Wikipedia

User talk:Armbrust/Archive 4

< User talk:Armbrust
Latest comment: 13 years ago by The ed17 in topic WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10


Contents

Starbase Indy

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your feedback on this draft. I have added some inline references and have corrected URL links to eliminate 404 errors. Would it be possible for you to look at it again to see if it would pass muster? Thank you, Janeway1701 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have invested a little work in the draft too (you can see it in the history of the article) and i think it can now moved to the article name-space. If you don't know how, leave a message. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank your again for your assistance. I was afraid of using too many in-line references from the sources and overdoing it, but I see now that the more facts that can be backed up, the better. I was looking in the Article Wizard about moving the page, but any tips you could give would be appreciated. Janeway1701 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to read about page move, than I suggest you to read Help:Moving a page. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

2004 European Open (snooker) and lost/forfeiting

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding this, "forfeit" is correct. It doesn't have to be voluntary. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This part of the Rules of snooker is completely unsourced. The sourced doesn't mention this situation. This by World Snooker says: "Stephen Maguire made breaks of 68, 50, 60 and 66 in a 4-0 win over Peter Lines, and will now play Dominic Dale, who beat Bjorn Haneveer 4-1 despite losing the second frame by a score of 12-0 after missing a red he could see three times in a row." Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what another article (Rules of snooker) and that source has to do with anything. Also, why do you keep edit warring? A discussion was ongoing but you still felt the need to force your version in the meantime. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no source that states, that missing the object ball three times in a row, if it is visible, means that the player forfeites the frame. And the source doesn't say forfeiting. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Forfeit" is just an ordinary dictionary word; see Merriam Webster ("to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime") and Wiktionary ((1) "To suffer the loss of something by wrongdoing or non-compliance", (2) "To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules"). We don't need the source to say an ordinary dictionary word to use it. Armbrust, now you're just making yourself look silly. The RfA established that you kept on making these daft mistakes and focused too much on minor things, then edit-warring to keep them in. When you're wrong, you insist you're right and eventually you realise you weren't. But then it happens again and keeps continuing. Can you not see a pattern? I'm surprised that you don't seem to be taking the advice on board. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed an ordinary dictionary word, and doesn't mean what you think it means. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If you think, you can revert it, but then i will ad {{cn}} to it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That would appear to be mightily POINTy behaviour. Instead of saying that if I did something you'll go and take action, why not respond to the rather lengthy comment I made above? The first step to dispute resolution is discussion between the editors. When one person tries to discuss in a constructive way, and the other person just says "if you do that, I'll retaliate", it doesn't look good for the latter. It basically forces the matter to go further, rather than have it come to a place where both parties can agree on. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not pointy at all. I would support such tagging, since using "forfeit" here is clearly a novel synthesis of your personal interpretation of world snooker rules and your personal [mis]interpretation of some dictionary entries, not supported by snooker sources. Nor by usage of the terms "loss" and "forfeit" throughout the sports, gaming, political and other worlds. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is highly dubious to say "forfeiting". No source states, that violating this rule means the forfeiture of the player, but losing the frame is a fact. Losing this particular frame is true, but forfeiting is a speculation. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I quite understood that. If we change it to "forced to forfeit", would you agree on that? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source for this claim, then ok. But I doubt you have. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained it's a dictionary word so we don't need it to appear in the source exact. If the word used accurately describes what's said in the source, that's enough to use that word in the article. Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere I'll open a thread at the NORN noticeboard for more input if you agree with this (OR noticeboard seems to be the most appropriate venue for this). Christopher Connor (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dispute over "forfeit" vs. "lost". Christopher Connor (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much activity at the OR board, I'll continue the discussion here. This source uses the word forfeit to describe the situation but in a different match. The rules at the World Snooker site say the frame is "awarded" to the opponent. Basically the circumstances fit the definition of "forfeit". Christopher Connor (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think not, because the player don't make the shot intentionally as a miss. As the "awarded to the opponent" is in the rules it can be used instead of lost and should be used instead of forfeit. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you understand the definition of "forfeit"? I gave it above from dictionaries, but your comments lead me to suspect you don't. It doesn't matter whether the player makes it intentionally or not; see the definition. One of the sources says "forfeit" to describe the same situation—what have you got to say about that? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
By my understanding of the word, the use of "forfeit" would be legitimate in this context. However, if some editors are not happy with the term, why not just use the phrasing in the rules and say "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule". It's only a note after all, it just has to clarify the nature of events. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't. The difference has nothing to do with voluntariness or intention, but whether the rules is of the game play itself (loss) or of the administration/running of the content (forfeit). It's a stark, black-and-white difference. The three-misses rule violation is a loss. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you don't want to accept anything than "forfeit" and to reach this goal, you are clearly not capable to reach a compromise. As Betty Logan says: "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule" is the rule-compliant wording. What you (CC) do could be interpreted as a border-line forum shopping. After the WP:NORN was not quick enough for you, and my answer was not to your likening, you notified WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why can't you answer a simple question? Was the use of "forfeit" in The Times incorrect? Why are you saying I cannot reach a compromise, instead of discussing the issue at hand? Betty says the use of forfeit is "legitimate" and "correct". The proposed wording matches the definition of forfeit. I have already explained why the word "forfeit" doesn't need to appear in the source, yet you still have difficulty understanding this. Also, why have you posted struck-out text? I'll respond to these points anyway. The NOR board is inactive and didn't come to a conclusion. Since we couldn't seem to get anywhere, I posted at the Snooker project for more input. By any definition, that is not forum-shopping. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As an outside observer wandering into this discussion from WT:SNOOKER (i.e. someone not invested in the debate) I have to say that I agree with the observation that you do not appear to be willing to compromise and appear to be entirely insistent upon "forfeit", for reasons that do not hold up under scrutiny. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that I was not precise enough. I mean't a reliable source about the rules, not one match. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should try to hold a discussion instead of giving non-answers. The source described the incident as a forfeit; all such incidents are a forfeit. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To "forfeit" a game/match/contest means that the win is awarded to your opponent in an involuntary context. Such as when Maguire lost a frame over the chalk incident, it would be correct to say he forfeited a frame. When John Virgo had a few frames awarded against him in the 1979 UK, it would be correct to say he forfeited several frames after his late arrival to the match. To "lose" a frame generally means that the outcome is decided competitively. To "concede" a frame means that you have surrendered it voluntarily. To "forfeit" means that you lose the frame through being penalised, often for a transgression of the rules. I think the usage of "forfeit" is correct to describe this situation. I honestly don't think we need a source to use the word because unless "forfeit" has a specific meaning within the rules of snooker then the word can be applied generally. Betty Logan (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's all correct except your conclusion (and the niggle that a concession is a form of forfeit - forfeits do not have to be involuntary, they simply aren't "decided competitively" as you very aptly put it. As the three-misses rule is part of the rules of actual game play (competition), violating it must, by definition, be a loss rather than a forfeit. "Forfeit" does have a specific meaning within sports, including snooker. I elaborate below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I take it then, since you haven't responded, that you finally agree it's acceptable? Christopher Connor (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted it, because it seems to me, that there is consensus for the use of "forfeit", not because I agree. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that solves the immediately problem. You say you still disagree so it may be worth going over the discussion to see why we don't need forfeit to appear in the source. Betty and I have tried to explain, and there's nothing more I can do about that. If you accept its usage, that's it as far as I'm concerned. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A "consensus" of a handful of people who do not understand the difference between two words is not a meaningful consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent from and in response to entire thread thus far] I have gone point-by-point through some of this, but much of it is not germane to why I'm commenting here (in response to this discussion being flagged at WT:SNOOKER). To summarize this in one go: The difference between "loss" and "forfeit" is not a snooker issue, or even a cue sports matter more generally, at all, but basic and very simple sports terminology, with a quite clear difference. A forfeit is failure or lack/revocation of permission to compete (further or at all), because of something that a) you do voluntarily (by declaration, e.g., conceding mid-game because you have to leave your match to deal with an emergency), b) by default (e.g., because you didn't show up for your game), or c) by referee/tournament director/governing body declaration (e.g., because you punched your opponent in the face, used steroids, wrote a bad check for your entry fee, etc.). Forfeits are part of the rules around a game for its smooth operation, but are not part of the rules of a game proper. The three consecutive misses rule in snooker, analogous to the three consecutive fouls rule in nine-ball (one probably derives from the other, though which way I'm not sure), is an on-the-table rule of of the game and its play, not an off-table rule about the game and conducting it. Your opponent winning because of a rule of of the game play, such as the rule in question here, is your loss, not forfeit. A three-miss violation, like its pool counterpart, is especially obviously a loss not a forfeit because either your opponent craftily put you in a position to fail by that rule, or you are less than maximally competent and put yourself there. Either way, that is 100% game play, and 0% contest administration, ergo a loss by definition, and cannot possibly be a forfeit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see your point, though I often hear the commentators refer to it as a forfeit, and some news reports say that too. I don't know if the basic definition of forfeit has to refer strictly to a violation of a rule outside of gameplay and I'm not aware that the word has a special definition in a sporting context. Anyway it's not something I'll be pursuing as it's a minor matter in my opinion. (I think this thread brought up several issues: OR, sourcing, correct use of terminology.) Christopher Connor (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Right. As for the commentators and sportswriters, a few imprecise usages don't make a rule. If World Snooker changes its published rules to use the term "forfeit" then we have a source. The DicDef argument doesn't hold up, because most dictionaries don't actually support the "it's a forfeit" interpretation to begin with, and they aren't sport-specific works. Just because it's not something outrageous like a claim that space aliens invented snooker doesn't make it non-problematic under WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc., to insist upon using a particular word not supported by reliable sources (and a few sports journalists using "forfeit" where most don't, and most non-journo sources don't, doesn't constitute reliable sourcing for anything other than that some sports journalists aren't choosy about their wording. :-) Anyway, I heartily agree that the case brings up all three of the issues you mention. I think it should really be a discussion, more broadly, at WT:SPORT. That WikiProject badly needs a Manual of Style sub-page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any need to go through the thread and make point-by-point responses, and I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Like I said, the word is widely used by snooker commentators who must presumably know something about sporting terminology. Even Clive Everton uses it in his reports so you must also be accusing him of misusing terminology. Based on that I think accusations of OR are a bit extreme. So too when you say I'm not willing to compromise when I already have (see above), and before anyone has put forward such a well(if forcefully)-argued rationale as yours. You seem to be rather aggressive about this, and about saying I was insisting on using the word (when that's not the case), when Armbrust did not make the argument about misuse of terminology but put forward a stubborn resistance just because a specific word didn't appear in the source; it's clear he didn't have the misuse of terminology in mind otherwise he would have articulated it. You say the usage isn't supported in reliable sources, but I've shown above that it is. And a link to SOAPBOX is wholly inappropriate here. I agree more stuff about these issues should be put down in guidelines; perhaps you could start this yourself? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A dragged-out editwar over one word that has spiraled out of control into a misplaced debate on a random user page and a noticeboard alert, instead of simply being a normal consensus discussion at the article talk page, or maybe brought up as a general non-snooker-specific discussion at WT:SPORT, is to me strong evidence of soapboxing (on both sides perhaps - I should not have singled you out). I call them as I see them, and am not taking anyone's side, or opposing anyone's side, for any kind of personal reason. I apologize if I've misunderstood your actions, position or intention, but you have seemed to me to have had an axe to grind on this "forfeit" issue, and perhaps I just plain misread you. On the issue of commentators' use of "forfeit", I'll reiterate and rephrase: Off-the-cuff usage by commentators doesn't trump the published, world-standardised rules, even if more than one commentator does it (especially given that more than one don't). If the rules don't use a term as specific, specialized and meaning-laden as "forfeit", then the best that can be done with this word, under WP policy at WP:NOR and WP:V, in the context of White's three-miss fault and of the rule in general, is to avoid the word. Maybe reword the White passage and footnote so that it says that his opponent "won" because of the fault, and not use "loss" or "forfeit" of White himself (though I don't see a real justification for such circumlocution), and maybe, if consensus feels the issue warrants any attention at all, mention at the snooker rules article that some commentators refer to this fault as as a forfeit while others and the rules themselves do not. Even that seems completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I feel, personally, that this is about as important/sensible as going on at length at the Lord of the Rings article that some people, including review writers and many other people who should know better, incorrectly refer to it as a "trilogy". Neither pass the WP:RELEVANCE and WP:COMMON tests for me. PS: Phrasing like "was awarded a win" or something like that (someone suggested some such phrasing somewhere in this debate on one of the at least three pages on which is being held), to imply some kind of debate and decision by tournament judges or referees would be blatant OR absent evidence of any such active ruling. I'd bet more money than I have that it didn't happen, since it wasn't anything that required any such discussion and adjudication, being a simple matter of the rules of game play, like having to shoot away from the object ball when the cue ball is frozen to it, or not shooting at a colour ball unless after potting a red, or any other plain rule of the game. As for WP:SPORT guidelines, I've been working on it a tiny bit at a time, and hope others have too. I started with WP:CUESPELL, for cue sports, but some of that and much of WP:CUENOT can be generalized out to sports more broadly. I've seen here and there similar efforts in other sports. Will take a lot of work to find and merge them. Anyway, sorry again for being irritating. I must have misinterpreted your position on the matter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation that "forfeit" is clearly confined to administrative rulings within sport. In accordance with its general definition it would not be a misuse of English to say the player has "forfeited four points" if he fouls for instance. Anyway, I suggested the phrasing "awarded the frame" because this is the terminology used in the actual rule that was applied. I don't see the point in arguing over terminology if the rule book itself provides an adequate terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

InterMapper

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

InterMapper should not be an article for deletion. It is quite a notable company. Spun off from Dartmouth College in the USA in 2000, Dartware is a pioneer in the developement of network monitoring, mapping and alerting software. It has over 5,000 global customers. References include:

  1. http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/product-review/Dartware-InterMapper-5-2.aspx
  2. http://download.cnet.com/InterMapper-RemoteAccess/3000-7240_4-11570345.html
  3. http://www.networkmanagementsoftware.com/intermapper-network-monitoring-review

It is an award winning company: http://www.intermapper.com/company/press-releases/705-dartware-wins-export-achievement-award Dflevy (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see the sources: #3 is a download site and not reliable. The source about the prize is a primary source, and the award is not significant. #1 and #2 are good sources, if you expand the article with this sources, than I notify me and I will reconsider my !vote. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Further discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In light of this, please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series and note whether that changes your mind or not. Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Live Scores

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi i'm getting the info from here: http://snookerbacker.com/ This information is meant to be coming straight from the venue but your right I should wait for it to come on the World Snooker draw. However, we might be waiting a while! Samasnookerfan (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Snookerbacker is not a reliable source and Global Snooker is not what it was, after Janie Watkins left. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

inre Parade High School All-Americans (basketball) CfD

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello - I have added rationale for designating "boys" and "girls" categories for this topic. Would you mind going to the CfD page and reconsidering your opposition? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thank you for uploading File:Peter Ebdon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (October)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to   TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to   Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –   White Shadows (submissions),   William S. Saturn (submissions),   Staxringold (submissions) and   ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to   Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is   Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is   Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is   Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is   TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is   Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

3rr violation

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a note saying you've broken the three-revert rule on Ronnie O'Sullivan. Probably best to not revert anymore and discuss on the talk page. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Ⓢock  00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lapps in Finnish folklore"

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I provided seven strong reasons why Lapps in Finnish folklore should be deleted. Would you care to describe why it should not, rather that simply removing the tag? Dinkytown talk 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, i didn't see the article history nor the talk page. Maybe you should written "See talk page" as rationale. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the top of the page regarding my submission [1], you will see my statement as "(Proposed deletion... See talk page...)". Also the Proposed Deletion tag also mentions in reading the talk page. It also states "...please explain why you object to the deletion...", which you never explained your reasons for your objection. Can you please be considerate enough and reinstate this deletion by copying the deletion statement that I submitted at the above link, so that the time is included. Proposed Deletions are time sensitive. Thank you. Dinkytown talk 22:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Huza River

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You have suggested the deletion of the Huza River article based on its lack of notability. The issue of notability of rivers has been discussed and a consensus has been reached that no river is too small or too insignificant for inclusion in Wikipedia and that there are no notability criteria which would justify the exclusion of any river. Afil (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I like your cat. Afil (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Liang Wenbo and rankings

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Here you removed a ref that explicitly does verify the content it was supposed to source. As such, the addition complied with the content policies. Doesn't matter about it changing; if you disagree, find the appropriate wording in a policy. Therefore, please revert your revert and apologise to the IP. Also, it would be good if you would actually reply to my messages, instead of just deleting them. Hiding negative posts is a never a good thing. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you knew that it didn't matter whether the rankings will change. All rankings change, by definition, and when they do change, so too can the article. That's not the issue. No, seems to me like you're propogating misinformation to gain an advantage over a dispute with an IP. Then when I point out your violations/misuses of V, WP:OWN, CIVILITY, and BITE, your response is to delete my posts and to go around inappropriately tagging articles I've created, instead of having a discussion which I've invited you to. That is remarkably mature behaviour. It may also constitute a violation of HARASS. Please reverse your latest edits and the earlier one so that we can put a stop to this nonsense. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Power snooker table drawing.svg

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are three errors in the picture ...

  1. "D line" not to be.
  2. The background should be blue.
  3. Red balls in the middle of the ball on the power snooker logo should be (but it is difficult to fail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ğaaw (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no errors in the picture, because (1-2) "D line" was not there and the table was blue at the Power Snooker tournament because it was made for this event. Power Snooker is played on a snooker table, but only with nine reds, which are placed in a diamond rack. (3) The Power Snooker logo is copyrighted, and therefore it can be used only as a fair-use image and thus it can not be added into the drawing. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Power Snooker and Ronnie O'Sullivan

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I seen you edited out my inclusion of Power Snooker saying, it is a variant of snooker. I notice that players who have won 6 red snooker titles, which is also a varient version of the game, have these wins included in the infobox. These players include Jimmy White and Mark Selby. So should Power Snooker not be included? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.192.233 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I have changed the other infoboxes too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

inre Rafael Nadal in 2010 AfD

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Go and give your opinion on the matter.BLUEDOGTN 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (November)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Get ready.

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rivalries

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would put these up for deletion also if I were you.BLUEDOGTN 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BLUEDOGTN 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I just put the ones up for deletion, where there was little to nothing text. Will do soon. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tennis rivalry prods

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding tennis rivalry prods, it would be good if you could slow down. You prodded about 25 such articles in the space of 20 minutes, and it would be hard to evaluate each article in so short a time. Your rationale "It is just a repository of results" is also not in itself a reason to delete. Rather, the reason would be a lack of notability ie lack of sources. I can't go through all of them but, for example, Evert–Navratilova rivalry is a notable rivalry that actually has sources. Can you say whether you read the sources in that article and in others? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think one third party source is enough. If you think they should remain, than you can contest the proposed deletion and/or improve the articles. But without improvement I will take them to AfD. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The current state of any article is not the point of AfDs generally, and it's the nominator's job to check notability before nominating any article. Clearly you've done little research on any of these articles; your boilerplate rationale still doesn't give an appropriate deletion reason. Still, no one can force you to do any of that. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
All articles are up to AfD and the community will decide, which articles will remain. If the there is consensus for them to stay, than I will respect that. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1990 ATP Tour Championships article style

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Saw your changes. There are some stylistic differences between the 1990s and the 1980s pages. Just curious, why such differences exist. If there is a preference to use the 1990s style, I can use it for subsequent pages, which would save total work. ;-). Loner t (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In the tennis articles we use flags only in templates and tables and at doubles draw articles there is a <br/> between the names in the "TennisEvents" templates. And please add categories to the pages you create. If you need help, just ask. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The 1990 template did not have categories, but the 1970-1989 articles do. Let me know if there are any specific ones missing. ;-) Loner t (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tennis rivalry AfDs

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should they all be under one AfD? CTJF83 chat 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but then again maybe not. I don't want a result, where many people object the bundled nomination and than these articles must be nominated again separately. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok CTJF83 chat 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Evert–Navratilova rivalry

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good work! It was only a matter of time before all these results lists were nominated. However, I think you may want to review this particular nomination and consider withdrawing it given the comments so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evert–Navratilova rivalry. I do agree with your concern about the content of the article (and the others you nominated), but AfD is not requests for article improvement. Regards, wjematherbigissue 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have withdrawn this one. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Graf–Sabatini rivalry

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi can you have a look at this rivary that you've listed for deletion, and that I've done some work on. These two have met 40 times and it's 19-11 excluding the first 10 matches and according to this their rivalry is one of the top ten of the open era. Most of their matches went all the way and most of them were in the semis and finals of tournaments. Which therefore would meet your notablity claim and also establishes that it's a worthy rivalry (BTW we maybe should open up a topic for this, since we need some clear boundaries here) to be included on Wiki as some even say that this is a greater rivalry than Graf/Seles. KnowIG (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have modified my rational for deletion in light of the new additions. The new rational is: "It is just an indiscriminate repository of results. It is indiscriminate, because article says not why these 20 results were selected out of their 40 matches." Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you take another look and tell me what else is needed in your opinon. Cheers KnowIG (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now it contains enough text for me to withdrawn it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MessageDeliveryBot submission problem

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Armbrust, Thank you for using MessageDeliveryBot. Unforunately you're submission could not be allowed due to our polices on personal messages. The full rules can be seen at User:MessageDeliveryBot/Rules. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Dominican films

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The page has existed for several years, I just changed the title because it was inaccurate. It was under List of Dominican Republican films, but I created a redirect there to the new page. It should not be deleted, but obviously improvements should be made. Perhaps you should look into articles before you propose them for deletion? --El Mayimbe (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Most of the entries don't have a Wikipedia article and all entries are unsourced. The only external link in the article is dead. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well at least you are now willing to discuss, rather than just nominating for deletion. So can you please go to the original page List of Dominican Republican films, this will bring you to List of Dominican films but at the very top you'll see where it says redirect from..., click on it and go to the history. There you'll see that it has been around since 2007. So now that we have established that it has been around for awhile and no one has tried to fix it, we can get on with the fact that I obviously am trying to. So if you are patient perhaps the page can be improved?--El Mayimbe (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, when the article was created. It contains no references for the films, which explains, why these films are related to the Dominican Republic. I think further discussion should be made there. Ultimately the community will decide, what happens to this article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
An AFD discussion takes at least 7 days. If you improve the article, than I will withdrawn my nomination. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ellice Hopkins

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Armbrust. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ellice Hopkins, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. BTW, yes it was close to A7 when you tagged it, but tagging an article as A7 when it is only two minutes old means you risk tagging something that will soon not be an A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Awesome As Fuck

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't redirect it again. Joseph507357 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I either redirect or nominate it for deletion (there is no information for a standalone article). Which should it be? Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I was going to add more information. You should wait a while before doing that. You did it right after I made the article. Joseph507357 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, give weeks for expansion, but if the article remains in it's current state, than I will redirect it again per WP:TOOSOON. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Racquetball at the World Games

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I've adding links to sources for racquetball at the World Games for 2009 and 2013. Let me know if did that properly. Older games info will be harder to come by but I'll see what I can do. Trb333 (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have formatted the references. If you found sources for the older games, then please use the same format. If you have questions to that, than just ask. Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Will do. I think the info I have for the other events is from magazines. Is it enough to cite the magazines or should I try to make electronic copies of them? I could take a digital image(s) of the page(s) and then upload that to wikipedia. I haven't loaded images onto wiki yet though, so I'm not entirely sure how that works. Trb333 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It's enough to cite the magazines, you don't need to make electronic copies. In this case you should add the title of the magazine, the number of the magazine you use and page numbers in the magazine. If you know the author of the article, it should be added too. If you don't know, which format to use, then add it to my talk page and I will add it to the article for you. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (December 2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 01:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

"Unsourced" athletes

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People like Fung Kwok Wai almost always have sources, generally in Google news archive, and it's helpful to look before prodding. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of LPGA Championship champions. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Norbreck Castle Hotel

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you recently added Norbreck Castle Hotel to the category Category:Snooker venues. As you feel it is notable would you please consider putting a reliably-sourced example of an event in the text as well? Thanks. – Regregex (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added an example with a reliable source. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian occupation of Baranja and Bačka, 1941–1944

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Please tell me what's wrong with this article? It's truth that I am new to this project, but I know what is an encyclopedic style. Also, I know how to use and cite a reference or footnote. I cited it well, but you probably think that is incorrect. Voodo Child (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the citations. I just think that two sources are not enough, but if the books contain all information, than you can remove the {{refimprove}} template. By the way: Congratulations for creating your first article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it contain, you can see you can see here and there. Thanks, I'll be here a while, maybe I send some pictures from the archive. Voodo Child (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, formatted the references. In the future, I would give you the advice to use the following format for citing books: <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |title= |year= |publisher= |isbn= |pages= |url= }}</ref>. For further information see: {{cite book}}. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but if there are more authors? Voodo Child (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Then instead of |last= and |first= parameter use |first1=, |last1=, |first2= and |last2= (if the book has two co-authors). The template currently is capable to indicate 9 co-authors. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's done, thanks again! Voodo Child (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Darts categories

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have undone a number of your category changes. This is because they are either wrong or you have unnecessarily removed categories. It may be worth reviewing the primary purpose of categories (aid to navigation) before embarking on further changes. Regards, wjematherbigissue 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have seen. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IIHF

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, why do you come to the WC pages and want to change everything with the GK times and Nowrap for example? It has never been used, so let´s stay with that how it was done for the 2010 IIHF World Championship e.g. Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. By the way I don't want to change everything, I just edit the results in. It just looks so, because I don't know, how it was previously done. (Also I haven't reverted, for correcting my edits.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the results, of course that´s a huge help for everybody involed, thumps up! Just use it the way it has been used the last several times. ;) Kante4 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think now I know, how it should be done. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks nice, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ATP World Tour/WTA Tour qualifying draw AfD's

Your vote will be very important. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying. PL Alvarez Talk, 20:26, 4 Janury 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships – Division II

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

First of all, good work on this page. I was wondering, if there was a tidy way of explaining why China and Romania were included at this level despite being declared demoted the previous year. I added a note, and a source, that explains the lack of a 2009 Div. III, but I am concerned that it would be "original research" to note that that saved China and Romania from relegation.18abruce (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Could you give me the source you mentioned? Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link. The website is in French, so good luck if you don't speak it. Look at juniors for 2008/2009, there is an explanation for why there was no Div. III, and why China replaced N.Z. in Div. II that year. It is a fantastic website for international hockey. 18abruce (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I could find, why there was no Div. III in in 2009 and why China replaced New Zealand there. Unfortunately I can't find the place, where it is explained, why China and Romania were not relegated, despite finishing their groups at last position (which should mean relegation). In these they are just in the Div. II, but there is no explanation why. If you can give a more special link, than i will look after it. (Used Google Translate for translation). Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kin Endate

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

About 11 months ago, you were involved with the deletion discussion for Kin Endate. I recently found the page because it's the third most redlinked article on the wiki. I believe that several pertinent items not present in the original article - his pre-discovery images of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and his extremely high number of asteroid discoveries - may push a revised article past the notability boundary. I have created a draft at User:Pi.1415926535/Draft of Kin Endate; I would be much obliged if you could offer comment or edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It says "590 asteroids (571 with Kazuro Watanabe and 22 separately)", but 571+22=593. This should be corrected. I think the draft can be moved to article space. Armbrust Talk Contribs 06:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
After further discussion at WP:ASTRONOMY and more editing, I have moved it to article space: Kin Endate. Thanks for your help! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Cottage by the Lee.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Thank you for your message, I fully understand. I've now added the missing info, I just couldn't quite remember what one should do and how to go about it. It's a long time since I added an image. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingspanmusic (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rodolphe Hottinger

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the feedback on the Hottinger article. I'll look into creating a different page with Hottinger dynasty, or adding to a page that already exists (Hottinger chronology, i think). As for in-line citations, there's just one problem - almost all of it comes from one source: the Max Gérard book that is cited at the end. Is there any way to make this explicit? many thanks! Pczoll (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Use this: <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |title= |year= |publisher= |isbn= |pages= |url= }}</ref>. I think it's clear how to use, but if not, than just ask. And it is better to add the information about the Hottinger dynasty to the already existing Hottinger chronology article, which at the moment is in a very poor state. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the speedy reply. Just a few questions:
  • I could take some time to clean up the Chronology page (which i did not create), but is a chronology, while what i wrote is really a history of the dynasty. Isn't it possible to create a "Hottinger dynasty" article and link it to the chronology, or do you still think it's better to add to the chronology article? (can we change the title of an article? :-)
  • There is a way to change the name of an article. See: How to move a page. Unfortunately con can't move the page because, you haven't made 10 edits to article (user space drafts are not articles). In any case please don't create a separate article and work with the Chronology page, because Wikipedia has only one article for every topic. Bye the way I think House of Hottinguer would be a better title. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand more or less how to add an inline citation (or should be able to figure it out) but in the case of the "family history", since all the info comes from one source, how to avoid having the same inline citation at the end of every paragraph?
  • There is nothing wrong having one source at the end of every paragraph. If you use one reference for more than one paragraph you should use <ref name="NAME"> instead of <ref> to the first paragraph you use the source and in other instances <ref name="NAME"/>. Please be sure, that the name is uniq. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is the Hottinger Chronology article tagged as "not citing any references or sources" when there are a list of sources at the end of the article?
Once again, thanks for your time. Pczoll (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
THANKS, THAT SHOULD DO IT! Pczoll (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure what I am missing on this image. It would be super appreciated if you could point out what I need to add to make this compliant for Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It has no copyrights tag on it. These tags can be found there: WP:ICT. Add the most appropriate to the article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what I am missing. I followed the wizard, and I looked at that page you said, and put {{Non-free promotional}} into the image. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Every image must have a copyrights tag on it and it's now ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fair Use Reduction of SVGs

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that SVG files are, by their nature, impossible to reduce the size of. Therefore I have been removing the {{fair use reduce}} tags from SVG files. The proper procedure in dealing with SVGs is to ensure that they are rendered in small sizes. Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Armbrust Talk Contribs 06:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Files for upload

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just an FYI, since I saw you around WP:FFU; Graeme Bartlett messaged me and said he was going on a Wikibreak, and asked me to look out for FFU. I am on what is increasing becoming clear to be a very poor attempt at a wikibreak myself, as classes have started for me and I need to devote time to that instead of this. I'll still be around, but not every day. If you're up for it, please do continue to help out at FFU whenever you have the chance. I'll be around too, but I can't do it all, and I can't guarantee it'll be timely or efficient. I'm also messaging a few others when I get the chance, so it won't be all on you, but still, FFU could use the help if you're around to offer it. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FIS Snowboarding World Championships 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey don't mean to be rude, but instead of adding tags to this article and sub-articles, why don't you contribute and help fix it. Thank you.Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Have formated the references, but I can't nothing to with the missing results at the parallel giant slalom subarticles. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page got spammed by you

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Man lighten up on the Nazi copyright regime (joking here). I uploaded those pics and another user will link them to their articles. We are working in tandem on this thing but you must allow for a little time for him to do it. Please remove all the warning templates.--LexCorp (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the templates, because they're used on the articles now. Maybe you should coordinate fair use image uploads. This way you can avoid the Nazi copyright regime. (Last sentence was obviously a joke. Bad joke, but still a joke.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (January 2011)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Hyphenated-man.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Apparently, you left a message concerning the album cover in question, then removed it. What's up there? -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake, which I have corrected. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought so. Just double-checking. Thanks, chief. -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Chapman University logo.gif

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Chapman University logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates pictures reverted to old versions because of too high quality

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Armbrust, You've reverted a couple of my contributions because the resolution of those pictures was supposedly too high (although the height was only about 400px). Can you qualify your edits with official Wikipedia regulations that stipulate the maximum size of movie posters? The most common rationale for the non-free media use of poster images says: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original poster. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as counterfeit artwork, pirate versions or for uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." In my view that definition applies to all of the images I've added to Wikipedia articles. Ymmv99 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it use it high quality for a non-free image. (By the way I only see two case, where i reverted you to a lower quality image.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
My view is the size of those pics was fine. It's clear we disagree on what exactly the defintion is for "lo-res" and "inferior quality". I compare a 400x600px bitmap image to the quality of the original poster. Such an image can never be used as a counterfeit artwork, it doesn't compete with the original artwork (we're talking about 80 year old movies, one of them is actually a lost film!), the artwork cannot be used for pirated versions, etc.Ymmv99 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection to speedy rename withdrawal?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Will you please withdraw your objections to several speedy renames found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? I explained why several college basketball categories need to be renamed as such, and if you don't withdraw your objection the speedy noms will be discarded. It is frustrating to think that my valid noms may have to be taken to a full CfD even though they perfectly qualify for speedy renaming. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I have seen it again and they don't qualify as C2C anyway, because the new title aren't "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" form. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Altered Beast iPad.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Added rational for screen-shot. Thanks! Jamesderektate (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed tag. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Size made smaller. Jamesderektate (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to 2011 Snooker Shoot-Out

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the shoot out page, can't you just write all matches are played over 1 frame which will last no longer than 10 minuetes. Instead of writing (1-0) then score etc. I know one can easily do a frame in the time limit and be in the second but the premise of the event is a 1 frame shoot out especially after what was said to Ryan Day, just 5 frames left. Just think it would look cleaner. KnowIG (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I wasn't sure, because the World Snooker results page unfortunately don't include the scores. Have removed, because if only the frame score are needed, then it's pointless. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Jzuro.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I created the image from a 1920 public domain publicity photo and have added this info to the page. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) in Hyderabad, crop.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Armbrust. You have marked the above image (File:Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) in Hyderabad, crop.jpg) for speedy deletion, saying it is a copy of a file at commons. It is not an exact copy. It is cropped so as to focus on the animal in a way more suitable to the article. The original has far too much dead space. I have removed the deletion banner and hope you will help me take whatever action is necessary to preserve the cropped image either here or at the commons. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks or the info. If you want a file moved to Commons you can use {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Added to the file. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, then I would have the file deleted, or will that happen anyway? Well- I will add the banner and watch to see what happens. Thanks again.μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Snooker Shoot-Out

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Just because the standard rules of snooker have been changed slightly does not mean it is no longer snooker. Compare with 20/20 cricket. The official title is the Caesarscasino.com Snooker Shootout and therfore this is what should be used for the article title, probably without the sponsor name. Dergraaf (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The rules were not changed slightly. There were major changes: ball in hand, players have to hit a cushion OR pot a ball with every shot and all foul will result in ball in hand. Power Snooker had snooker in it's name too, but it wasn't a snooker tournament either. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The official title is still the Snooker Shootout, not the Cue Sports Shootout. Whether you personally consider it snooker or not is irrelevant. The media organisations that are covering this tournament are all referring it as snooker so by changing it to cue sports you are potentially breaching WP:NOR unless you have some reliable sources that say it isn't snooker.Dergraaf (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The official name is just a name. Most snooker tournaments don't have snooker their name, but use the rules of snooker and thus they are snooker tournaments. Using different rules means it's not snooker. Just like six-red snooker or snooker plus are not snooker, this is not either. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Premier League Snooker has a special rule of shotclock but it is still a snooker tournament, Power Snooker and Shoot-Out have a bit more special rules. You mentioned "There were major changes", I wonder who has the authority to decide a change is MINOR or MAJOR. --阿pp (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The shot clock is a tournament rule to make the tournament faster. If you compare it to six-red snooker where only the number of reds was changed and it is not snooker, then in light of the rule changes for this tournament makes clear, that it is not snooker. It is just a variation of snooker. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In basketball, decades ago the NBA first introduced the 3-point line, 4 quarters of 12 mins, 24-sec shotclock, all different from then FIBA rules, but they are still playing basketball. FIBA adopted some rules from the NBA. Even today, the NBA adopts different rules from FIBA, but under either rule, they are both considered as basketball. What i am trying to say is that a new variation of rule does not give the game a different name or category. PLEASE consider the possibility that each variation has the chance to become offcial rule. All sports are developing. --阿pp (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I say this format is exiting and fast. But it is not snooker in my opinion. Just as power snooker is not snooker. And I hope this will never become official rule (at least today it isn't.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Shotclock Time format and limit Foul Rules Considered as
NBA Special Special Special Basketball
Shoot-Out Special Special Special Not snooker?
I agree with Dergraaf. You are potentially breaching WP:NOR unless you have some reliable sources that say it isn't snooker. --阿pp (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, but where are the sources that it is snooker? Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a tournament held by World Snooker. The broadcaster Sky Sports considers it as snooker[2]. British media considers it as snooker[3]. Now it's your turn. --阿pp (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
These sources didn't convince me, because there is no text which says it's snooker. They place it in their snooker section, because there is no other place. It has no official name. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Both websites have OTHER SPORTS sections. According to Snooker, this tournament matches all descriptions in the intro section. I am stating that the game is snooker but may not be official/standard snooker just like in the NBA they play basketball but not FIBA/internationally recognized/standard basketball. May we compromise by using the phrase snooker tournament with unofficial/special rules? --阿pp (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you think from this: "snooker tournament played under a variation of the standard rules"? Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this description as long as this tournament is catogorized under snooker tournament. --阿pp (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Made the changes. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:-) --阿pp (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Triggerfinger-album.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Triggerfinger-album.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AmazingToshikoAkiyoshi.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, It appears you flagged the image "AmazingToshikoAkiyoshi.jpg" from the article Toshiko's Piano today as lacking an appropriate fair use rationale. I checked and the appropriate fair use rationale seems to be there - since ~October, 2007. Is there some concern about the fair use rationale template used? Or the contents of the fair use rationale? It seems to be in order but maybe I'm missing something? Pugetbill (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. I have missed it. Sorry. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please give me a minute, while I write the article. Thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011

No problem. After you created the article and added the picture too, then you can remove the notice. I suggest in the future you create the article and upload the file later. Happy editing. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok will do, thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barry manilow I reissue.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Barry manilow I reissue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina Wing patch, Civil Air Patrol

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Insignia is owned by Civil Air Patrol, a government chartered 501(c)3 entity. Who must release image? Can I not post a photo of the insignia on my uniform? Nelsonde (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this picture. If you don't own the rights for it, than why does the page has an "All Rights Reserved" license? The license you added at WP:FFU and license of the picture doesn't match. If you have changed, then you can submit it again. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to   The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by   Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to   Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1,   Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and   Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_4&oldid=1237999357"