Jump to content

User talk:Armbrust/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20


Contents

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

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)

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

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.
Stop icon
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

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)
@EdJohnston: 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)
@Technical 13: That's complete nonsense. According to WP:UNBAN any editor can appeal his community-based ban at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Otherwise WP:RESTRICT wouldn't have an entry for Apteva, which prohibits him from making such requests until 31 January 2014 and restrict him to only make one appeal in every six months after that. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

New Nickname

Hello Armbrust, please put you on List of Snooker Nicknames Czech player Filip Domorád. His nickname is FD Pleška. Thank you Mr. Zmiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.85.159.74 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2013‎

Filip Domorád can't be added to the article, because (1) he doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia and (2) it's proposed entry is completely unsourced. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tintin category changes

Hello Armbrust, what is the status of your proposed speedy rename of the Tintin categories? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is still in progress, but it looks like it will not be made. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for your reply. I see what you mean. As this discussion been listed and relisted both for well more than seven days, please concede the discussion should now be closed and tags should now be removed from the categories for clean-up purposes. Prhartcom (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not possible. CFD discussions can only be closed by uninvolved users. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

FP nom error

Hi Armbrust- I made an error during a nomination (omitting the title for the nom) and went back to fix it. The nom still shows "a title for the nomination" even though I entered the title. Could you let me know how to fix this please. Many thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You fixed it, it just didn't show up at WP:FPC, because of a caching issue. Next time just click on the "purge the page cache" link just bellow the table of contents. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not An Admin

Armbrust: Just an FYI, it seems that your user & talk pages show a tiny icon at the top that you are NOT an admin. Just wanted to bring it to your attention since it is confusing as is. F6697 FORMERLY 66.97.209.215 TALK 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: Where can I learn more about those tiny icons?

(talk page stalker) Probably because he is truly not an admin? ES&L 16:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think it is confusing to anyone else, Armbrust. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the bad is mine. I saw Armbrust closing various AN/RFC and I erroneously thought Admin Noticeboard stuff needed to be closed by admins. Extending that logic I assumed Armbrust was an admin and when I saw the "not" icon figured that was a mistake. Now I know better on all of the above. :) F6697 FORMERLY 66.97.209.215 TALK 18:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings


Diannaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Diannaa (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 18:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

FPC

Would it be possible to put a stop on promotions after the 27th or 28th? The Signpost wants a year-in-review feature, but it would be best if the numbers are not skewed by promotions going under the radar afterwards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

After 28 December there is only one nomination, which ends this year (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden)). And I can't close that, as I nominated the image myself. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:GGYoona.png

Hi there Armbrust, please do not delete my file File:GGYoona.png as I use it to under my userpage under the section of information of others.


I thank you for your understanding.


Source of INUSE: User:JialeAven9erEX/Info

JialeAven9erEX Talk:(JialeAven9erEX) 09:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the ninth non-free criteria a non-free file can only be used in articles in the article namespace. As User:JialeAven9erEX/Info isn't in that namespace (but in the user namespace), therefore the file is eligible for speedy deletion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Hi Armbrust, Would you give me a tip of how I can find the Wikipedia featured picture / File:Burj Khalifa.jpg will be or will not be selected in the Wikipedia Today's featured picture? Thanks in advance --Donaldtong (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The featured pictures for the Picture of the day panel of the Main Page are selected (mostly) in the order they were promoted. I don't see any reason, why this picture shouldn't be selected, but I have no idea, when this will happen. The selection of the images is done by Crisco 1492, so it would be better if you would ask him about this. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Very much appreciated for your tips Armbrust! I take this opportunity to say Happy New Year To You! --Donaldtong (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy new year to you too. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit on File:MSSU1.jpg

Hi. Sorry about my last edit! I'm not sure what I was doing… I didn't even check the bottom of the page. Once again, sorry! Corkythehornetfan (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes can happen with anyone. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Luna Park at Dusk.jpg & File:Melbourne Luna Park at Dusk edit.jpg

Hi Armbrust, May I have another question? I found Soerfm used my original image File:Melbourne Luna Park at Dusk.jpg contributed to the Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia, and then changed/eidted it as his own work/original author of the image and posted as File:Melbourne Luna Park at Dusk edit.jpg in the article Luna Park, Melbourne. Can he be entitled to do so without my consent by Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons rules? --Donaldtong (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Donaldtong:  Fixed the description page of the derivative file. Happy new year. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Armbrust, for your clarification. Likewise, happy new year to you. --Donaldtong (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

You closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain, but didn't indicate if repopulating the categories, which were emptied out-of-process, is okay or not. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Copied from Nyttend's talk page.

The lack of indication was intentional. First off, nothing solid happened from the discussion — attempting to claim consensus from the discussion in favor of doing anything (except avoiding out-of-process emptying) would be a Wikipedia:Supervote. Finding consensus for anything, aside from ensuring that Nick stop moving categories thus, would be inappropriate. Secondly, the close was basically a "Discussion's dead without a solid conclusion" close; I don't think we should consider any new decisions to have been reached. If you seek consensus for anything, I'd suggest that you start a new discussion, since the old one had simply stopped attracting input. I don't particularly see, however, why you believe that it's necessary to have an indication of whether repopulating the categories, which were emptied out-of-process, is okay or not. I'd suggest that you go ahead, since you're basically putting things back to the status quo ante bellum. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
PS, I just noticed your edit to the "requests for closure" page. FYI, I didn't see that request until now; I simply came across the long unresolved discussion and came to the conclusion that everyone would benefit from a closure, either because the issue was done or because it would get restarted. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, repopulated the categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rogier van der Weyden - Portrait of a Lady - 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for closing it. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't mention it. Rather than have it wait for hours? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, quite honestly, I totally forget about it during the previous day. Happy new year to you, BTW. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Admin topicon

Hi. I'm interested on that top icon to use on my user page. But I don't find it. Did you create it? Because this is the first time I see that top icon. Nice one. --Zyma (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's at {{Not Admin Topicon}}, and was createad by Darth Stabro in 2010. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lithium-Cove

Thanks for taking care of all that paperwork--it's greatly appreciated. Also, happy new year. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was searching something to close... and fortunately there was something. Happy new year to you too. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

commons:File:The Day the Earth Smiled - PIA17172.jpg

It seems you put FP tag only in the EN page; not in original Common source. So people have no way to find an FP. It is better you add it at original Commons description page as {{Assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=The Day The Earth Smiled}} . Jee 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I never add that tag to the Commons description page. (From time to time Julia W does it.) Also the local tag is needed for categorization of the files. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As these are collaborative works, it is more than enough, if Julia W is doing it. Thanks, both of you. Jee 15:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, ;) I add the en FP assessments tag to recently promoted files every few weeks or so (sometimes a wee bit longer if I'm really busy). Julia\talk 16:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acting on Aon move

in regard to move of Aon plc to Aon (company). I do like to see multiple people input to a process like this so it does not end up being a single person's engagement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I almost every time skip the closure of such discussions. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Claiming award from WP:REWARD (2nd time)

Hey Armbrust! I've expanded Mangrove Robin, 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) 00:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Awards delivered. @Crisco 1492: There is another FP on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused ready for the main page. This time it's File:Peneoenanthe pulverulenta - Cairns Esplanade.jpg. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 01:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. Scheduled for 30 January. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the reward magic worked again. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Apologies

My apologies for the errant revert on Wikipedia:Featured pictures not sure how trhat happened! All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, a misclick can happen with anybody. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

not mail

Hi Armbrust, thanks for closing down the extraneous thread created at AN/I with regard to the closure of the "sanctions" discussion involving me, Medeis and Baseball Bugs. I'm sure the conspiracy theory propounded by Medeis (that the use of the word "tragic" or "tragedy") will form the basis of yet another AN/I in due course, but it would be worthwhile you reminding her that continually linking to her own self-outing will do nothing other than allow other nefarious readers to determine her location, identity etc. Giving away such vital personal information should be discouraged. I'm more than content to continue any such discussion on-wiki and yet I understand Medeis' decision to finally avoid discussing her personal life at the RDs and other places on Wikipedia. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the {{hat}}-ing of the extra commentary at WP:ANRFC, than be my guest. I have not, and will not, close the ANI discussion, because (as I already said to Medeis per e-mail) it's quite long, and I don't want to read it. I also want to remain as uninvolved in this situation as possible, from which I barely know anything. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the help with the category rename thing. I've never done this before. Can I ping you if I need help? Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have disabled pinging for me, so if you need help just leave a message on this page. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Claiming award from WP:REWARD (3rd time)

Hey Armbrust! I've expanded Black-breasted Thrush, 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) 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Awards delivered. @Crisco 1492: Two images formerly on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused are now ready for the POTD section of the Main Page. This time they are File:Turdus dissimilis male - Ang Khang.jpg and File:Turdus dissimilis female - Ang Khang.jpg. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (from Sven Manguard)

Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rachel K Collier Press Image

Hello -you recently declined the upload of a photo for Rachel K Collier on the basis that non-free images of living people cant be uploaded (at least i think was the reason!) -but i dont understand how that ties in with this page: Wikipedia:Publicity photos? I've found a link to the offical press release kit here -and the image is being used all over the place as there is clearly an implied licence for use. I'm sure I could get in touch with the photographer and get explicit written permission for it to go up on the page, if that's what's required? Also, if you can't use this image, then how do i get one up on the wikipedia page, do i have to find rachel and take one myself?! thanks for your help, would just be nice to have a picture up of her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsumishi (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 January 2014

Yes, WP:NFC#UUI explicitly lists images of living people as unacceptable use of non-free images. Wikipedia:Publicity photos is an essay, and therefore it can't trump the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is a legal policy of Wikipedia. If you want, that an image is uploaded for the Rachel K Collier article, than you have the following options:
  1. You create an image from her, in that case you should upload the image to our free media repository, the Commons. You do not need any special permissions to upload there, and you can use the same username and password you use here.
  2. You search for a free image on the Internet. Note, that the image needs to be explicitly released under this license, and that publicly available isn't the same as public domain. If you find one, than it should go to the Commons.
  3. You contact the photographer, and if they are willing and can (see later) release the image under a free license, than follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries]. Note, however, that this will not necessarily help you, as the photo could be work for hire, in which case the employer of the photographer is the copyright-holder, and their permission is needed instead.
Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reward Board claim for Velodona

At your earliest convenience, I invite you to peruse the article Velodona, which I have taken from 119 B to 3863 B in readable prose. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Awards delivered. @Crisco 1492: An octupus for the Main Page? The newest escapee from the list of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused this time is File:Velodona togata.jpg. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Doable, certainly. Though for some reason your ping didn't show up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Selected for 4 February. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well you found it anyway. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice on getting a higher resolution?

Hey! Firstly, thanks for the quick response at FP, and the clear feedback about what needs to be done. This is my first time nominating an image to FP, and even though it was speedily rejected, I had a very good newbie user experience.

I knew the size would be a problem, but read that you sometimes make exceptions for "historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired."

So, my first question is if you have any advice on how I could acquire a higher resolution image. One answer would be to seek one from the original office that created the image, but that may prove impossible. Another answer might be to have an expert recreate the image as an svg, although I'm not sure if that would be allowed. You do this all the time--do you have any other ideas?

Secondly, I'm a newbie to FP but an oldie to WP. I know sometimes as speedy close is merely indicative of one problem out of many. If I got my hands on a high resolution copy of the image, do you you think there's a good change it might survive FP? or are there other problems beyond just resolution, do you think?

Thanks again for you quick assessment and NotBiting the newbie :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey! So I got on the horn and tracked down a scan of the physical patch. It's about 900px square (so, like 12x the old version). Because of the "pixelation" inherent in a stitched patch, increasing the scan resolution beyond 900px doesn't increase the quality of the image.
Do you think it would be appropriate to re-nominate this as FP? or would that be frowned upon? --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The featured picture criteria says, that the image has to have 1500 pixels in both dimensions, therefore the image is still bellow the size requirements. I would suggest not to nominate the image as it would end the same way, as the previous nomination. AFAIK there is no logo, which was promoted to FP status. The last time something similar was this coat of arms, but the FP nomination was unsuccessful, despite that it was an SVG. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reward Board expansion for Sainte-Enimie

I've expanded Sainte-Enimie, from the unused FP list. I've removed the stub tag but haven't done the talk page ratings. Cheers, ~HueSatLum 23:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Awards delivered. @Crisco 1492: Another image from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused ready for the Main Page, and this it isn't an animal for a change. It's this image: File:Sainte-Enimie-Gorges du Tarn-Frankreich.jpg, a panorama of a French commune. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 00:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to subst a template

Can you change {{EP|d}} to {{subst:EP|d}} on /Archive 9#Category moves? It's the last occurrence of EP that should be subst'd but isn't. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't realize you aren't an admin. I'll ask elsewhere. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: No need to. I just asked the unprotection of the pages. Have already considered some link clean-up in them, but delayed it then, and now it's a good time to do it. BTW shouldn't the documentation page of {{EP}} be update to indicate, that it needs to be substed? Armbrust The Homunculus 23:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I fixed the documentation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done Now it's subst'd. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mary of Hungary
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mary (1505–1558), Queen of Hungary.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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disabled pinging with a script?

Hey, I noticed you said that you have disabled being pinged with a script. I am wondering what benefit that has over just un-checking the box on Preferences → Notifications → Mention? Just curious anyways. Technical 13 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I actually did that, but I don't like echo very much, and prefer the orange bar of doom (which is BTW green for me). I removed the little box on top of the page with #pt-notifications {display: none} in my CSS page and than restored the old message bar with User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AFD closures

Thanks for fixing them. I've never done any AfD closing before, I'm trying to branch out..! Bishonen | talk 17:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: No problem. The top part of the closing templates goes only at AfD and MfD over the header. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

A brownie for you!

Thanks For Deleting my YGOWP page! Regards, Titusfox 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the brownie, but as far I remember, I just tagged it for speedy deletion and didn't delete the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads-up

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please do not close any xFD discussion as "delete" if you actually cannot delete the article :-) DP 11:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was clearly an WP:IAR situation. The results are absolutely clear, but no admin bothered to close them (even after it was pointed out to them at WT:CSD). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The decision to never run at RFA comes back to haunt you... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I already run twice... , and will maybe try this April again, if I can avoid being blocked. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not applicable to IAR - if you cannot actually delete the item, you should not be closing anything as delete - you make too many extra steps for others ES&L 12:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly applicable, as the "don't close as delete" rule prevents me from "maintaining Wikipedia", and therefore I ignore it. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NAC - especially the section of "inappropriate closures". No, your actions on "delete" decisions are not helping to maintain Wikipedia. Please stop, final. ES&L 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A suspended nomination

The Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISS-32 American EVA b3 Aki Hoshide.jpg discussion is now conclude. You may move the close Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Selfie now. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Werieth

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ANRFC

Ive reverted your removal of the NFCR section. That discussion board has been in a constant backlog since July 2012. providing a simple list of discussions that need closed helps knock those out. Please do not remove the closure requests. Werieth (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And I have re-removed it, because WP:ANRFC isn't the place to report the backlog of WP:NFCC. If you want to make the backlog more clear, than insert a "Backlog" and "Current discussion" sections on the page, and than a link to the "Backlog" section can be added to ANRFC. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have re-reverted. Do not re-remove the list. Its not a simple backlog that I am reporting. The list consists of discussions that are 4x times past the closure point. Werieth (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsense. But placing them between a {{cot}} and {{cob}} will be enough for now. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You may think its nonsense, because you are not involved in that area, but this is far beyond a normal backlog. There have been discussions that have been open for just under 6 months. The normal discussion length is 7 days. Having discussions unclosed for 6 months is problematic. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When closing please remember to subst: the archive template. Werieth (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed there, as it's not a board-specific template. If you disagree, than feel free to subst them, but I will not do it. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is, otherwise the sections dont get archived correctly. Werieth (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't not. {{Archive top}} is used everywhere on Wikipedia, and isn't specific to NFCR like {{Afd top}} is for WP:AFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you trying to be a pain? Unless the archive template is subst'ed the section goes unarchived. I guess Ill just continue to cleanup after your incompetence. Werieth (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I just don't see the point of subst-ing this template on this page, when I don't do it on every other page. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That is because most other pages used a date based archiving system. NFCR doesnt, due to the different archiving system until the bot sees the substed template the section isnt archived. Please take advice when someone gives it in regards to areas you dont understand. Werieth (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

Stop screwing with NFCR related WP:ANRFC. Your actions are disruptive. Its fairly standard to update the list of discussions that need closed. Werieth (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, you use that board to report the backlog of WP:NFCR (and the time the section are over the discussion period is irrelevant). By updating that list you make this absolutely clear. Add it in a new section, but don't update old sections, as this makes the archiving of the section impossible. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If you continue to be disruptive I will request either a topic ban or block for you. You are not an admin, and do not understand WP:NFCC so dont sick your nose into areas you dont understand. Werieth (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense again. You don't understand how NFCC works. Sections shouldn't be continually updated. New requests should go in new sections, and at the bottom of the page. Split that section in two parts, don't revert. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You are incompetent, the next time you edit my comments I will be taking this to ANI and having you blocked. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FP of Brazil

You are welcome my friend. Let me know if your need another edition help with some of your pictures. A hug --Wilfredor (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Catlin
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:William Fisk - George Catlin - 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. Julia\talk 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. +1'd you on FB too.  :) Julia\talk 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I just confirmed it on FB. Happy editing. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Hungary

Help appreciated:

Androoox (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done by BrownHairedGirl & me respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 German Masters

Hi Armbrust, ich habe nicht verstanden warum du das Bild der kleinen Arena herausgenommen hast. DerHexer hat Fotos von O'Sullivan gemacht. Allerdings ist das nicht, wie auf der WPBSA geschrieben der WM-Pokal, sondern Masters. Wird aber wohl noch etwas dauern bis er die Fotos hochgeladen hat. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Und von Ronnie mit German-Masters-Pokal gibt es ja schon ein paar Bilder direkt vom Sieg damals: File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at German Masters Snooker Final (DerHexer) 2012-02-05 65.jpg. Hab ihn aber natürlich trotzdem fotografiert. ;-) Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Das zweite Photo hat die Ergebnistabelle zusammengedrückt. So hat es ausgesehen nach dem zweiten Tag. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Vielleicht kann man das Bild an einer anderen Stelle einbinden. Evtl. über eine Gallery?! Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ja, die Galerie ist eine gute Idee, aber ich denke, dass dies sollte erst am Ende des Turniers da-zugegeben werden. (Aber wenn du es unbedingt machen willst, dann habe ich natürlich kein Problem damit.) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich denke auch, dass wir da bis zum Turnierende warten könnten. Gehe heute Abend und Sonntag nochmal hin. Dann gibt es auch Finalfotos. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RFP archiving

Not that I don't believe you, but where is it stated that the page is archived "2 days after the last comment"? -- John Reaves 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK it's not really written down anywhere, but that's how KingpinBot used to do it. I don't see any reason, why we should deviate from it for just one request. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Then it was a rather pointless reversion if wasn't based on any sort of guideline or logic. Though, given this issue's grand unimportance, I won't pursue it any further. Also, while it doesn't violate the talk page guidelines, it is rather rude to change someone's header, especially on such a mundane section. It is also rude to add an unsigned template to an experienced editors post, especially given it was an obvious error of typing one too many tildes. -- John Reaves 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The reversion was partly done, because you archived it on the wrong page, and incorrectly formatted. I also don't think any of the above is rude. I changed the header because your question was only very marginally related to rollback, and added the signature because you can never know, whether the experienced editor returns or not. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Transparent yes, maximum size... no

Regarding File:WJRR logo.png, you are correct that transparency is preferred, however there is no justification in uploading the "maximum size" of a non-free file. Per WP:NFCCP, "minimal extent of use... Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". Levdr1lp / talk 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There is a maximum size for a reason, and "minimal extent of use" why it shouldn't be reached. A 160,000 square-pixel image isn't high resolution at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
For a logo, 468 × 342 is obnoxiously large for a logo that is displayed at about 150px. Werieth (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at NFCR: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:WJRR_logo.png. Levdr1lp / talk 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion closes

Whats the right process to close discussions on that board? Just mark them done and someone else will archive them? Or should I be deleting my entries? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The latter, as the page is archived. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh? That confused me. If the page is archived, wouldn't they automatically be deleted? (Bot archive?) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleting isn't the same as archiving. The sections are moved to an archive subpage. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
So when you said "the latter" above, did you mean "the former"? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for the confusion. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
all good then :) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Everything is al-right. BTW just archived 10 sections from the board. Thanks for the closures, Barnstar on your talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a quick review of the closes I did yesterday to see if I am closing them appropriately? May of them could can/(arguably should be) "no consensus" as the !votes are very close, but I felt like that does the participants a disservice to leave the conflict unresolved, so I tried to see which arguments were more founded in policy. I want to make sure im not going down a path that is going to cause trouble for the board, and also not cause too much trouble for myself :) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help you with this. If I want to review the closure, than I would need to read these (mostly) long discussions. If I had the resolved to do that, than I would have closed them myself in the first place. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Id argue that this is a one time investment to reap the rewards of extra workers in the future, but I do understand :) I guess its up to my own judgement then! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Claiming award from WP:REWARD (NOT for myself)

Hey Armbrust! This time, it's someone else (Cwmhiraeth) who's expanded Nemanthus annamensis, one of the articles on the list, but I don't think they were aware of the existence of this award scheme. The talk page stub rating remains unchanged. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: Sorry, but I'm not sure, if that's a C-class article yet. What do you think @Crisco 1492:? Armbrust The Homunculus 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Still Start class, I think. Image is still scheduled though, for May. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, just as I thought.  Not eligible for awards, further expansion needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Marpesia zerynthia

Hi Armbrust. Please check out my attempt at one of your reward board challenges. It took me a while to work out what they all have in common. JamesDouch (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That Armbrust requested they be expanded? </joke> Thanks James. Do you plan on nominating this for WP:DYK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Well yes that, and they all have a featured picture somewhere in the article. No problem, and thank you for fixing those links. I should get into stub expansion more often. I've never nominated a DYK before... should I? JamesDouch (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 Awards delivered. If you want to nominated the article for DYK, than you need to do it until 14 February per WP:WIADYK. If you want to include the image File:Marpesia zerynthia.jpg in your nomination, than it would/should run as WP:POTD sometime in March. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Images I Wish For You To Upload That Other Wiki Users Keep Denying Before You Can Get To Them

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Armbrust, I have 3 logos I wish for you to upload to Wikipedia but whenever I add them to Wikipedia:Files for upload, other Wiki users keep getting to those requests before you do and they deny the requests (although I simply know you'd accept the requests). Would you be alright with me submitting those requests to this discussion page?

Absolutely, no disrespect or personal attacks are intended in any of my interactions on Wikipedia. I'm a bit frustrated with how unsuccessful my attempts at getting those 3 logos uploaded are turning out to be but that's why I'm problem-solving. There is a chance that maybe those three logos will still be mentioned on the Wikipedia:Files for upload page. This message was sent to you at roughly 2:30AM Greenwich Time (on Monday, February 10th). If you receive this message well after this mentioned time, please click here for the archive.
P.S. — I sure hope none of my messages would qualify as Vandalism. It certainly isn't my intention to vandalize anything, especially a very useful online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I only wanna help but I don't always know how to. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I decided not to uploaded these logos, as three former logos were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 February 9. It's not worth my time to uploaded something, which will be deleted anyway. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand. The time and effort would seem to be wasted. None of the former logos for WCQL have been nominated for Deletion (at least not on the Image Posting pages). No notices exist within the article's Image Pages; however, I'm not in the know as to whether or not an image marked for deletion might not necessarily have a notice on the page. I'd like to request an upload of A Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 for WCQL. (459px × 559px), 150.06 KB - JPEG Image. This Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 was obtained from this archive of the WCQL 95.9 FM website. This Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 was the final logo used by WCQL before they flipped to their current Hot Adult Contemporary "Hits 95.9" format. It is also the largest, highest-quality logo for the station in their "Cool Rock 95.9" format. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's because they are bellow the threshold of originality, and therefore in the public domain, but that logo is too complex for that. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. So, basically what you're saying is that it was no accidence/coincidence that the other Wiki user seemed to get to that logo before you did but, rather, you would have denied it anyway even if the other Wiki user didn't reach it first? Is that pretty much what happened? I thought it was just a matter of "Bad Timing" and had the other Wiki user not reached that image first, you would have otherwise uploaded it. But, instead, is what you're saying that you would have yourself denied those logos that in fact ended up getting denied by the other Wiki user? I'm also curious about whether those miscellaneous other Wiki users wouldn't have marked some of those images for deletion had I not been submitting requests close to when they were online or whether eventually they would have dug through the archives. I'm sort of an amateur at Wiki so I'm certainly no expert on how things work on this site. Also, for those WIZR Former Logos, do you suppose you would have declined to upload them, even if the other Wiki user didn't decline them first? I'm just asking all these questions because I'm trying to be a good listener. You gave mention of something about a threshold of originality in relation to public domain, right? Well, how does that work? Please, tell me more. On the second thought, rather than invest too much time explaining those concepts to me, I think I'll give those linked Wiki pages a visit and let them do the talking… 50.138.170.28 (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hey IP 50... I'm glad you reached out to Armbrust about these requests, although you could've reached out to me. All images that are non-free (ie someone owns the copyright) have to conform to all criteria of WP:NFCC. If images don't meet those requirements, they are removed. Although I can see why you want those logos featured, they are not the the subject of any critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8) and therefore they would be deleted based on policy after being uploaded. To answer your question about why other logos are being nominated for deletion, you are most likely correct that it is because of your requests. Anytime someone starts a discussion, many editors start looking around just to see what's up. Then they notice violations and nominate them for deletion. Anyways, I wish you good luck, and I hope you know you can always talk to me if you disagree with any edit I make. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you! (James Buckhalter)

Thank you for the Barnstar. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SMS Ägir
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Ägir - restoration.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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories for speedy renaming

Regarding the council elections categories, the standard category format for British local elections is "[Council name] elections" (e.g. Category:Birmingham City Council elections, Category:Manchester City Council elections, Category:Liverpool City Council elections, Category:Kennet District Council elections, Category:Redditch District Council elections etc) - there are no categories named [Town/area] local elections. The two categories I have requested speedy renaming for both have the council name wrong. Could you reconsider your opposition? Thanks, Number 57 12:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered this again, but decided against withdrawing my opposition. I don't think it's a good idea, that the categories and their main articles should follow two different standards (especially as the yearly articles, use a different name than the main article). IMO the main articles needs to be changed, probably through a multi-page move request. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

NES category move

The Category:NES game covers to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System game covers move is ready for processing at WP:CFDW. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArmbrustBot 5. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Alter ego

Hello, you closed the discussion on Alter ego, per Singular focus on psychological usage, ignoring common usage on the basis that: There is a clear consensus, that this article should only focus on one subject, however there is no consensus, whether this should be the psychological or literary usage. This is a request to reopen the discussion.

I was the proponent and opened the discussion rather than edit the article. IMHO, it seems that my proposal was singularly interpreted as a motion to split the article. That was not my intention. Also, I agree that the article should focus on one subject (i.e. alter ego). My intention was to present the different meanings in different contexts - which one would expect an encyclopedia to delineate. Also, since this article has been ear-marked for clean-up, I would expect that further discussion on the subject would be appropriate before clean-up is commenced. Since there was really no active discussion on this, I should accept responsibility for not responding sooner to the last two comments, in particular.
Enquire (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that reopening that discussion is necessary. The discussion was already stale at the time of the closure, and the closure accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion. Of course, if you want to discuss the issue further, than you can open a new discussion on the article's talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Polish intelligence officers (1943–90)

Are you the one who created this category? I am trying to link it with pl wiki category structure, but it would be best to rename it slightly by changing years to 44-89. Then it could be linked to pl:Kategoria:Oficerowie polskiego wywiadu wojskowego 1944-1989. If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me (thanks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't created this category. I just nominated it at WP:CFDS to be renamed from "Category:Polish intelligence officers (1943–1990)" per WP:DATERANGE. If you think, that renaming the category to Category:Polish intelligence officers (1944–89) is necessary, than you need to initiate a WP:CFD debate about it. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have some confusion over whether this former logo is from 1999 or from July 2000. I have solid evidence dating back to July of 2000 but nothing more than educated guessing as to the 1999 part, mainly from deducing things from facts mentioned in the station's article (i.e. "In 1999, WDUV would swap its frequency with Classic rock station WTBT, moving from 103.5 to the stronger 105.5 signal (WTBT is now WFUS, "US 103-5" country music). However, both frequencies would retain their transmitting locations and cities of license—after the swap, WDUV became licensed in New Port Richey with transmitting facilities in Holiday, while WTBT / WFUS, whose transmitter was located in Riverview, became licensed in Bradenton. (That station has since been relicensed to Gulfport.)"). The contents of the quotation in mind, the first "5" in "105.5" is a different color, an indication that the logo is highlighting on the swap in frequency from "103.5" to "105.5" from 1999, an indicator that the logo was perhaps created very close to the point in time when the 1999 frequency swap took place during (just saying).
The reason why I presumed the old logo for WDUV began usage in July 2000 was because that was when the website for that Radio Station was built…however, the article for WDUV states that the frequency swap from current-day WFUS (as well as the sale of the station to Cox Radio) occurred back in 1999. I'd presume that was when the logo dates back to… however, because the websites only dates back to July of 2000, I haven't any way to know for certain whether that was the logo back in 1999 (i.e. I haven't any sources proving this former logo's presence prior to July of 2000); hence, I declared it to date back to July of 2000. Perhaps, that's the why the year the image ought to be copyrighted to should, indeed, be 2000 (as opposed to 1999)? I'm not sure how this works. Please, help shed some light on this situation. I was only able to prove the logo's usage back to July of 2000 but I have a reason to believe (or personal suspicion) that it in fact dates back to 1999 but I haven't any way of proving it. Should it be listed on Wikipedia as being copyrighted for and created during the time it can be proven back to?
Also, prior to July of 2000, this former logo existed in offline forms only (presumably Bumper Stickers, Letterhead, etc.) but the electronic variation (i.e. pixels and JPEG files and whatnot and so forth) of the logo was not yet in existence until July of 2000. Also, who's to say that Cox Radio created a logo for the station immediately? Lots of radio stations have been known to go for several months with no logos (especially before the Internet became popular), especially during those awkward in-between-owners phases (such as what WDUV experienced throughout the year, 1999). But the website's archives back to July of 2000 are hard evidence of the logo's existence back then (but fails to prove it's existence back to 1999).
The websites for other Cox Radio stations from the Tampa, Florida market can be archived back to early 2000, while WDUV's website can only be archived back to July of that year (an indication that perhaps it can be deduced that Clear Channel Communications sold WDUV to Cox Radio sometime in mid-2000); therefore, this former logo has been accurately-copyrighted to the year, 2000. No solid evidence exists as to whether the logo is from 1999 or anytime before July 2000. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well extending the date, where this logo was used, would be original research, and current dates are at least party correct. This was really the official logo of the radio station between July 2000 and October 2013. If the date of the logo are not changed, than Cox Radio should be listed as author. Also, even if the old logo was created in 1999, wouldn't change the fact, that the logo is too simple to be copyrighted. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So what does all that mean, then? I'm just trying to grasp the concept here. I don't know very much about the topic of the stuff you were discussing in the prior paragraph. Basically, the way I see it, things get fuzzy before July of 2000. That's when stuff starts getting up-in-the-air. The very fact that the websites for the other Cox Radio stations in Tampa, Florida date back to early 2000 whilst the website for WDUV dates back only to July of 2000 certainly raised a red flag for me, for sure. That seemed a bit sketchy so I just presumed that WDUV's website wasn't built until the station was in Cox Radio's possession. Again, an educated assumption (certainly absent of any quotable information "sources"). 50.138.170.28 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The essence of it is, that the first usage of the logo doesn't mean anything regarding the copyright-ability of it, if it's under the threshold of originality. As the use of the logo can't be traced back to the time, where Clear Channel Communications owned the radio station, and it only used after Cox Radio bought it and started the website, therefore the logo should be attributed to Cox Radio. The use of the logo in July 2000 can be sourced with the archived version of the radio station website. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A "public domain"/"threshold of originality" Question

Which of these former logos fall within "public domain" and which of these former logos qualify for "threshold of originality"? I'm just curious.

— A Former Logo: Early 2012 through March 31, 2013 for WIZR-AM 930 & W243CV-AM 96.5. (Probably, this one's too fancy to fall within "public domain" but this is just an educated assumption. Certainly, the Zebra patterns on "The Zoo" seems to be rather original.)
— A Former Logo: June 1, 2011 through Early 2012 for WIZR-AM 930.
— A Former Logo: Early 2010 through June 1, 2011 for WIZR-AM 930 as Country.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The first two are certainly over the threshold of originality. At the first and second it's because the notes in the background have a unique shading. In the case of the first the pattern of the letters is also a factor. I'm unsure about the third. It's a little a boarder-line case, and I don't upload it per commons:COM:PCP. (If you initiate a discussion, where it's determined, that it's under the threshold of originality, than I will gladly upload it.) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean "where it's determined" as in where Image Upload Requests get determined, right? Like, the "Files for upload" page, correct? That's the way I interpreted it; therefore, I've just placed a "Request for upload" for the simplest image of the mentioned three. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean a page like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or WP:Non-free content review. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I get it now. Oh, I'll gladly take the matter of A Former Logo: Early 2010 through June 1, 2011 for WIZR-AM 930 as Country up with those guys. So far, that appears to be the logo that might have a fighting chance of getting uploaded to the article. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Which of these former logos fall within "public domain" and which of these former logos qualify for "threshold of originality"? I'm just curious.

— The Former Logo: November 3, 2000 Through December 2012 for WSUN-FM.
— The Former Logo: September 2001 Through December 2003 (as REAL Classic Rock "The New 102-5") for WHPT.
— The Former Logo: March 2001 Through September 2001 (as HARD Classic Rock "The New 102-5") for WHPT.
— Hard Evidence proving the presence of the "102.5 The Bone" branding exists, to provide solid evidence for the existence of The Former Logo: January 1, 2004 Through April 23, 2012 (as Classic Rock) for WHPT.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In the first case the letter "X" has a unique shading and the modifications in the tagline "Tampa Bay's Alternative Rock" makes in copyrightable logo. In the second and the third cases the boarder of the logo isn't a simple geometric shape, and therefore they are over the threshold of originality. The skull in the fourth logo is clearly over TOO, and that the format was dropped doesn't change that. The article doesn't contain sourced critical commentary about logo, and therefore it's use would fail WP:NFCC#8. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank You Very Much for the Feedback. That really clears things up. I really appreciate that, for sure. I submitted a "Request for upload" for A Former Logo: Early 2010 through June 1, 2011 for WIZR-AM 930 as Country. That will be my very last and final submitting of that request. I have personal suspicion that perhaps, maybe that logo is within "public domain" and, therefore, okay to upload. It appears to be the simplest of all the former logos of WIZR-AM 930 and, therefore, the former logo with a fighting chance of getting uploaded to that article. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon

Hi Armbrust. About this edit: please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young donkey 2. I didn't revert you back because it was a promotion anyway, but just in case you weren't aware of it. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See what? That it was closed 7 days earlier, than it should have been? At the WT:FPC archive there seems to be a clear consensus, that the closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young donkey was appropriate. If the voting period is there, which is indicated with a template saying: "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.", than we should adhere to it. WP:FPC also says, that "New votes will no longer be accepted.", and therefore your !vote was removed and discounted. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser request

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I was the user who recently made a request on the AutoWikiBrowser page which you've declined. First of all, I was wondering if the types of edits were necessary for approval of the page. The Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage states that only 500 mainspace edits are necessary. But in the case that the types are distinguished, I would like to explain my reasons for the contributions and the request for AWB

I would like to use AWB to perform main cleanups of Korean articles. For instance, the first goal that I've set was using AWB to change the outdated address systems to newer systems, which I've discussed here. I believe that AWB can help a lot with that. Moreover, there are other general cleanups like the cases above which AWB will really be helpful with. Following the idea, I've been mostly doing vandalism reverts because I was waiting for the AWB access. If you look at the 500th to 1000th contributions, you can see that I had been contributing to Korean articles; I've stopped since I wished to start general cleanups first, then move onto individual articles. Please reconsider your decision and leave a message. Thanks! KJ click here 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but from the edit history of Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage it looks like I didn't decline your request. This was done by @Graeme Bartlett: in this edit, and I just archived it from the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll copy/paste the message here to Graeme Bartlett's talk page. Thanks. KJ click here 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Claiming award from WP:REWARD (4th time)

Hey Armbrust! I've expanded Tonna galea, one of the articles on the list. The talk page start-class rating remains unchanged. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, that it's a C-class article. @Crisco 1492: What do you think? Armbrust The Homunculus 09:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Borderline, but considering few studies have been done (ref 7: "Available information concerning its biology are given in Katsanevakis et al. (2008); nevertheless, the life history of Tonna galea is little known since it has been seldom studied and many important aspects of its biology still remain unknown.") I think I'd say C is acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Bloom6132:  Awards delivered. BTW I revised the WP:REWARD entry now. @Crisco 1492: I also removed File:Tonna galea 02.jpg from WP:POTD/Unused, as this article clearly doesn't fall into the "Stubbity stub stub" category. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Upload Wizard & Image Conversion Question

Whenever uploading an image in a non-native format (such as uploading a JPEG Image as a PNG Image file with Transparent Background) to a Wikipedia article, how does the image conversion take place? Does the conversion happen via the Upload Wizard or is the conversion made via software installed on the user's computer (such as Adobe Photoshop or similar digital graphic editing computer software)?
If I really have my heart set on having this image uploaded as a PNG Image file to the WNYQ article, where may I open a discussion requesting this task done? It would really mean a lot to me if this image could be uploaded to the WNYQ article as a PNG Image file to appear at this link. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I do it with two websites. I use Pic Resize to crop and resize images, and LunaPic to make the background transparent. As for the second point,  Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New Logo Requests…Pending Your Go-Ahead…

I'd like to request the upload of some logos to some radio stations but I'd like specifically for you to be the Uploader of those images. That being said, I've been very conservative lately in my submittals of those Upload Requests. Per your acknowledgement, I will add those Image Upload Requests to the "Files For Upload" page. I don't want any "Certain Someone" uploaders to get to my requests before you do. I've got plenty of logo requests that I've been working on so please let me know whether you have time for plenty or just a couple. Needless to say, I'm really getting anxious to see those logos appear in those articles, one after the next. I'm ready when you are. Just give me the word (via a response to this message, I mean) and I'll add those updates to the proper page so that YOU (not any "Certain Someone" uploaders) can get to them first…
Also, Question: How do you upload images where the source file is in a Small Web Format format? What if the source file is a Flash file and you wish to upload the image to the article as a PNG file?
Thirdly, this file replaces this file; therefore, the GIF Image link ought to be deleted. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not feel like uploading radio logos for a while. There has been too many recently, and the recent problems in connection to them, made me feel less inclined to upload them. You have three choices now:
  1. If you want me upload them, I wait circa two weeks before making them.
  2. Someone else reviews the upload requests.
  3. You register an account, wait 4 days and make 10 edits, and upload them yourself.
As SWF format files, are mostly uploaded by use of the print screen key, pasting it in Microsoft Paint, and cropping away the redundant parts.
There is no need to deleted the GIF image, as the logo is in the public domain. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, I've been reflecting for a while about whether it may be time for me to start up my own account on Wikipedia.
Okay, thanks for the head's-up about your decision not to upload logos for a while. I have removed the requests and pasted them into an E-Mail Message to myself. I hope you didn't take offense to what I wrote to you. For some inexplicable reason, I feared that what I wrote in my latest message to you might be interpreted as being offensive (talking about wanting you specifically to upload the logos but nobody else). I sensed that maybe I'd say something you wouldn't like or that you might consider me to be pushy.
The main thing preventing me from creating an account with Wikipedia to upload stuff myself has been the fear of generating enough negative publicity (via too many "Policy Violations" leading to my account being either suspended or terminated. Of course, this fear might in fact be irrational, for my knowledge about exactly how Wikipedia membership works is incredibly-limited (as it should be, because I've never ever had an account with Wikipedia before).
Is your planned hiatus/break from uploading logos indefinite or is it just for a while (like, such as a month or so)? 10 Logos at a time sounds reasonable. I ought to consider exercising the use of Microsoft Word more often and saving archives of my requests, each to be added to the "Files For Upload" page a little bit at a time. I really never intended to discredit other uploaders (other than you). I guess that you've always been my very favorite uploader. Thanks for your advice on how exactly you upload images. I think it's almost time for me to take over for a while. I appreciate all the training I've learned from you (by example) via experiencing you upload all those images. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No offence taken. It's just annoying, that if I upload something, than someone with an ultra-radical view on the non-free content policy comes by and reduces the file. This hiatus, as I said in my previous comment, is certainly not indefinite. I think I will be available for the upload of radio station logos next Friday. I however would appreciate, if you wouldn't modify the already filled requests, as it makes closing them with a script harder. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

File:First JATO assisted Flight - GPN-2000-001538.jpg

Just curious why no addition to the subpage. Did you forget? Anywho, I've done it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I didn't notice, that the page said: "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in." Oops. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (Gigs)

Thanks for fixing the closure template. I wasn't sure whether I should just nuke his reflists or not. Gigs (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Be my guest. They were totally redundant. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How many RfCs must a man walk down

Note at WP:BLP/N, one editor wants to redo the Phil Robertson RfC (sigh) and insists that the material, because it has been in the Duck Dynasty article for three months is now sacrosanct. I happen to think the two articles are seriously over entwined with this "stuff." I suggested that redoing RfCs at the ten day mark is contrary to Wikipedia policy, but two editors seem to back him on having as many RfCs as he needs <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure, that you're at the right talk page? I have never edited either of the above two articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You are a neutral observer who closed the RfC at [1]. The one editor now wants more RfCs, and said this one happened "too far back". Cheers -- (by the way, if you had been an active editor on them, I would absolutely not have posted here - the aim is always to get totally uninvolved folks to look at such stuff. IMHO.) Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of forum shopping … at least get your facts correct. I opined at the first RfC but you started the second one, and no one has suggested that myself or anyone can get as many as he needs. Please try to be more reality-based. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
As you were the one insisting that we hold a separate on at Duck Dynasty, I am puzzled as to why you appear to assert I started the RfC you requested as being improper. And I am glad you no longer insist I was "pretending" that the first RfC was closed ten days ago, and as a clear consensus. Cheers. Now we can avoid this talk page - the editor here is absolutely neutral and does not give a damn about you seeking to score points against other editors. Collect (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust, my apologies for butting in here, just trying to keep up with Collects fabrications and accusations. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally forgot about that. This situation, however, looks to complex for me to look into it. I can only say, that the Phil Robertson RFC was certainly not "too far back", as the last comment was made on 8 January and was closed on 16 February. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Upload Question

Hi, thanks for uploading the logo for OSA for me. I was curious about why it was uploaded to Commons. The logo is copyrighted and not available to use freely based on the license information I provided by OSA. The license provides limited use of the logo in relation to the organization and its programs only. - Ransim (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's because the logo is too simple to be copyrighted. See threshold of originality for more information. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I based my submission off the logos for SPIE, but I just realized American Institute of Physics also has their logo in the same classification. Thanks for the clarification! I had not realized that. - 8.18.37.3 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wells Cathedral in the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishops Palace

Hey, Armbrust! Just checking on something so I know for FPC urgents and such: I read this one as passing (Alt 1), do you concur? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

By my count the original is 4/4, alt 1 is 5/5, and alt 2 is 3/4 at the moment, thus alt 1 is passing. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll leave that one be, then. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Armbrust

I honestly don't know what happened on the maximum break article, since I only actually edited the lead. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing that as a dif did confuse me for a bit. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:REWARD task done

Hi, I think that I have expanded Brown Thornbill (which you linked to from WP:REWARD) sufficiently that it is no longer a stub. --Jakob (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: It looks an image just recently placed on WP:POTD/Unused, File:Acanthiza pusilla - Austin's Ferry.jpg, is now ready for the Main Page. Could you reassess the article? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 03:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Start, I'd say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought that too.  Awards delivered. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: It looks like the article wasn't nominated at DYK, and it isn't eligible now. Maybe it's POTD appearance could be moved to an earlier date. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm trying to see if anyone will notice if we go a whole month without birds, so I think May is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... this will be interesting. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ursa Major

Can I presume this one will pass as a D&R? Casliber is new to FPC, and I don't really want to poke him for further clarification if I don't need to =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

With a little IAR, but yes. However, if Casliber wants to contribute more to the WP:FPC process, than I think it would be good, if he read the "How to comment for Candidate Images" and the "How to comment for Delist Images" part in the lead of the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
*nod* I'll see if he keeps contributing. No reason to annoy people who just stumbled in and out. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

New user

I want to correct my own articles, mainly at the Hungarian Wikipedia. ZJ (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO you're not really a new user any more, but if you have any question, than feel free to ask. Happy editing. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM archiving

You seem to do a lot of the archiving for the PERM pages, and I'm wondering if you do it manually or via a script. If you're doing it with a script, I would like to have a look at that script so I can suggest a couple "improvements" as I see them (I did some manual archiving of the requests for reviewer the other day and saw some minor issues that could easily be resolved). If you're doing it manually, then you are doing a great job, but I'm still curious as to your process for it. If there is no script, perhaps I can create one to make it easier. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I do it completely manually. I have a template stored on my computer for every subpage, and than fill them in with the neccessary data (id of permalink & username). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Maximum Allowable Characters For A Username (42 Or 40?)

1. I'm finally creating an account for myself here on Wikipedia. I'm just uncertain about whether the character limit for a Username is 42 characters (or just 40). I've generated a Username already and will end it with "1999" (if the character limit is 42) or "99" (if the character limit is just 40).
2. I'm finally heeding your advice to generate my own account. I'm just not sure how I'd ever know how to include the proper information on an image's Info Page, once I upload an image.
3. I also might struggle to guess correctly as to whether or not an image falls within "Public domain". I've saved all 110 Image Upload Requests into a Microsoft Word document. If you'd ever elect to upload a set limit at a time, I'd be happy to add them to the "Files for Upload" page, little-by-little, and you could upload them gradually, over the period of several days. I think it is a great idea for you to set limits with me. "Life Without Boundaries" certainly isn't always all that it's cracked up to be. If you'd be willing to set limits with me towards how many updates I may submit in a given day/week to Wiki's "Files for Upload" page, I'd promise to abide by it. I feel that I've done an incredible job contributing to Wikipedia and feel that my contributions are definitely benefiting Wiki; I also feel that I might need to practice a bit with uploading images, because I wouldn't be good at it right away. I'd be willing to cooperate with you and not overkill on how many Upload Requests I make. I could keep them archived somewhere on my computer (such as in a Microsoft Word document) and add them gradually to the Wiki "Files for Upload" page. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer, but I wasn't in the mood for it. Now I try to answer your questions, one-by-one:
  1. I have no idea how long a username can be. I also could not find any information about it. (If you want to know, than you should as this at the WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.)
  2. For a non-free image you need to include three information in this upload form (available once you make 10 edits and your account is 4 days old): |Article=, |Source= and the "Destination filename" field. You can also fill in the |Used for= (if the articles name is different, than the radio stations - usefull for HD logos) and the |Owner= parameters too. For free images you should use the UploadWizard on Commons, where you don't need additional permissions to upload files. (It's fairly easy to use, and you can make links to Wikipedia with the {{w}} template there.)
  3. This solution could be workable, but the limit would be fairly low with 10 open upload requests at the same. This means, that the next 10 could only be added, after I finished the previous 10 requests (but than immediately)
Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

DONE! I've created a new account with Wikipedia! Here's my new Wiki Account name! Before I start uploading logos myself, though, I want to make certain that I educate myself as to how to perform a legitimate logo uploading procedure, for I am well aware of the fact that Wikipedia has been known to have some fairly strict copyright rules (and I want to do everything in my power to avoid getting warned and/or blocked from the site due to copyright and/or term violations). DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many information pages about copyright both here and on Commons. There are a some of them: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Logos and commons:Commons:Threshold of originality. If you're unsure, whether a logo is simple enough to be eligible for copyright protection or not, than you should treat it as if it was (it's better to treat a public domain logo as copyrighted, than vice-versa). Alternatively you could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or on my talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank You For That Advice! By the way, although I now have a Wikipedia account, I still don't yet have the ability to upload images. Plus, I've gotta do my homework on how to appropriately upload logos, so that way I won't get into trouble and penalized and whatnot. In the meantime, how does FIVE logos at a time sound like? That means that I send only 5 logos and wait until I see them get uploaded before sending more? Does that sound like a reasonable Limit/"Boundary" for me to stick to? I've got all the Upload Requests sitting in a Microsoft Word document and they aren't going anywhere. I'd be willing to take all the time necessary to eventually get those updates applied. They're all REALLY VERY NICE and I really think they ought to be applied to Wikipedia, for sure! By the way, I've recently decided to abide by the standard format for Upload Requests (and start moving away from my wordy and verbose paragraph Upload Request format). Have you noticed? 50.138.170.28 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
5 is lower than 10, and therefore completely okay. BTW in the next 5 days I will be online at circa 6am (UTC). Yeah, was a good idea. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Will you accept any more "Logo Upload Requests" today? If so, how many more will you accept? 10 at a time, right? ————— If not today, should I wait until 1:00AM to add the next batch of 10 (so that you can get to them tomorrow)? (BTW, 1:00AM MY TIME is 6:00AM UTC so if I send them over at about 1:00AM MY TIME, you'd get them at 6:00AM UTC). I call UTC "Greenwich Time," by the way. I'm an American, so I use all those American slang terms for everything (i.e. "Vacation" instead of "Holiday," etc.). Of course, all the TV/Radio Stations I offer "Upload Requests" for the logos of are from here in the United States. Don't mind me, I'm just rambling (i.e. "Thinking Out Loud"). DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You can add it any time you want, but I will be watching TV for a while. After it I will upload, what I found, otherwise I will go to sleep. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! (Liz)

Thanks for adding this tag ....I don't know how I missed that step. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Be my guest. It was a good proposal for speedy renaming. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Listify first -- invasive plants

Where are the invasive species lists? If you have not listified first, or someone else has not, please do not operate the bot. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

@AfadsBad: The bot is operated, because the listifaction was already done. There are the lists:
  1. List of invasive plant species in Arizona
  2. List of invasive plant species in California
  3. List of invasive plant species in Florida
  4. List of invasive plant species in Hawaii
  5. List of invasive plant species in Nevada
  6. List of invasive plant species in New Mexico
  7. List of invasive plant species in Oregon
  8. List of invasive plant species in Utah
  9. List of invasive plant species in West Virginia
Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. Now I'll make sure I just add Cat:Invasive species to all those plants. God forbid we'd use the same sort of categories that botanists, agronomists, and entymologists use. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC))
The lists were created by Agyle, BTW. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, first, thanks Armbrust for reverting my inclusion of the lists on WP:CFDS. It's my first time listifying categories to be deleted, and I am confused by the instructions on WP:LISTIFY. They stress the importance of adding the listified categories somewhere on WP:CFDS, but don't suggest where, and my two guesses were where I did add them, or the WP:CFDS#Ready for deletion section, which does not have any current articles listed and lacks an "add below this line" comment. Can you explain what WP:LISTIFY means? (I'll check back for an answer).
Also, AfadsBad, I'm not sure how what tool you'd use to add "Cat:Invasive species" to all the plant articles, but perhaps they should also include "Cat:Flora of [state]", as people seemed to use "Cat:Invasive plant species in [state]" as an alternatixve to "Flora of [state]". Also, just FYI, I noticed at least a couple categories included genera in addition to species (not commonly), but decided to just listify without questioning the accuracy/precision of the categorizations.
Agyle (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. The instructions at that page were clearly wrong, and I have removed that part. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The category being removed is "Invasive plant species in state," leaving a huge parent category, we have garden plants in state, and native plants of state, but, since it's not scientists, botanists, agronomists working here, we now have lists, and can't readily categorize on a major identifying factor. So, AWB will just create the huge category. Then someone can break it up the way scientists do, then delete, maybe delete the others, rebuild, because categorizng is random nonsense. Once more not bothering with how it is done in the sciences.--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You've also included a plant family. These lists also are not categorized so they can be found. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)))

AfadsBad, I may misunderstand what you mean, or you may have overlooked the categories, but all the above lists are included in multiple categories. If you have an alternative categorization system in mind, have you tried running it by WikipProject Plants? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Categories has some guidelines in place. Of course many people don't follow them, as with "invasive plant species in [state]", but better to have an often-ignored good policy than an often-ignored bad one. ;-) Agyle (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Plants says to do it the way it was done and just taken apart, with the invacive plants by geography, including states in big countries like the US, the same way it is done in the US by USDA, land grant universities' ag departments, the Forest Service, American botanists, entymologists, and farmers. Wikipedia has come up with its own original system that it should be invasive species by continent, huge, worthless categories, but garden and native plants the way scientists do it. Or maybe those will be rewritten to lists, also, to make categorization of plants on Wikipedia completely worthlessly designed for use by anyone writing plant articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC))
Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template, cited in the discussion, says to use Flora of X or Trees of X, with no mention of invasive species categories. That kept my vote at abstain rather than keep. Btw, sorry for cluttering up your user page, Armbrust! ;-) Agyle (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Then delete garden plants and native plants, too. Who cares about the editors working on plant articles. All editors are expendible. Maybe you can get a new batch. You moved a family into the list, btw. Again, accuracy, knowledge, as long as someone with nothing else to do can vote to impact content writers. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC))
Yes, you mentioned that I moved a family into a list; as I said, I decided to listify the categories without verification or alteration. It feels like you're attacking me personally at this point. I didn't propose or vote for the category deletions. I'm done with the conversation. Good day. Agyle (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

E-Mailing Question

I was wondering whether you accept direct E-Mail sending for upload requests. I'm asking you this because I'm willing to edit a photo on my computer and E-Mail it over to you so that you can upload the finished product to the article it would go in. If you'd be okay with me E-Mailing the image, please let me know your E-Mail via leaving me a message in my message folder. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have saved to my hard drive a manually edited version of this better/bigger logo for WLEV. May I please E-Mail it over to you? I removed the white borders at the tops of the letters, so that the purple letters don't have any white at the top of them). Basically, I made it look a lot like the logo currently uploaded but it's a lot larger though. I could E-Mail the file over to you, if you wish. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course, my e-mail address is on my user page. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Check Your E-Mail Inbox. It's coming at exactly 12:45PM MY TIME (4:45PM UCT). DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I just sent you (via E-Mail Attachment) a manually-edited version of this better/bigger logo for WLEV where the letters don't have that white bordering on the top. Do you care for another batch of 10 "Upload Requests" or would you not be able to get to them today, if I sent them now? DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The last 10 for today. It's becoming a little boring. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please, list the source link as follows, for the WLEV logo edit I've just sent to you via E-Mail Attachment: http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/stations/LOGOS/PNG/WLEV-FM.png and, to put it this way, think of the edit as any other file that had been manipulated (suppose, like, an original being a JPEG but it being uploaded to a Wikipedia article to be a Transparent PNG Image, just for an example). I worked very hard on manually removing stuff from that logo so I'd absolutely LOVE to see all my hard work pay off. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
And no more "Upload Requests" will be sent to you today. Those 10 I've just sent are the final ones for the day. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done. BTW you will become autoconfirmed in 6 hours and 30 minutes. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there...

There aren't many Plymouth lovers around, and certainly not in Hungary, of all places. But you might like this pic. on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photiste/12695591884/ Good work at WP:FPC. Sca (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That Cadillac Series 6200 Sedan DeVille looks great, it's a shame the image is marked as "All rights reserved". Armbrust The Homunculus 08:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

E-Mailed You A Transparent Logo For WMTK

I E-Mailed you a Transparent Logo for WMTK, sending you the E-Mail Message at 2:30AM MY TIME (6:30AM UTC).

I might consider UPDATING various logos (such as making logos transparent, but only if they are already in a PNG Image format); however, any instances of changing the format of the photo (such as replacing JPEG Logo Images with PNG Logo Images) would involve the writing of brand new Info Pages and that would fall outside of my comfort zone, at this point in time. It's mainly the fear of failing to adequately tag an image (and the subsequent penalizing that Wikipedia would place me under for failure of proper copyright acknowledging) that is discouraging me from uploading images directly from scratch. But uploading a Transparent version of a logo that's already in a PNG Image might be such a move that could be in my very near-future (because I'd only need to update already-existing Info Pages but wouldn't need to generate any Info Pages directly from scratch). We'll see, but it's only the thought of writing of brand new Info Pages directly from scratch that's scaring me (at least for the moment)…

DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wiesen Viaduct
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:RhB Ge 4-4 II Wiesener Viadukt.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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be correct: It's just adding it to the FP subpage (which you had already done) after the script runs, right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks correct to me too. Thank you for closing it. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries! I installed the script specifically so I can close these kind of things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Upload request declined.

Just wondering if you could explain to me further how Wikipedia:Files for upload#B*Witched - Rollercoaster.jpg fails the first and eighth criteria? There is zero free equivalent. Its a music CD that was released commercially. Also I believe the picture provided would also increase readers understanding about the different releases in different countries. Can you please re-assess? 147.69.133.27 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The image has two copyrights, one for the photo and one for the covers of the depicted CDs. It's possible to create a similar photo of the copyrighted covers, which is released under a free license, and therefore the image is replaceable. (This doesn't apply to simple 2D reproductions of the covers, because they lack the originality for copyright protection.) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

CFR

Hi Armbrust - thanks for sorting out the remaining sports festival banners and subst'ing the cfr templates. Out of interest: does AWB offer a more efficient way of tagging things like this? I've been doing a bit more category work lately to resolve some long-standing issues and I've found this type of work very time consuming. Hours of my life on very basic technical tasks is a bit of a waste all round. SFB 11:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: There is one. With the "Prepend text" function you can make it easier. In this case it reduced the tagging to manually inserting the name of the country. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I'll definitely have a look. I've been doing a lot of automation work outside of Wikipedia, but I haven't done much here – I guess because my main focus is on non-automatable tasks. Thanks for the advice. SFB 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

3 Questions About Image Editing

  1. How do you remove all the background of a certain color from a certain image, without removing all occurances of that very color from the image? For example, suppose you wanted to remove all the White Background from an image but you didn't want to make some white letters (or numbers) transparent? For example, in LunaPic, I know only how to remove ALL of any color of choice from an image (but I don't know how to make only certain sections of a picture transparent, as opposed to making the whole thing transparent which is, by the way, the only thing I know how to do).
  2. What is it about some images that makes making them Transparent next to impossible? Why are some images capable of being made transparent while others are not?
  3. While extracting images out of .SWF (Flash Animation) files, how exactly are you able to determine the length and width dimensions (meaning, the size) of the final PNG Image? I tried the "Print Screen" button on my computer but it doesn't appear to do anything, on my machine. I use Windows 7, by the way. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The answers:
  1. Actually I later found another website, Online Image Editor, which is capable to remove the selected colour from certain areas of the image, but not the others. The "Transparency" tool is in the "Wizards" menu. (The default option is called "Floodfill at selected Color".) This site is also better, than LunaPic, because it doesn't have a limit on image size.
  2. That can have various reasons. It happens mostly because parts of the logo, which should remain white, touch the parts, which should become transparent. (For example in File:WJIM (AM) logo.png the inside of the building and the outline of the characters should remain white according to the official website.) An other reason is, if I don't know, which parts should remain white. (For example should the inside of the hawk in File:KGTW logo.png remain white or not? I have no idea.)
  3. Pressing the Print Screen button is only the first step, which puts the screen into the clipboard. After this you have to paste the image in Paint or a similar image software, crop away the redundant parts and than save it as a PNG image.
Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Clynotis

I took a stab at expanding it but can't find many sources. Do you have any suggestions? Who does 'Simon, 1901' refer to, which biologist? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no knowledge about the subject. 'Simon' is linked on the page to Eugène Simon. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
that will help, thank you! :) S.G.(GH) ping! 10:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

930 Pixel Width Question

Under some circumstances with an image being uploaded to Wikipedia falling under "Public domain," you seem to set a Maximum Dimension restriction at 930 Pixels, where whatever the larger of the two dimensions are (length versus width) gets kept within 930 Pixels. Sometimes, while uploading "Public domain" images to Wikipedia, you restrict the larger dimension to 930 Pixels and sometimes you don't. Of course, there's also something else known as "Trademark" and I'm not really sure how that's different (I mean that I'm asking you, because I'm not really in-the-know about "Copyright" versus "Trademark" and how they differ). Specifically, I'm asking you this question, because I'm considering uploading a PNG version of a logo that's already uploaded (but in a JPEG format). That image is identical to the one I wish to upload and it falls within "Public domain" (as indicated on the Image Upload/Info Page); although, the one I want to upload into a PNG format is larger than 930 Pixels with its larger dimension. (It's 1,425px × 525px, by the way, and I'm wondering whether I should scale that "Public domain" image down to 930px × 343px.) Oh, and here's the image that I'm thinking about uploading but as a PNG file for KORL-HD4. I'm also considering uploading a Higher-Quality version of the Former Logo for WBGR-LP but I am also struggling with that 930 Pixel dilemma with that station as well. How do you determine when to limit the size to 930 Pixels (larger dimension) and when not to? DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some logos were reduced to 930px width because that's the default settings of Lunapic, and sometimes I forgot to change this. And even if I don't, the website has a 1400x2100px2 limit for images, with which it can work. That's the reason I searched for another website, and found Online Image editor, which doesn't have this deficiency. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I have gone through my uploads on Commons back to 2012, and re-uploaded the logos, where this reducing happened. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Please, during your To-2012 Back-Tracks, consider converting into PNG any JPEG Images you come across. Personally, I prefer LunaPic (as opposed to Free Online Image Editor), whenever it comes to removing background when I don't run into issues of only needing to get rid of certain occurrences of a certain color. Overall, I seem to have better luck with clean color removal while using LunaPic; although, operating the Image Cropping function in LunaPic can really be a pain in the neck. Overall, it often seems as though you do a better job than I do with clean background removal (and whatnot) than I do. I often get left with more white haze (and remaining JPEG Compression Artifacts and whatnot) than you would. What's your trick? How do you make the Transparent Backgrounds look so much cleaner than I can? DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done with the files on Commons. I have no idea, why this is happening. IMO I don't use any tricks. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I know WHY the extra fuzziness was happening. Assuming that a "Fuzz Factor" percentage represented how much the image's color would get distorted during the Background Removal process, I'd always set the "Fuzz Factor" to 0%. Apparently, setting the "Fuzz Factor" to 0% increases how much artifacts you have left in the image over the area of background that's just been made transparent. I still like LunaPic better, though. It's at least over the 930 pixel hump; It still has yet to clear the 1,570 pixel hurdle, though… DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Software Engineer - talk Move Request

Thanks for closing that out for me - I know when I've been beat. :) Jarod (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Be my guest. Although I wouldn't say, you've "been beat", the others just disagreed with your opinion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_16&oldid=1238000061"