Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 19 January 2025

Tiggerjay is busy traveling, but has returned from an extended wiki-break.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.   CLICK HERE to start a new talk topic. If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then notify your talk page by placing {{Talkback}} on your talk page.

Archives 2007, 08, 09 2011, 12, 13, 14 2015, 16, 17, 18, 19 /Archives 2020 /Archives 2021 /Archives 2022 /Archives 2023 /Archives 2024 /Archive Thanks /Permissions /The hard way Manually archived bot message Note: archives may be refactored. This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Editors bating

I'm puzzled by your reference on ANI to the possibility that editors are bating one another . Can you elaborate?

Asking here on your talk since the ANI thread might get archived before you have a chance to review it again, given that you mention on your user page that your editing comes in spurts . EEng 04:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The only thing there that everyone should bait is a trout. Confuseus said "Give a man a worm stacked upon a minnow and he'll look at it strangely, teach a man to bait and he'll look strangely for a lifetime". Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn - agreed! But sadly people love to bait, as well as take the bait. TiggerJay (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that given the contentious nature of the topic this is referring to, that when Hob made this first contribution to the talk section here, that his statements of Let's trust Donald Trump and his brown-nosers instead, they have no vested interest at all, as well as Irony aside, aspersions such as yours are exactly the reason why LL is a conspiracy theory. was purely inserted just for an emotional reaction from Lardlegwarmers and not necessarily a serous comment. Per the bait "nutshell" Goading others into making uncivil comments is a common tactic., and furthermore it says carefully remaining superficially civil. I think that is partially what we see illustrated here. And I believe that Lardlegwarmers took the bait and ran with it. I suggest the best thing would have been for them to completely ignore the bait, and continue with the discussion of the content and the merits of the disucssion. TiggerJay (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the ping from EEng: I'm not going to look at ANI for this, but I will simply say with complete confidence that Misplaced Pages has many master baiters. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'm not sure what @EEng's point was in this talk page message as they never replied after I answered the question, nor their point in pinging you. From what I can tell, they haven't been involved in that specific discussion over at ANI. Perhaps it was simply reactionary thing without reading the entire thread in context. I'm not particularly concerned either way with baiting coming up in contentious discussions between experienced editors -- that sometimes happens, and while disruptive, often isn't egregiously so. It was more of a cautionary statement to Lardlegwarmers that baiting exists and to avoid it, not so much of an accusation against Hob who "might" have been baiting with those charged statements. TiggerJay (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 , 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)