User talk:Armbrust/Archive 16

Hello! Please click here to post a new message. Thank you!

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

This user has an alternative account named Armbrust public. This user runs a bot, ArmbrustBot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user is one of the 100 most active English Wikipedians of all time. HThis user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library.

This user has been awarded the 100000 Edits award. This user scored 64008 on the Wikipediholic test.

CET CESTThis user has a standard time zone of CET, but he is forced to use CEST during summer. This user is a member of the Volunteer Response Team (VRT). (verify)

huMivel ez a szerkesztő beszél magyarul, ezért üzeneteidet nyugodtan írhatod magyarul is. deDu kannst deine Nachrichten auf Deutsch schreiben, weil dieser Benutzer Deutsch spricht.

Claiming award from WP:REWARD

Hey Armbrust! I've expanded Plumbeous Water Redstart, one of the articles on the list. While I've removed the stub category tag on the article, the talk page stub rating remains unchanged. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Awards delivered. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of professional snooker players this season

Hi Armbrust, I've been reading the article entitled "Snooker season 2013/2014" and thought that you would be the best person to ask about it as you seem to have updated the article more than anybody else.

I notice it says: "The 2013/2014 season was made up of 131 professional players." I'm presuming this includes the top 129 players in the world rankings after seeding revision 4 as well as Igor Figueiredo and Ben Judge. Am I therefore correct in assuming that the reason you didn't adjust that number to 130 on November 4 (when seeding revision 4 was issued) was purely on the basis that Ben Judge was included on seeding revisions 2 and 3 (therefore a professional this season prior to September 23) and not because you believe that he is currently a professional?

Is there some sort of participation criteria that national governing body nominations must meet in order to preserve their professional status? It's not clear to me why Floyd Ziegler and Ben Judge (both given a tour card for 2012/13-2013/14) have both been removed from the world rankings list prematurely.

Kind regards. Standingfish (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as you say. There were 131 professional players on the tour this season, because Ben Judge was officially a professional until the seeding revision 4 came out. AFAIK there is no such a criteria, but both Floyd Ziegler and Ben Judge have resigned their WPBSA membership and with this lost their professional status. In Ben Judge's case this was officially confirmed by the WPBSA. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. Following on from the point discussed, as Ben Judge was officially a professional until the seeding revision 4 came out, then that means that Floyd Ziegler was officially a professional until seeding revision 2 came out. Therefore, a professional prior to July 22, which means that he was also a professional this season.

Obviously the ranking list issued after a World Championship (seeding revision 1 in this case where Ziegler is included) is different to the other ranking lists in the sense that it also includes players (like Andy Hicks) who have not met the qualification criteria to remain on the tour for the subsequent seeding period.

However, Ziegler has met the criteria by virtue of the fact that he was given a two-year tour card at the start of the 2012/13 season. Therefore, surely we have to assume that he is still a professional until we are given official confirmation that he is no longer a professional - which didn't come until July 22.

Obviously I'll leave this up to you to decide what to do for the best. Just thought I'd offer a few thoughts on the matter.

All the best, Standingfish (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Floyd Ziegler wasn't on World Snooker's Tour Players 2013/2014 list, and therefore he can't be included without original research. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. The official confirmation came on June 19. Technically though, he could have still resigned his WPBSA membership at any stage between day 1 of the Wuxi Classic Qualifiers on May 27 and when the list of tour players was issued on June 19. Had his resignation occurred during this period, it's unlikely he would have been included on the June 19 list with him being an ex-WPBSA member at that stage. I totally agree with you though. As we are unsure, we have no option but to go by the June 19 list and treat it as if it was accurate as of May 27.

All the best,

Standingfish (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

• Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who

• Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia

• Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more

• News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions

• WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie

• Featured content: F*&!

• Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! (Keithbob)

Thanks for noting my close of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility ‎on the WP:ANRFC page. Twas my last edit of the day and I was so tired I forgot :-( — Keithbob • Talk • 14:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest. Noting the closure is by far more easier, than doing it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Hi Armbrust. Thank you for your work at WP:ANRFC in closing discussions and archiving closed discussions. I agree with your revert here. My commentary about the situation is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Number of discussions being added. I'd be interested in hearing your views at WT:ANRFC regarding the number of discussions I am listing there since you are one of the most active closers of the board. Thank you! Best, Cunard (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tfd close

I've removed the tag from the template page and posted the Tfd discussion template on the talk page. However, the talk page template links to another discussion instead of linking here. This is my first Tfd close so maybe there is a nuance I'm not getting. Any suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's because date in this case is also used to generate the link and therefore the date after "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/" is needed for that. (BTW these steps should be made for every template in multi-page nominations. In these case the section name parameter is also need.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, when I've closed AfD's the instruction is to take the Old Afd Multi template from within the AfD template at the top of the page and use it to create the talk page template, but the instruction page for Tfd's doesn't say that. Instead is says use this: {Tfd end|section heading|date=date of nomination|result=result} -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I see the issue. I entered the Nomination Date (Oct 28) per the Tfd instruction page BUT..... since the Tfd was relisted the close appears on the Nov 5th page. So I should have inserted Nov 5 instead of Oct 28 to get the correct link. Thanks for helping me clear this up. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

• Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list

• In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling

• News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine

• Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion

• Featured content: Viewer discretion advised

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Railway

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edouard Manet - Le Chemin de fer - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Jujutacular (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

3rd maximum break official video (snooker)

Hello Armbrust, Due to, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_break&action=history. I am Mr.Com who changed 3rd maximum break video to the official one at 14:32, 14 December 2013. By giving the reason that it contains more than just the maximum break, you changed it back to the original one at 15:56, 14 December 2013‎. I would like to ask you that does the official video violate any rule of wikipedia? I prefer the official one because of its quality and it contains the 'complete' frame (including an interview about the maximum break from both players). Cheers!! Mr.Com (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't violate any policy, but the article is called maximum break. The goal of the video links is to show, how the maximum breaks were compiled and there is no reason to link to content, which is unrelated to topic of the article. In this case the last frame of the match or the interview has no relevance. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Maximum break

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Maximum break shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Okay, I understand that, but where is the same warning for NickSt? I can't edit war alone. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC) You've made three reversions to different editors in quick succession. But I have warned him as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Hopper to the top

• Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more

• News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced

• Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe

• Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fisheries conservation organizations

I have closed the CFD discussion of Category:Fisheries conservation organizations as: Split' to Category:Fish conservation organizations and Category:Fisheries conservation organizations.

Since a split needs to be done manually, I have listed the category at WP:CFD/W/M#Split. As nominator, would you like to be volunteered to do the splitting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, mostly by DASonnenfeld. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to WP:RESTRICT

Hello Armbrust. With this edit you removed one or more 'appeal after' dates. Is this wise? I see that User:KhabarNegar was revert warring over the change to his entry, which had been stable since the original closure in June 2013. In my opinion any changes to RESTRICT which might be viewed as changing the terms of a restriction should be discussed at WP:AN or with the original closer of the sanction. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't think that's a problem, or is a change that needs a discussion. IMO the "appeal after date" makes only sense, if they are future dates, and if this date was reached, than they become meaningless/redundant. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy is in the eye of the beholder. When there is a provision for 'appeal after' that suggests that a return to good behavior is being confidently assumed. If you want to repeatedly make these changes I think an AN discussion is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense to me. Shall that mean, that if an "appeal after" date is not present, than "a return to good behavior" is not expected before lifting the sanction? These removals are very similar to removing expired restrictions, just in this case only a part of it expires. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)(Non-administrator comment) In my eye, entries without an 'appeal after' are not eligible for appeal. So, unless the sanction has expired and the entire entry is removed with a note on the user's talk page letting them know it has expired, such a date should not be removed without discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)