User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 3

Moment of Truth (disambiguation)
Please note that I am currently modfying a high number of redirects and links related to artciles named (The) Moment of Truth and the like. As the initial siuation was messy, please bear with me until things are sorted out. Once Moment of Truth (disambiguation) has been moved to Moment of Truth, I can update the remainig links with a tool.--Tikiwont 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD for Wolf Pack Motorcyle Club
Thanks for fixing the problem with the AFD talk page! Mmoyer 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BOOKIT
I put a hangon on my article about BOOKIT and put in category 'Business software' on the article since I found many other of similar content in that category. Please feel free to give _constructive_ pieces of advice for making articles better. Tradof 10:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thnaks for the your feedback. Where i am able to come up with "constructive" suggestions, I will usually not propose deletion. --Tikiwont 10:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Veterinary pharmacist
Why did you delete half of veterinary pharmacist. you should have asked me first! Don't ever do that again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.231.230 (talk • contribs)
 * I found and improved the article Veterinary pharmacist in bad shape and proposed for deletion. As results also for my edit summary, I then removed the latest addition since it was not sourced, but added before a reference that does not apply (for the salary). And animal owners include farmers and zoos anyway.--Tikiwont 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion
I think you're wrong: I only added an interwiki. Regards. --80.38.91.249 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerd Leonhard
Hi, I am working on an article about Gerd Leonhard. I have some problems understanding how to fix the sources & references in a suitable manner. I ve read through the help pages, but can't really find how to. Could you please give me an example of a biography that is done "the right way" and maybe advice me a bit on this subject? Thanks in advance, this is my very first Wikipedia work :) Kimmopekari 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would suggest yesterday's featured article: William Monahan. Also look inside the code as there can be learned a lot. Further readings would be:
 * Reliable sources
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Manual of Style (biographies)
 * WikiProject Biography


 * So the first thing to do is actually find reliable sources that are independent from Leonhard himself, his website, blogs etc. How to cite them is described in Citing sources. I will -- just for a start -- format the page bottom and add a bio tag on the talk page. --Tikiwont 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help! I added one independent reference, and I'll look more into this soon. Kimmopekari 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afaid that one and similar directory entries won't count as they're usally copied and pasted or written by the subjects themselves. So keep up! --Tikiwont 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, There's a lot of references now on the article. Would this be enough to make the scary "not enough references" -header to disappear? :) Kimmopekari 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD Central Texas Baseball League
Please see talk page for reasons why it is a legitimate league Boston2austin 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by 'legitimate'. It has been nominated with reference to 'notability' in the sense of wikipedia. Please review the notability guideline. In simple words, there are no independent sources besides the website. --Tikiwont 11:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Often it is abbreviated as CTBL search for ctbl baseball or any other variant in the 3 major engines and you will find independent sources. Boston2austin 12:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please identify and add these sources to stress why CTBL is (hopefully) not only a fun place to play baseball but should have an enzyclopoedic artcile here. While I ma far form convicned, I've changed the tags. For the benefit of other editors I am copying this to the articles page. --Tikiwont 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks. I'll work on improving the article check back on it in about a day or so and if you have lingering doubts feel free to contact me through my talk page or the article talk page as both are on my watchlist. Thank you. Boston2austin 13:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aucassin et Nicolette (opera)
Sorry, I don't get it. What is your point? --Kleinzach 09:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I was aware of the chantefable, but i didn't know how exactly they relate so I hesitated to connect them. Aucassin and Nicolette doesn't mention Jean-Baptiste de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye who is really the link between the two. Maybe you understand this better than I do? --Kleinzach 10:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was the best solution. --Kleinzach 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddha (film)
I've proposed a move/renaming of the article on the talk page - any comments (leave them there please!). SkierRMH 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Registered Agent
Hi Tikiwont. I appreciate your input on the article. There is a possibility that some of that is too detailed - but I don't see the harm. The real thing going on here is just this unregistered IP user that repeatedly erases the citations on the article (which then causes people to put fact tags on them). This user is not an editor - and other than putting "National Corporate Research" in the article along with copyrighted defamatory material they dug up somewhere, this user has done nothing. I have to ask myself... why does someone who isn't interested enough in Wikipedia to even register, go to this article EVERY SINGLE DAY and vandalize it? This really is what has kept me going on this. Please re-examine this because it is a matter of principle for me. If you think that the sections you deleted contribute at all, then please re-add. Personally, I wish this article had been around when I needed it. The problem is this unregistered user... your thoughts? Dougieb 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Just as I surmised, idiot has gone and vandalized it again even with your removals. As I stated before, this guy will not be happy until the entire article is defaced. It is the same guy always saying these citations are "incorp marketing links", although the latest defacement states "Berger marketing links" whatever the hell that is. (assuming it refers to the owner of the page, who's name is Berger). What this idiot fails to realize is that someone owns every page. This just appears to be some vendetta or something - and it has no place here. Please assist on this and don't allow this moron to win this. I'm actually going to recommend the entire article for deletion if I can't get some backup or at least semi-protection on it and I'm sorry I ever wrote it, but like I said, it is principle at this point. Please help.Dougieb 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your frustration and will tyry to help further with this article, but would ask you (and other parties) to (1) not simply to revert to older versions thus also reinserting the stuff that I removed and (2) measure your comments on talk pages and edit lines. The last IP removal was rather limited in scope. Everything else on the article talk page. --Tikiwont 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. It is the same unregistered guy. This whole thing could be easily fixed with semi-protection. If the vandal has to register to deface the article (and I bet you anything they will), it will make their intent easier to track. I have asked repeatedly why they are doing this and they just spew unsubstantiated nonsense over and over. Like I said, I wish I'd never done the article to begin with. Note that I initially reinstated your edits (except one which was a very good summation - the "how to find who is" section which is VERY useful since this is information that is searched for a LOT.) I only reinstated everything before your edits before I put in a request for either semi-protection or complete article deletion. Anyway - Thanks for the helping hand on this issue. I really wish I could find out why this vandal is so hexed on this article. This article should be semi-protected to force this unregistered vandal to register thus making their defacements more easily trackable. Additionally, ask yourself - why is this anonymous user doing this daily to a single article? The user's previous edits go WAY beyond citation removals to outright libel and copyright infringement issues. If one of the companies this user libels becomes aware of the content, I would imagine there are legal ramifications for Wiki. Note that the only way to remove the citations is to remove the content, essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. The bottom line is that until the IP user registers and makes their true intent known, there will be no true resolution. As I predicted previously, your removals were not enough and the vandal simply went to defacing the rest of the article. I am just wondering at what point will the damage be so thorough and the article so unrecognizable that it will finally be pulled? Also note that one of the citations you removed is also a citation for the National Law Journal's "Big Four Registered Agents" section. You would have to completely remove that section as well if you erase this reference. This is why I say just erase the whole article at this point. 1/4 of the article is probably derived from removed citations - and I note that the "verifiability" tag is now on the top. How do we verify? Re-insert the citations (or other ones). If we are going to gut the article to the point that it isn't even informational anymore, we could just do a 5 line thing on Wiktionary. PS, an anonymous IP user will trash the page in the morning with "National Corporate Research". PS: the reason, I'm putting this on your talk page is because if the vandal knows that I want him registered to track, they will evade accordingly. Finally, I would question putting a "notable registered agents" section as I'm sure that the obscure "national corporate research" will somehow be notable when defacement time comes in the morning.Dougieb 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please relax and don't assume the worst. Meanwhile please let me know abot any National Law Journal's "Big Four Registered Agents" source. I was starting this morning from this version . Tikiwont 10:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to assume the worst. This has been a daily thing and I can't get 3 days of semi protection to force this guy to register. I am not responding on the article talk page since the vandal is obviously reading that and it will be impossible to ever protect the article if the vandal is aware of the strategies (ie: making him/her register, etc.)

I am a user that has written 10's of articles and this deadbeat vandal has defaced and ruined the article to the point that you yourself note that it no longer has citations - yeah, because this idiot deleted them all and inserted www.nationalcorp.com instead over and over and over. So, how can you say "relax and don't assume the worst". Wiki will lose many more good editors and article writers if scum such as this guy who obviously has another agenda are allowed to rampantly rape articles and destroy hours of work. Dougieb (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Sorry, but I do not uderstand why you are requesting deletion of this article in a moment when someone else has agreed to work on it. Moroever, your nomination is so far malformed and not listed. Please consider to remove the tag and take a step back seeing how things evolve. --Tikiwont 11:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Current State Response
Re: Open points...  1 Sources: There are no reliable sources or citations for large sections
 * Yes, the citations have been removed. The citations were for large portions of the article. I could have repeated them for every section, but I thought this was overkill. If you want specific citations, advise and I will give them to you to post.

2 Fee related sections: As pointed out above these two really do not seem to add a much value but rather attract controversy.
 * I disagree that the actions of a single unregistered vandal constitutes "controversy" There is obviously something much bigger here.

It is not until this article is useless and unrecognizable that this vandal will discontinue.

3 Links to SOS sites: There is in Wikipedia a nice list of Secretary of State (U.S. state government) sites than is now linked.
 * The wiki page only has links to the main secretary of state sites - and from there finding your way to the entity status, tax, main and other specific sections within each SOS site. This information could of course be replicated in the SOS page, but it would be a LOT of work to do when this resource is already there. Also, the referenced page actually had email addresses and physical addresses as well which the Wiki page does not. This should at least be a further research item since a lot of the verification on this article was through that site.

4 Registered agent information: I've consolidated some practical information in this section
 * Cool.

5 Model Registered Agents Act: This section has some in-line citations that need to be converted into footnotes
 * Agreed. I wasn't familiar with the formatting on this. I'm pretty done with this article though. I think I'm done in general. I've written tens of articles, but this single article (which was like my 2nd or 3rd) has turned me off Wiki forever. This article was an authoritive resource and now it just seems kind of benign.

6 Registered agent service companies: I changed for the moment only the title. The concept of the Big four does not seem to so universal as the current wording suggests. Moreover, the links to search mask are not useful. Is there no reliable source on this market segment?
 * No offense, but you're obviously not familiar with the industry. If you've worked in any law offices, you know about the big four. There was an article on one of the sites I had cited that went into some detail on the big four and the available state databases (residentagentinfo.com?), but that was on one of the pages cited that you deleted, so I would erase this entire section as well if we aren't going to put citations in. I've seen stuff about the "big four" in publications, in some marketing materials and in a National Law Journal article. Unfortunately, you can not link to subscription National Law Journal articles without a paid subscription. THis information can be independently verified by paying for and downloading the SOS databases and analyzing those.

7 Government listings: This information can now be reached via the Secretary of State links as mentioned also in the section Registered agent information. Do we really need this list?
 * These are links to the states that provide "official lists" - not all do and these lists are buried within the Secretary of State sites - and not all states provide this list. Only the states specified have this information. Having the links to the main SOS sites is pretty much useless - try it yourself. SOS offices deal with a LOT more than business entities and agents - they deal with securities, elections, sometimes criminal records, etc. Navigating the sites is a bear.

Please... let me know what I can do to help you do this. I'm sick of this moron.

PS: Note that it doesn't matter what citations you insert, this guy will delete them - I promise. You don't understand... this has been going on for months.

re: edit
On this, you changed the example from Delaware to Oregon - but I thought in Oregon that the agent didn't have to physically sign the articles??? I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Also, I used Delaware as an example since it is pretty much the most common incorporation state. If you didn't actually check with this secretary of state, I would not leave this edit since this is potentially incorrect information.

Don't get offended, I am going to revert a couple of edits, but you're going to have to erase multiple sections without citations. ALso, note that on the pricing section you removed, I got the price range from the nevada-resident-agents.com page which was an info site with no ads that had about 50 different agents and their prices - and a summary of the data on the right - this guy erased the citation and put $129 as the low end of the price range which coincidentally is the price at www.nationalcorp.com - the link he kept inserting. Dougieb (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I was choosing Oregon becaase it had an existing wikilink. Feel free to correct that. --Tikiwont 11:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I already changed back myself the content to a version with redlinks for Delaware and Nevada. --Tikiwont 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Registered_agent&diff=131011528&oldid=131010731
Those are the references for the GE, Pfeizer and Ford thing... just fyi.Dougieb 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I see these are not references but search screens. Compare point 6 above. Anyway the whole section is now tagged and we do not have to fix everything today. --Tikiwont 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people with cleft chins
Heh. I didn't care too much for the list either, but we have a LOT of silly lists that we can't delete, so, I figured I'd atleast put it into it's own article and clean it up...a lot. --Stephanie talk 14:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Courtney Jackson
I've deleted both Courtney Jackson and Bootz, which I overlooked in the Pumkin AFD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though in the future be sure to put db-xfd on any such articles. --Core desat 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

a good picture
there is a good picture of the veterinary collage at the golden gate veterinary pharmacist site. Could we put it on veterinary pharmacist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ducky3.14 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You mean this ? Most images you find on the Web are not public domain, even if they list no explicit copyright information. So I assume not. The other question is whether it fits good into the article and that one is a header collage, which may not look to good here anyway. If you know a veterinary pharmacist, you could make a photograph yourself, but it may not look as specific as the veterinarian that you see as icon in veterinary pharmacist. Another alternative would be to search in Wikipedia and commons if there is already some image of a sick animal or so that you could link. --Tikiwont 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism from 68.117.11.101
Tiki, as promised, there was more daily vandalism from 68.117.11.101 - this time changing the "Big Four" to the "Big Three" - there IS no big three! (LOL). If you look at the contribution history for 68.117.11.101, he calls the citations we previously debated dougieB links (which is pretty funny) - and "incorp marketing links" - and then "Berger marketing links" - Make up your mind! It can't be all three! It doesn't even appear that Berger (the apparently owner of the residentagentinfo.com site) even PERFORMS agent service. At any rate, this idiot vandal you are placating obviously has some vendetta against the Incorp company and has previously posted what I would consider libelous material in the article. I actually wrote articles on CT, CSC and NRAI and never got around to an Incorp article which I should be glad of since this ingrate would no doubt be vandalizing it as well. It is CLEAR that this guy has some bone to pick with the incorp company - the question is, why are you being complacent in this? If you are going to continue to placate this guy, just erase the article, write "National Corporate Research", put a link to the site, and let's close this issue.

If you are interested, I've tracked this moron and he/she edits from multiple addresses on different days. 68.117.11.101 is the same user as 208.51.64.62, 74.62.78.54, 4.159.168.165, 63.254.78.142, 67.52.240.202, 70.13.120.55, 71.138.74.94, 75.128.199.33.

If you look at the vandal's early contributions to "National Registered Agents, Inc." under 67.52.240.202, I think it is pretty easy to determine who it is.

If you could at least get me some assistance getting the article semi-protected, the vandal would be forced to register which would make identifying him/her and tracking his/her edits and hopefully learning the true motivation and intent behind them. The incorp company has never done anything to me and I find something seriously wrong with using the article I had a hand in being used to hurt this company.

This individual is going to continue to vandalize, slur, defame, libel and attack using Wiki as a medium without registering. If we can't get semi-protection, I am going to contact the incorp company tomorrow and advise them of how they are being defamed and libeled and let them deal with it however they want to deal with it. Wikipedia is being just as unethical as the vandal for allowing it to continue without a minimal attempt to filter the vandal out. On the other hand if Wiki is now a sanctioned medium for defamatory attacks, unchecked libel, and protection of blatant vandals, then just say so. Dougieb 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not Wikipedia and I am not placating anybody. All the articles in this area leave much to be desired and are an obvious target for edits subject to vested interest. It is clear that the idea of having a "Big four" is of interest to Incorp and NRAI, but unfortunately nobody cares to source it properly (assuming that it is possible). If you make a list of the big 2,3,4 or ten it looks different each time, but without good sources it is in vain. I've thrown that out now completely. Moreover, since I am following this, I haven't noticed defamatory or libelous edits or blatant vandalism. One removal of a link (that I agree is problematic), above edit to make some point and no mention of "National Corporate Research", so I currently do not see a case for supporting a semiprotection. If you have further comments, please do not adress me personally, but use the respective talk pages or Wikipedia sections. --Tikiwont 08:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry - there is clearly something fishy going on here. CT, CSC and NRAI are only "notable" in that they are members of the big four. You have no problem whatsoever stating as fact that CT is the largest company, yet you have no reference anymore. You have no problem saying the CSC is one of the two largest companies, but have no reference, but you DO have a problem apparently with NRAI who you somehow demote. Without the notability of being big four companies, none of these three have any notability to warrant inclusion in wikipedia at all, right? Your removal of the nomenclature and inference that there is no big four just shows an ignorance of the subject matter.

Dougieb 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not acppet your criticism thet there is something fishy nor do I claim that all my eidts are consistent. I just got tired and did something different. As you correctly point out there is currently no reference for the size. I left two links inside because they looked historically important. So lets do one step more. Meanwhile please have a look at WP:COPRP. Here in wikipedia the question of a compoany being notable independet of any Big four list of which I am only saying that it is currently unsourced. And there is also WP:AGF. --Tikiwont 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever... You don't have to accept my criticism and I'm anxious to see how this will all be perverted over the coming weeks. I'm sure there will be a "Big one" consisting of "National Corporate Research" or "National Registered Agents, Inc." by the time you're done. It is funny though, rather than catch this guy by requesting semi-protect for THREE days, you've opted instead to throw the baby out with the bathwater to placate him. (LOL). I'm going to go edit the article on bleach now because there is no credible reference that it is dangerous to drink. Well there was ONE reference, but the page was sponsored by Tide, so that negates it.Dougieb 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be interested, which version according to you had good references. As far as i see, the main sections describing the function of the resident agent, which in my opinion are the baby, have never been sourced properly. And the AfD, if you choose to complete it, is not likley to succeed.--Tikiwont 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Using your criterion, the McGraw-Hill book you mentioned would be a questionable resource since there are many material connections between CSC and McGraw-Hill including publishing, acquisitions and mergers. Why not just use a Nolo book as a reference - oh yeah, CSC owns them. Lexis? CSC. LLC's for dummies? Nope, InCorp wrote that. Corporations for dummies? That's Bizfilings - subsidiary of CT. I still say that ResidentAgentInfo.com was a great reference and is on 10's of top legal sites lists. As an attorney who is technically held to a higher standard, I don't think that Mr. Berger would sway content for a few advertising $'s.Dougieb 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Novels written by Jonathan Raban
Hello ... I noticed that you have recently worked on Coasting (book), one of the novels by Jonathan Raban ... Some Other Editor has been creating articles about them, and I noticed that they really were not wikilinked in the body of his article, and most of them read like book reports or reviews, rather than encyclopedia articles.

Anywho, my "thing" is adding  and other templates for references (i.e., replacing explicit but unqualified URLs as references), and looking up ISBNs for   templates, which I also have to add ... I often refer to this as "putting lipstick on a pig" because I sometimes perform cosmetic tweaks, and still nominate an article for deletion.

Just an FYI that I've added you to the list of editors associated with this current project of mine (see User_talk:68.239.79.82), and I wanted to give you a "heads up" so that we don't run into any edit conflicts & reverts ... I sometimes make a clone of an article in my sandbox to work on it, and when I copy the entire page back over the original (which could be a few hours or even days later), I may inadvertently trash the work of Some Other Editor, for which I apologize in advance.

To be honest, I have never heard of the subject, nor would I have occasion to read any of their novels, but my inner child has this Adrian Monk thing going on, and I use Wikipedia to manage it by spending hours doing these kinds of cosmetic cleanups after the nuggets who just don't know about these things yet ... after a few days, it's time for me to MOVE ON to another little project.

Almost forgot ... would you please move Coasting (book) to Coasting (novel) so that it conforms with Surveillance (novel) and Waxwings (novel)? I think that you'll also need to do a REDIRECT to handle the articles that already reference it under that name ... but it looks like I don't have to remind you how to do it correctly. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash; 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

National Registered Agents, Inc. Article
Tiki, I agree with most of your edits on NRAI article. I had the hidden comment because I know that NRAI people troll the page and throw marketing stuff on there, so I was trying to get SOME background on the formation of the company as there is with CSC and CT. Also, one edit is questionable... "Like the other Big Four firms, NRAI offers online tools to assist with the retrieval of entity related information and to assist with filing required jurisdictional documents." - this is a function pretty much exclusive to the big four. Big four companies have these compliance calendar applications and they are pretty complex which is why they are so unique. There is no "off the shelf" solution for these, so I would question that edit since that is one of the main reasons to go with a big four provider. Also, as with accountants and other industries, this big four does not have an organized body, just that they are pretty much universally recognized just as were the Big 8 accounting firms, etc. If you were in law, you would probably know about this already. It is strange that you deem CT and CSC notable, but not NRAI or Incorp. Very odd.Dougieb 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is now the second time that you seem to question my motives. The main difference seems to be that is that you look at my edits and comments trough the 'Big four' glasses while Wikipedia says this about the notability of corporations. It is quite clear that form Wikipedia's point of view, the notability of each resident agent service company needs to be assessed independently. If that results in four articles about Registered agent service providers, i have no problem with it, as long as it is not solely based on insider knowledge, but referenced adequately. If there is enough additional material to write about some Big for, as well. Moreover, notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "successful" or "importance" and it can also be that there is another small company that is notable for whatever reason.


 * Moreover, I did not say that I do not deem NRAI notable, and will elaborate, also on your other point, there. I certainly did not say much on CT and CSC, and so far nobody has written an article on Incorp. If I thought any of them might not be notable, I would tag them accordingly. If I were convinced that they are not not notable, i might propose deletion. --Tikiwont 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wide, Wide World
I am reinstating all deleted content from the Wide, Wide World page due to the fact that the so-called copyrighted material was written by myself and others from literary book club class. A note from bleckblog.org/lit to confirm this. Tao of tyler

Thanks
Thanks for your wellcomming, I`m spockdg. In fact, I'm a long time wikipedian, bu in Spanish, because is my native language, I'm Costa Rican. See you later.

Corporate Creations
Tiki, care to chime in on this one? (lol)
 * Already gone --Tikiwont 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'ts baaaack. Same author that is admittedly an officer of the company in the article - and a suspected sockpuppet. The latter submitted a supposed Fortune 500 article that turned out to be a paid advertisement. It is now in AFD if you want to chime in again. Note previous contribs on both. The reason I came back to you on this one is that they are attempting to use Secretary of State database links as references. I originally argued in favor of this, but you said it constituted original resarch. I need to know if your opinion on this has changed? or ? Dougieb 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, in CC's defense, I still agree with using the online state databases as a reference. Especially when this is the most current information available and typing in a name isn't really major independent research. Dougieb 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Registered Agent
Tiki, removal of the IACA link from the registered agent page is paramount to removing the model act from the article. The IACA is the organization of secretary of state deputies that is working with the treasury department and the financial crimes division to implement the act. No offense intended, but please familiarize yourself with the subject matter before doing such a removal in the future since it could negatively affect the scope of the article if someone removes the model act for lack of reference. This may even be an election issue with some candidates as part of larger agendas. Regards. Dougieb 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed that I also improved the citations. What I removed is an institutional link, not a dominant that in no way sourced the statement before. If what you say above is correct than there is better way to say and refernce it. I will put this now into external links. Instead of reverting always fast, I once again ask you to try to understand the issue other editors address. Thanks--Tikiwont 07:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with it as you have corrected it with the citations. You have removed this link in the past. It is just that it needs to be included period. Again, I have to ask since you removed the citations linking to the Secretary of State sites to indicate company size, but are you approving of this now as used in Corporate Creations ? Dougieb 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I did remove that simply in the past. Now it is a link. And I don't agree with using search screens as citations wherever, but I haven't got around there, not least because of the frantic activity here, that somehow arises whenever someone touches this article. Anwyay AfD discussion lasts five days. --Tikiwont 08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NP. I am stupid on here sometimes - and you can quote me. (LOL) Dougieb 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for welcoming me. I think that I will have much to contribute.Mgr.James Horan Decd. 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kirk (convict)
I've just finished an extensive and detailed revision of Mark Kirk (convict) and would welcome any comments you cared to make, including your opinion of the neutrality of the article. Thanks for your time, previously and now. Accounting4Taste 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

R.A.Mashelkar
Well, the content presented is only a collection of material gathered from public sources over the past many years and is for the benefit of the users of wikipedia. The versions provided are compatible with wiki's official policy on Biographies of Living Persons. The work is verifiable, neutral and not original research and if I may clarify that there is no affiliation to the subject. However, it appears from your edits that there is some reasonable interest in projecting the "Plagiarism Controversy" in a biased manner. I would suggest that you avoid deletion of portions by adhering to wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and as such this type of deletion appears to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybal71 (talk • contribs)

Maroon 5 song
thank you for correcting me. i ahve changed it so it does not say that "won't go home without you" is a confirmed single. thank you Crazilazigurl07 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Crush
I noticed that you tagged Cowboy Crush as not being notable. I've added considerable amount to the page, and I think that now they just squeak by in notability -- granted, one single peaking at #57 isn't a hell of a lot, but it's a LOT more content than before. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. No problem from my side. Antoher reference might be good though. --Tikiwont 08:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support at my RFA. I'm still learning the ropes, but feel free to drop me a note if you need help with anything - I see your name around a fair bit.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ex negativo
Hi, I noticed that you speak German and you edited the article. I have a question. Why do there need to be examples in English? Couldn't we have an article on how the phrase is popular in the German language? Thanks.--Flamgirlant 12:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found this as translation request at Pages_needing_translation_into_English. Now I am not sure, if you wanted to have it translated at all. First of all Wikpedia is not a dictionary. So I don't see why we should have an article on how the phrase is popular in German. Even if it was used in English, this should be shown by a genuine example (e.g. not by an translated German one) but would still be a candidate for wiktionary. --Tikiwont 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the article because it was a requested article. And also, I created because I thought it would be in the same group of articles as Category:Latin_words_and_phrases. Should all of those be moved to wiktionary?--Flamgirlant 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well some of them are already tarsnwikied, others amount to full artciles. This one looks so far more like a dictionary term to me.--Tikiwont 13:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Accessible Tourism
I noticed you performed a non-admin closure of Articles for deletion/Accessible tourism due to withdrawl of the nomination. I would recommend waiting for admin closure in such cases when at least one other person requested delete (User:Rehnn83, in this case), even if the result seems inevitable. But anyway, happy editing. Someguy1221 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Etienne Kuypers
Dear Tikiwont,

Please can you check if the categories are correct and also if I wrote enough reliable sources to verify?

Many thanks, Joblf
 * I've repaired the categories based on the ones that you gave initially as they refer to the person. The homepage says "Alle rechten voorbehouden." so it is not lear to me why you say that it is GNU. If you want to refer to your own contribution you can add a tag from Userboxes/Large/Licencing on your user page. In any case, a person's homepage or that of his publisher is never sufficient as source. For further details, please check Verifiability. --Tikiwont 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Is it allright by now? What are other sources to mention?

Again, many thanks.

Joblf


 * I would not know what other sources are to mention, but without any we should not keep this article. I also note that there isn't an entry in the NL wikipedia. --Tikiwont 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tikiwont,

I put references and sources in teh article. I think it is correct now. Please can you remove the remarks in the text? If you want to change something in the article: please feel free to do that.

Many thanks. Joblf


 * I've answered on the article's talk page. --Tikiwont 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

I have used the concept of the article on Hanneke Canters. References are here books, I did the same, but you only want to write 'selected works' here. The books are references (with sources as curriculum vitae in the books) with their ISBN as references and sources. There is no article on Struyker Boudier in Wikipedia, but his magnum opus (8 volumes in Dutch) contents a lot of information on Dr. Kuypers.

In my opinio I used the same concept as the article on Hanneke Canters. Maybe you can look with these glasses through both articles?

Please feel free to work on the article.

Thanks.

regards, Joblf


 * Well, I'm afraid you didn't pick a good example and I may take a closer look at the Canters article. You should either look at featured articles or study the guidelines on citations and reliable sources. Anything else is better discussed on the article's talk page. --Tikiwont 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

I have written some references/sources. I hope this is exactly what you need.

Thanks for your help.

regards, Joblf

Dear T,

I think I have mentioned enough sources and references?

regards,

Joblf


 * Well, you certainly addedd material, but also did'nt look at the mentioned citation guidelines. Since the BOT has modified my tag and I am about to prepare for vacation, I'll remove the tag and revise the sections once more so that you ahev astart for ebtter intergating the material. Please keep in mind that other editors may have their own opinions and not understand Dutch at all. --Tikiwont 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

I know, but you said that I'll have to cite in Dutch. So I did that. i can write the citations in Dutch and English - if you want. You took just one tag, all the others are also references and sources... So?

Many thanks for your help.

regards, Joblf


 * I don't think I said that. I certainly wanted to say that inline citatiosn are needed for which I gave you one example as a start and that the titles of the Boudier work cannot be translated to English. Please also note that a citation is not the same as a quote.--Tikiwont 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear T,

I have done the things you wanted me to do - I think. Please take a look. I hope you are satisfied by now.

Many, many thanks for your help!

Have a good holiday!

Kind regards, Joblf


 * I noticed that you also removed the inline refernce and the automated reflist generated therefrom. In any case there are different citation styles to link the content and the sources. --Tikiwont 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My drawing removed
Hi Tiki...should I have no art, or should i have a small photo? Please advise. I cannot remember the formatting required for a photo but I have a headshot. Someone had resized that drawing for me as when I put it on it was very big and they made it smaller. Thanks. jenbooks13 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, initially the drawing was only in the way of formatting the references, but moving it, I noticed that it hasn't a caption or an artist. Moreover, I'd say it is rather a piece of visual communication by you / about you that is appropriate on the website, but not in an encyclopedic article striving for neutrality . Feel free to add a photo, but I am not much familiar with the technical details either. --Tikiwont 14:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi I think that makes sense. I remember it being a bit hard for me to upload the rendering of me as it came out really large. I'll try a photo and see if it works. I think I understand wikipedia a bit better now and can ask for help if I can't do it myself. Thanks :) jenbooks13 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)