User talk:Armbrust/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Contents

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

New player articles

Thanks for your work creating the new player articles! It will be interesting to see who performs this season. Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly will. I think the most interestin is how Reanne Evans will perform as the sole women among the 95 men. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah been a long time since a woman has competed, i'd say she deserves her opportunity for being so dominant in the womens game. Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre: The Blonde with Bare Breasts AfD

I have been keeping the nominator informed (see), and thought I should alert you as well. Since your coment at the AFD, the article has gone through some significant changes, changing the unsourced article that was first nominated, into one that has been expanded, is now encyclopedic, and now definitely sourced. I am happy to be able to report the addition two significant reviews... one from Variety and the other from NRC Handelsblad. Might you advise what else might be done to address your concerns? Thanks, --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Inappropriate AfD closure

Your NAC closure of this AfD as "nomination withdrawn" was inappropriate and in direct violation of

WP:NACD. Such a NAC would only have been appropriate if, apart from the initial !vote of the nominator, there were no other substantive delete !votes in the discussion. That was not even close to being the case here. Please revert the closure and relist the item immediately. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Never mind, I have posted a request at
WP:AN that your NAC be reviewed by an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD revert

That IP !vote is vandalism from a long term banned IP hopper who is attacking me wherever there is a chance to (my RfA, and talk page were attakced recently).. A range block has been implemented. Cheers, Connormahtalk 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you removed somebodys comment with an explanation ("rvv") i didn't understand. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, perhaps I should have explained myself more sufficiently. Cheers. Connormahtalk 20:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

THX (July 2010)

***** Thanks for the Birthday wish!***** --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts

I have created WikiProject Darts, come along and sign up and help out Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power Snooker

Hi Armbrust. A new stub, Power Snooker, has been added. It has ben suggested that this stub be merged to main article Snooker. Editors are invited to go to Talk:Power Snooker and leave their views in the debate.Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Justice

There is no consensus to move the article. A consensus must be established in order for the main article to be moved. Also, just 1 week ago the event was called Hard Justice. Not enough time to warrant a common name. A discussion to establish a consensus must occur first, as per policy.--WillC 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Newsletter July, 2010

Delivered by

Nascar1996 at 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

BTV International tournament

Hi do you think the BTV International tournament recently won by Tian Pengfei should be featured on snooker season 2010/2011 article? Details about the tournament can be seen on the 110sport website. Samasnookerfan (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will create an article about it in the following week (if somebody doesn't create it before me), and than will add it to the article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have created the article under 2010 Beijing International Challenge. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Thanks!

...for the birthday wishes. Cheers, Steven Walling 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why you writing snooker sites in english wiki but not in hungarian? AND-62 Russia —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Because i don't want to create the structure for snooker in hu.Wikipedia which structure already exists on en.Wikipedia. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no interest to snooker in Hungary? Now in Russia many people interested in this game. And this theme was essentially developed in ru-wiki. Sometimes with your help. Thanks. Sorry for my bad ehglish.AND-62 Russia —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I have not said there is no interest in snooker in Hungary, but those people interested in it don't edit Wikipedia. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the birthday wishes

It was a dry birthday.There was nothing much that day. Any way many many thanks. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Resolved}}

Just FYI: Using {{

WP:RS, one of the most frequently transgressed in snooker articles). Hope this helps. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 07:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by

WikiCup talk page
.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to

Fox and The ed17 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

119.154.53.230

Hi, 119.154.53.230 (talk · contribs) is an IP sock of Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) who is blocked indefinitly for a combination of misrepresenting sources and major copyright violations. Since being blocked they've tried to continue this behavior using a dynamic IP (normally in the 119.154.x range). As such, I think that it would be best to not accept their revisions. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before i have accepted his revisions, i have seen the references. And they were accurate. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP::LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING RfD

Hi. Have a look here at the second-last RfD. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{
Snooker season 2010/2011
}}

Hi I have created a template for the new snooker season see 2010 Shanghai Masters. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

ACC acount request

I have requested an ACC acount. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's
guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Current tennis tournaments

Have you abandoned {{Current tennis tournaments}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. I just took a little leave from other areas besides
burn out. I thinked others would use the template too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I will return to update the template after the 2010 US Open. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 World Open

Wow, the draw for the World Open sure is confusing! Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It is totaly random, thus the draw templates can't be used. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know not sure if I like it, seems to random plus the best of 5s are very short. Could throw up some surprises though! Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

Hi Armbrust, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{ATP Challenger Tour}}

Hey Armburst,

Thanks for editing the template I created! It looks more civilized now. :D Tamer_of_Hope talk 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

Please reconsider your AfD vote for this article. I have made some improvements and still have more to do as well. At the very least, could you change your vote to Delete, rather than Speedy Delete? Thank you. SilverserenC 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, as i think the information on the article doesn't varrant notability. If you finish the improvements, you can contact me, and i will reconsider. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am done with my improvements, personally, though there were two other users working in tandem with me. I'm not sure if they are done. SilverserenC 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I need help with the Tiffany Limos page. Its difficult to add new things. The page is very empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanLove (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please describe your problems with adding content to the article more precisely. Armbrust Talk Contribs 05:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treton Series + tournaments

Hey.....Armburst...

Why did you add in the

Tretorn SERIE+ tournaments into the {{ATP Challenger Tour}}? I don't understand. I know you said that you made it bold but honestly you can't see it and knowing that there are two different divisions within a whole of one tournament makes it hard to read. I know that it's part of the ATP Challenger Tour....but they had their own special little box for their own division. :/ Care to explain your reasoning? I just don't understand why to add more and just keep it simple. Tamer_of_Hope talk 20:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

As you just said, they are ATP Challenger Tour tournaments too. Without them the template is incomplete. The other solution would be to change the title of the template title to "ATP Challenger Tour Regular tournaments". If you agree with this, i'm willing to modify the template. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can stay as it is now, in it's present form. I was just curious as to know why you changed it. Thanks for answering. Tamer_of_Hope talk 20:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fascarelli AFDs

I would like to thank you for striking your delete !vote on these. They were all started by a sock of a banned editor in order to harass Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (see here) so that allowed them all to be speedy kept. There indeed may be valid reasons to delete some of these but it would be better if the nominations were made in good faith, these weren't. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-tagging for dup AfD noms

Thanks for catching them and helping keep the AfD zoo slightly less crufty! Be careful though...I almost deleted the whole AfD page for August 16 because the {{db-g6}} tag on the individual entries (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHATEVER) propagates the into the whole parent pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/DATE). You can wrap tags in <noinclude>...</noinclude> to prevent the tag from propagating to the transcluding pages. DMacks (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. File:Blush.png Will more careful next time. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks

Hi Armbrust and thanks for the birthday wish. I'll wish when your birthday comes, I think. Well I couldn't understand what you said after the msg! Again, thanks! Regards, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean't the cat in your Edit notice. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, cool! I really have a cat! --Sainsf<^> (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black ball final

There is a discussion that may be of interest regarding the categorisation of this redirect. Regards, wjematherbigissue 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colors in {{ATP Challenger Tour}}

I changed this to meet your expectations of less green but with a better color scheme, which you did a good job. I am just doing random off-and-on editing on here for the time being, but if you need anything just post on my talk page and I will usually get to it now in about a week! Nice Day, Bluedogtn!69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Murphy (snooker player)
edits

While I appreciate most of your changes, I would be grateful if you would not make unnecessary (and sometimes wrong) style changes, such as the space em dash. See

WP:EMDASH, which says "Do not space em dashes." There's also the general consensus that styles should not be changed without consensus. Also, the Template:World Snooker will not be used as it is bloated and contains errors. I would be grateful if you would not force through these unnecessary style changes. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, will not space the dashes. But what is your problem with the {{
WP:SNOOKER to use the template. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As an external link, I think it contains too much info, like the copyright dates and such. Most external links don't contain this much stuff and if you were writing it manually, you wouldn't think to include all that stuff. It also italises the website, which shouldn't happen, though I suppose this can be fixed. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template is either modified or not, but it will not hinder the GA listing of the aritcle. The Ronnie O'Sullivan article contained it too, at the time of the listing. The unreferenced info is a much more hindrance. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal I guess. Can you fix the template so it doesn't italise the website? Christopher Connor (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "WorldSnooker.com", then i must say, that i can not do it. In the template it is not italised. The template uses the {{Cite web}} template, "WorldSnooker.com" is in the |work= parameter. It looks to me, that this parameter is always italised, but this template is indefinite blocked, and only admins can edit it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I fixed that now. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and good job on expanding the article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikinews

I'm not sure if you read an earlier comment I left on an AfD, but Wikinews cannot accept Wikipedia articles because Wikinews uses the CC-BY 2.5 and

moral♪♫ 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

THX for the info. Have removed it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIRES Flight 8250 and striked out on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2010 Vanuatu earthquake. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Newsletter August, 2010

Delivered by

Nascar1996 at 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

Thank you (from Cirt)

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Hantuchová career biography

This is an automated message from

Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary
to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article.

talk) 03:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Edits on
Shaun Murphy (snooker player)

When "resolving" talk page issues, like here, could you sign your name so that others can see who wrote the material? Also, please don't remove citation needed tags from articles without without adding a source, like you did here and here; also here you added a source which did not strictly match the text (there was no mention of is wife in Zimbabwe). Please be a bit more careful in your edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not clear for what the {{
cn}} was used. I have removed the unverified information ("another surprise winner") too and added a another source for Zimbabwe. Have signed the {{Resolved}} template. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The tag is for any uncited material, not just part of a sentence. In that particular sentence, it's clear the important part was that he was coached by Johnson, not that Johnson was a surprise winner. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check that I have not dislodged your changes as a result of the edit conflict. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please revert the changes to the author fields for the WWW Snooker ref. It is a self-published website and there is no author for any particular page. You have also not consistently applied these changes to the whole article, merely one ref. Why have you removed the bit "knocking the latter out of the top 16"? Seems notable to include as far as I can see. Look, I don't want to discourage you, but every time you make an edit, it seems I have to come along and correct you on some issue or other. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Have removed the author fields. (2) Don't know how is important for Murphy, that Stevens was not in the top 16. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it's not one of the critical facts in Murphy's career (and obviously more pertinent in Matthew's bio). However, people may wonder, who was it that knocked Matthew Stevens out of the top 16 when he was there for 8 years and after losing in the world final? Basically he was involved in a match that had a large effect on a major player's career. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you've done in the bottom part of this edit? Because you haven't used an edit summary, nobody can see what you've done unless they want to go blind. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a [ charakter to "[2002 World Snooker Championship|2002 World Championship]]". Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Could you also comment on the sortable table in the GA review? It's not nothing I am knowledgeable about. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, as i have not made the first. Boddefan2009 added the table to an article first. You should ask him. I have not seen any harm in the sortability of the table. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking the columns are either all sortable or all non-sortable? If so, that can be helpful for at least some of the columns. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Every column of a sortable table is sortable. (Altough it only sorst name correct if the {{sortname}} is used) Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the template for the names where neccesary. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

  • Pool A's winner was Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
  • Pool B's winner was New South Wales Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
  • Pool A's close second was Hungary Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
  • Pool B's close second was Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
  • The first wildcard was New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
  • The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
  • The third wildcard was Connecticut Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
  • The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle.

We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for these.

here
- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at

Fox and The ed17 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Bereck Kofman

Your label for speedy deletion in my opinion is not warranted. I am starting the article. How can you judge its importance. Coming after another intervention of yours, on another article, I find it suspicious. (Highland14 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you find it suspicious, than it is in your head. The article does not indicate, how its subject is notable. If you move it in your userspace until you finish and place {{Userspace draft}} on it, than i'm willing to remove the {{db-person}} template from it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. Just give the man a chance to do his work, before rushing to conclusions. (Highland14 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Have moved it to your userspace (to
WP:FAKEARTICLE) and commented out the article namespace categories. Please only move it back after you finish it (i'm watching the page). If you want to create new articles like this (where the first versions don't indicate notability), than do it in your userspace and after you finish, than you can move it in the article namespace. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem. But between you and me, I think you should have first contacted me, before puting the label delete. That's Wikipedia's curtesy. (Highland14 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok. Next time will do that first. Happy editing for you and good night for me. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I appreciate. Good night to you. (Highland14 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the cookie. I just finished the article. But I don't know how to put it back as an article. (Highland14 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Moved it back to articla namespace. Please note, that if you work on a draft in you userspace than it should not be categorised in article namespace categories. I will no renominate it for deletion, although i can't see how he is notable. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would like to know how you did both: userspace and back to the article, for the futur. One more word about notability. Sarah Kofman was a world famous philosopher, a colleague of Jacques Derrida, himself a world famous philosopher. Sara Kofman wrote about her father, his life. She never accepted what happened to him, and ended taking her own life. In his own rights, before the war, he had a role in the French Jewish community. So, his notability is on two grounds: his own and in relation to who was his daughter and his influence on her. (Highland14 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
On this picture you can see the "move" button. With this articles can be moved. The fact that "Sara Kofman was a world famous philosopher" and "wrote about her father" does not establish the notability of her father. So his only notability would be, that "he had a role in the French Jewish community", which falls under
WP:BLP1E. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What I said is you can't understand Sarah Kofman without the background history of her father and his destiny. There is a direct link. (Highland14 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If it is so important for the Sarah Kofman article, then this information should been added to the article for example in a "Early life" section. There's no need to create an article for this. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a catch-22. When adding to Sara Kofman, many details of her father's life, you will be told, but that's Sara Kofman's life, not her father. You have to separate them. Here is a chance to have the two entities. (Highland14 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If you only write one paragraph about his father, then i think it is not a big deal. Naturally only that information should be added, that depicts the influence on her. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's limited information. (Highland14 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I think we should end it there, as i will not nominate it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (Highland14 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

inre: Mirror Maze AfD

I'm still working on it, but even without a current article, director Guillermo Fernández Groizard is a notable and quite prolific television director in Spain,[1] and this film represents his feature film debut. And AS that debut, it has gained attention and critical response in Spanish press. The article is undergowing a complete transformation and now receiving the attention it merits. So far, what began as this stub with a minor assertion of notability, is now THIS... with proper sourcing (and more coming). I invite you to review the article and offer suggestions for continued improvement. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • And thanks for THIS I get lucky once in a while... and my German and Spanish translation skills are not too rusty. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (from Kubek15)

Thank you very much for the birthday greetings, my Hungarian neighbour ;) I've been to Hungary two years ago, it's such a beautiful place :)

sign 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

inre: Raghupati Raghava Rajaram AfD

I agree that the article

WP:NFF. However, as it is one in a series of recent problems for director Shaji Kailas, I went ahead and added one sourced sentence to Shaji Kailas#2000-Present, mentioning Raghupati Raghava Rajaram in context to his other recent setbacks as a director.[2] Might you agree that after deletion, and as readers might search for the cancelled film by name, that a redirect to the director's section will serve? I also believe a redirect will help prevent an inappropriate recreation of this article. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting Édmée Schneerson

As reviewing administrator, I thought the nature of the AfD discussion had so far degenerated that, invoking IAR, I thought it advisable to close, blank, and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (2nd nomination). I'm sorry that you'll have to give the argument over again, but see my note at the AfD 2. And please avoid mentioning other matters than the article in question. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on shortcuts.

A revert of a revert is edit warring. Your addition of "amusing" and unwanted shortcuts to various guideline pages is not appreciated. Please discuss shortcuts before applying them to well known pages. Additional shortcuts to pages that are well known by their existing shortcuts is deeply unhelpful. If folk starting using "RSMED" it would result in confusion. I have asked for a third opinion from an admin

User talk:GrahamColm#Shortcuts. Please consider self-reverting your shortcut additions. If you still feel your shortcuts are useful, post a request on the guideline talk pages for other editors to comment on. Regards, Colin°Talk 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

RfD. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
List of the shortcuts you removed:
  1. WP:RSECT was created by Sebwite (talk · contribs
    ) at 19:48, 8 December 2009
  2. WP:RSNB was created by Piotrus (talk · contribs
    ) at 12:14, 10 July 2007
  3. WP:RSMED was created by TimVickers (talk · contribs
    ) at 16:51, 26 April 2010
  4. WP:RSWP was created by Stevertigo (talk · contribs) at 09:49, 9 March 2007 (by the way RSWP originaly was redirected to a section title "reliable sources whenever possible)
  5. Adabow (talk · contribs) at 14:01, 8 July 2010 (was added back by Htonl (talk · contribs
    ))
Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I apologise for misunderstanding your edits. I didn't realise the shortcuts already existed. However, on thinking about the distinction, I think there is a difference between having a shortcut that enables a mistyped (or mis-remembered) shortcut to redirect to the correct page, and advertising such a shortcut on the guideline itself. It is the latter I'm most concerned about. People know
WP:MEDRS
by its shortcut. People have not heard of WP:RSMED and would be confused if it got used regularly. There's nothing wrong with the original shortcut so why advertise an alternative?
Wrt edit warring, you are wrong. Let me quote from the section "What edit warring is" in
WP:BRD
: there is only one R in BRD.
Your original edits were not helped by you joking when making an edit to
WP:RS
, one of the most widely cited guidelines. This made me assume you were not taking the issue seriously and hence I reverted you without posting anything to your talk page. When you saw those reverts, you should have engaged in discussion rather than just revert me back (edit war).
I shall be reviewing the shortcut redirect pages and taking them to RFD if required. I shall also be posting a request to each of the guideline pages that, regardless of the RFD decision, the extra shortcuts should not be advertised. I would appreciated if you would reconsider your reverts (and revert yourself) and see the merit in not having a multitude of advertised shortcuts, especially on pages that are known only by their shortcuts. I am busy this morning, so won't get round to the RFDs till later.
Regards, Colin°Talk 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not revert this edits. I think there is no policy, which states that (1) if there is one shortcut, then another one can't be added or (2) how many shortcuts can be placed on a particular project page or section of a project page. If the RfDs close a delete, then the shortcuts can be removed. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Re: Happy Birthday

Thanks! :D Bisbis (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! ;-) – (empoor) 06:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre: Paige Moss AfD

I do understand your comment at the AFD was likely based upon THIS sorry stub with no decently sourced assertion of notability, but I ask that you revist the article Paige Moss as it is now being expanded and the BLP properly sourced. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the speedy response. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Barnstars for finding secret user pages

Hi, Armbrust. In a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at

db-userreq}}? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for tagging this page for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

You may be interested in this user-conduct RfC, which was largely prompted by the trend of behaviour evident from KnowIG (talk · contribs) persistently reverting you for no apparent reason across various articles (eg. here) – for the record, I do not consider this canvassing as you appear to be very much at the heart of the dispute and the most interested party. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has been reverting you for no reason when you've made good changes (including an edit summary that said "who cares?"). Christopher Connor (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing section breaks

Hello, Armbrust. I just wanted to know why you removed these. Having them there certainly makes for easier reading of such a long discussion.

talk) 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Because it caused that
WP:OLD. With the removal, this was fixed and Mathbot removed it from the list. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining.
talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

From myself

I'm sorry to see you go from

Nascar1996 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello again, for the newsletter, do you still want to recieve it? If not you remove your name completely from the list, as the Non-participants section is for those who are not members to recieve it.
Nascar1996 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, to be up to date with the project. I finish college in January 2010, and will mostly contribute to cue sports related articles (mostly snooker, the Mosconi Cup, the World Professional Billiards Championship) and do activities which does not need too many time (
WP:AFD). I will have more time from February 2010. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Munch, Munch !

Dwayne has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking

There's no need to remove certain stuff like the template, since that needs to be created; the infobox parameter needs to be made (as it exists like other ones); the redirects look likely to be moved. Etc. Doesn't matter these things don't exist now; they help in their creation. Regards Christopher Connor (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the template is not created, the parameter is not made and the moves were not made, the edit is right. The articles can be moved, as it was the consensus at
WT:SNOOKER, but nobody said he will move the articles. (By the way the template was not removed, it was just commented out.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I dispute your edits were "right". It's a matter of if these should be made and whether this would encourage their creation. Since I believe both to be true, I think you should revert your changes. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make the template visible, but don't change the others, as they are not visible. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter that they're visible or not. Someone could wonder why it doesn't have links to the previous edition for example. And then they could check the box and see, well it's someone's intention to have it made. Or they could see it appear in the edit window and decide to create it. Similar thing for the redirects. Look, all this isn't almost the main thing. The point is why do you feel the need to have to correct these "mistakes"? How for example are they harming the article or project? That should be focus of anybody's activity. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this parameter is created (which i think is a good idea) then it should be added to all articles, that use this template. And i think it is better to avoid redirects if possible. Interesting you initiated a discussion about the moves, but don't do it. Why? Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be added to all articles, of course. That's why I want it created. In the meantime, there's no need to remove it from any articles that are "asking" for it to be created. It would be hard work for one person to move that many articles. And there's only been 3 people in favour (though that's probably enough). Christopher Connor (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the parameter, then is should be named "prevevent", and there should be an additional "nextevent" parameter. If you create this parameter, than i gladly help to add them to the articles, but as long as they don't exist, they should not be added. I think the articles can be moved, as there was enough time and no objections were raised. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the move now, see the project talk page. Not however going to do all on my own. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added the "previous" and "next" parameters. See Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament. (prevseason was something I copied elsewhere.) Christopher Connor (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Proposed resolution for KnowIG

I talked to the KnowIG and we have decided that the majority of the problems were due to reverting which lead to nasty messages about reverting etc. So:

We have proposed that is there is a revert for something such as grammar or spelling that you will fix it instead of reverting it. It is much easier that way. If it is reverted and you forget to fix it then he will leave a KIND note on your talk page, which will avoid nasty comments. I see that most of the problems are coming from another user who is going by the name TT. I am going to file an ANI for KnowIG so that TT is not allowed to have contact with KnowIG. Is this proposed plan Okay? It seems that it will resolve the problems. Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 23:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay. And as far i remember, i haven't reverted any of his edits because of grammar or spelling. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

Please don't manually add days to this page,

Fram (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, but i think it does not encourage to close of AfD discussions early. As it can be seen there, only 12 out of 77 discussions were open at that time. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it may indeed not be the (or a) cause of the problem, just over eager editors.
Fram (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD of Best Behavior

Hello, this is a note to inform you the article

deletion process. I am leaving this note to everyone who was involved in the AfD discussion of Best Behaviour, covering the same topic. You can find the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behavior. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Er...

[3] Perhaps you could do the obviously polite thing and either respond or explain why you refuse to respond, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 12:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because i didn't make this proposal. I simple agreed with it on my part, and if you think this proposal is unfair, then you should make a comment on the talk page of the user, who made this proposal (in this case Joe Gazz84 (talk · contribs)). I don't want to be more involved in this case, than it is necessary. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And the reason you though it was
a good idea to repeatedly delete my valid comment rather than just saying that was? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I thinked there was no question, and therefore didn't need to answer and deleted as unneeded in the section. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

PC - Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the

Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Evert's grand slam history

Look at this good wikipedia friend! Peace to you.BLUEDOGTN 03:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My observations:
  1. I think there are to many sections in the "Her Grand Slam Tournament history". I think the "1987–1989: The decline, and the conclusion to a career" section should be a level 2 heading and the other years should be combined the same way. There is no other level 2 heading with content at the moment besides "Her Grand Slam Tournament history".
    I think it flows better having individual year not combining them, unless it is going to be put on her main page. I think it allows you to get to the content and read it quicker and easier if it is under all different year headings.BLUEDOGTN 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the "1987–1989: The decline, and the conclusion to a career" section has 3 subsections. The others can be grouped the same way. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you are talking about now. I will now go work on it to get it done!BLUEDOGTN 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  2. Should not "grand slam" written as Grand Slam in the title of the article?  Done
    Thanks!BLUEDOGTN 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is not there a consensus in tennis project, to omit scores in text?
    Yes match scores, but not to report on the status of scores during a set or set score individually because if we cannot do that in prose it would be like writing a story without giving the interim details. The match scores that I put in I would gladly delete if you would want me to be in set scores like 2 games to 4 or two games to four, I would not be in favor of removing for them.BLUEDOGTN 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peace to you too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday wishes

Thank you. --Deryck C. 15:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan and the final black

You removed the text "O'Sullivan played the final ball faster and harder than usual, seemingly unconcerned as to whether he made the pot or not." from the article with the edit summary "no info in the ref about how Ronnie potted the last black". However, the BBC ref says "Referee Jan Verhaas persuaded O'Sullivan to finish the break and he duly slammed in the black in nonchalant fashion." Did you reads the source before the removed that material? Christopher Connor (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have read it. Maybe the edit summary was not precise enough. Have corrected the text. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanthaan Vendraan AfD

Just a note that I have closed this AFD as "nomination withdrawn". However since you !voted delete I will reopen it if you wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to DRV

An AFD you slightly participated in, by relisting, (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Sokol), is at DRV here. It would be interesting to see your thoughts on it. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Admin?

I am going to nominate you for this position of trust on here because I believe you merit the responsibility. I have always loved working with you on tennis articles in order to make wikipedia a better place. Plus, you are already doing admin duties on deletion stuff. Just give me a simple yes or no back to let me know if you want me to proceed with this nomination. Have a nice day good friend!BLUEDOGTN 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I gladly accept your nomination. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contact me on my talk page on your acceptance, so we do everything by the book!BLUEDOGTN 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have to go here, and answer the questions before I can put you on the page!BLUEDOGTN 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have answered the questions, thus it can be put on the page. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Armbrust, it is up to you to answer questions from other users in order for them to evaluate your nomination by myself. I wish you luck, but I don't think you'll need it. I know you will handle the responsibilities wisely.BLUEDOGTN 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars awarded!

Oh and good luck on your rfa, you can count on my support. -- Ϫ 19:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a man

I'm going to leave World Open alone, but you can't go against what we all saw. It's like seeing the FA cup drawn and see it come out as Man U v Arsenal and then suddenly saying that Arsenal are the home team. It's wrong. Even the BBC are reporting the way they drew it. Just next time show some maturity and be a man. KnowIG (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World Snooker draw and the Global Snooker results page (used as references) displays the matches as they are. An editors eye-view does not qualify as a
reliable source and every user who will to check the article will see, that the order of the names is correct. Be a man and accept, that the sources say otherwise as you have seen. By the way there is no home team and BBC has only provided coverage for the draw and it was made by World Snooker. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

NASCAR Newsletter

Nascar1996 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Your RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Armbrust

Final (16/21/13) Withdrawn by candidate. Procedurally closed by Courcelles at 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) – I have worked with this user for over a year now, mainly on tennis related articles. Furthermore, I have monitored this user’s work in the pages for deletion category and saw he has Admin experience already, and would use the features of this wisely, which would free up other Administrators to do other categories of admin work.BLUEDOGTN 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept your nomination. I withdraw my nomination. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At the beginning I would mainly work on the deletion process of articles (AfD and speedy deletion), because I have the most experience in this area. I plan to participate later in
DRV
and other XfD areas too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created more than 200 articles on Wikipedia and contributed to three articles to reach GA status. Have been participated in the AfD process, where I have recently performed non-admin closures (mainly procedural by nature) and relisting of discussions. I am a member of the
Wikilove
.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try to solve problems by discussion. It is true, that discussions are mostly not initiated by me. I try to be as
assume good faith
. Interacting with other can editors can cause stress, because editors have other opinion about things, which is, I think, a good thing. If I feel stressed about something, than I don't make edits in these area. I cool down, and step over it. Being an admin, I think, will not change this.
Additional optional question from Kraftlos
4. I see a lot of minor edits. Are there articles where have you done substantial content work and if so which articles?
A: I have created many article, mainly related to snooker tournaments and players. My first articles were created in one edit. (Like: 2007 Premier League Snooker, 2006 Premier League Snooker) I have created the failing World Snooker Championship yearly article until 1957. Many of my edits are minor, because I regularly add results and breaks to snooker tournament articles. I have recently made this major edits: [4], [5].
5. In your own words, what is the purpose of
WP:N
?
A: WP:N describes what criteria a topic must fulfil to be worthy for inclusion in the Wikipedia and what can be done, if an existing article fails these criteria.
Additional question from
Protector of Wiki
6. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this type of comment (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a mod? Would your opinion change if this comment were made by a "commoner"?
A: This comment can be interpreted as
WP:personal attack
. I would use the appropriate user warning template (Uw-npax). If the user reaches the final warning level and does not change his behaviour, then I would block him. I think, that admins are just like the other users with the exception, that admins have access to extra tools, which aid them by maintenance. Thus I would follow the same steps.
7. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a "commoner"? Would your opinion change if this were made by a mod?
A: If I interpret it, right this comment is an answer of the comment in the previous question. Personal attacks are unacceptable, even it is a reply to an another personal attack, thus the answer is the same as in question 6: using the appropriate warning template and blocking after reaching the final warning level and is no change in behaviour. The fact that this were an admin, wouldn't change the reaction.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A:
Additional optional question from Panyd
9. Could you please give examples of some XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?
Some examples:
  1. AfD: Delete I could only find this entry at Urban Dictionary. It looks like, it is not notable enogh to be included on Wikipedia.
  2. Afd: Speedy delete as a hoax. There are no sources about this person. Google-search results are posts by this person.
  3. Wikipedia is not the news
    . There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident. It may be newsworthy, but not notable.
Additional optional question from Seth Kellerman
10a. Do you have any keep XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?
A:
10b. Have you ever undertaken any efforts to help an article nominated for deletion satisfy any of the criteria that would result in it being kept?
A:



General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

  • Comment (shifted to talk page; Wifione ....... Leave a message)
    • Well, it's not exactly a helpful comment Wifione. It might be useful if you posted it to the candidates talk, but frankly here it's pretty much poisoning the well. The talk page of this RFA (or indeed nowhere) would be better suited to off-hand personal and unevidenced opinions I would think.Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies. I did not actually think that RfA voters would base their votes on one comment of mine and not on the very comprehensive discussions below, both in the support and in the oppose column. But am shifting my comment immediately post seeing your request. Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support --Inka888 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support User has been around since 2008 and has over 47000 edits and has created over 200 articles and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Has been a great contributor to the encyclopedia, and knows a lot of policies. I agree with POTW & BlueDog to give Armbrust the mop. Minimac (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support. A sensible, hard-working and ambitious editor that displays a passion for being a Wikipedian. His activities on behalf of the welcoming and birthday committees provides motivation and make this a better place to work. Looking like it's not going to happen this time hence the 'moral' support, but I see a lot of potential in this user and if he takes into consideration the issues raised in this RfA I have no doubt his next one will pass. -- Ϫ 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support - bit more moral support. User is clearly experienced and there would be some areas of Administration that I am sure he could and would be an asset. Recently a user was given the mop with the comment that he should go to admin school and get a mentor or two. Perhaps this user has some minor issues but if he took his time I am sure he would not make the wheels drop off.
    Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support - The user is doing a great job and has demonstrated that he/she knows and understands the policy. Looking through contributions I don't see anything wrong. --Alpha Quadrant talk 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Lots of experience, don't see any major issues.
    [FATAL ERROR] 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support I can't honestly see a reason to make me believe he would destroy the wiki with the tools.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - He's done a good job, I'd say we should give him a chance. He might have had some disruptive edits but that does not outweigh the good he's done and the work he has effortlessly contributed. —
    12:06pm • 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Support I see no major issues. Good luck :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Problems have indeed been listed in the oppose section, but I trust that he will not act in any way to disrupt Wikipedia with the tools. Derild4921☼ 02:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He meets all my admin criteria. I was a bit nervous about the stuff being brought up in the oppose section, but with this many edits you're bound to make a few mistakes. He seems to be committed to the goals of the project and has plenty of experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - No red flags for me. Editing wikipedia is a fuzzy process in all cases (and I think SHOULD be a fuzzy process). Anyway, generally clean record, heavy contributor, understands a chunk o' stuff, and all indications are that this editor is capable of refining his understanding of wikipedia adminship. I think I'm a bit old school in thinking that granting admin status shouldn't be that big of a deal. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: A dedicated and prolific contributor. I am changing to support because the concerns raised represent a very small % of this candidate's large number of edits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support some issues in opposition raise a few eyebrows, but the editor is progressing and experienced. Hope after a few months that Armbrsut decides to give another go. Moral here Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- wiooiw (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Sorry. I think an essential quality of being an admin is judiciousness in decision-making and the ability to explain a decision to people disappointed by it. Those qualities are particularly important in deletions. Looking through your contributions (and I have had a good look) I see a lot of very quick AfD !votes, often within one minute of each other. I think it would be unusual for an editor to have a proper look at an article and the sources that might be usable for the article in such short periods of time. Admittedly, most of your delete !votes are on uncontroversial deletions. But you get caught out:
    Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Strong oppose. Multiple issues. Has a strange tendency to edit articles immediately after someone else has edited it, sometimes with pointless edits that add or remove space [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], or which introduce grammatical errors [14], style changes without gaining consensus [15]. (Bizarreness factor.)
    Understanding of article-writing and content policies is poor; see here at His father section, where he argued to erase mere mention of Ronnie O'Sullivan's father, despite his father having a critical role in his life, with arguments such as "The article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan not about his father" and "It was removed, because the article was not focused enough. Article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan, not about his father, who isn't notable. (If he were he would have an own article, where this information should be.)" (Was later persuaded that this information could be included.) See also here at Nicknames.
    AfD participation is high, but the majority of comments consist of "Delete as [subject] fails [some notability guideline]". Rarely is the justification explained. Many times when he was the first person to comment, he has had to strike his comments when subsequent editors voted to keep. Also made an inappropriate non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. Also don't see too many speedy tags applied in recent history.
    I first encountered this editor when trying to get
    Shaun Murphy (snooker player) (see history) to GA—one of the GA he cites—and found his participation less than optimal. For example, he added spaces before and after em dash (against MoS) [16], I reverted, then he changed the em dashes to commas, completely messing up the sentence [17]. Also unnecessarily added otheruses template to the article after I had deleted it. Whilst some of his edits were improvements, the vast majority were minor, and overall I found his participation less than entirely helpful. The other GA he cites, Jasmin Ouschan, was largely done by TonyTheTiger (see history
    ). The candidate made 10 edits, 8 marked minor, the 2 non-minor also insignificant.
    Has a tendency to delete comments off his user page without explanation, so would not trust his talk archives to be an accurate record of his interactions, see [18] [19]. Regarding a RfC of KnowIG, another editor User:TreasuryTag attempted to contact the candidate about it. His response was to simply delete the comment multiple times [20] [21] [22]
    Also rarely uses edit summaries, even when making controversial edits and reverts, and NACs etc. Has a tendency to edit war without engaging in much discussion. Lack of significant content creation aside from minor tweaks and formatting. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've raised many excellent points, however, it's not clear to me that the "pointless" edits of removing or adding a space were intentional, and I can see nothing "bizarre" in changing a long reflist to two columns to save space and improve appearance, nor is it a matter that typically requires community discussion. In wishing to register your strong opposition to this candidate, I think you've mixed in a few trivial points.
    talk) 17:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Bizarreness was used to describe the tendency, almost a compulsion, to edit articles immediately after someone else had done so. I see this often on my watchlist, in which an edit to the snooker articles is usually accompanied by one from the candidate. Most are these are minor and uncontroversial, but some are simply strange. Along with the focus on minor issues, whilst neglecting the more important parts of the article, I feel KnowIG's second sentence may have some relevance. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose: Though in my few interactions with this user in the past he has appeared to be a good editor, unfortunately some of the issues raised above are too problematic to ignore; I had noticed previously that the user's !votes in AfDs often seem rushed and could be better researched prior to coming to a decision, and upon being reminded, I also recall the inappropriate NAC referenced by User:Christopher Connor above, as I reverted it myself at the time. It's a reasonable mistake for an editor to make, but illustrates that the user may have some work still to do before they can be an effective sysop. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I've taken a look at your 'tribs and you appear to be a valuable Wikipedian; however, I cannot ignore some of the issues raised by Mkativerata and by Christopher Connor, which make me feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, especially when it comes to AFDs (your rushed !votes and that NAC are unreassuring, IMHO); and, finally, your use of edit summaries could definitely be improved... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OPPOSE: Christopher Connor's thorough analysis SHOCKS me. I've seen Armbrust at AfDs, generally making rational comments, but those diffs exhibit utter incompetence in content work. Also, he closed
    talk) 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    SK#3 is irrelevant when #1 is satisfied; at the time of the close there is no outstanding argument for deletion. T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck that portion. It wasn't a violation, but the delete votes were struck solely based on the false assumption that AfD nominations by sockpuppets MUST be closed as keep. However, I cannot support Armbrust becoming a mod due to the many reasons given above.
    talk) 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    ADDENDUM: Answers to Q6 and Q7 are misguided. His characterisation this and this as personal attacks shows that he lacks an understanding of policy and tends to misrepresent
    talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Those honesty are personal attacks. I'm sorry POW, but I think it is you who misunderstands
    WP:NPA.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We have another bloke who misunderstands
    talk) 02:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I would agree; they look like personal attacks to me, too. I do not see why you would vote against a candidate for deciding those diffs look like personal attacks. If there is any uncertainty over what a personal attack is, it should be addressed on a more appropriate page, not on RfAs. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this vote be indented? —
    9:32pm • 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Personally, I don't think so; even though I too believe that was a personal attack, everyone is entitled to their opinions and this !vote is not blatantly disruptive. The closing 'crat will determine how much this oppose weighs. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Salvio, I trust out crats know the NPA policy well and can determine for themselves the weight of this oppose.--Gordonrox24 |&nbsp Talk 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then, people are allowed to their opinion so long as their opinion is reasonable which in this case this !vote was far from reasonable. —
    4:32pm • 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This was discussed on the ANI thread about PoW prior to them being blocked; I don't think indenting the !vote can be justified, but the questions themselves are simply pointy forum shopping, as the user was blocked for making such comments previously and clearly feels that an admin would have been treated different (from the phrasing of their question). Their !vote should remain (and the closing crat can indeed use their judgement), but personally I wouldn't have thought any less of Armbrust if he'd simply ignored the two questions posed by PoW. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm not going to be nearly as dramatic as the actor above my vote, but the lackluster AFD !votes, wonky edits that create problems instead of fixing them, and especially no edit summaries in controversial edits and/or reverts is a dealbreaker. I cannot trust the candidate at this time. Vodello (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Well said Vodello.
    powwow 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Oppose - per
    WP:NOTNOW. Christopher Connor sums it up well and after following up, I don't want to pile on more rationale. Armbrust appears to be a friendly, helpful and civil editor, and we all make occasional mistakes, but his editing pattern is still too unstable. If he can work on those deficiencies of AfD judgement, lack of edit summaries, and other points, I would probably find my way to support a new RfA in about six months time.Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Multiple issues raised by review of candidate's talk page, including questionable policy interpretations and iffy command of English language.
    Townlake (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose - Regretfully. Sorry, there's no doubt you're a good contributor but given the issues raised above I don't think you're ready for the tools at this time. —
    3:19pm • 05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Move to Support[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose On the grounds that you have communication issues. To an extent, we all suffer from this, so please don't take my vote as a judgement on your eventual ability to gain the mop. For now, I would simply prefer to see a greater degree of receptive and interactive communication (edit summaries, meaningfully explained tags, and substantive commentary) before I support your bid. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose with regret. While the problematic edits outlined above are only a tiny proportion of the 47,000 total edits, I'm afraid what I'm seeing looks like sub-optimal communication and attitude - failing to communicate (eg omitting edit summaries from contested edits, deleting messages asking for clarification), getting bogged down in disputes over trivial style changes, and over-eagerness and terseness in AfD, are not ideal behaviours for an admin. But I stress my regret, because I really do see a dedicated and prolific contributor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The lack of communication is the deal breaker for me - a simple glance at your talk page is concerning in this respect as well as revealing. As an aside, carrying all the personal stuff on your user page isn't to wise IMHO (but nothing to do with my comment regarding your RFA). Sorry and I hope that this request provides some good feedback. Pedro :  Chat  19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with judgement. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Sorry brilliant editor but no. Ownage of snooker project can be seen as intimidating to other editors. And immature behaviour/refual to write to explain edits, although I do notice that since his been nominated he has used them on every ocassion. Here he stuck the wrong reference in refused to go to the talkoage page and carried on warring. I go to the talk page and he still refused to admit what was wrong with it. When I say wrong reference he turned round and said well why didn't you say that inciting that he knew exactly what was wrong with it. And then promptly did it right. 1. And has had numerous of other trivial wars recently. Sorry but oppose, but keep up the contributions. KnowIG (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose As others say, a good editor but not administrator material. MtD (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I don't mind occasional quirks of grammar or punctuation (although when I tried looking at some random edits, the first one I saw involved Armbrust returning to an old comment on a talkpage after somebody else had replied, and changing their own text to break the grammar). In an international community I'd rather prioritise productive work over linguistic pedantry. However, the interaction with other wikipedians mentioned above looks worse (ie. failing to respond to concerns, and/or deleting them), as does the hastiness at AfD. I'm sure Armbrust is a great contributor, but I do not think they would be a great admin. bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per many of the editors above me, especially Christopher Connor and his detailed analysis. Aarmbrust seems like a great guy, but I'm not sure with a contribution history which Connor has brought up that I'd be fully comfortable making him a sysop. Nomader (Talk) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Sorry, but the quality of your written english is not high enough to be an admin. --Stephen 05:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I can honestly say that this person is a fantastic editor and we should all be grateful for having them on the project, but I don't see enough evidence to counteract the issues brought up earlier in this RfA. I really hope they work more on their AfD contributions and come back at a later date. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this candidate is a fantastic editor and we should all be grateful for having 'him' on the project. I am changing to support because the concerns raised represent a very small % of this candidate's large number of edits. Also after looking more closely at his activities on behalf of the welcoming and birthday committees, clearly his motivation is to make this a better place to work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Christopher Connor and Know|G, particularly.
    talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Oppose due to judgement and communication concerns.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I've seen him do good work in various areas, as well as make some poor decisions and questionable comments in deletion discussions (Christopher Connor's oppose above mentions some of these things). Overall, I've found Armbrust to be a good user, but I can't bring myself to support right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral established editor, but the above oppses do not allow me to support at this time. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral On the fence for now. Answers to my questions will likely tip my vote one way or the other. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented vote for you ;) Bot was still counting this as a neutral. —
    5:10pm • 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Neutral, a committed editor who has made substantial contributions to the site. However, the issues stated above does cast doubt over the handling of AfDs. -Reconsider | speak 12:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I too am concerned by the same things as raised by the opposes, but I will not pile-on oppose. I would suggest that it might be an idea for the candidate to withdraw this RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral i can not Support at this time. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Cannot support right now. This is a hard-working user, but the opposers bring up valid and worrisome concerns. I'd be more than happy to support once these have been addressed. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - I can't support at this time due to multiple issues. I'd be happy to support in six months once you've improved. ~
    NerdyScienceDude 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Neutral—Fantastic overall contributions, but I'm concerned about the issues brought up by the opposers, namely some hasty XfD !votes and communication skills. I do hope you'll try again once you've worked on these points, Airplaneman ✈ 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Leaning towards oppose, but landing in the neutral camp to encourage this editor to continue making good contributions and apply for the mop in a bit. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral — per Airplaneman —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. I see a lot of good work out of this candidate, but there are some lingering issues that need work - and these have been discussed at length above. I would highlight, though, the fact that there are so many of us here under "Neutral" - this is a good indication of the positive work that the candidate is doing overall, and that there may be a lot more support for a later RFA that shows good progress. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't intend to pile on with an oppose, as although I can't support I did see good qualities in the contributions. I wasn't going to comment at all, but linking to a live, deletion-reviewed and relisted AfD of an article subject to ArbCom sanctions doesn't say "excellent judgement" to me. Something to bear in mind for next time. --WFC-- 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral I wish the best of luck here, but there have been too many points brought up earlier to support. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

H Armbrust! I see there was a failed attempt by an inexperienced editor to close your RfA. I have !voted 'oppose' but please do not take it personally. However, it does look as if there are going to be a lot of pile-on oppose !votes, and I'm wondering if you think it's worth going through with it this time. If you don't want to consider withdrawing and still prefer the process to run its full seven days, I commend you on your courage. You can be sure that if you follow up on the points given in the opposers' comments, I would certainly be ready to support you on your next RfA; Kind regards, --Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree with Kudpung, and recommend that you withdraw your RfA. You are of course within your rights to keep it open, but I think the wisest choice at this point would be to withdraw - there is no shame in this, in fact many people would have respect for you. I chose to stay neutral rather than oppose (hence my short statement) as I felt that there was no need to record an oppose when you were running at 25% support. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I will withdraw the nomination on 28 September 2010, if there will be no significant change in the votes. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And for whatever it matters, I should surely be one of your supporters the next time you apply having taken into account the comments (some) of the commentators on the RfA. My regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluedogtn

I will be making this October 1, 2010 at 4:00 UTC the last time you'll ever see me on here! I will miss all the times we've had together, but I believe it is best that I move on from wikipedia forever. I consider you a friend, which if I am ever in Hungary, I will look you up and track you down and we'll go eat some Hungarian food. May your editing yoke be light, which I do believe if you work on the comments on your RFA you will be an Admin one day, I used to have a bigger passion for this place, but I have grown tremendously weary, which means I must go forever. May you have Faith, Hope, Love, and Peace, but the greatest of these is LOVE. Have a great editing time on wikipedia. I will ask an admin to block my accounts at the time specified. You will be counted as a friend forever.BLUEDOGTN 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just finishing up stuff that I left hanging on Wikipedia, so that is why I was more active! I am done now wikifriend forevermore.BLUEDOGTN 04:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is data compiled from?

Hello,

Where is the data for the table compiled from. I updated one row yesterday, but it was undone and a comment was left that I should update the entire table.

87.102.10.161 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in the last section. The Chris Turner website is updated regularly. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

inre Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection AfD

I was able to find the sources the nominator could not... and I do not doubt that he did try. Starting with discovering a full-length review of this film in

WP:NF. And yes... I even surprised myself with this one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight.

WikiCup talk page
.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open.

Fox and The ed17 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_3&oldid=1094567229"