User talk:Tomyiy

 Hi Thomas280784, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Button sig2.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

 Good luck, and have fun. --Subdolous (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Chad LaRose/Larose
Oops - sorry, misread your reason for deleting this redirect. Before I perform the move, can you supply evidence that it is LaRose and not Larose? The only external reference seems to give the lower case version. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, no problem! His player profile and this picture indicate that he's written with a capital R. -- Thomas ✉ 08:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! -- Thomas ✉ 08:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd goal for Russia in game 30
Thank you for your efforts on editing 2008 IIHF World Championship article. As for game 30 (Russia-Belarus), I saw the replay multiple times, and it is absolutely clear that the 3rd goal for Russia was scored by Maxim Afinogenov (No. 61), not Alexander Ovechkin (No. 8). I hope IIHF will notice and fix the error in their official Game Summary. Otherwise your updates are great there. Svmich (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that goal too and was also wondering why they gave the goal to Ovechkin. They changed it to Ovechkin just after the game. We will see... -- Thomas ✉ 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert my change regarding this goal. We both know the truth. And we are not obliged to reflect official IIHF information in the article when we can clearly see such an error and judge by ourselves. Svmich (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Timo Pielmeier (2nd nomination)
I have nominated Timo Pielmeier, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Timo Pielmeier (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pparazorback (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the discussion pages...
Before moving pages. You would have Seen that consensus was reached to have Mueller's page at Marcel Mueller and Not Müller. Make sure when you move a page it isn't controversial. If it is start a discussion like this one.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to the 2011 European Trophy article
Hello! I've reverted your good-faith edits to the 2011 European Trophy article. First of all, regarding Red Bull Salzburg, if you look at the other teams in their division, you'll see that they are only 1–2 points behind Salzburg and still have one game to play. In other words, there is a great risk that they'll pass Salzburg, which means that they'll take the playoff spot of the worst second ranked team, and it's not at all certain that will be the second team of the West Division. Secondly, regarding Luleå HF, Adler Mannheim and TPS (in the other divisions) will, if they take three points in their last game, pass Luleå statistically (Mannheim will have 15 points, TPS will have 14 points but better goal difference than Luleå). So nothing more than Frölunda's spot is known at this time. Most of this are likely to be sorted through after today's games. Best regards, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First, who will surpass Lulea in the North Division? They already played their 8 qualifying games and both teams from Prague can't get more points... Mannheim plays in the South Division. The best two teams from every division qualify for the Red Bulls Salute, not the 8 teams with the best points record. Secondly, Salzburg is seated for Final tournament, because they host this event. -- Thomas ✉ 10:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Salzburg is seated for Final tournament, because they host this event." – that's exactly what I'm talking about. And there can't be nine teams in the playoffs. If TPS, Färjestad or Eisbären—any of them—surpass Salzburg in the West Division, the worst second ranked team out of all four divisions will be replaced by Salzburg. You may have forgotten or missed the fact that TPS, Färjestad and Eisbären all have one game left each to play, and they are only 1–2 points behind Salzburg in the same division, so they still may surpass Salzburg in the West Division. This also means that Luleå may lose their second playoff spot. In fact, read this article, which covers yesterday's games: "But Luleå have to wait until after Sundays games to know if they too are through to the Red Bull Salute on December 16–18. They are in second place in the North division on 14 points (+2)." Luleå have to hope that TPS or Mannheim doesn't take 3 points today. I know this is complicated math, but what I'm saying is the truth. See also Talk:2011 European Trophy. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 10:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits again. First of all, you are right that Luleå can't be surpassed in the North Division. However, if teams from the West Division surpass Salzburg from the West Division, Luleå may miss the playoffs if both TPS and Mannheim win in 60 minutes (i.e. take 3 points) today. Also, Färjestad, TPS and Eisbären still can surpass Salzburg, provided that they win today. If you still disagree, I suggest you report this dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard instead of reverting again. Best regards, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right!! I'm sorry! Thought Salzburg takes the seat of the second placed team in the West... I'm very sorry! -- Thomas ✉ 17:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry if I was a bit angry and perhaps not clear with my explanation – I was somewhat frustrated that you apparently didn't understand what I said to you first. But, Luleå has been sorted out at least; TPS lost to Linköping this evening. Cheers, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial moves
Be warned that your recent article moves here and here are controversial. Recent discussion have confirmed that all moves involving diacritics are controversial and therefore must first gain consensus at WP:RM. You are required to follow the RM route for all future moves involving diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that all moves must go to WP:RM however if someone objects to them then they do. Please stop spreading incorrect information just because you personally have been banned from moving articles away from diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Going the RM route, instead of unilaterally moving hockey bio pages, would help in cutting down the drama, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it would likely make more drama as the moves would then be fought out in RfMs. Whereas most of the time the moves that don't go the RM route are ignored and people don't care about them which is in turn less drama. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IIHF
Hey, here you go. Kante44 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ich glaube, wir können es auch auf Deutsch machen. Von daher: Danke! Gruß Thomas  ✉ 18:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kein ding. ;) Kante44 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)