to the talk page. @HistoryofIran:. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

Hello, TiggyTheTerrible. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ahmed Belkhodja".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz:. There didn't seem a way to submit it to Wikipedia, so I gave up. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible

you're a creationist and you shouldn't be editing on science pages due to WP:CONFLICT of interest. WP:FRINGE stuff is still nonsense. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]