User talk:Princess Tiswas

Start a new correspondence at the bottom of the talk page orhere.

Archives

MUGEN Mutant Mice Database

Hi Tiswas, I have just fixed the citations, please confirm if it is ok with you,Afantitis

Extended AfD

Is there something wrong withthisAfD listing? It seems to be going on rather a long time!CiaranG 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little odd - I'll flag it up on theadmin notice board-Tiswas^(t)16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Possible Episodes

It took me 6 hours to do those pages! I want them Back (without the rederecting!)NOWby the wayLONG TALK PAGE BAD GIRL--Jbottisti6 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is irrelevant - Wikipedia is a project governed by consensus and cooperation, not arbitrary whim and petulance. Perhaps you could readWP:INTROfor some insight. -Tiswas^(t)15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please refrain from personal attacks. They don't achieve anything. -Tiswas^(t)16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Tiswas and I are working at this from opposite angles, I'm copying this here. Your 'chronological order' page is not needed and I put it up for CFD. Anyone who reads the page and notices that the dates are all in chronological order, like every other episode list on this site, should get the gist. Remember, chronological, airing, order = episode number. Prod code is for what order the episode was written. --Ipstenu(talk•contribs)16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Princess T: Do me the favor of checkingStop Team Go.I'm looking to get that plot tag removed. Thanks.Sbgdcom 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Infoart

I note you have previously corresponded with the above user regarding his contributions. You may be interested inWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#InfoartandWikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles,where there is an attempt at co-ordinating a cleanup of the contributions and having Infoart to comply with guidelines and policies.LessHeard vanU 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid of Monsters

Well there is a reference, does "best adventure mod of 2006" count?[1]--Pizzahut2 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced or not, the article fails to meetnotabilityguidelines -Tiswas^(t)17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok looking atWikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria:

It needs to be mentioned in multiple independant works, so far I found aPHL article,there is also anarticle at Planet Phillip.
Awards:Singleplayer Mod of the Year, ModDB 2006 Editor's Choice,Adventure Mod of the Year, ModDB 2006 Player's Choice
Not sure about that content distribution thing - should I just list the download websites? For example it's available ateXp.deandKrawall Gaming Network,both are German gaming magazines. It's also featured on the DVD of the Romanian PC Games magazine.[2]

--Pizzahut2 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for adeletion reviewofAfraid of Monsters.You might want to participate in the deletion review.Pizzahut2 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

claveman

how is claveman considered nonsense. it is a real movie on[3]and i think it needs a pageHi5279 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered in the article's previousdeletion review-Tiswas^(t)15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education

Hi Princess,

I wanted to know how to improveCoalition to Uproot Ragging from Educationto conform to Wikipedia standards? The article has been under vandalism from Noraggingfoundation and its sock puppets. The article is about a voluntary non-profit organisation and mentions third party links. Please help me improve it. Regards, ----Mohrahit 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have replied in the article talk space -Tiswas^(t)15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragging

Hi Princess,

This article cites references to media reports, court orders and research reports. What else is required to remove the "unverified claims" tag? Please help. Regards --Mohrahit 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished editingCoalition to Uproot Ragging from Education- the aim is to cite each claim, so as to avoidoriginal research,non-neutralityand enableverification- these arecore policiesof Wikipedia -Tiswas^(t)16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. However, the article onRaggingalready has references to cite each claim. What changes would you suggest for that?

Regards --Mohrahit 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for remving those spam links. I've removed them once already and I suspect you might get a message from Noragging or one of his pupppets reagrding it.Wildthing61476 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zimmersand the Zimmer frame

Yes, sorry, you're right - and it is also a registered trademark too - Regards,Lynbarn 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst" ed. SeeWP:SUBSTfor more details. Regards,Rich Farmbrough,16:305 June 2007(GMT).

Hope Baronets

Hi, please don't just move things without even asking the person who created it or looking at similar articles- it is the normal convention to name articles on Baronetcies x Baronets - see theCategory:Baronetcies.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need yourpermissionto move articles. It would seem that the article is alist,with little or no encyclopaedic content, and should be titled as such -Tiswas^(t)16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no you don't need my permission, but you could have a done a little bit of research before moving it. If you look in the category no articles on Baronetcies are named List of...Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of monkey see, monkey do, I'm afraid. If an article is a list, it should be titled as such - Precedence tends to be ignored in favour of consensus driven guidelines -Tiswas^(t)17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, citing precedence means that the other project articles are titled incorrectly. Further perusal also indicates that they are little more thanaristocruft,and littered withred links-Tiswas^(t)17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am actually on your side here re: an aversion to extensively detailing aristocrats and their families. But having these articles is better than having thousands of non notable stub articles on each individual peer or baronet. I am currently trying to get a consensus to redirect all non notable peers and baronets at this afdWikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott.If this ends with delete or merge as I hope it will we can then unlink a lot of those redlinks in the articles on Baronetcies and Peerages. RegardsGustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Bass

Hey, where do we discuss the speedy deletion?Mouse is back 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletes do not have a review process (seeWP:DELETE#Processes). If you would like to create the article afresh, you would need to be sure that it does not fall foul of anycriteria for speedy deletion-Tiswas^(t)17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Helpme

Apparently you started the {{helpme}} onUser_talk:Omegarad.What would you like help about?Lmc16918:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Walker

You listedKatie Walkerfor notability in biographies. I disagree with your views. Katie is a well known and respected British designer, every bit as notable as most of the other current British Furniture Designers listed...Fred Baier,Matthew Hilton,Jeremy Broun,Marc Newson(OK, he's Australian but he practices here in the UK),Alan PetersandRoy Tam.Can you provide a reason why you did this?— Precedingunsignedcomment added byKatiesfan(talk•contribs)

Whilstnotabilityis subjective, there are certain benchmarks - Multiple, non-trivial mentions from independent,reliable sources,for example. Major exhibitions (not merely trade shows) would be sufficient. If she is as notable as you claim, there will be no problem in satisfying those criteria. Citing precedent merely highlights the failings of other articles, and does not support this one. -Tiswas^(t)09:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Baier,for example - unsourced gushy fancruft - notablity is only claimed, nothing is established.Matthew Hilton- a boxer - Probably very poor at dovetail joints and upholstery.Jeremy Broun- a published author - no problems there.Marc Newson- coverage in theNYT- no problems, again.Alan Peters-OBE,nuff said.Roy Tam- I'm nominating this for deletion and being non-notable. -Tiswas^(t)09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windham Wyndham-Quin, 5th Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl

Hi, thanks for the message. I tried to find peerage guidelines but couldn't find them. If you could point me to them I'd be very grateful. While it doesn't say in the body of the article he was an MP, it's in the succession box at the bottom. I'm not prepared to delete on a technicality like that. Thanks,Malla nox 14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in yourtalk space-Tiswas^(t)14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable residents of Stockport

What do you mean by galleries don't belong in lists? What about (and this is just picking a few at random) the featured listsList of tallest buildings and structures in London,List of Prime Ministers of Canada,List of Portuguese monarchs,List of largest suspension bridges?All of these have galleries of images for some or all of their list members.JMiall ₰16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done.JMiall ₰22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

For responding quickly to my request for notifying, and for your answer at the pump. Considering you AfD'd the article, I found your actions very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks!CredoFromStart^talk19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Towel_Day

(copied from mydiscussionpage, please answer there if you're gonna)

That being said, your recent additions to theTowel Dayarticle do establish thatanybody caresabout the day, and that it is notable enough for inclusion. The references, however, would benefit from being worked into the prose of the article, and not left as anindiscriminate list-Tiswas^(t)08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix the listing of news articles in whatever way you feel being appropriate. --KOJV 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!— Precedingunsignedcomment added byKOJV(talk•contribs)

CSD criteria G4

Hi. You recently taggedSpider Arcade (band)first under A7 (no assertion of notability) and then replaced the tag with G4 (reposted deleted content). Actually, you were right the first time. G4 only applies toarticles for deletionor other XfD discussions. Speedy deletes and prods can't be G4'ed, although the original speedy or prod reason usually applies.Natalie 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Replied on this user's talk page"

Hi, the script I'm using is a tweaked version of easy dbUser:Lucasbfr/Easy db.The changes you need to make to make it work for you are kind of complicated:

You'll have of course to replaceif (wgPageName == "User_talk:Lucasbfr" )by your username, andsubst:User:Lucasbfr/s|1= "+ type +" |subst=subst:}}by your version of the template.
You should also remove the line containingjavascript:easyDb(3)that won't work (it creates a log of all the pages I prodded), and the line containingjavascript:easyDb(2)is probably useless (it no longer tags the page for deletion since I can delete it directly).
If you're interested by easy-db, you should remove the//characters at the beginning of the lines containingjavascript:easyDb(0)andjavascript:easyDb(1)but I no longer maintain this part of the module.
Yeah, that's a mess. I should clean it one day.;) --lucasbfr ^talk 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex Sanders

Hi, I've restored the information about Alex Sanders' siblings. It comes fromKing of the Witches,and I've added a citation. I would dearly like to expand this article with some other sources (time, time, time...). I think the June Johns material is worth having, even if only to illustrate the myth that Sanders managed to perpetuate for so many years, but I would like to improve the article with some more trustworthy sources. If you feel inclined to help with this it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,Fuzzypeg ☻22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 08:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping further information would be forthcoming to fill in the gaps. I will reword to remove the question marks.Fuzzypeg ☻22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassano

Thanks for your input- I think the user is actuallyUser:Andrewudstrawwho seemed to have caused a bit of troubleearlier on.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Gustav who was being the stubborn one and treating an article as his own on the topic of the Bassanos being Jewish. I should have reported him for edit warring at the time, but I wasn't aware of the 3-revert rule then.--MoebiusFlip(talk)00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also interesting thatUser:Gustav_von_Humpelschmumpelis a sock puppet and banned from editing. Doesn't exactly support his attacks on me.--MoebiusFlip(talk)01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

Hi, I don't agree with having images all the same size as sometimes just one or a few images need to be larger than the rest so you can actually see what is in them- because that is an old black and white print it is not really clear which is why I enlarged that one in particular. Also sometimes images need to be different sizes simply to make the page look better.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look hereBlenheim_Palacefor example the page would be a lot plainer if all the images were just tiny little thumbnails...Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if you look at a vast number of articles, especially featured ones you'll see the images are not small thumbnails so clearly the page you posted isn't a policy, just a guideline that can be ignored if an editor thinks it aids the particular article in question. RegardsGustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 12:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the text you quoted is a guideline isn't it- therefore it is at the user's discretion whether it is followed, and the policy doesn't specifically say you can't fix sizes for images. There is another good reason why it is not helpful to fix the same image size for all images- landscape images clearly need to be wider than portrait images in order to actually be the same size as portrait thumbs. RegardsGustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the ignore page says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them".It seems clear to me that landscape images need to be wider than portrait images and on the majority of pages I look at image sizes are set larger than 180px especially for landscape images so it seems the majority of the community also believe that it does not help or improve Wikipedia by making all the images tiny.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the fact that neither the guideline or policy mention anything about landscape images needing to be set wider suggests to me that they haven't really had much thought put into writing them. Clearly if all images are set to the same width landscape images will actually be smaller than portrait ones. As I said there are numerous featured articles that have images (not just the first one) set much larger than 180px so it would seem to me that there is already consensus to ignore that policy otherwise they wouldn't have been approved to be featured time after time.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, maybe but if it was a big problem as you seem to be making it out to be I would have thought they wouldn't have been featured unless the images were made small. The fact they were suggests to me that it is left up to editors judgement whether an article is improved (or not) by having images larger than 180px in width.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your failed court case

Just to let you know, if case you didn't, your delete Murloc court case hasfailed..... badly. Just letting you know.RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)In case you didn't.[reply]

Repliedon this user's talk page - 08:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition of sustainable development I offered was a contribution from the International Institute of Resources Management (IIRM) at New Mexico State University and myself. The current definition serves no purpose other than boast the ego of global bureaucrats like the UN! Yes, I did put a link to my dissertation work but I get nothing out of it other than sharing my findings for free!—Precedingunsignedcomment added byJcwandemberg(talk•contribs)17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think before you delete! My free contributions should be welcomed not foolishly deleted! Sincerely, Prince JC Wandemberg Ph.D.—Precedingunsignedcomment added byJcwandemberg(talk•contribs)17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hallowes which you contributed to, is currently up fordeletion

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion.Ikip(talk)20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election.TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process.It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statementsand submit your choices onthe voting page.For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery(talk)16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jean-Paul PENIN-wikipedia" listed atRedirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectJean-Paul PENIN-wikipedia.Since you had some involvement with theJean-Paul PENIN-wikipediaredirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussionif you wish to do so. Regards,SONIC67817:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]