Question: Can you please tell me what you do to close the RfA's. Do you have to manually put the closing box around it or is there a template for that. I would assume it's a template and I can't seem to find out which one it is. Could you help me?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I was really confused there for a second until I realized we were both trying to close the same AfD at more or less the same time. It's a good thing we both had the same conclusion on the outcome.--Kubigula(talk)17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I love a challenge. I found enough significant coverage of Jelena's World in reliable sources Politika,Hürriyet and others,[1] to improve the article. Of course, what I immediately had to address was that the plot in the nominated version was a copyvio of the synopsis on the production website. There was easily enough to fix it on up. I gladly invite you to revisit Jelenin svet to see what was you first nominated[2] has become significantly better.[3] Cheers. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When looking at the original, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title was so limited. Thanks for looking back in. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, I'm sure your a very nice guy and you helped me with nomination of transfer to the Wikimedia commons of the image File:Accra Skyline - Wide view.jpg which stopped it from being deleted, thank you so much for that because I don't know how to licence my uploaded images that well.
I would be really really grateful if you can help me licence the following five images that you have been nominated for deletion because their really important images that would be really important to their Wikipedia articles:
I would be really grateful Armbrust if you can help with the licencing of those five images to stop them from being deleted, thank you so much Armbrust. Regards - MarkMysoe (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Armbrust, please attempt to engage the anon IP on the talk page rather than continually reverting. I don't want to call WP:3RR on anyone, so I'd appreciate it if you could discuss things. I'll revert the Davis page and protect it if I have to. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a head's up... I earlier submitted a WP:3RR report on the IP in question regarding this page. Given that you had a fair number of reverts in there too, you may want to reply on that thread. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust. Thanks for doing all the closures. It looks as if I've pasted a lot of my reminders here. I won't place any more, but please remember the 'R' template - it will save me a lot of work;) Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Relistings
This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brodkorb and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick D'Agostino. Why is it the fact that these articles are BLPs a reason to relist them a second time? Nobody has recommended keeping either article after two weeks. I don't see how extending the discussion again facilitates the principle that "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." --Metropolitan90(talk)01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, as you invite to talk about your edits: I would like to know why you declined my request for a file upload already on 2 January. Your comment on 29 December read: "Comment: Place request on hold until draft isn't moved to article space. If this doesn't happen within seven days, than this request will be declined. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)." Today is the end of that 7-day-period. I had waited for comments from two friends on my very first article - just to find that you already moved on. If it is still possible to reconsider my request, please note that I just requested AfC submission of my article. Thanks and regards Uwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utrenkner (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2012
The Kris Herzog page is being vandalized, Please Lock Down or Restrict Edits to Senior Wikipedia Editors lie yourself. The paparazzi hate Kris Herzog, as he is a celebrity bodyguard and they have already sent me threatening emails saying they would vandalize the new Kris Herzog page. I just removed vandalism on the Kris Herzog page, there will be much more, unless you lock it down and/or restrict edits to senior Wikipedia members like yourself. His company, The Bodyguard Group, is a free job placement service, free of charge for any veteran, not a security company, they seem to attack him with that. I do not know how to do this myself, please help me. Thanks, Amanda, Student, New York University (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 January 2012
As per discussion, I'm trying to move the article to a more specific name, that is, "Wait list (college admissions)", so the old article "Wait list" is no longer needed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
If you'd like me to go ahead and try again to move the article, using the right procedure, let me know. I still think the title should be "Wait list (college admissions)" since it really describes what the article is about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That malformed RfC is headed into SNOW land. Allegedly a second one is coming. The first one will distract/confuse/irritate those who see it abandoned in favor of a second one (and soon at that). –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The rfpp noticeboard seems a bit backlogged occasionally. I saw you make this edit semi auto clearking - diff is that a mono book addition that I can add and use? Youreallycan (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi again - it doesn't seem to be working and adding it seems to remove my Qui watches you buttons, online, busy etc.. any ideas? Youreallycan (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
G'day Armbrust. When you closed and redirected the AfD regarding Saint Rose School, you didn't move through any information on the school to the locality. The result is that someone who could be searching for Saint Rose School gets redirected to an article that, apparently, has nothing to do with what they searched for (i.e., WP:SURPRISE!).
I've added the schools that I can see from Google Maps, but I have no local knowledge, do not know how enrolment catchment works in the US, so if you could please check my work at Girard, Ohio, I'd appreciate it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I'm a member of that project. There's been an enormous blitz on AfD'ing school articles the last couple of weeks by a couple of users who seem to be intent on creating chaos.
You closed 3 of those AfD's (that I've found so far) that really should have been redirected to an education section of the target article (per precedent, WP:OUTCOMES#Schools). I'm not really interested in whether or not the article is kept, but it is important to ensure that people aren't surprised by random search results, so I'm trying to sort through the mess that this has caused.
Cheers. A list is useful... I'll fix them when I wake up tomorrow (or you can do it now if you're keen? :) All it needs is an Education section saying "In such and such there are a few schools including ....") ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, on my chess game, User:B.wilson/chess, you accidentally initiated an invalid move, because black pieces cannot move backwards. I have undone it, and I'll give you another chance to move. Thanks for playing! --Bryce (talk | contribs)02:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could you please have a look on this article and tell whats still wrong with it. The lady got several awards, and there are five sources. --Nicola54 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
While I concede the keeps clearly outnumbered the deletes, I don't believe this fit the criteria for a non-admin close, i.e., "absent any contentious debate among participants", especially right after my own remarks questioning the sources. I think you should have left this for an admin and recommend that you undo your close. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elana Amsterdam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
AfD closure
Hi there, Armbrust. I noticed your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Sa-rang (singer) no consensus. Non-admin closures should only really be done in cases of clear consensus where the closer has the technical ability to perform the outcome (so keep, redirect and most merges). No consensus closures by non-admins should generally be avoided. Can I recommend that you undo your closure of that discussion and allow an admin to deal with it (they might close it as non-consensus or choose to relist it)? Thanks. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed there. The discussion was already relisted twice, but no further discussion occurred, (otherwise I wouldn't closed it as no consensus). Also a third relist is highly unlikely, and if someone disagrees, he can speedily renominate the article, because there was no consensus. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?20:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I use to make such "no consensus" closes as a non-admin where the close was based on lack of participation per WP:NPASR so IMHO this was an appropriate NAC. However, in the future please add the phrase "with leave to speedy renominate" (or a similar phrase) in such cases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"Click "edit" on the article page and copy the entire {{Old AfD multi}} template that is inside the AfD tag, then paste that entire template onto the article's talk page (normally below the WikiProject tags, if applicable), and then save using an edit summary such as "Adding {{Old AfD multi}}"."
I wasn't aware of the Mr.Z-man/closeAFD tool. Yes, it seems prudent to notify the author of the script about this matter. The rationale is that the script should follow policy. After all, article talk pages are primarily about articles, not the closed debates about them, which is very likely why the policy is for the tag to be placed below Wikiproject headers. I'll await your response. Northamerica1000(talk)08:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I placed a notice on the user talk page about this matter here. You're correct that the administrator instructions for closing AfD's aren't a policy or guideline page; it's an instruction page about how to correctly close AfD's, likely based upon consensus. Anyway, it would be nice if you could place the tags per these instructions. If you're not interested in that, then I'll continue to correct these for you when I see them. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk)08:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming that file. What's the deal with filemover permissions; if I were to request them do I stand any chance of actually getting them (unlike eg. checkuser)? Cheers,
--CarbonRodney08:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The filemover userright is for users, who have experience in the file namespace. You currently have only one edit in these namespace and didn't upload any files. This userright is granted to users "who regularly work with media files and have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines surrounding renaming this type of media". If you gathered more experience in the file namespace, than you can request this userright at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?09:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What's your objection to the template? It exists for a reason. It's important that readers understand that a such an article is a moving target and may be wrong from moment to moment while the event is ongoing and that they should check news sources if they need very current details. If you object to the template generally, that's probably something to take up at Template talk:Current sport or WP:TFD. If you just feel it's not needed right this very minute, its nice for other editors' convenience to just leave it commented out until needed again, so no one has to go look up the parameters again. :-) — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 11:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I thinked there is nothing for me to say. The reason for the existence of this template is to warn users, that the article is rapidly changing, and not to indicate, that the event is ongoing. (These events could only change rapidly by the violation of the WP:NOTNEWS policy - live scoring.) For example 27 edits in 5 days isn't rapid enough for this template. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Except we cannot keep editors from updating the article with live scoring (on a match, not frame basis), which they regularly do with ongoing snooker tournament articles. It's more important to warn readers that an article is frequently changing because the event is still ongoing than it it is to try to prevent use of a template because you think editors shouldn't be updating the scores frequently. I'm curious what you think is a good use of this template. What do you think is "often enough"? More than 5 changes per day seems plenty often to me. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 02:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
A page is rapidly evolving if it has at least 30 edits per day. Live scoring on snooker articles become very rare in the last year, because I try to stop it and it looks like they don't do it any more. In the last year there was only one editor trying to do it (on the 2011 World Snooker Championship) and s/he was even blocked for it. But a hard limit, from which on some one can speak from rapid evolving, should be discussed at the templates talk page for wider discussion. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
When you closed this AfD, did you in investigate the reasons for this edit ? I would not blame you if you did not as it took me a bit of time to spot it, but it looks like User:Geek2003 stuck another editors !vote out because they had a semi-retired notice on the talk page. On the face of it looks like a clear keep, but looking closer I now think the discussion appears to be a little manipulated; what do you think ? Mtking (edits) 12:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No, but I think it doesn't change the consensus of the discussion. Alan Liefting has nominated the article for deletion and thus there was no need for him to write "Delete" at the beginning of the nomination. (As I see s/he only struck this word was out.) The nominators rationale was an argument to avoid and the other delete !vote was adequately refuted by the addition of multiple third partyreliable sources.Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?12:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I still feel that User:Geek2003's actions on the AfD are suspect, the appearance that he !voted twice by, the appearance of removing the nomination, but will leave it at that for now and perhaps re-nom if the article does not get more coverage, I assume you would have no issue with a re-nom ? Mtking (edits) 22:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1776 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
Armbrust, just !voting "keep" at the AfD is never going to be sufficient to keep an unsourced BLP. Sources must actually be added to the article, and unsourced statements removed. I also respectfully suggest that your editing of the article to address the concerns I'm raising here, after you'd already closed the AfD as "keep", won't look very good if I'm forced to open a deletion review. Please could you just reverse yourself and relist the debate in the hope of input from editors who aren't active in WikiProject Anime and manga? All the best—S MarshallT/C18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP trumps the supposed consensus here. Not sure what you were thinking closing what's not only a barely 2-1 !vote, but also closing an unsourced BLP as "keep". (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've been doing an exemplary job closing AfDs. One today, however, raised a question in my mind. It was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engadine Public School. I agree completely with you that, as you noted in your close, "There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted". You closed it as a redirect, which I personally was open to. But looking at the !votes, that didn't seem to have consensus support, as best I could tell -- only 1 other !voter supported that result. In contrast, 5 editors called for deletion (only), and I also indicated an openness to deletion. That seemed to me to be the consensus at the AfD. Thoughts? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look. As I said, and is clear at the AfD, I personally am not against a redirect. But delete did seem to be the consensus view, and editors such as sysop Bearian clearly based their !votes on our policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it seemed that a redirect might violate both our policy on following consensus and our policy on verifiability, IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, good sir! I just happened to be looking around Wikipedia:RfA and found the request for MikeLynch. In it, you had asked an additional question and eventually !voted neutral, and a day later changed to support. You have not struck your neutral !vote.
I would have done it myself, but knowing it's not considered appropriate to edit users' comments - even in the case of this sort of error - I opted to give you a heads-up instead. Good day and I hope the impending blackout doesn't darken your spirits. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Why the relist? No one disagreed with merging, and no one urged deletion at all so this even should have been speedy closed as I had stated. postdlf (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the format specified here actually laid out anywhere on the snooker's project's pages, or is this yet another hidden guideline that simply confuses editors acting in good faith to improve articles? At the very least data tables should contain class="wikitable" and a caption is strongly recommended for accessibility reasons. A better solution than enforcing some nonstandard layou would be update the rest of the snooker articles to use tables the same way the rest of the encyclopedia does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You closed this as Keep? That's insane. The best that can be said was no consensus. The "strong keep" doesn't make that editor's vote any more important, especially when the arguments made were patently false. The site DID NOT win any Webby awards, it was merely nominated, and that nomination process is trivially easy. Please consider changing the closure to be a more accurate reflection of the discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
They didn't win the Webby Awards, that's true. I don't know anything about how the nomination process is, but multiple nomination might be enough. Undone close and relisted for further input. Happy editing, Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?15:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please consider re-opening the AFDs for "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance". 3 deletes against 3 keeps does not constitute consensus to keep, and certainly not a strong enough consensus for a non-admin closure. If there are reasons for discounting the delete votes, ie. if you believe they're not based in policy, it's incumbent on you to explain that in your close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You evaluate the sources as reliable and significant, but the fact that they aren't is exactly why delete/redirect voters are voting to delete/redirect. If you have your own opinion on the notability of the subjects, you should be voting, not closing. Taken to WP:AN to request reopening/relisting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed to added semi protection to W. E. B. Du Bois. I recently asked that it be UNprotected. I'm not entirely sure if it was protected before or not. It looks like it may have been. Can you unprotect it? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I see you have been taking care of AfD's on Jan 15 - this one seems to be skipped over (unless i can't see what happened to it). Is it to be deleted? Relisted? Kept??? (shudder....). Thanks. Soosim (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't help you with this one. It looks there is a consensus to delete the article, and because of this I can't close it. Only admins can close AfD's as delete (because only they can delete), and I'm not one of them. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?17:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Good work closing AFDs, but do make sure you remove the sorting template. I've done that for you here, so it's not really a problem. But leaving the sort template just means that editors looking at debates in that category will end up wasting their time by checking in on a closed out debate. No worries, just an FYI. Thanks for the help! UltraExactZZSaid~ Did21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, There would appear to be many pages supporting this category. The charts are generally published monthly, with a different game every month since the early 1980s. There will be games that remain number one for several months, but that still leaves at least 250. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012
Well, what you said is a fairly good solution, but I'd say the format is important. Unlike music, which does not differentiate between CD/vinyl/MP3, with video games there are different charts. Also, without anything to do with formats in the title of the category, it's not clear we're talking about video/console games, as opposed to board games etc. Suggest what you said, or a variation on Category:Number-ones in the UK combined games chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012
Hello, I submitted this article and I have re written it so many times and tried to put as much information references etc up there and I'm starting to feel quite frustrated because there are other bands with far less references and have far less proof of notability. I am just really unsure as to what I am doing wrong to keep it getting rejected, If you could tell me specifically what I need to change that would be so helpful and I would be very grateful! Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you, Lorcan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcanmce (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2012
Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed as Selected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate articles or images on the talk pages.
The raceway was originally constructed with a 2.5 miles (4.0 km) road course that ran both inside and outside of the main tri-oval. In 1991 the track was reconfigured with the current 1.51 miles (2.43 km) interior layout. PIR has an estimated grandstand seating capacity of around 67,000. Lights were installed around the track in 2004 following the addition of a second annual NASCAR race weekend.
Phoenix International Raceway is home to two annual NASCAR race weekends, one of 13 facilities on the NASCAR schedule to host more than one race weekend a year. The track is both the first and last stop on the West Coast, as well as the second and second-to-last track on the schedule. (Read more...)
Hello - if you want to remove all that information from my page - at least keep a record on the talk page? It took me a LOT of time to gather this info. Also, why did you remove it from the snooker template, and remove the template from the page? How would this tournament be categorized if it not a 'non-ranking' tournament?? Sandman30s (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to record it on the talk page, it's still in the history of the page and can be restored if you find sources, for this challenged material. It doesn't matter how many time it took you to collect this information, if you can't verify it with reliable sources. As I said in my edit summary the template is only for professional tournaments, and only if they are active. There are no sources, this was ever professional. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please then restore the third column (winners of 1977 To 1994 - S.A. Billiards And Snooker Control Board), the information of which is on the official roll of honour which you allowed. This is very important in the history of apartheid affected sport in my country. Sandman30s (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now for my next argument :p If you look at the Perrie Mans page, you will see the first reference is 'Other National Professional Championship'. I used that on my page which you removed. I would like to use this link as a citation to my South African Snooker Championship to include the professional national champion information. My page is looking incomplete without that. The rest of the references on the Perrie Mans page also seem to verify the first reference. Sandman30s (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused... ok, no. I'm completely stumped as to what you did on this article. TBH, I could have even seen you closing this as keep before your second relist, but to put it up for relist and then close it a few hours later after just two more keep !votes? What was that? If you're gonna relist it, why not let it run out? I'm not suggesting that it's gonna swing to delete, but that's a really odd close. NoleloverTalk·Contribs00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing odd with this. This very similar to cases, where after a relist the article is deleted the same day, like this. At the time of the relist I wasn't sure, that closing it was a good idea, as the additional keep !vote was very week. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
But that wasn't the same person, and it wasn't a NAC. I'm not trying to say there was anything wrong with how you closed it, I just find it extremely odd that you would relist after, I agree, a weak keep, then close as keep just a few hours later after two more keeps that didn't even answer my original concerns. NoleloverTalk·Contribs00:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Relisting AFDs
Hi, thanks for your work at AFD. Can you please take a look at WP:RELIST? It's not usual to relist AFDs endlessly in the hope that someone will come along, and anything beyond a second relisting should have a specific rationale given. If an AFD isn't getting participation, it should be closed as no consensus or soft delete (by an admin). Stifle (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! You reviewed my "articles for creation". Can you please tell me where your review so that I may improve on the article and that I will be able to let someone review it to be an article. Thanks. 125.237.123.182 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Although your closure may be correct, it is controversial, as I (the nominator) and one other editor found no justification for inclusion, and only 2 other editors found any justification to keep, which I stated was contrary to guidelines. I ask that you reverse the closure and wait for an admin. — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi you seem to have some knowledge about cue sports. Someone added PoolMeister to this page and I can't find any references... do you know of such a tournament? Also, it would be appreciated if you could add some of the missing champions on this page... there is scant info before the 90's; seems we might have to resort to old magazines or scanned newspaper articles. Sandman30s (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I only follow snooker closely and don't know very much about eight-ball. Non the less I have removed the section as I couldn't find the information in any reliable sources. I could find only Wikipedia mirrors. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the cleanups and the references. So youtube references are not preferred? I thought it would be fun... also some of those youtube links are not easy to find. Sandman30s (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've seen your contributions... I'll be open to nominate you for RfA in case you're up to it. And yes, in any case, if you wish rollback for faster reversion of vandalism, do tell me. Best regards. WifioneMessage13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic. I'll engage you in the coming days on the various perspectives that one should be aware of before an RfA. Expect a flurry of communication from me starting next week. Kind regards. WifioneMessage20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the new logo. You may have notice there is now a notice requesting for more sources on that page. I left a message here: User talk:SF007#Your comments on Software Freedom Day page . Do you have any suggestion as to the best course of action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.206.63.93 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2012
The problem is with the sources in the article. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The current three references doesn't pass this, as all three are connected to the in some way: ref 1 is the official blog of the president, ref 2 is the Wiki of the company and ref 3 is from the official website of the company. Blogs and Wikis are also not reliable. The solution to this is to add more references to the article as inline citations. It looks like to me like ref 3 has enough material from the press, they have just to be added. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?13:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you misunderstood from ALPG page that ANZ Ladies Masters (Currently Gold Coast RACV Australian Ladies Masters) had happened two times in 2011, one in February and one in March. I went to ALPG page and if you click 2010/2011 season, and if you see the date of ANZ Ladies Masters, the last one on the list, it is written as March 2-5, 2010. So the ANZ Ladies Masters did not happen in March 2011. The direct proof that ANZ Ladies Masters did not happen in March 2011 is that whom you had written as the runner-up of that event, Lee Bo-mee, participated in LPGA of Japan event Daikin Orchid Ladies, which was held through March 4-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThpRicky (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 February 2012
You recently proposed that this article be deleted. However, the article has been PRODed once before, but deletion was contested by the author, so policy dictates that the article cannot be re-PRODed. If you think that the article should be deleted, you need to take it to AfD. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no modification to your comment. If you are not an administrator, it is expected that you use the {{nao}} template in the interest of full disclosure. Only administrators can approve or decline page protection. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}08:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your disagreement, because the editnotice on RPP says "administrator notation templates". This will not happen again, I hope. →Στc.04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
About File upload: Request for portrait upload
Hi! Its a picture of Peer, who is sitting next to me. I've almost just uploaded the image to the isotia site, which is his own publishing company website. How do I get a license to the picture? I can upload a picture of him holding a sign, stating its okay to use his picture for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowStarDK (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 February 2012
You have two options. You either create a subpage of the website with the picture and statement, that you release it in the public domain, or you follow the descriptions described in WP:CONSENT. (In the latter case please send me a copy to armbrustvipmail.hu.) Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?18:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy Your Break?
I hope your self inflicted break gave you a chance to get out of the house for the day! Keep up the amazing work with your stunning edits and winning personality. Sorry to see your prospective promotion to your "job" on wikipedia to be an admin was swiftly removed. Better luck next time - I'll be supporting you all the way because you truly are special on so many levels. All the best my friend :-) Spc 21 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
...A sincere apology, from my side, for ruining a clean block record... I've been feeling bad about this for a pretty long time and would want to tell you that my view about you as a brilliant editor and an extremely productive asset to Wikipedia hasn't changed a bit. I also wish to inform you that after a few months, perhaps before the next six months, if you're still open to considering my offer, I'll be more than pleased to nominate you as I had wanted earlier. I shall understand if you decline this offer, given the recent past, but I would strongly encourage you to look at the positives and contact me whenever you wish for any assistance you may desire. My kindest regards... and again, I'm sorry. WifioneMessage03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you moved the laws of Australian football to Australian rules football. Whilst this is probably ok from a disambiguation point, your edit summary of "this is the official name" is incorrect. Australian football is actually the official name of the sport but is not used often here due to the worldwide ambiguity that it has. The WP:COMMONNAME of Australian rules football is often used here to disambiguate it from football (any code) in Australia. Cheers The-Pope (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that my request for image upload on "Apple Messages Application icon.png" was declined, with the explanation that the image is replaceable with a free one. However, it isn't the case, since the image is the specific icon of a computer software (that is, Apple Messages, for Mac OS X), intended to be used on the specific page of that specific software (that is Messages (application)). Such use of a computer software icon seems to be a common practice and appears to comply with the fair use principle. What should I do to have my request reevaluated? Mjameswh (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Tried to respond on my own page but couldn't get past the codes. I submitted a graph linked to my own website and the graph is my own work. I assented to a creative commons license for the work and I can find no link to a license on my website.Glehman (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
How do I prove that I own this image and that I give permission for its use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.247.196 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2012
Please can you help me to create one then please. I would like anything as long as it's nothing too grey, nothing to boyish something in the middle! Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is too vague for me to work with. Do you wanna use different colors only? Or other formating methods too? (Like superscript, subscript, other fonts.) Do you want, that your signature contains a link to you contributions too? Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like different colours if possible. A link to contributions would be good as well and a different font any of the ones you've suggested would be fine! Thanks --Chip123456 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, me again; I've come here as follow-up to the WP:VPT discussion, to see how you were getting on with the font faces. I see that your work area contains a <font color="##E1AD21">; please note that the double # is an error, so that the desired colour is unrecognised in some browsers. If your browser shows <span style="font-family:'Courier new',monospace"><font color="##E1AD21">[[User:Chip123456|'''Chip''']]</font></span> and <span style="font-family:'Courier new',monospace">[[User:Chip123456|<span style="color:#E1AD21;">'''Chip'''</span>]]</span> the same (a yellowish ochre shade), it manages to work around it; but others won't do so, and will show the first one in a different colour (probably the normal blue/indigo link colour). If you remove one of the # from your work area, it should work better. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey mate, I saw you put a non-free template on here. Obviously I removed it because non of the article is copyrighted but you undid it and said that it contains to many pictures. Anyway I just want to know, what do you want me to do. I tried making this page almost like other seasonal articles like 2012 Major League Soccer season which has a section which contains pictures of all of the stadiums that will be used during the season but instead of stadiums I want to use logos. I am just wondering, how is this wrong and how can I improve the article. I dont want to draw away people as this article will become more popular as it is recently in India. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I dont have pictures of the stadiums that I can use as the ones I can find were not taken by me nor do I have any permission to use them. Anyway, I am just going to take a wild guess here that I have a 0% chance of actually keeping these pictures in the 2012 Nagaland Premier League teams section. If there is a way for me to keep them there only, then please get back to me. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice of you to do this, but please don't change the ones in archived discussions that have long since been closed. Those discussions should reflect the state of categories, etc. at the time of writing and should not be "updated". Good Ol’factory(talk)03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's a big deal in most cases. The only ones I was meaning were the ones like old CFDs and AFDs that have specifically been "closed and archived" using templates like Template:cfd top and Template:cfd bottom that changes the colour of the background. Those are not ever supposed to be changed or updated. Changing it on talk pages that are just archived—as in old and not added to any more—is fine, I think. I believe I caught most of the ones that were in issue, so you don't have to go back and correct anything. But even if I missed one, it's not the end of the world and is a fairly minor point. I wouldn't worry about it at all. I was just asking you for future edits—wasn't sure if you had more to do or not. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed as Selected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate articles or images on the talk pages.
Hi Armburst. A user has contested the deletion of the above file on my talk page. Since you nominated the file for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY(TALK)09:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust - I do not know what motivated you to remove the RFC tag from the Article title RFC. However, I have restored it. RFCs should run 30 days. I will close it when that happens. You may not like the way the RFC is worded or the ideas it contains, but you are free to not participate as well. Please allow others in the community to say their peace, whatever it may be. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, I replaced the post of mine that you moved. [7] I posted it to AN because there is a backlog on the move page, and it's holding up article development. So I'm hoping some kind person on AN might take pity. :) Cheers, SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
