Just wondering why you are mass-opposing my nominations? With regards to the Bahamas nomination, as WP:STRONGNAT makes clear, categories about countries should use local variant of English spelling. British/Commonwealth spelling is used in The Bahamas. With regards to the Grenada nomination, you are failing to provide a serious reason of opposition. With the English atheists you are ignoring (C2C, C2D) the category tree, practice, article title and parent category. Irrelgion is not a religion. That's the whole point. AusLondonder (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Because I disagree with you rationale. C2C is for "Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree". If such a convention doesn't exist, than C2C isn't applicable. ArmbrustThe Homunculus04:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)ű
However, you have ignored the evidence regarding English atheists clearly meeting the criteria. Secondly, the convention to use local variant of English is well established. I regularly nominate such categories without any issues. AusLondonder (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, thanks for tagging a pair that I listed but didn't finish nominating. Would you consider withdrawing your opposition to the "Performance art in Foo City" at WP:CFDS? – FayenaticLondon10:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Can I ask on what basis you removed the British/English atheists and organisation/organization category nominations which I proposed from the speedy page? AusLondonder (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Armbrust, this picture was entirely Bgwhite idea, the reason why he never edited it because I made the nom, and he agreed, he is a legimate co-nom, by agreement. I should have probably asked him to sign the page himself, but he looked content with this so he never did so, in spite of the fact I pointed out the nomination to him, he never went back to sign it. Check the diffs. here and here. It was his idea and he agreed to co-nom... So I really think he should be credited too. Please? Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Armbrust that vote was there before, you removed it. This is not fair towars Bghwite, I was showing you all the evidence above that it was his idea, that we discussed it. The only thing that doesn't happened that he missed to sign it himself. Now PLEASE don't do this, it is not fair. He deserve this nomination, he was happy about it and he was looking forward to this. It was maybe a mistake not to sign it, but come on, he was set -up during the whole nomination as a con-nom. He might not sign it, but this is only a formality, and assuming that neither Bgwhite or me are criminals or trying to snach undeserved credits, it think this should be possible to be fixed somehow. He is a good admin and a nice person and you have all the evidence that was indeed a co-nom. Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, per not to bite the newbies - Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Bgwhite is newbeginner. On DYKs you can put on anyone without you ever need to ask them to sign it for you, so he maybe though there was no need for that? Maybe Bghwithe thought is was OK, as it was. this was his first FP nomination. Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was there, but it wasn't signed by him. (I only noticed, because the signature's timestamp was a date before the voting periods start.) Also I don't see in any of the diffs, that he intended that this picture become a FP candidate, he just wanted to add an image to your talk page. IMO newbeginner isn't the same as newcomer. Also you can't, even at DYK, sign in the place of someone else. See WP:SIGFORGE. ArmbrustThe Homunculus20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you suspend this nom a little bit? I'm nearly done restoring the front half, but it won't be today; once it's done I'll notify the voters. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Armbrust! First let me apologize for not pinging you in the discussion at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit – I probably should have done that straight away, but my original question about your closes was informational, not accusatory, and I really didn't wish to alarm you about it. In any case, sorry about that.
But, in light of the above-referenced discussion, it seems pretty clear from WP:RMNAC that you should be signing all of your closes with the {{RMnac}} template. The relevant section of the guideline states, "Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template {{RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{RM top}} template." So I would ask that you please start signing all of your closes with the {{RMnac}} template now. Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your closure of this requested move. I just noticed the RM on my watchlist when you closed it, so I didn't comment in the discussion, but I don't believe the number of editors who participated were sufficient to establish a consensus. Please let me know if you'd be willing to reopen this for additional discussion or if I should go ahead and seek some form of formal move review. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
IMO there was sufficient participation to reach consensus, especially for an RM (which sometimes are closed without any comment at all). Also the nomination has run for more than 18 days, so there is no need for additional discussion. ArmbrustThe Homunculus21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of this little-publicized RM (that's totally not your fault) is so clearly unsatisfactory that I feel compelled to pursue the matter. That said, I'm not sure what is the best way of doing so. I will give some thought and let you know what, if anything, I figure out can be done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The both already finished the task, and there is nothing to fix. It's job is to implement CFD decisions (in this case a dual upmerge), and it just did that. ArmbrustThe Homunculus19:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the bot did it had to follow bot policy. If you're asked to perform a task against bot policy, maybe the least you could have done is ask whether the people were sure they wanted to override bot policy. So where do you want me to take this: WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard? Or would you still consider removing the "year" categories that can only be added to biographical categories against both bot policy and Wikipedia:Categorization of people? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The bot is clearly approved for making dual upmerges. It doesn't contain any such restrictions. Take it where-ever you want it. Just because you don't like the result of the CFD, it doesn't mean that it can be implemented. I won't remove the categories, but anyone can, if they want (including you). ArmbrustThe Homunculus19:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, afaics there's a permission for dual upmerges that are not in conflict with applicable bot policy of course: categorization of people is limited in bot policy, so still leaves you to interpret whether a particular task conforms to policy or not. So if you continue the "I did nothing wrong" line of defense, you're clearly not up to managing AmbrustBot 4, and the bots permission should be revoked. Otherwise a simple sorry, and a constructive attitude on how to repare the damage will suffise. Anyhow, I've started undoing the last batch of the bot's edits, manually, since I'm not a bot, and will continue doing so until someone has figured out how to implement the CfD decision without transgression of both bot policy and the applicable guidance on categorization of people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead and add back red categories to all of the pages. (Which you can't recreate, because they were deleted via unanimous consensus at CFD.) ArmbrustThe Homunculus20:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Just click on his userpage link and it says clearly there that it's a sockpuppet. Also even if I wouldn't struck his !vote, the result would have been the same (just with a 62.5% support.) ArmbrustThe Homunculus17:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Aurier picture, now FP in the enwp. I was not aware of the nomination, but I'm happy of the result ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Chris- As soon as this year's "cup" is over there will be a numismatic break so I can get to a serious backlog of processing my own photos...--Godot13 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I recently got one of the articles, Nembrotha cristata, you offered on the reward board up to C class so I just wanted to let you know for my barnstar(s). I didnt add it to the reward board as it seemed like you were putting the completed ones on there in a certain way so Ill let you update it so the formatting will match. Thanks Tortle (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust- I wondered if I am going to get one of the image promotion notifications for this nom as well. It was my image, proposed by me, promoted as the ALT. No worries either way, just wanted to check. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
User Talk AaronSw - MFD nomination warning template
Concerning the MFDWarning Template placed on the talk page for AaronSw (talk), please see his user page: AaronSw. The point is that I think the notification section should be removed, as it seems rather strange to see the template used in this case. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Just improved the Eckert II projection page as you requested. Please check it for minos syntax errors, as writing in English is still rusty after 25 years. Let me know if that added contents are enough to do the same for Eckart VI (actually on my iron-sights). (Have to use a image for equations as I have no time for figure it out how-to keep formatting right now). TienShenLong@06:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Armbrust,
I see all of the bills on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Featured content (again!) and my instinct is to delete 85% of the content as being redundant and repetitive. But it seems important to some folks that every single Featured Picture has a place in the article instead of just a sampling. You did such a nice job restoring the images last week and resizing them so that it wasn't an overwhelming page to look at, I was wondering if you could take a moment to sort out this week's Featured content article. Your help would be appreciated, ten-fold! LizRead!Talk!21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you did a great job, Armbrust! Thank you so much. It's quite a lot of images for the page but I understand that it is important to acknowledge them all and the editors who get them to FP status. And resized, they don't seem overwhelming. LizRead!Talk!14:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The nomination failed on quorum. From the lead of FPC: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support", and in this case only 4 users supported. ArmbrustThe Homunculus11:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The minimal size is written in the featured picture criteria, and it needs to be 1500px in width and height. File:Songhamaenghodo.jpg is bellow that on the shorter side. The exception you quoted above is a bit complicated, and subjective. In such cases the nomination rationale should clearly explain why the size requirements shouldn't be considered for that image. (One example for this are video game screenshots, like File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png, where the native resolution of the game is lower. This, however, isn't generally applied for artworks.) ArmbrustThe Homunculus08:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The picture stored is [720x1500]. And my question was not if I should read the page Wikipedia:What is a featured picture that I was quoting, but how you are reading this page. Should we require a minimal shorter size, leading to [1500x3125], or a minimal number of pixels (i.e. 1500x1500), leading to [1039x2165] ? In other words, is a square painting more featured-prone than a rectangular one? Pldx1 (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering about a couple edits you made concerning the {{done}} tag at WP:ANRFC. In this diff I noticed that you had subst'ed in the tag, but then in this diff you undid the subst that I did (after noting your previous edit). I'm curious if there is a specific reasoning behind the opposite edits, so I can take it into account in the future.--Aervanath (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The page is archived by a bot, if it detects some templates (like {{done}}). As this section, however, contained 4 dicussions to be closed, it wouldn't have been ideal if it was archived before all 4 were done. ArmbrustThe Homunculus19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, quite right, you're totally correct. My apologies about that, and thank you for your efforts maintaining this area of Wikipedia !!! No worries man, — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The categories were removed, because nobody moved them to a full discussion, and they became stale. (In this case they can be summarily delisted from the page, and the categories detagged.) ArmbrustThe Homunculus13:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy nomination
Hi; you nominated the following for speedy category renaming. I've tried to process it at WP:CFDW, but there's something about it that Cydebot doesn't like and it won't transfer the articles. (I'm not sure what the problem is since the bot seems to be doing all its other regular tasks.) I thought maybe you could make your bot do it:
Hi Armbrust, habe seit längerer Zeit mal wieder einen Artikel von de nach en übersetzt. Wäre schön, wenn du da mal drüber schauen könntest. Dank im Voraus und schönes Wochenende. Gruß aus Berlin. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Armbrust, ich danke Dir für Deine Korrektur des falschen Begriffes für das Mützenabzeichen der Gebirgsjäger, das mir schon lange auf den Keks ging. Gruß --JostGudelius (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Armbrust. Nice work this week, but I notice FAs aren't there. I thought the bot inserted a bare list automatically, but perhaps I'm wrong. Any chance you'll be back to the page before publication?
I see that you promoted the video. Did anyone really consider the possibility that it is a copyvio? Did you look at the original YT video from which it was excerpted ("stolen")? --Janke | Talk14:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether everyone considered it or not. If, however, you think it is, than why didn't you nominated the file for deletion? (In which case I wouldn't closed it until that discussion wasn't concluded.) ArmbrustThe Homunculus15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you uploaded a logo for this high school. The logo was taken from a Facebook page that uses the incorrect logo. The logo is actually from a different North High School and was changed to be red from blue. The logo for "North High School (North St. Paul, MN)" is at http://www.isd622.org/NORTH. The logo image is here. Can you please make the correction? Thanks! Blake — Preceding unsigned comment added by MplsBlake (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, thanks for creating a poll on WP:ORCP. I was wondering if you would like to take part in an optional survey regarding the polling process? If so, could you fill out the four questions on this page? Many thanks, and good luck! -- samtarwhisper12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
_2015-01.jpg)
_2015-02.jpg)
,_Queen_of_Hungary.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
