User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 9

Your Anchor
Hi! An editor made the claim that Lackthereof was fit for Speedy Deletion. I contested, because the article as it was seemed to meet WP:MUSIC. The editor then put the article up for AfD and apparently also PRODded the albums, claiming the artist was non-notable. As it turns out, the artist passed the AfD. It appears that the PROD for Your Anchor was forgotten about and succeeded. Would you be able to pull it back from the dead? &mdash;  X   S   G   13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes actually I deleted three albums and one EP per prod but I understand that only Your Anchor was releases on a label. So having three album articles seems fine to me. But Let me know in case you would want back others as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm good with this, as only the three albums that now appear as links from Lackthereof are the three released under independent labels, which is what I used to justify notability.  Your efforts are highly appreciated. &mdash;   X   S   G   14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's dab
I wasn't sure if dab pages were considered articles or not. Is there somewhere that says that, or is it simply that it is a page that could be an article? MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Miscellany for deletion is for problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main namespace (also called the "article namespace"), so dab pages definitively do not belong there. While there are similar to redirects, there isn't a specific process. If necessary they are listed at AfD, but most unneeded ones are simply edited or redirected away.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the welcome. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/FallenWings47
Don't worry, I'm still going to contribute MAJORLY to Wikipedia. But now that I know what's acceptable for subpages, I'll do even better than I did before! --FallenWings47 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your category shift
Can you please explain why you are shifting articles about science based organizations such as Battelle into a category called "miscellaneous"? Is seems that you are moving articles from a somewhat specific category "Research and Development", into a the category "miscellaneous research institutes" that are described as "indiscernible" on the category header. These changes are being made without any discussion either on the article talk page, or on the category talk page. WVhybrid (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Category:Research and development is rather a generic one that shouldn't have organizations at the firsts level. I have been creating for all - and that means a thousand or more - research institutes, that initially were dispersed in a number of heterogenous cats, first categories by country such as Category:Research institutes in the United States and then categories by topic in Category:Research institutes including Category:Multidisciplinary research institutes and Category:Miscellaneous research institutes as catch-all but also as intermediate category for some that have yet not been classified in detail or where I hadn't yet created the right category. So i just finished going through all country categories, assuring that more or less all research institutes are also listed in the "by topic scheme" choosing Miscellaneous as default. Next step is to go systematically once more through that category, create more categories and sort those that haven't yet been put into a better box by others such as now Battelle by you. Sorry for any inconvenience. I'll crosspost this, to avoid further irritation. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It does make sense to be more specific, and your explanation is helpful. But I think you might reconsider deletion of the word "development".  Perhaps I'm being overly picky, but I think "research institute" has more of a ivy tower connotation, with long debates at conferences and papers published in journals few can afford, while "R&D" seems to me, at least, to imply new patents and new products brought to market.  Perhaps there is no way around the perception differences, but please think about your category nomenclature a bit.  WVhybrid (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some suggested categories you might want to consider: Academic research and development organizations and  Electric power research and development organizations. Examples of the first category would be the Georgia Tech Research Institute and an example of the second would be Electric Power Research Institute.  WVhybrid (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No you're not overly picky and i definitely agree with you that "R&D" is different than Research. I was so far mostly concerned about the latter, so hadn't looked yet atElectric Power Research Institute and similar at all. I only passed over the Battelle entry because it was already in Category:Research institutes in the United States and removed the R&D entry more as an afterthought, but didn't really appreciate that this might leave a gap. To remedy this, I'd be inclined to create first Category:research and development organizations res inset Battelle there as well as other candidates and then think about further subcategories.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want any help organizing these categories, I'm willing to lend a hand.WVhybrid (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated and this is a wiki anyways. I merely embarked on this miniproject a year ago or so after i proposed some list of research institutes (but I lost interest in between). Now there are a few specific things I'd still do such as refining the topic categories such as Energy research institutes, sorting the miscellaneous ones and hunt for some not yet categories at all, and consider the content of other High level categories such as Laboratories or Category:Scientific organizations and their interaction. For the moment I'd appreciate your feedback about considering Category:Research and development organizations rather a parallel categorization that is linked to the research institutes via Category:Research institutes by type (although organization is a more general concept that institute). That way we can for now profit from the detailed scheme for research institutes and highlight those that are also R&D. I've tried that aslo at the EPRI example (one cat is cunrrently still red). If something else comes to my mind I'd let you know. If you work with cats, you may want to check out the tool HotCat--Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will probably spend some time before I make any changes. If I come up with any thing beyond minor tweaks, I will talk it over with you first. And thanks for the bot link.  WVhybrid (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-Nuke
I was the editor that prodded the above article. I don't think that the present version of the article had ever been prodded (tho two others had). It still seems non notable. Any thoughts? I was just trying to clear old tags. Can notability be achieved here? Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a previous article on the same web comic had been deleted as proposed deletion, we consider the recreation as an indicator that the deletion was not uncontroversial or rather as way of contesting the proposed deletion. Now, it doesn't look notable to me either, but Articles for deletion would be the place to go.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

protect request
whatever dude...i was just trying to restore a bit of order and common sense. you can do whatever you wish.--emerson7 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of talk pages and redirects
Sorry about a lot of those nominations then. I was going off what I read here on TTN's talk page on the matter and thought it was a required maintenance step I'd not known about o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was about to drop you a note so that you can save time. To star with there are just too many. Those talk pages that have possibly useful content should be kept, those that don't have any content or merely banners are sometimes deleted but even that is not necessarily uncontroversial. Moreover, even for the empty ones they are typically redirected or deleted via scripts in one step, but tagging by one person and deleting by another isn't worth it.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

HP Labs
When did Labs start doing development too? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know :-( I put it into Category:Research organizations last year and it just sneaked out between IBM Research and Sun Microsystems Laboratories.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Thanks for voting in my RFA. I'm happy to say that it successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals - of which, one of them was you. If you have any comments, questions, criticisms or advice for me that can help me improve in or for the future, please feel free to let me know. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN3
I notice you recently warned Esemono for 3RR. I have blocked him and the IP independently for edit warring. Feel free to amend this if you think it's justified. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I didn't really see the 3RR reports, but I wanted to avoid blocking Esemono as he wasn't active, has clean block log and somewhat lost his cool today when some Ip entered with heavy editing. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Esemono was aware of the 3rr rule as he filed such a request, so i opted for a comment. Thanks for imediately notifying me as i was about to log out.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My blocking
Since I was blocked for that, Goodraise should have been blocked also. He broke the same rule on the same articles. Gune (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the same rule applies but I checked that at time of reporting and still see e.g at for October 15 / 16 two reverts each by Goodrasie and Nandesuka, but four by you (on four different articles) within 24 h. If you have different evidence let me know.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:I Z Iordanov
I notice that you left a message for this user about his user page. I don't know if you got any response, but I think there is a larger problem: from his contribution list it seems that he is just using WP as a web host for drafts of his PhD thesis, and has made no actual contributions to the encyclopedia at all (bar one page which I think was created in article space by mistake and has been speedied). Even if completed, his PhD thesis would be original research and not a possible article. I noticed him a while back, waited to see if any article contributions appeared, and have been in doubt what to do next. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, too, and my message which was actually intended with respect to all of his subpages. No response, though, nor anything else and I forgot about it. If you aren't familiar yet with MfD, that is our process for sttuf like this. In which case he should be advised (as not regular user) ideally also via e-mail, to be able to save that before it gets deleted. -Tikiwont (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to have email enabled. I'll think of a suitable message to put on his talk page, and give him say a month before nominating all his stuff for MfD. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area
I notice that you went through and cleaned out this category. I don't remember seeing any discussion of this action on Categories for discussion. In the future, please bring changes of this sort to CfD. - Stepheng3 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. It looked like a somewhat inconsistent categorization attempt and it was one of few categories of research institutes on the sub-national level that I found while categorizing research institutes, but discussing is better. Actions related to categories seem to be considered too bold more easily than other edits. On the other hand, Categories for discussion is often criticized as well as 'broken' for having a 'few regulars' making far reaching decisions. Anyway, while I can see some use for this particular cat from the SfB area perspective, I'd break down Category:Research institutes in the United States differently, if at all. -Tikiwont (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Yes, I get carried away sometimes. However, is it not prudent to revert an edit that is without a source? – PeeJay 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question re tagging and "hangon"
Heya! Since you're an admin, and you were the one who removed the tag, I'm guessing you'd be a good person to ask about this.

The HTMLayout article, which I started about a month ago (in response to a redlink), has twice been nominated for deletion; first because it was considered not notable enough, and more recently because it was expanded massively but in a way that made it look more like advertising. In response to this second deletion suggestion, I cleaned up the article a lot, and also added the "hangon" tag as advised in the message placed on my talk page; but you've removed the hangon, saying that the article's already been declined for speedy deletion. Does this mean that the article's not going to be speedied now? I'm a little confused as to how it all goes. Editing a wiki is easy... understanding the rules, policies, and (especially) culture of Wikipedia isn't so easy! :)

Thanks in advance! I keep a reasonably close eye on my own talk page, although I don't necessarily watch actual pages much.

Rosuav (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged for speedy deletion as advertising on October 16 and this particular reason was declined by an admin presumably because considered spammish but not irredeemable so. Otherwise you would have found no article anymore five days later on October 21. The hangon tag just put the article back into the deletion queue once more, so i removed it. While I personally don't see a valid reason to delete it speedily now, the article may be put up for a deletion discussion by an editor, e.g. if the current lack of independent references cannot be addressed. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That answers the question! Rosuav (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there, i was wondering whether you would be kind enough to look at the contribs of this user and give some help in regard to the redirects the user has recreated. I am a bit baffled and im not sure whether its vandalism or test edits or what. Eg they created Incognegr0 and redirected to the same section on Pirates (2005 film) but that section does not exist. All the edits are like this. Hopefully you can help. Thanks  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Left a note and cleaned-up / deleted some more. We'll see. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Karl Unterkircher
hi tikiwont, my name is Herbert and I used to help Karl Unterkircher in sponsoring etc...I wanted just to thank you for having opened a English wikipedia for him. I will come back to on a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.179.88 (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RFD
You closed Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_17 as Delete, but it is still a blue link?  MBisanz  talk 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, deleted now.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott West Award
Fair enough. I have tried to redirect the page before but the article creator keep reverting back to his article. I would have proposed it for merger but after reading about the process was of the understanding that anyone who disagrees is allowed to just remove the tag from the page and it is fairly obvious that that is what this guy would do.

I should note that this editor (who has blanked his talk page to hide the evidence) has a history of disruptive edits and has been banned at least once.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Cheers. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing a merge once per WP:BOLD is fine, but as it has been reverted the proposal is controversial and needs to be discussed. Currently Talk:Scott_West_Award is empty. WP:MERGE is indeed the process to follow here, and (as opposed to reverting an undiscussed move), good faith merge proposal and discussion tags cannot simply be removed. The propsal will also alert editors active on the target artcile on the issue. In case of need you can contact an admin (I have the article now on my watchlist.) But it is also important to not expect the worst. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
I disagree. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been civil; and I understand your reasoning. My reasoning was that the user had been given a "final" warning and still committed vandalism. I am sure you are more versed in the laws of Wikipedia than I am. --Law Lord (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings? --Law Lord (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me
It was indeed a test edit and not vandalism, just came off Huggle, got it on the brain. :S &mdash; neuro(talk) 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Not that their subsequent edits were necessarily good, but the version reverted wasn't sound either. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What?
Sorry but I am a Filipino, I can't control my sentences, well sorry! Geniusdream was the one who started, not me, if you see, he'd keep on vandalizing my talkpage before he blocked. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AirAsia X
Hi Tikiwont. Thanks for protecting AirAsia X but it seems you have protected it to a version that is not inline with the consensus that has been obtained on the talk page. Is it possible for this to be rectified? Mvjs Talking  10:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've meanwhile crossposted to your page, which should answer. If not, let me know.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be being a bit unintentionally thick here but we've got a consensus on the talk page as your template suggests. I see the humorous meta wiki page but that hardly answers my concern. If you could clear this up for me, that'd be great! Cheers. Mvjs  Talking  10:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I protected the last version due to heavy edit warring as an alternative to blocking as several parties including you were at or over the WP:3RR threshold. Exempting some reverts as correcting edits against consensus wasn't obvious either as the same two parties who commented at the talk page also reverted.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggests in such cases to revert less yourself and report earlier to appropriate notice boards as WP:RPP or WP:3RR. Hope that helps.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I'll certainly keep it in mind for next time. As you requested, we've now got a confirmation of the consensus on the talk page. Any chance that you could restore the correct version and/or unprotect the article? Mvjs Talking  22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check back tommorrow.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Apaka
Alfred Apaka - I did not copy and paste this article. I actually was shopping at a yard sale and found an old promotional poster for Alfred Apaka from the 50's, it seems. I spent about thirty minutes typing it in MS Word. The poster seems to be from the back of an old record. The record is Hawaiian Favorites / Alfred Apaka with Danny Stewart's Hawaiians by MCA Records. It states it as his biography but does not state anywhere that the biography is copyrighted. I would appreciate help with reformatting it if it is usable. - Sammy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtastic6 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch where you're pointing that thing!
You recently closed this AfD in a proper and uncontroversial fashion, save for a glitch in its tool-assisted execution. What's the one Wikipedia: page linked to in the discussion that was not up for deletion in any way, shape or fashion, and has 3245 revisions at last count? That's riiiight.

No doubt we'll all be laughing about this in time, but if the same happens more than once you should consider using admin abilities by hand. --Kiz o r  10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * UH, thanks for the heads-up and fix. I had a doubt because of some redirects (which I will fix now), but didn't see t it checking the logs...I guess I'll switch that back to manual in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

About the Ronnie Nader article
Hi Tikiwonk, about the article in question, I posted my version of the events here Editor_assistance/Requests. If you should have any suggestions on how to best solve this dispute, it would be very much appreciated.

Regards, -Hilbert137 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a start. WP:Dispute resolution should give you some more links. The talk page is difficult to read because it is upside down. On their request, I've advised Airwolf as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be advisable to rearrange the talk page so that the headings are in chronological order (no longer upside down)? So that it wont be difficult for other users to follow the discussion. Regards, --Hilbert137 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as in general we do it the other way round. Actually I can do that to avoid misunderstandings an as it is quite now.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for your assistance with Taylor Toth. Sorry I wasn't able to respond as I was offline. Cheers, and thanks again. --Ckatz chat spy  17:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Johannes Wildner
Thanx for the heads-up, will remember to check more thoroughly next time I db-cpyvio. And yes, unfortunately I had warned the creator about 'their' copyvio, have apologised. Thanx  Misarxist  13:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropcial Storm Tanya
Hi, you removed by sd request due to non-sense. AFAIK "tropical" is written with an I between the pc and the c. Therefore this redirect isn't needed – despite of the fact that it is around three years or so. Or should one also create redirects like Topical Storm Tanya, Tropial Storm Tanya... ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Zu spät gesehen, daß ich das auf Deutsch hätte schreiben können. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't even see that it was misspelled but tried to figure out unsuccessfully why it would be nonsense. Thanks for spelling it out now letter for letter. ;-) To answer in kind, a misspelling does not amount to nonsense according to G1, AFAIC. Moreover, you seem to imply that redirects that shouldn't be created should be deleted, or vice versa, not deleting one redirect would suggest to create similar ones. In fact both WP:Redirect and WP:Redirects for discussion show that the situation is asymmetric: we tolerate and allow a number of redirect types without necessarily encouraging their creation. A misspelling in particular is by itself no reason to delete and in fact there is Category:Redirects from misspellings. The closest speedy deletion criterion to your case is R2 but I have to bent my mind to consider this one recently created or an implausible typo after I didn't even notice it myself. ;-) Anyways, I reckon we have now discussed this sufficiently to move it out safely, but please bring next time anything that doesn't fit the CSD to WP:RFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Science and technology in Qatar
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Science and technology in Qatar, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Science and technology in Qatar has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Science and technology in Qatar, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/PuguaSoft
Hello. Thanks for the message. But the article was deleted anyway. Sure about the undoing? What do you propose happens afterwards? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, logical. I'll undo right away. Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. You appeared to have a reason to sound the way you did. Sorry if I caused a mix-up. Cheers and have a good break. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Speedy Tags
Ill try to bare that in mind. I suppose its just as im not as experiences as some others who do this. Kirachinmoku (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I Think if i sitck to it, ill soon be fairly good, i just need to get my feet on the ground —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirachinmoku (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with user: 203.87.194.142
I don't know about user. I've reverted his seemingly uninformed edits, but when I decided to do this and gave him a 3RR warning, he suddenly reported me to WP:AIV in seemingly ill-advised fashion. Can you help me on this guy? (I've also wrote this on WP:AN/I, but I've also decided to tell this to you as well, so you will know.) Please reply ASAP. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved answer to ANI.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects Dag Eliassen
I might have missed the point here, apologies for adding (what appears to have been) a wrong speedy del tag here. This is the name of one individual redirecting to another.

As it stands, this redirect only serves the purpose of colouring a links in two articles blue, namely in the article Bjørn Sagvolden that the links redirects to and one other where this link is the second name in a list of two persons, the other being (again) Bjørn Sagvolden. I would think that such a redirect is misleading indepentently of whether the article it redirects to is kept or not. It's no big deal, but it is something I would have speedy deleted as a misleading redirect at no:wiki or Commons. Aplogies for the inconvenience, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No inconvenience, really. Just that misleading isn't a speedy deletion criterion here and in case it doesn't fall out automatically, something that people like to discuss. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion of Tenshi no Solitaire
Thankyou for being concerned with the page but I assure you this game is very notable. It was part of the original set of games that came out at the Japanese WiiWare launch and is still downloadable. It is hard to get lots of references and more information of the game because it is yet to be released over in North America and Europe. It is also included on the wikipedia article List of WiiWare Games. Once again I thank you for your concen and I will be sure to get some more references and information for the game. Nintendofootball (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualitest
Hi, how come you deleted Qualitest? It had citations and sources. Doesn't that count as a stub? Please reply on my talkpage and give a detailed explanation. Thank you.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky Karma Entertainment SPEEDY DELETION
Please explain why LUCKY KARMA ENTERTAINMENT was deleted under the pretense of SPEEDY DELETION. What more is needed to keep the page active? Sapnamalhotra (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll answer at your talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

TNSrecords
Hi, sorry I don't always understand the jargon on here. I noticed that you removed the "speedy deletion" message. When I created the article I asked and was told that it did meet the notability criteria, then it was tagged under the same criteria. Am I right in thinking that as that box has been removed, the article has once again been deemed notable enough? Mozza1979 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already answered at Hoponpop69's page.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Gardner Champlin
Thanks for helping. Happy editing! AdjustShift (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks Controversies
Hi Tikiwont. I just saw your participation on the talk page of this article. It was listed for protection at RFPP and upon review, I saw it was tagged for speedy. I read over the article and agreed that it should be deleted. It would be my recommendation to have interested parties draft in the user space and then request review before taking into the article space, as what was written was terribly POV and shoddy as far as sourcing goes for verifiability. Basically, completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, let me know. لenna vecia  20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and not a problem for me. I came there from AIV with a completely different angle since some vandal fighters defended the article. Then someone mentioned deletion (without tagging) and I came maybe somewhat slowly to the opinion that there wasn't much worth defending but wasn't sure about the creators intentions. Redirecting didn't help much. BTW, there is a redirect with the same content underneath at Mumbai Attacks Contraversies. I assume if there is anything better to write about controversies it will arther come form the main artcile. In any case won't be much available until next week.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I HAD ASKED EVERY ONE SPECIFICALLLY NOT TO ENGAGE IN EDIT WAR KINDLY DONOT ENGAGE IN EDIT WAREFARE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvnx25 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but you may want to contemplate who has been edit warring or pushing something. I only redirected the article once and opened up a discussion. As far as i see you were the only one that maintained that it is or may become a valid article and reverted the redirect several times. Then an uninvolved administrator that you alerted yourself with your request for page protection concluded that the article is better deleted. I then deelted a depending redirect and an orphaned talk page. If you have further comments please don't use caps as it comes across as yelling.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits by 202.44.80.179
Hey Tikiwont! Thanks for your timely and rational intervention regarding personal opinion/view/analysis by 202.44.80.179. It seems he is still continuing with it even after the warning by you. Grüße, Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well my warning was specific to reverting / edit warring. Another editor has as of the moment oy your note above issued another warning regarding to the IP actual contents, so we'll see.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA talk
Hey, sorry about that; I was trying to post my sig to a post I made and, er.. missed :). Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance this case. That talk page usually moves too fast for me ;) --Tikiwont (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!!
Hey, sexy! Looks like you've blocked this public server from making changes to Wikipedia articles. I've noticed an error in one of the American History pages, but I guess it sucks for all of those people taking research from this website, doesn't it? Oh well. So once again, good job! It's greatly appreciated by the Wikipedia community and I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.54.72 (talk • contribs)

User talk: 89.175.22.37
I saw you temp blocked this persistant vandal on 26 November. They're back and at it again as of yesterday(see my rollback just now at British International School Moscow for a sample). Hammertime? I didn't know whether "active now" per Guidelines for admin intervention on vandalism applied so I thought I'd bring it to you rather than cock it up by taking it straight there inappropriately. ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed not active now, but as form the history the signature is the same without any good edits in between, I've issued another block. I've also watchlisted the school's page. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Petrakueng/Sandbox
Hi, maybe I'm being dumb (it's a common problem!), but shouldn't this have been moved to "User:Petrakueng/Sandbox" rather than Petrakueng/Sandbox? Unusual? Quite TalkQu  12:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am being dumb....--Tikiwont (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad it's you rather than me ;-) Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to live with it ;) --Tikiwont (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy
Thanks for protecting two articles; the vandalism by the same user continues at Anthroposophy...could you protect this one, too? hgilbert (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. hgilbert (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't help please file a report at WP:ANI so that we can target a range block. I won't be around later. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal
We can just leave him blocked, that's fine. I doubt he's going to be making useful contributions. :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tenzin Gyatso speedy declined
Hi,

You declined this speedy because it wasn't on the article page - sorry about that. Can you delete the article redirect too? As an honorific, "Dalai Lama" shouldn't be part of the article title, just like "King" or "Queen" isn't part of any monarch article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that i understand that you actually meant the article itself, I still don't think it is uncontroversial and rather a case for WP:RM. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the redirect points at a previous move to the same location that was contested and reverted. Moreover, it isn't obvious which convention should apply here, so definitely better to discuss. Cheers--Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re "Daeadalus/Roland Nicholson"
Tikiiwont, I will take responsibilty for wikifying the page for Prof. Roland Nicholson. What do I do next? Columbia Student (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Columbia Student Roland Nicholson Columbia Student (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tikiwont,

I will take take responsibility for wikifying/restoring the article on Prof. Nicholson. Please advise. Thank you.

Columbia Student (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Columbia Student ":Roland Nicholson:" 12/10/08


 * Okay, I understand you refer to User:Daedalus969/Roland Nicholson deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daedalus969/Roland Nicholson. I'll restore it to your userspace and post some more links at your page.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IKING PRODUCTIONS
Hey Tiki, I'm wondering what else would be needed for the IKING PRODUCTIONS article to be approved. It is a legit group with distribution through a major over seas indpendant. It's not blatant advertisement at all. The article basically gives a detailed background about the group along with links to back up claims. It is no different than any other musical post. you can google the group and see the credits for yourself.

(Enokaka (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Danke sehr
Thanks, I was wondering when the cavalry was going to arrive..  Litho  derm  11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome (belatedly, as i clicked this away yesterday to take care of other stuff and then forgot it) and thanks for resisting so long in the trenches...--Tikiwont (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My talk page
Please don't talk on my talk page. -- Wilkos (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what talk pages are for. Please don't throw piped acronyms at me. Thanks--Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse the ****** out of me. I change it for if you stop. Now don't talk on my talk page and I won't talk on yours. But you can't be all on my talk page talkin about Pubic goods like its a bad redirect because frankly, IDGAF... Wilkos (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously you care a lot about it, otherwise you wouldn't get so irked about a good faith nomination of a good faith redirect about which I left a courtesy note on your talk page to immediately take that on the personal level and link me to an essay that you yourself nominated for deletion because of what you call "profane, insulting language". --Tikiwont (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't know why I was so cranky. Will you accept my apology and forgive me?  Wilkos (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I have replies to your input on WP:MfD/Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch. = Wilkos (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, MfD already closed...--Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Thanks for the advice given at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Jniech (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey tikiwond
Could you help on this one as well: Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkos (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that one is both useless and harmless, so as far as I am concerned hardly worth bothering about. Surely that RFD will take its course. I hang out at RfD anyways, mostly closing and commenting on some that really need further input. See you around.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about |stepping on your toes. Clear consensus in any event. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine is an evil laugh
Good evening! I was considering e-mailing Sackville School and letting them know that a Martyn has been talking badly-spelled smack of a teacher. Do you believe that this would be worth it in the name of improving online discourse, or would it sour tempers for little benefit? --Kiz o r  20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning! I am trying to imagine all the possible changes for better or worse such a message might trigger, but it is just the kind of thought, that one may entertain a moment while facing the umpteenth attack page before dropping it for good.
 * If properly mined there is a lot of material inside Wikipedia where people compromised themselves. Given that our privacy policies are based on the principle to limit access to, and retention of, personally identifiable data to the minimal and for internal use only as far as the well-being of the project in concerned, we should in general not synthesize such information and bring it outside the project. The only exception that I can immediately think of is the mitigation of threats of harm. If at all, the pedagogical thing might be to drop Martyn a note how much he has exposed himself. Cheers. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

International Classified Media Association
I just flagged International Classified Media Association for WP:COI. When editing the talk page, I noticed that you had previously deleted it for WP:copyvio. As you have far more WP experience than me, perhaps you can advise how best to deal with the article. Should we nominate it for deletion again? I am watching this page, so please feel free to reply here. Certes (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is spammish and too many inappropriate external links. It has a certain nobility claim in it being an international body, but currently no sources to back it up, so it is indeed an article to watch and a possible deletion candidate. But with the WP experience weighing somewhat on my shoulders, I'll now sneak out for an already planned break till 2009;) Best wishes!--Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I will see if anyone else comments, and look at the article again in the new year. Certes (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

why they remove the uwc
why they remove it i dnt understand plz explain i thought UWC are oficial chart song of the world and bilbord is official of USA/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amapura (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered there.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and a happy new year to you as well!--Tikiwont (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)