It took me 6 hours to do those pages! I want them Back (without the rederecting!) NOW by the way LONG TALK PAGE BAD GIRL--Jbottisti615:54, 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 read WP:INTRO for some insight. - Tiswas(t)15:57, 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]
Not sure about that content distribution thing - should I just list the download websites? For example it's available at eXp.de and Krawall Gaming Network, both are German gaming magazines. It's also featured on the DVD of the Romanian PC Games magazine. [2]
I wanted to know how to improve Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education to 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]
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]
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. Wildthing6147603:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, RichFarmbrough, 16:30 5 June2007 (GMT).
I do not need your permission to move articles. It would seem that the article is a list, 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 Humpelschmumpel17:02, 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 than aristocruft, and littered with red 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 afd Wikipedia: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. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You listed Katie Walker for 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 Peters and Roy Tam. Can you provide a reason why you did this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiesfan (talk • contribs)
Whilst notability is 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 the NYT - 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]
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, Mallanox14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! CredoFromStarttalk19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Towel_Day
(copied from my discussion page, please answer there if you're gonna)
That being said, your recent additions to the Towel Day article do establish that anybody cares about 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 an indiscriminate list - Tiswas(t)08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently tagged Spider 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 to articles for deletion or other XfD discussions. Speedy deletes and prods can't be G4'ed, although the original speedy or prod reason usually applies. Natalie15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on 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 db User: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 replace if (wgPageName == "User_talk:Lucasbfr") by your username, and subst:User:Lucasbfr/s|1=" + type + "|subst=subst:}} by your version of the template.
You should also remove the line containing javascript:easyDb(3) that won't work (it creates a log of all the pages I prodded), and the line containing javascript: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 containing javascript:easyDb(0) and javascript:easyDb(1) but I no longer maintain this part of the module.
Hi, I've restored the information about Alex Sanders' siblings. It comes from King 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]
Replied on 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]
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]
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 Humpelschmumpel12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on 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. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on 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. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on 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 Humpelschmumpel13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on 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 Humpelschmumpel13:53, 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 Humpelschmumpel14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your failed court case
Just to let you know, if case you didn't, your delete Murloc court case has failed ..... badly. Just letting you know. RuneWiki77720:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC) In case you didn't.[reply]
Replied on 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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwandemberg (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
