User talk:Princess Tiswas/Archive 1

Pack of Lies
It wasn't necessary to make the change to this article that you did. I included info about the TV version in the article, and since it was merely a taped version of the play that was broadcast once, a separate article about it is unwarranted. Thanks to your change, if I search for Pack of Lies, nothing comes up, the link for Pack of Lies that was in other articles now leads to the disambiguation page rather than directly to the article I wrote, and the long list that was in "What links here" in the article I wrote has disappeared. I don't know how to correct this. Can you please change my article back to its original title so these problems are eliminated? Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I incorrectly assumed you just joined Wikipedia based on the welcome message posted to your discussion page. Thanks for correcting the Pack of Lies problem! SFTVLGUY2 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Panic prevention disco
forgive me, but i do not understand what issue you have with my panic prevention disco page. I have cited verifiable references and it relates to another article - Jamie T-- i will continue to delete your speedy deletion messages because there are absolutely no grounds for them.Joeshawuk 12:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * but it clearly fucking is notable, did you not see the "sources and references" section. Whats your explanation for doing this? why don't you actually check these sources?--Joeshawuk 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please mind your language per WP:CIVIL. Lixy 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i think i'm right when i say that you are the one that recommended it for speedy deletion. You are therefore the one i have the issue with. you have failed to actually give me a proper explanation, perhaps because you don't have one?--Joeshawuk 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you continue to vandalise pages such as Panic prevention disco you will also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshawuk (talk • contribs)

why specifically choose a page which DOES NOT HAVE QUESTIONABLE NOTABILITY and complain about it? It's so clearly notable. refs and sources are correct. please check and rethink your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshawuk (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion - Eyesonff
Princess you have made the request so now lets discuss it at the articles talk page so we can resolve this issue iam waiting there now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehuty Strife (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion - Generic Issue
I have the same problem with this postpuberting teenager. The good side is that i know his coordinates now. So ... Princess Tiswas ... in 6 weeks i'll be in your city. I'll be very glad to meet you. Refering Wikipedia, i think that if they don't remove this teenies from here, they will have no perspective (in Germany, the "image" is quickly going down in the last 8 months). So Wikipedia ... i'll will not place any articles on this site (because i see that is nonsense - this site is full with such postpuberting teenagers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.219.194 (talk)

TC 125
Dear Princess Tiswas, you marked the article on TC 125 for speedy deletion, although it concerns a European initative on the establishment of standards for Electronic Health Records in the European Union???? Pvosta 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Asta Teamplan
Hi, I'm the user that added the reference about Asta Teamplan. As you can see, I'm new here but I'm trying to learn. I've added the reference to Asta Teamplan because I've felt the information in User Defined Field was not enough for people to understant what's it about. I'm currently working with Asta Teamplan (programming modules for Asta Teamplan at my daily job) and so far this is the only application I know it has the concept of User Defined Field.

By no means was the article intended to be commercial/ad, you can see I've also edited the discussion page when posting the article. If you tell me how to purge the article (because i honestly don't know how), I'll be glad to do it.

Thank you. Mariushm 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Mariushm

The Forbidden 5
I have placed my explanation for why I don't believe my recently created article on The Forbidden 5 should be deleted, on that article's Talk Page, as suggested. And while I appreciate the attentiveness(!) with which it was shown, as I was directed toward Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, I should point out that in the same article it says:

"Often, the author is able to add a claim, but didn't know one was required.

If there is a claim, but you feel it doesn't meet the requirements here, you may wish to explain your position to the user, before nominating it for deletion, in case they may be able to improve it (or they may need to add verification for the claim).

Generally, a personal and specific message, about your concerns about the article, on the article's talk page and/or author's talk page, is more helpful than a generic template message."

Mostly I was following Wikipedia's first suggestion for creating a new article, as I have in the past -- "Be bold!" I hope my explanation provides clarification. JonChesterfield 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Macroeconomic Man
For the last time, macroeconomic man is NOT vandelism! how can you talk something of wikipedia what has helped many children understand difficult economic concepts yet leave some of this other crap on here! i will not rest until you realise that macroeconomic man is useful and DESERVES his place on wikipedia. Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slifer151 (talk • contribs)

The 7 Shot Screamers
I tried today to create a new article for a st. louis local band. This band is highly important to the st. louis music scene, has released 3 albums, and has gone on national tours. They deserve an article on Wikipedia.

After about 10 minutes of existence, user Danni deleted the article. I can't create a decent article if it isn't allowed to survive. What can I do to make sure this article will not be deleted again? --~Peace out, hasta luego, sayonara, and all those other phrases related to abandonment, death, and melancholy memories of yesterday 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Teaching English in Italy
Your recommendation to merge this article with "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" is unjustified because my article offers a neutral point of view, while the latter is blatant advertising for unnecessary certificate courses and contains unverifiable claims, vague wording and links to sites that sell unnecessary certificate courses marketed by exaggerated claims. (I recommended deletion of that article, and objected to the editors' "keep" decision.) Please read the two articles carefully and reconsider your position. Thanks. Omadaf 147.163.34.8 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 27 NOv 06.


 * Hi Princess Tiswas, I wanted to let you know that I agreed with your prod nomination to merge Teaching English in Italy. Since the original contributor objected to your proposed deletion / merger, I've nominated it at Articles for deletion/Teaching English in Italy so that it can be discussed by a wider audience. Regards, Accurizer 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of comic book superpowers/temp
you recently ordered a speedy deletion notice on the temp page I created, let's discuss reasoning behind it on the talk page there. Jacobshaven3 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for bringing my attention to those policies, i'm not the most wikiliterate and didn't realise I was misusing it. Jacobshaven3 12:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tunbridge wells forum
I've suggested to that he rename the article and read the links on how to write great articles. I deleted it for lack of context rather than notability issues. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Three Mile Cross (band)
Hi Tiswas. I moved this information off the Three Mile Cross village article. I have no interest in them myself. Sorry if I should have just deleted it. Anyway, I've passed the info about the speedy delete tag onto the originator, User:Henryodbert. Thanks. Verica Atrebatum 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

proposal to delete kaya toast
tiswas, i think you are being over zealous. i do not know if you are from singapore, but that is unimportant. to call kaya toast a mere variant of toast is to call roti prata a variant of pancakes. there is no other way i can characterise kaya toast as some form of sui generis toast except as to describe it as i have. it is a simple snack, but certainly not bereft of a rich and independent existence. thank you, i will get some people to vote on this issue. of course, any given article is always subject to improvement, but the deletion tag is contested. Chensiyuan 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

49 Para
I tagged this for speedy deletion because it is a recreation of a nonsense article that was deleted less than a week ago. The content is copied from the webpage at the bottom of the article, and a reading of the webpage indicates this is an absurd joke/hoax. See this discussion: []. Thanks. --Charles 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We all make these mistakes from time to time. I did not catch it at first (the first time) either. But, a close reading reveals that it is, to use that pithy phrase, bollocks! Thanks. ---Charles 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk template
Did you give up on trying to use that talk template? I see that you have a different one now. I am sorry that I was of so little assistance. As I say, I could not figure it out myself, and another editor (someone who had made alterations to the template that I "borrowed" from another editor) came to my talk page and fixed it. I could never figure out what he did to make it work right, all I know is that he did, and it did. Cheers! ---Charles 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently fighting exhaustion and trying (foolishly) to archive my overly-long talk page, I came across this (in case it interests you at all): [] ---Charles 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. ---Charles 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Prism
That template you stuck on my talk page strikes me as very rude. I also think your tagging of the page was very hasty and inaccurate. Did you actually read the article, which in my opinion is encyclopedic and objective, and certainly not blatant advertising, or did you just slap the tags up and move on? Thanks. CiaranG 11:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. The possibility that you didn't read it only crossed my mind because the article in no way satifisfies the criteria for blatant advertising given in Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. CiaranG 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your not being aware of any critera defining blatant advertising, I gave you the link already, it's here. On the subject of notability, that's also quite clear too, and I think the article already satisfies the guidelines given in . Thanks. CiaranG 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which? [Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)], section Criteria for Companies and Corporations, item number 1. Thanks. CiaranG 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will update the article and take your comments on its talk page into account. CiaranG 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your Anti-Towers of London vandalism
Do not leave sarcastic comments on my page. - Deathrocker 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) $$Insert formula here$$

letsrecycle.com
Hi there, I suspected this site would get a CSD tag and was in the process of finding more references to support its inclusion. Please note my contributions to the wikipedia field of waste management. This site is widely used by people across the industry and I feel it is definately noteable, information on it is distributed widely and is used in dispatches by the Environment Agency and other noteable companies. I will add more references when I dig them out. --Alex 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the removal of the CSD tag--Alex 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion notice
An article to which you have contributed, Blue Prism, has been nominated for deletion through the proposed deletion process. If the proposed deletion is not challenged within five days, the article is likely to be deleted. If you disagree with this, you may remove the proposed deletion tag to challenge the deletion, and the article will not be deleted through the proposed deletion process. It is considered courteous, but not required, to provide a reason if you choose to do so. However, the article may subsequently be submitted to the articles for deletion process, where the community will decide whether the article should be kept. Thank you! Seraphimblade 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia game
Sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks! NawlinWiki 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we tend not to redirect pages in the main namespace to Wikipedia project pages, because of the potential for confusion, the need to be redistributable, WP:ASR and so on. If you want to put it back, do so and I won't delete it again (though you may find someone else takes it to RfD) – – Gurch 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

s2bu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.11 (talk)

Eddie Klint
You asked why the prod tag was replaced - the tag was removed by the author, yet no evidence of notability wa provided. - Tiswas (t/c) 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the first part of WP:PROD: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back (emphasis not added by me - it's in the policy)... Prod is only for 100% non-controversial deletions.  Let me know if you have questions.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rosebud Grain Company
Thanks for your note.

The Rosebud Grain Company has been out of business for over 20 years, this was not an effort to promote business, but to capture history.

No problem, when I'm done it'll make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lonchill (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Bruce Haslingden
I added another source for Mr. Haslingden if you wish to look. He also competed in the 50 km event at the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo. Chris 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed him a while ago in the List of Australian Winter Olympians. Competing at the Olympics should be seen as at least a claim to notability, and the person who created the article is serious wikipedian, so a request for speedy deletion was a bit of overkill. Andjam 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Jonathan Gewirtz
I want to contest my notability but am too new to Wiki. Would you be so kind as to assist me with Jonathan Gewirtz? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonnytelzr (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Your notability or the subject's? (If they are both the same, there is a conflict of interest. As for biographical notability, your best bet is to familiarise yourself with WP:BIO, in particular the primary criterion for Notability of people. Folks are generally accepting of claims for notability if the claim is adequately sourced. - Tiswas (t/c) 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
Please could you let me know which parts of the article you consider to be advertising, and which parts encyclopedic? I have constructed it - I believe - to be informational only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencemj (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The phrase " a world-leading publisher of management journals and databases", which you have since removed. Furthermore: "a leading journal in its field" is POV, "one of 9 Logistics and Operations Management titles published by Emerald" is not relevant to the article, and "These journals will publish 66 issues and over 400 articles in 2007" is crystal ball gazing. I would be more than happy to clarify my position on this if you like -  Tiswas (t/c) 11:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to the Haslingden article
As you are aware by now, your proposed deletion of Bruce Haslingden failed. From what I have seen of your contributions, they are mostly concerned about the encyclopedia quality of items that have been created on Wikipedia and what needs to be done to make them better. We need that in Wikipedia and for that I am grateful. With what I do, I try to create articles on items I am interested in such as the Olympic Games and country music. If I have the information to make the article better, I do so. For those I don't, I try to raise a concern, but rarely do I delete an item because there is a good chance that some other user whether it is in this language or another may more information on the article itself. This is why for articles with limited information, I do the best I can to put stubs on the article to encourage another user with their own version of information on the article to fill in their piece of the puzzle. In order for Wikipedia to grow and grow effectively, we need people like this. Please reply if you would like and do not be discouraged because again, we need people like you who are concerned with raising notability items in Wikipedia. Thanks. Chris 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for notifying me about my warning templates. I took Easter Vacation off, and I must have forgotten. --Savant13 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Eskap
Hi there, I'm not sure why you are informing me about this article. I disambiguated a link, I was not the original author. Thanks!--Xnuala (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough!--Xnuala (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Phobomania AfD comments
I removed the comments in the AfD because it could give the impression that people had voted in the Phobomania AfD when they had not. Just provide a link to other relevant AfDs if you feel that doing so will give context to voters. Reproducing the other AfD will be misleading. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 15:32Z 

LOS RODEOS AIRPORT
I try to tidy up posts on tenerife,and as i live here,i know what is what most of the time,and there are lots of post and redirects with no point,,,,This airport is called TENERIFE NORTH AIRPORT,it has been for at least 15 years,before that it was simply LOS RODEOS,where there is a redirect,esp for old ref.As i said i live here,but i think ppl who dont would find that having so many ref,for same place is not helpful,, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THORtenerife (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please do not re-add the redirect on the page. I contacted this user and told him/her how to request that the two pages be merged correctly. First of all, the move was not done correctly (which would preserve the edit history), and second, since it has been reverted by multiple editors, it doesn't qualify as uncontroversial. Therefore, after he/she adds the merge request, if the consensus is to move after five days, it will be done. DB (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE IS THE NAME OF THE CITY AND THE PROVIENCE,,,,,AND THERE IS NO SUCH PLACE AS tenerife city,NO SUCH AIRPORT AS los rodeos airport.... PLEASE READ THIS !!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THORtenerife (talk • contribs).
 * No problem. I'm hoping to avoid any major conflicts although this guy seems to be losing it :-). DB (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

article R.A.B.
Hello ! We're still in the middle of a content dispute, If you feel enough interested in the subject, I would like to have your opinion about what I concider to be OR (well, it's blatant OR, that's for sure, but I'm alone against two people who have a tendency to blindly revert without concidering the discussion there was about articles, and who generally have a different interpretation of the expression "original research" than Wikipedia has). Thank you !Folken de Fanel 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am curious to know when you first met the theory that the horcrux locket was the one at Grimmauld place. I know Spatz and Emmerson asked Rowling whether RAB was Regulus Black on the publication day of HBP, but I don't recall off hand whether they asked her about the locket. The theory may not have come up by the time they asked her, only about 14 hours after publication. I am also interested to know your view on David Langford as a source, given he is a professional writer of SF novels, and reviewer of others work. Sandpiper 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society
Out of sheer curiosity: what led you to look at this page, which you've now suggested is non-notable? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and interested to know how things work! Pam Davies 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The random link led me there - I often look around when I'm otherwise not busy, cleaning up, tagging articles and general housekeeping. The subject of notability is often contentious - In this case, there is nothing in the article that establishes what makes the subject worthy of inclusion. The bar for notability is not particularly high - A few mentions in even local press is often adequate. The first pillar of Wikipedia is a good place. -  Tiswas (t/c) 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Metasonix
Well, I don't really think it's written like an advertisement. First of all, their effects do have weird sounds, it's hard to deny that. And if it is because I listed all of their products, well, I don't think it advertises them in any way.  Goldenglove Contribs · Talk 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Purtumute
Hi, I would like to know why you keep on erasing data that's important about this dish. I would prefer you to add information istead of erasing it and if you think that's irrelevant data, please first talk about it in the discussion page, or in the Peruavian portal. Thanks --Evelyn Zuñiga 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Wight Radio
Was the reference not sufficient for the article? If not, a reference to www.radioaward.org would also provide the same information. Adamiow 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the the article, there are a string of claims, all of which need to be attributed to reliable sources - radioaward.org appears to be a squatter domain, so would not qualify. There may be mentions in the local or national press, for example. - Tiswas (t/c) 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I got the wrong address. It is actually http://www.radioawards.org/. Would this me ok, as it is the people awarding the awards? Adamiow 06:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a reliable source. It would still be preferable, however, to see a citation from a secondary source, such as other local media outlets. I realise, in retrospect, that this may be harder to find, as any other media outlet would be less than forthcoming in reporting the success of their competition. - Tiswas (t/c) 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will add this source as a reference, as well as one from the local TV station and newspaper. I can't think of any secondary sources, so these will have to do. I will remove the reference thingy. Cheers. Adamiow 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rieko Kodama
You added a notability tag to this article. I'm fairly confident that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines, but I welcome your comments on the article's talk page. --Darksun 12:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sila María Calderón
Well, I actually didn't wikify the article. Apparently, an anon blanked half the page and started including additional yet unsourced info. I assumed it was an edit test and reverted his/her edits. I routinely watch this article for vandalism, but it slipped by my huge watchlist. I didn't identify the vandalism until you tagged it for wikifying, so thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crooked fiddle band
Your recent edit to Crooked fiddle band (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Acuity Insurance
How do you consider the 80th largest insurance company in the United States to be non-notable? Royal broil 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you consider the article to still be lacking in reliable references. Royal broil  21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith Allen's newest child
Hi, I completely understand your preference to keep a usually reliable source on Keith's page regarding the gender of his eighth child, and wouldn't normally seek to disagree. Unfortunately, the Mail has certainly got it wrong, though. I was with Keith when he received the call about Tamzin going into labour, and filmed Keith and the very newly-born Teddie in Gloucestershire a couple of weeks later, for a documentary. However, I guess that would count as 'original research' until Channel 4 show it. John Warburton 18:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Guns
Please avoid screwing up band articles by adding artist templates when a band one exists. You also managed to blend the two different line-ups who are currently playing into one and make it look a total mess. Regards. - The Daddy 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replacement of Infobox Band with Infobox musical artist is policy. Point taken about the lineup - Tiswas (t) 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Penin, french conductor
Dear Mrs Tiswas, Can you pls let us know if there are now enough reliable references (i.e. reviews with precise dates)for this article to be cleared and wikified ? Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiglou (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

over zealous tagging by this editor
See my page re this. A brief perusal of your editing history is showing that you are getting out of control. Snegkrib 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied in your talk space - Tiswas (t) 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you are at the beginning or end of some sort of breakdown. Going by the sheer maniacal quantity of pages you're editing - unpaid - fulltime suggests to me you may need treatment or at least get a life. Your tone is bullying and, as your users page shows all too clearly, you are beginning to annoy many contributors to Wikipedia.


 * You also fail to address the issues I raise in a coherent way. I have looked back to many of the articles you tag. A great number contain authoritative references before you tagged them.  Further, you are irrational (alright inconsistent) about those you deem to be tagged and those not.


 * Go and get a job in a reference library and irritate a small number of people to their faces. You might even get lucky and find the partner you clearly lack.


 * Get a life. Snegkrib 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have addressed each of the points that have raised in turn. As I mentioned, if you feel that the tags are in anyway misplaced, address them, or the issue, in the appropriate talk page. Perfunctory deletion is not acceptable. - Tiswas (t) 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfunctory tagging is not acceptable either. Quantity does NOT necessarily result in quality.

The perception amongst casual readers of Wikipedia is that tags look ugly and that they contribute to Wikipedia's poor image. You are littering Wikipedia with tags and often for no good reason. It is impossible to ascertain your motives but I think they are malevolent.

Oh, and please check your spelling and grammar more thoroughly too when you write your responses at breakneck and maniacal speed.

Go back and undo your more absurd tags, or I will. And if the rv continues, I'll raise the stakes.

Snegkrib 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please remain civil. Your tone appears increasingly combative, and detracts from any point that you are trying to make.
 * Secondly, and I can't be any more explicit than this: If you feel that any tags are misplaced, change them. If you do, however, please be sure to make an appropriate comment in the respective article's talk page. That way, any contentious links or tendentious edits can be dealt with according to wikipedia policy.
 * If you think that the tags appear ugly, you should address that issue in Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup. Again, not by unilateralyly deleting tags that have been placed according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. To do otherwise, it seems as though you may have an axe to grind.
 * Infer what you will from my spelling and / or grammar. It seems to me, however, that you only noticed incorrect spellings due to corrections later made by myself. If you do notice them sooner, you are, of course, free to make the relevant corrections.
 * Threatening to "raise the stakes" is counter-productive. I had previously regretted making a note of your behaviour on the administrator's notice borad, hence the later qualification, but it appears, unfortunately, that my reticence may have been naive and premature - Tiswas (t) 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the irony of this edit is not lost.- Tiswas (t) 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your user page
It's not an office action or anything like that. It's mostly a reaction against the numbers ending up everywhere on Wikipedia where the same effect is obtained by having them in just one place. There isn't a problem at the moment, but the worry is that if they end up scattered everywhere it would be something of a problem to remove them should any legal problems brew up. (The numbers are in the target article; see for yourself!) The presence of a list of pages with a misleading title, in a prominent position (I wasn't searching for them, I just came across your userpage), appeared to be a test of the system to me, and I was letting you know that I'd noticed; it's not so much an attempt to avoid litigation, as an attempt to prevent Wikipedia being overwhelmed by redundant repetition of one string (as happened to Digg). Of course, it's much less of a problem in userspace, and I wouldn't revert you if you reverted me; it's just that your edit simply appeared to be a challenge, and I was letting you know that I had noticed. I hope that explains the situation. (By the way, note that Wikia is distinct from the Wikimedia Foundation.) --ais523 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood - Thanks for taking the time to reply - Tiswas (t) 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images in Taxoboxes should not be set to thumb
I have replied on my talk page about the warthog pic. Regards, Rexparry sydney 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann :: www.helpmadeleine.com
Did your majesty have a problem with this? Why not remove all the websites mentioned? This one was on Sky News last night. Could you reply to my talk page, please.Red Hurley 12:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether I have a problem, but whether the inclusion of the link falls withing the remit of links to include. If the webpage is notable (in that it wasn't mentioned trivially and in passing), it may well be worth including (subject to being verified etc....)
 * As a separate issue, it's safest to address editors by their names (or contraction thereof, in some instances). Should good faith not be assumed (which does, unfortunately, happen occasionally), it might be inferred as a personal atttack. I hasten to add, I'm assuming that it isn't in this case. - Tiswas (t) 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 'Princess' means something to do with royalty over here. There are 13 given reasons not to add an URL on a wikipage, and 'www.helpmadeleine.com' does not apply to any of them. It adds to the encyclopedia. Sky News is watched by millions here in Europe. I have nothing to do with it or the website. When people are looking for a lost child, the more coverage the better, usually.Red Hurley 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explaing how the site provides a unique resource to the article. If the Sky mention can be followed up, as I said, the link may maerit inclusion. Your arguement of the more sites, the better, is ultimately irrelevant - We are discussing the article, not the disappearance of the child. Wikipedia is not the place to solicit such help.
 * The correct way to address a princess would be Your Royal Highness - Your Majesty is only ever used to address a King or Queen. Not that I am particular about it, as, unsurprisingly, it is a pseudonym. - Tiswas (t) 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My principle argument was on the 13 (good) reasons for exclusion of URLs, which you don't rebut. It is a unique resource and at least as relevant as all the mentioned 'celebrities', nicht wahr? While the article is about her disappearance, surely we all hope that she will reappear.Red Hurley 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Links normally to be avoided is an exclusory list - a link ought to be avoided if it fails even one of the criteria. A link should also meet at least one of the "What should be linked" criteria. In this particular example, the link may be relevant in the context of mobilisation of popular support, as evidenced by reliable news reports. You mention that it is a unique resource, although it offers no information that is not available on the article or official site. It is, at best, an example of public sentiment and desire to help. - Tiswas (t) 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So we can remove the celebrities section?Red Hurley 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That section probably falls foul of being an indiscriminate collection of information, rather than being external links. If you feel that it is out of place, be bold and edit it accordingly. - Tiswas (t) 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross-sectional study - Added Reference
A reference was added to a publication of the BMJ(British Medical Journal). The article has the definition in a slightly different wording. Are you a medical researcher or physician? If you are, I'm sure you can find more references, information and material to expand.Richard Dates 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Fleming BSRC et al
Since you've been working on some of these articles, you might be interested to know I've created a COIN and a spam investigation concerning these articles and some of the editors making related contributions. --Ronz 02:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Small Comment
Hello. This is a small comment regarding your profanity warning on the top of your talk page. Profanity clearly states that "words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." This means that profanity on a talk page doesn't make the talk page less relevant or accurate (it is only a talk page). I think you should remove the warning and remove the profanity.Please don't take this comment too seriously, as it is merely a small comment and suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie Spread  the love! 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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 with this AfD listing? It seems to be going on rather a long time! CiaranG 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little odd - I'll flag it up on the admin notice board- Tiswas (t) 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible Episodes
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--Jbottisti6 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * And please refrain from personal attacks. They don't achieve anything. - Tiswas (t) 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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)