User talk:Armbrust/Archive 6

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


Contents

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible that because the new Notre Dame logo has the same file name as the old one that on my Facebook page the University picture keeps changing from the old picture to the new one continuously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemical carrots (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I don't know, because I don't use pictures from Wikipedia in my Facebook profile. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 09:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouts at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:Log

Remedies of the 2011 April Fools Day

Trouts delivered. And I do dare to trout you. :-)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:Log. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Dare!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Try me and this is what you get!--Ezekiel 7:19 †Go Buffalo! (sign)† 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I took the liberty of cooking the trout I was to slap you with, as a sign of my gratitude for reverting my April 1 user page. Slap!--TitanOne (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! French fries, too! CycloneGU (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Don't stuff beans up your nose. =D CycloneGU (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venus symbol

Hi, I noticed that you recently changed File:Venus symbol.svg over on Commons. I'm not sure if i's just me, but the symbol doesn't seem to be showing up now on articles over here (eg. Copper and Classical planet. Any clue why? --BelovedFreak 09:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like to me, that the picture can't render in 80x80 resolution for (some unknown) reason. Changed the size of the images to 100x100 and now the symbol is showing. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 09:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! --BelovedFreak 09:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you added that logo for Woodberry Forest. Looks good too. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

XTG hatnote

Hi, thanks a lot for adding the hatnote. As a new Wikipedia member I really feel the love in those kinda things. :) Cheers! --BishopA4 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro 4

Whilst I do not disagree with your SNOW close you really should at least have let the candidate know on his talk page what you'd done, and why. I can't see you've informed them at all. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Will do next time. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 01:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Civic Chorus

This somehow ended up on Template talk:Centralized discussion, moving it here. Yoenit (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Armbrust, It is nice to chat with somebody in Hungary. My mother's parents were from Hungary (grandmother from Budapest, grandfather from Sibiu - now in Romania). I want to thank you for approving our article at Monmouth Civic Chorus. We are disappointed that it was graded C-Class. Do you have specific suggestions how we can improve it to raise the grading to the next higher (B-Class) level? Best regards, Richard Tenorio40 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sections "History", "Directors", "Recordings" and "Organizational Structure" have complete paragraphs totally unsourced. These sections need more references. The "Organizational Structure" section has too many external links in it, which aren't use as references. You should remove them or replace them with internal links, as Wikipedia isn't a collection of irrelevant external links. Also the "Selected Repertoire" section looks like a trivia section and should be trimmed down or every entry should be sourced. Regards, Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Armbrust, Thank you, we appreciate your excellent suggestions. My collaborators and I will be happy to improve the article until it is worthy of at least a B-Class rating. Richard Tenorio40 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "we" to identify yourself. I hope in your best interest, that the Tenorio40 (talk · contribs) account only represents one person and not a group or more people. However if this is the case, then the account will be blocked per WP:NOSHARE. Regards, Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 00:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Armbrust, Of course Tenorio40 is my private account. The two other singers in the chorus who helped write our article are Sue Metz (Mccsue (talk · contribs)) and Warren Gifford (Gandalf Wizard (talk · contribs)). Each person uses his or her own account. Regards, Richard Oppenheim Tenorio40 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is all the people that have helped find material, references, etc. but I have done most of the work. Tenorio40 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to know that everything is within policy. The use of the word "we" confused me a little bit. And if you are connected to Monmouth Civic Chorus, than I suggest reading WP:COI. Happy editing, Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read this I am not in violation of COI, although I should disclose my membership in the chorus.
  • MCC is not for profit
  • MCC doesn't sell any products which could be "defective", etc.
  • We (the singers) aren't paid
  • This is a non-controversial subject, as long as I do a reasonable job of writing, so there won't be any contention
Please let me know if there is a template or some other standard way to disclose that I am a singer in the chorus. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenorio40 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just created one for you. (Obviously any other member with Wikipedia account can use it too). And there it is: {{User UCC member}}. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I invoke it? I simply put a new line into the article with the text "{{User UCC member}}"? Should I place this line near the top or bottom of the article? Why did you name it "User UCC member"? It would be better if you could change its name to "User MCC member", please. Thanks. Tenorio40 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should put {{User MCC member}} (changed, my mistake) on you userpage (there) and not on the article. Regards, Armbrust public Talk Contribs 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it worked; I put {{User MCC member}} in my User page, but I don't see any change. Tenorio40 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have corrected it for you. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Köszönöm! Tenorio40 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Saluc logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Saluc logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Musamies (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file originally contained all necessary information, but 62.193.53.22 (talk) removed them. It would be nice, if you looked at the history of the file before nominating it for deletion. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 16:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved user page

Hiya, When you move a user page - as you did with this AFC - can you please, afterwards, change the user page itself from a redirect. Because...it makes things very confusing to the (usually new) user. I find it is helpful if we change them to have; 

{{userpage}}
*Draft article is in [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WHATEVER]]

...or something like that. In that specific case, I've just tried clearing things up for the user; you can see what I've done there on User talk:PeckLSDEM. This is just a hopefully-constructive suggestion, for another time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Athlone Group of Companies

FYI, they've had a few problems getting this one right: see (at least) Athlone group and Athlone Group and The Athlone Group. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not in my hands now. I don't review the same submission twice. if you think it's now acceptable, than you can accept it. Cheers, Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm afraid I don't know much of anything about how AFC is supposed to work, sorry to bother you then. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

New Javascript for editing Template:Useronline

Hi Armbrust. Just wanted to let you know of a new script available for editing your status with the Useronline Template. To use it, go to Template:Useronline and follow the instructions. Thank you. CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the info. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:College of Idaho logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:College of Idaho logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the name of the file to "The College of Idaho logo.gif" on the article. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Prophet Picture

A couple of days ago you posted on my photo for the Sidewalk Prophets: "Hello, and thank you for your request. Please provide a link to a page proving the file's license. We need this to be able to upload the file. Generally, the webpage the file is on will have the license information on it. If an appropriate license link is not received within seven days, the request will be declined. Regards." What link would I use if it is my personal blog? Do I need to create a space on the blog saying that Wikipedia can use my photography? Kyle (room28ministries@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.94.204 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have created the picture, than I advise you to follow the instructions described at WP:CONSENT. If you made all necessary steps, than leave me a note and I will upload the picture. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the e-mail on April 04-15-2011 at 12:55am EST. It gives permission for Wikipedia to use my photograph at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J7L-n_41It8/S-YGr-a52cI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/dTOsG_wzV1g/s1600/DSCF3257.JPG and I listed it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.68.255 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcakes

I think I forgot to thank you. So: Thank you. They were yummylicious. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiArguments AfC Submission

Hi! You wrote: "We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed so the information can be verified and to establish the notability of the topic."

This is my first try at posting a Wikipedia article. I'm confused about the policy of third-party sources and would greatly appreciate your help. I'm the software engineer who designed and developed the WikiArguments system of Congressional accountability. Am I not a "reliable" source for a software system that is my creation and thus can verify it exists?

I've described it in several articles published on respected sites on the Internet (A Google of "WikiArgument" gets about 10,000 hits). I've consulted with other software engineers as to the design and effectiveness of this software system. Could I cite references to reputable Internet publishers that have published articles about WikiArguments by me? I could get testamonials from respected software engineers if that would help?

WikiArguments clearly exists and after reading its description in the Wikipedia entry, I would think nobody would question its notability or the reliability of the source that claims it exists. I can't tell you how much I would appreciate your suggestions for getting around this problem. Thank you for your valuable time. Carmen Yarrusso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.37.190 (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly we need third party sources, also sources which are independent from the subject of the article and Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources anyway. Secondly you can verify that it exist, but existence isn't equal to notability. Thirdly, I don't know, what you mean "reputable Internet publishers", but if they are reliable, then you should add them. You should add inline citations (see WP:REFB for more), Wikilinks and relevant categories. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Monterey Bay (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfCs

Thank-you for helping clear the backlog at Articles for Creation! Wikipedian2 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Cj005257/Archive 1's talk page. Message added 11:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC). I have completed the custom script for you. CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 11:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cj005257 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!


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

Image tagging for File:Fully Loaded (1999) poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fully Loaded (1999) poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brownie (Neutralhomer)

Thanks! :) Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fest Elevation

What type of sources are needed? And independent in what terms? I can't understand that what does mean by "Homepage of Fest Elevation is not independent". Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkango (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent means in this case, that the source you use, has no connection with the subject of the article. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I understood, but I felt the user could be trusted with the right and changed without discussion. That's over now but I won't make that mistake in the future! :P The Helpful One 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can accept that the value 50 is optional, but only 1 is (at least in my book) not nearly enough. If this user had at least created 15 articles, than the use of IAR would be justifiable, because this userright isn't for creating articles. Cheers and happy editing, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

PM Taj, AfC

Hi Arbrust. I helped PM Taj with his draft article. I'm going to move it into mainspace for him, after removing the promotional language, shortening the prose, and adding 5 references. It doesn't have in-line citations yet, but I think notability is established for a stub or start-class article. Please check on it at P.M. Taj if you'd like, make any changes, or re-userfy it if you disagree. Cheers, Ocaasi c 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Added a maintenance template to the article. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Robertson (snooker player)

Well thanks for that advice. Any particular reason why your warned me and not Mo ainm? LemonMonday Talk 18:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mo ainm made only two reverts in the last 24 hours and not three. Your third revert was reverted by Domer48. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Mo ainm and the rest are just as guilty as me, you've got to admit. LemonMonday Talk 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The current wording is good at it is. As I see there's no consensus for your wording (I would revert it too). If you think It should be changed, then you should initiate a discussion on the talk page and not just revert again and again. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously not au fait with the "British Isles" issue here on Wikipedia. Mo aim, together with User:Bjmullan and other occasional aggravators, are the latest recruits to the campaign that has been waged against British Isles terminology for over three years now, lead by User:HighKing. They use WP:OR, demands for references, PRODing articles that contain the term, and various other devices to push their POV. LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see the current wording is more specific and should be used, because the British Isles contain The Channel Island and the Isle of Man too. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the many fatuous arguments used agasint British Isles, that it should only be allowed if all elements of it are included. LemonMonday Talk 18:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the current reference says UK and Ireland, while your reference says British Isles. It's clear that the references conflict. The current discussion is currently for the first. As you want to change it, you should go to the articles talk page and discuss it to reach a new consensus. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say "In this case the current reference says UK and Ireland". You are completely wrong. The reference says "British Isles". The explanation given by LevenBoy on the talk page couldn't be clearer. Do you accept this? LemonMonday Talk 07:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not involved in this dispute anymore. The current World Snooker Championship is far more important for me at this time. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steve Davis.

Steve Davis moved into the village of Stock, Essex last year, in fact he is my new neighbor, regards Tedmouse (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, than it will be easy to find a reliable source, which confirms this. Without it these change will be removed again. I have to say, that no Wikipedia editor is a reliable source. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 18:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wikipedia was a peoples platform, I had no reason to lie, reliable source ask the residents of Stock, or Asda, he uses it for home delivery, but I meant the correction in good faith, you say that you are no expert!! I will not bother to change it but if you bothered to dig a little bit I am sure you could find out for yourself. People will not edit pages if they are met with hostility, its your loss not mine. Tedmouse (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia policy about living people, every information added to an article about a living person has to have a reliable source. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia with rules, and there is no use to retain users, who have no desire to follow the rules. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Zither

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm in the right place or not, but... I guess there's something I'm not understanding about Wikipedia. I thought that anyone with information could add to, or edit entries. I discovered a section "Stringed Instrument Tunings" that has a table which is lacking several illustrations which I could provide, and also contains several incorrect illustrations which I could fix. I attempted to upload one such illustration yesterday (AlpineZither.jpg) as a test, and was told that I had to make a "request" to upload the file. So I made the request, and filled-in everything that was pertinent to the request.

Today, I see a message saying that my request was denied, and that I shouldn't alter it. The name on the denial is "Armbrust", so here I am, trying to figure out what's wrong. I don't understand why the request was denied. Nor do I understand why I have been enjoined from updating my request with additional information, if such is required. The image I propose to make available is one of my own, uncopyrighted, and which I propose to make freely available via Wikipedia to anyone who cares to use it (really, it's just a thumbnail, anyway). It seems to fit all the criteria specified by Wikipedia, and it seems to be consistent in form, size, and composition to other images used on Wikipedia, including other images already in use in the article in question. Furthermore, it would enhance the article by providing an image of an instrument which is currently listed, but not illustrated, and there is an empty space in the existing table into which my image would logically fit. Since you seem to be the person responsible for deciding what images go on Wikipedia and what images do not, would you please clarify for me why my request to provide an image was denied? Thank you. FW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the request was denied, because wrote in the url field none. As I can't made an upload without first downloading the image. (BTW I don't decide "what images go on Wikipedia and what images do no" generally). If you made the photographs I suggest creating an account on FlickR and uploading the needed images there, with the either {{cc-by-2.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license. After you done you can made another request at WP:FFU, this time with a url. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you for the reply. I did not give a URL because the photo is -my own- and is not currently posted anywyere. That's why I wanted to UPLOAD it in the first place. As regards you suggestion, I tried to create an account on Flicker, but I can't seem to do that without first creating an account on Yahoo. (Having to create two separate accounts just to upload one thumbnail seems a bit much, not to mention spreading personal information around the web that I rather not.) Anyway, I -did- try to create the Yahoo account, but can't seem to get past filling out the information and clicking "create my account", which seems to do exactly nothing. I am open to further suggestions, but... isn't there an -easier- way to do this? I've opened bank accounts with less hassle! Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use the option to "Sign in with Facebook". (If you have one.) I personally have registered this way. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category WikiAfrica

Dear Armbrust, Thank you for your reply on the WikiAfrica category request. WikiAfrica is a project that intends to encourage and support the creation of 30,000 new articles on Wikipedia over two years. During this period the focus will be on content related to literature, art, cinema and other cultural products. We have just started the process of creating new articles ourselves and stimulating other organisations/artists/etc. Though, to keep track of how many articles there are actually being uploaded and are a part of WikiAfrica, we would like to categorize them (as well as providing them with a project banner) to have a clear overview. I will provide more links to the request later today. Hopefully it is sufficient enough, otherwise I'd be happy to work on your feedback. Riannedac (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it looks like WikiAfrica is an internal project and therefore a future WikiAfrica category will be a Project category, which shouldn't contain articles. Secondly I don't think it's a good idea of putting "Article written as part of the WikiAfrica project" at the end of articles, this should go instead on the talk page. By the way have splitted {{WikiAfrica}}, the removed parts are at {{WikiAfrica member}} and {{WikiAfrica invite}}. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Armbrust. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 18:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks!

...for the brownie! Now I'm hungry, it looks good! :) CTJF83 22:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File Upload Request for Ballbot_Rezero_2010.jpg

Hi Armbrust, thank you for taking a look at my request. Due to the license problems, I'll replace the picture and will issue another request in a few days. Doessi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doessi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Birth in Sri Lanka

Could you take a look at the above article and give your comments. mauchoeagle (c) 16:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article and found only one problem with it. The lead of the article is too short and doesn't summarize the content of the article adequately. The lead should be extended. Regards, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will talk to the author of the article and try to summarize it my self. Regards. mauchoeagle (c) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Bayonas article

Hello, I'm pretty new to this, as you can imagine. You've suggested that the article need greater third party sources. Would the mentionof Katrina,which already exists on the Penelope Cruz entry on Wikipedia be considered a good enough source? Also in the acceptance speech by Cruz on her receiving a star in the hollywood hall of fame, she thanks Bayonas. I have various other articles from Spanish Newspapers one which refers to her as the "Collector of Stars" and another from a book which states she is one of the 13 most influential women in the Spanish speaking world, next to the Queen of Spain, and Shakira (bizarrely enough). If any of this sounds more acceptable, please advise. Thank you (Kurandarep (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well firstly Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources. For how to identify reliable sources see: WP:IRS. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masters (snooker)

Hi, please explain why you rolled back my edit on the Masters Snooker page? This was a genuine press release sent to me by World Snooker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxerr3r (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I interpret you word correctly, this source is also a self-published reference, and it isn't reliable. If you add something to an article, than you need for it reliable source, which Snookerwiki certainly isn't. Furthermore it looks like to me, that the Snookerwiki article is a copyright violation of this, and Wikipedia don't link to such sites. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, when receiving press releases from governing bodies they can either be added as they were sent or re-written. You will find the same version of that press release on other Snooker sites if you look. The article certainly is not a copyright violation and we have proof of this. We take such accusations by individuals very seriously. Thank you for the very unwelcome introduction to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxerr3r (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 April 2011
Well even if it isn't a copyright violation, it still isn't a reliable source. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, you may also want to update the page UK Championship with details of the return to York Barbican in December 2011 (we also received this press release this morning). Snookerwiki is not a well known website at the moment but it is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxerr3r (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. And according to Wikipedia selfpublished sites, such as blogs are only reliable if they are published by experts in the relevant field, this time snooker. As neither editors of Snookerwiki are considered experts, this site is unreliable for Wikipedia. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, this may be so but to accuse an organisation of an allegation such as copyright infringement in a public way like you did is very serious and we do not take any such accusations lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxerr3r (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 April 2011
I apologise for that, but it looked very suspicious to me, as it matched word by word with the article on World Snooker. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 World Snooker Championship

Editing of the article

Thank you for your advice on citing reliable sources, however as of yet there are no outside sources for the information that Mark Williams is the first player to regain no. 1 ranking after falling out of the top sixteen. However, only five players ever regained snooker no. 1 ranking spot: Reardon in 1982, Hendry in 2006, O'Sullivan in 2004, Higgins in 2007 and December 2010 and finally Williams in 2003 and, thanks to today's results, he will regain it again at the end of championship when the provisional list becomes official. Of all those players only Williams has, at one point, dropped out of the top sixteen and managed to return. Hendry, Higgins and O'Sullivan have enjoyed runs in the top sixteen since they first got there, Reardon simply slipped at the rankings in late 80's. So in citing Williams' achievement I cannot quote any outside sources, but the information is simply deductible from certain Wikipedia pages (snooker world number ones list, ranking lists etc.) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzierzgul1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ...", which means that, as long there is no source for it, as long it can't added to any article. Feel free to add it, if a reliable source exist. Combining the rankings information for all seasons is original research or synthesis, which aren't allowed on Wikipedia. And please don't indicate, that an already added source contains information, which isn't in it, because it is considered highly disruptive. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verhaas

Hello, have you read page on Pro Snooker Blog about Verhaas refereing? Jan himself posted message on his Twitter that he "officially" will ref the final match. I think in this case there were no necessity to delete info.--Якушев Илья (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and Twitter aren't considered reliable sources. If you can add a reliable sources (or if the final had began), than feel free to add the information back. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 12:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable or not, but there is also a Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Commentators also said about Verhaas refereing, I thought you know it. But, all right, if you want to add info when final will begin, what can I do:)--Якушев Илья (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker Scores

Why should end of session scores not be updated. This does not violate the NOTNEWS policy as it is not a routine report from any sport. It is published after play has completed and not throughout an active session. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman2004 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right, according to WP:NOTNEWS: "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" and "Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia". According to this score can't be updated and thus frame score are not needed too. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your quotes are irrelevant in this case. In what timeframe does this stop being breaking news. It is also not being treated differently from any other information as it is changing as time progresses, like all other information. I see no reason why this information can not be updated once a session or mid session has be completed. Convince me otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman2004 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frame scores are breaking news, because every site which stores them, updates them after every frame. If you engage in such a behaviour, than you might be blocked from editing just like Eternal Triangle (talk · contribs) was. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am asking at what point do they stop being breaking news? In the same respect once a match is over these frame scores are still breaking news by your logic. It does not make sense. I do not appreciate your threat regarding being blocked either.Chrisman2004 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I answered. If you interpret the policy false, than it's not my problem. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of rankings information

In reference to my addition to the 2011 World Snooker Championship page regarding rankings, I am asking you to clarify why you have deleted this information. It is factual and is backed up by the two sources on the World Snooker website. One detailing the rankings at present, the other showing the points schedule for the season. These indicate the points gained or lost throughout the year if you look you will see that this information is accurate. I am starting to become annoyed that you keep deleting/moving any information I add to this page with little explanation even though I can guarantee and have proven it is 100% accurate. Chrisman2004 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because (1) its not relevant, every player will have a new ranking after the final is over, only reaching the number one position is relevant and (2) its original research. If you see the Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011 article, than you will see, that Trump is at the 9th position. And as the text under the edit box says: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the burger

But I'm afraid I won't eat it, I am on diet...--Nitsansh (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well than you could give it to someone, who is hungry and isn't on a diet. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyrian people Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Democratic Republic of the Congo Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eaten fried chicken

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

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:Give chicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat chicken with {{subst:Munch chicken}}!!

Re: Brownie (Kante4)

Thanks! Kante4 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt & Bender illuminated reticle picture

Well, there is no other license than me, the person who made the photo, stating that I hereby release this picture into the public domain. I've uploaded this image to a free image upload service (postimage.org) only as a means of making the picture available for wikipedia. I could not find a direct file upload method, that's why I used an intermediate service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.94.239 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the file can't be uploaded through FFU via an appropriate license link. If you have created the picture yourself, than I suggest registering to FlickR, and uploading there under a acceptable license ({{cc-by-2.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}). Regards, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Facebook page of Wikipedia

Hi Armbrust, Thank you very much for uploading the image I requested on "Exeter Township Senior High School." I was wondering if you knew why it will not appear on the Facebook version of the wikipedia page now... (see there). Hopefully you know and can assist me. Thanks again! ~Dustin —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustinDaniels (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure, as I don't use Facebook regularly, but I think it is not shown, because the image is non-free. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2011)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject NASCAR at 16:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the cookie!

RA0808 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!


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

RA0808 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section refs in snooker article

First, can you please stop reverting? I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue and come to a mutually agreeable compromise of some sort, but using undo isn't the way to do that. Let's start a section on the talk page and go from there, OK?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree, that adding some text to at the beginning of these sections is acceptable? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See: Talk:2011 World Snooker Championship#Section references. However, the point here is that there shouldn't be references just hanging there at the top of a section. So, in answer to your question, yes, adding a sentence and then referencing that would work fine. I don't really understand the "it looks awful" criticism though... it looks better then a bunch of hanging references right after the section heading.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

2011 World Snooker Championship at ITN

--Kslotte (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Citations Global Travel Alliance

Hi Armbrust! I am trying to edit the submission to add the inline citations you need, however, when I hit "edit" I only see the text for my references. Sorry to take your time with something that I know will be obvious once you have shown me what I am doing wrong. 69.144.119.238 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should click on the "edit" button on the top of the page. This way you will see all content on the page. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions

Extended content

Hi there. You keep reverting good faith edits by User:86.182.15.132 such as this reversion. He fixed a spelling error and you keep reverting it back. Please be more careful. Mato (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest that one someone tries to engage with you on your talk page about the warnings you left, it might be more beneficial to discuss it with them, rather than to ignore it. Mato (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing it along coming across Huggle today. Looking at the contested edits, whether NPOV or not (and I think both are), neither is cited at all. Could you both agree not to edit without a cited reference? Wikipelli Talk 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you but I think you should make this point at the user in question, User:86.182.15.132, as he probably isn't aware I posted this. Mato (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on both pages. Wikipelli Talk 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced or not, NPOV or not, the edits are not vandalism, so I've declined your report to AIV. —DoRD (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Connect AfC

If I remove the Section that has the "Current Modules and Adapters" would that make it acceptable? Chuckk281 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, submission needs reliable sources, which discuss the subject of in depth and are are independent from it, in this case from HP. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that logo that was added to the ANT Farm page isn't the official logo. This is the official logo. Just wanted to point that out because the person who requested that it be added kept trying to move things around on the page. --DisneyFriends (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Corrected image. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector

Armbrust, I beg your pardon, I don't speak a very well English, and I hope to use good words to explain. Well, I need to have informations about your message on this page request at Wikipedia:Files for upload (Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector 1 and Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector 2). You said: According to this every material on the website is copyrighted. If permission isn't given within seven days, than this request will be declined. How to give permission? May be with this page: http://www.todayisfree.com/wikipedia.htm. Regards Yves Gland (90.1.120.187 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked there is enough for me, as it is directly connected with the website, where the images are. Upload images. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: File:Lonelyday cover.jpg

Hello Armbrust, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of File:Lonelyday cover.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No reason given. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Corre of the matter...

They can't create a new article because that title is protected after they persisted in putting up something that appeared non-notable or unreferenceable or something. If you still have problems after the three months, let me know. Same if they decide to register..... Thanks for the cookie. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thanks. By the way, very good title for the section. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 17:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Talk:Steve Davis/GA1

Steve Davis is an informative article, and is not far from meeting GA criteria, however there are a few issues so the GA review is on hold for 14 days to allow time to deal with the issues listed. I will close earlier and list if the issues are dealt with. And I'll be quite happy to extend if progress is being made. I can be contacted by email or on my talk page - though I will drop by now and again to check on progress. SilkTork *Tea time 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

98.151.53.27

Hi; I'm just wondering why you undid the request here, from 98.151.53.27 (talk). I'm not complaining or anything; just asking, because I got the same request myself, and wondered if I was missing anything...ie, did you just remove it because it was duplicated, or is there more to this, which I don't know about? See my talk. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have currently not enough time to evaluate edits on articles, which are not in the area of my interest (sport, but mostly snooker and the current sports events portal). The Steve Davis article is currently at GA review and I have to learn for my state exam in mathematics and German language. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kein problem. Thanks for the cookie.  Chzz  ►  18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

I want to nominate you to become an administrator! Please leave your thoughts on my talk page please. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I thinked about it for a day, I came to the conclusion, that I will gladly accept your nomination. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that is great news! I will do the nomination shortly. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up you spelled does wrong on one of your answers. Do you know if I am allowed to vote? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have seen on other RfAs the nominator is allowed to vote. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Armbrust

Final (15/15/8); ended 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC) - Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) – Armbrust is a knowledgeable editor across all the field he decides to contribute to. Armbrust is been here at Wikipedia for over three years and has contributed over 70,000 edits. Moreover, Armbrust also contributes in administrative work, such as contributing to AFD discussions, making Armbrust a very good candidate to become an administrator. Finally, while Armbrust is a autoreviewer, filemover and a reviewer, I strongly believe the time is now for Armbrust to take the next step and become an administrator. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will begin my work at areas that I have experience with: speedy deletion of files and the closure XfD discussions. I've been involved in XfD discussions since over 6 months, and although my recent participation has dropped to a lower level, I feel I'm capable to it the right way. I began to work with files in January this year, and since than have been worked regularly in this are and have the knowledge to decide, whether a file fits the speedy deletion criteria under which it is nominated.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created over 240 articles on the English Wikipedia, my most recent creation is the 2011 Premier League Snooker. I have contributed to the Ronnie O'Sullivan article to reach GA status and have substantially updated the 2011 World Snooker Championship, which was recently in the "In the news" section of the Main Page. I'm also proud of working on the current sport events portal, where I'm the fifth most active contributor. I've been involved with articles for creation since January, especially the files for upload process and has uploaded many pictures during my work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in very many conflicts in the past, which I try to resolve through discussion, although these discussion aren't initiated by me. Other editors cause me not often stress, but if it does, then I remain civil, assume good faith. If I'm angry at some editor, than I ignore them until I calm down. I do this to avoid any personal attack against them.
Additional question from Atama
4. I'd like you to expand a bit on Question 3 if you don't mind. Can you give an example of a couple of disputes you have been in, or perhaps your most difficult dispute? (A link or diff would be helpful.) Do you feel your participation helped resolve the situation(s), and how? Would you do anything different today if you were involved in the same or similar dispute{s}?
A:
Additional question from FASTILY
5. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.
A: Wikipedia's goal is to create a free encyclopaedia and to reach this needs free images. There are however many situation, where a free image is simply not available (many logos; covers of CDs, DVDs and books), posters and many more). In order to minimize non-free content Wikipedia use criteria. A non-free file have to suit all these criteria in order to Wikipedia can use it. Because of this the use of non-free files isn't a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. These files also have to be hosted on the foundation's servers, because the use of external images are currently (rightly) not allowed Wikipedia.
6. An editor goes to and takes an photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the image of that copyrighted statue to Wikipedia, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.
A. Well I firstly would check whether in the country he made the photo freedom of panorama is in place. (1) If it is, than I would add {{Freedom of panorama}} to the description of the file. (2) If not, than I would inform the uploader, that the photos of copyrighted 3D object inherit the license from it. From this point on I would either add {{Non-free 3D art}} with a rationale to the file (and reduce the size of the image if necessary) or nominate the file as for deletion at WP:FFD depending on whether there is a relevant article, on which the image can be used.
7. An editor uploads this photo. On the file's description page, the uploader applies the {{pd-self}} tag, and under source, specifies "Own work". No date of creation is specified and no metadata details are available. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.
A. Well after seeing the title of the file I thinked, that the photo was most likely not made by the uploader. After I searched for "Balmer 1942", I found this at the Australian War Memorial homepage. According to this the photo was made in 1942 by Thomas Fisher and the copyright has expired. I would write a new summary and replace {{pd-self}} with {{PD-Australia}}.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Abundant quality contribs to our sports coverage, including recent work on GA candidate Steve Davis. Uploads large quantities of nice pics with extensive fair use rationale. You mention conflict but I doubt its possible even for a saint to avoid wiki fights if one contributes as prolifically as you do, and I didnt see a single uncollegial edit in my scan of your talk page contribs. Agree with SoWhy that more frequent edit summaries would be good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As I mentioned above, I more then support Armbrust to become an administrator. To those that oppose, in my opinion you just cannot oppose a request for administrator, because they have one fault. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Armbrust undertakes a lot of administrative work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker and it would aid his work if he had an adminship; it would be useful to the project to have an "in house" admin. Armbrust has a solid grasp on policy/guidelines so there should be no problems there. As for the concerns expressed about the edit summaries, many of these are just routine housekeeping tasks and are self-explanatory so not really an issue. Good luck Armbrust! Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looking at some of the edits that have missing edit summaries, I don't really think that's grounds to oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I see absolutely no good reason as to why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support; I've occasionally moved in the same circles as Armbrust and they've always been hardworking, civil, and diligent. Trawled 50 random edits from a few weeks ago and found no cause for concern - apart from a couple of changes that took a little longer to be reassured about, for lack of edit summaries. I appreciate that edit summaries are an important service to other editors, but (a) I expect Armbrust would take that criticism on board, and (b) even with sparse edit summaries I think they'd still be a net positive as an admin. bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous RfA, 6 of the 21 editors who opposed adminship mentioned the lack of edit summary usage as at least one reason for opposing. In the 7 months since, that hasn't improved, so why would that criticism be taken on board this time? -- Atama頭 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first encountered Armbrust he never explained his edits, but he has progressed a lot since then. I think his use of edit summaries has come on as he became more proficient in English, and also in response to his last RfA. If you still think he underuses edit summaries fair enough, but it's a bit unfair to say there hasn't been any improvement. There are one or two things he can improve on—as is the case for all of us—but the bottom line is he's an exceptional editor; those of us who encounter his work on a daily basis know what a positive effect he has on the project. It's ok to nitpick if you're looking for things you want to see an improvement in, but it's just as important to consider the many positive things he does as well. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, which is why I haven't opposed him yet. :) -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments (I certainly don't consider them badgering). Infrequent edit summaries are certainly a sin, but I feel it's a minor one compared to armbrust's other work and temperament, and which wikipedian is without sin? However, 28bytes has raised some other interesting points, so my support is wavering for other reasons. I'm very wary of opposing somebody because of the reasoning behind their previous RfA votes, but the disdain for automated edits is, to me, uncomfortably close to a disdain for vandal-fighting and other partly-automated effort which is of immense benefit to the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I changed my mind regarding automated edits due to problems with Twinkle in February. At that time I realised how much automated tools are needed. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support morally. I don't see why you aren't a good editor, but I do suggest you fill in the edit summaries. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Moderately experienced user from which I can see. I often ran into him at AFC. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 02:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Clean block lock. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Provisional support – I have not yet looked at the candidate's editing closely, but I do not place too much importance to the reasons given in the quick flurry of opposes. If the presentations made by the candidate and the nominator check out, I'd also be inclined to support. So I will provisionally support now lest too much momentum for a snowball close gets underway before I can make a more definitive support. Lambanog (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support His mistakes aren't controversial and in spite of them, he meant them all in good faith and his work at FFU, Sports articles and other noticeboards/administrative areas is just superb. He is always willing to help, he helped me get my wings at FFU and he's a backlog clearing machine! Most of the time that I'm at FFU there's not 1 request where I won't see his signature. His lack of edit summaries, while disappointing, has been pointed out that they've been routine maintenance and given that it's not a good basis for opposing the candidate as they're clearly a knowledgeable (clueful too) and helpful user. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:25pm • 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Good user. I don't find the oppose rationales particularly convincing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The poor edit summary usage is unfortunate, but I still think he'd be a net benefit as an admin. An experienced, hard-working user, he's ready for the bit. -- Ϫ 10:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support done a lot of work, and edit summaries look fine on uploads and moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Moved from Neutral. I don't necessarily like his personal !voting criteria at RfA, but I believe, from evidence of his previous admin-type work, that he would be a credible and trustworthy admin. Click the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary button in the Editing tab under My Preferences and the biggest issue cited in oppose will be gone. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools, though I wish he would use edit summaries more. --rogerd (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry but without even analyzing the candidate's edits, I cannot support a candidate who uses edit summaries for less than a third of their major edits. All editors and especially admins should be able to communicate clearly and edit summaries are an important tool to achieve this. Someone with more than 70k edits should know it better, especially since several editors in the last RFA opposed because of this. Either the candidate is unable to listen to advice or they are unwilling to improve their communication with others - in both cases it indicates that they are unsuited for adminship. Regards SoWhy 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, but X!'s tool conflicts with that Mathbot link you provided: Soxred93 So which one is correct? Those are dramatically different. While edit summary usage is far from stellar, it looks to be over 70-80% rather than less than a third using the other tool. So I'm confused. -- Atama頭 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I knew this candidate's name from somewhere and now I remember. 28bytes brings up the pointless question bombing (5 textbook questions that added no value to the RFA), in addition to various other strange reliance on useless statistics votes. I don't want to support a candidate who intentionally makes it even more difficult for candidates to pass by scraping the barrel for something, anything to oppose someone with. I do however, completely disagree with the idea that edit summaries are somehow mandatory (they're not, and never will be). Edits which are housekeeping or for which the reasons are obvious don't require an edit summary. Edit summaries are simply there for those too lazy to look at the diff for the change themselves, or the change is something substantial which might not be obvious. Of course, edit summaries can just have anything written in them, so they are unreliable too. We have talk pages to discuss edits, and we certainly shouldn't be explaining our edits in the history. That is not a collaborative approach. AD 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the lack of edit summaries, as brought up by SoWhy. On the contrary to what Aiken Drum says above, edit summaries are crucial to making a page history (or contribution history) easy to follow. Yes, you can just click on every diff to see what's been changed, but edit summaries vastly speed things up and save everyone's time. An editor who's been around as long as Armbrust, particularly one who wants to be an admin, should know that. It may seem a little harsh to oppose based on a statistical issue, but as an editor who routinely opposes RFA candidates himself based on edit statistics, I don't think Armbrust can complain. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think edit summaries really help that much. Every edit is dynamic; "fixing typo" leaves you with little knowledge of an editor's change to an article, and most experienced users (myself included) use cryptic and abbreviated shorthand in edit summaries merely to shut the prompter up. If you looked through Armbrust's contributions and saw every entry suffixed with "cmt", "fmt", or "+" or "-", would that make any difference? Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say yes. Of course edit summaries can be misused to mislead other editors but in this collaborative environment, we learned that some people, especially experienced editors, do not want to mislead others. If I see someone who I learned to trust use such edit summaries, I would not feel the urge to check each edit to find out what they did. For example, if a user I trust leaves an edit summary with "fmt", I know that means "formatting" and I know that they did not change the content of the article, so I have no urge to check it. I agree that new editors won't understand such shorthand but most of the shorthand is used for edits behind the scenes (I admit that I also use "cmt" or "resp" for example but not on articles) and for articles you can really use the complete word. There are many tools to help with that, from user scripts to your browser caching the input in the edit summary field, so it's also not much work. Last but not least, I personally wouldn't oppose if the lack was confined to edits to behind-the-scenes pages but on articles that new users regularly edit not using them is really a reason to oppose imho. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per lack of edit summaries. Sorry, but those are really important (automatic edit summaries don't cut it), and I hardly ever see them on his edits. Seems a bit hypocritical, as Robofish said. Logan Talk Contributions 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemingly can't be bothered to engage established editors in dialogue before summary removal of their user page content. [1]. Whatever the wrongs of those categories, having a chat first is the way forward. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think there's anything wrong with that edit, it's hardly controversial, it was just a removal of some categories placed there accidentally by a transclusion. - filelakeshoe 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair comment, but basic courtesy would be to advise the user (ideally before the action as well). This did not occur, unless I'm reading the diff trail wrongly Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user obviously copy/pasted the wikitext from Template:Usertalkpageheader and forgot or didn't know to remove the categories. It's a purely routine cleanup edit to remove them from the user page, which was improperly included in two template categories. Also—ironically, in light of other opposes—he uses a clear edit summary to explain his actions, in case the user wondered why his page was edited. — Bility (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to side with Bility here. This is entirely routine and a talk page note would have been superfluous, especially given that it's an established editor who will have no trouble figuring it out. (And in the unlikely possibility that he's puzzled, an established editor would know how to write a friendly request for clarification) Pichpich (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for the explanations. Personally I'd have asked the user but clearly that's a minority view. Oppose indented. Pedro :  Chat  06:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I really think Armbrust needs to gain more experience and understanding of policies and guidelines. His contributions at AFD don't fill me with confidence, and the complete lack of edit summaries until recently and current sparse use of edit summaries is something that needs to be improved. Maybe later, but not now.--Michig (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per last month's RFA transclusion mentioned by 28bytes. That's far too recent a mistake when coupled with his "I don't see any other possible action with it." reaction to being questioned on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the issues brought up by SoWhy, 28bytes, and Sarek. I don't see much of a problem with the first diff from MC10 below as editors can remove any message from their own talk page as they wish, but they shouldn't copyedit comments by others on same (which I do have an issue with). All in all, I think the candidate needs to make better decisions in the future.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The poorly written nominating statement does not inspire much confidence, nor do the perfunctory and ignored answers to the questions. And then there are the issues raised by 28bytes...--Hokeman (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. 28bytes draws attention to significant problems. The lack of edit summaries is a relatively minor point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The edit summaries and the diffs of 28bytes are a bit of a concern. I am also worried about Armbrust's ability to communicate effectively in English. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Appears genuinely a well-intentioned user, but I do not feel comfortable supporting this user to receive access to administrative tools per the candidates judgement skills (RfA transclusion, past RfA votes). While the candidate's level of English is definitely comprehensible, it may lack clarity required for an administrator communicating why they have deleted a page or closed a discussion Jebus989✰ 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Candidate has minor English issues that normally wouldn't be a problem. However, it seems the candidate has done a few odd things that 28Bytes has pointed out, which also wouldn't normally be a problem to me. That said, if the candidate does odd things, they need to be able to communicate their rationale clearly. I couldn't see this candidate being intentionally malicious, but I can see a controversial mistake made and the candidate unable to communicate their reasons clearly causing a headache for us all. Given a little more time to get a firmer grasp on English and perhaps a clearer understanding of community "norms", I could support this candidate.--v/r - TP 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He has a few minor problems with grammar but personally speaking I've never had problems understanding him when discussing various edits/issues. I think his level of English is certainly functional enough to undertake administrative duties. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of my point. I have no doubt his day to day activities as an admin wouldn't be bothered by his English. However, I anticipate the once in a blue moon controversial decisions that all admins make a couple of times in their time and even folks who are born speaking English sometimes have trouble expressing their rationale. I was having a few problems reading things he wrote in this RfA and it took me a few minutes to find out he was from Hungary before I realized I needed to be really forgiving when reading his words. I understand what he is trying to say when the reasons arnt very controversial, but when it's important to be very clear, concise, and accurate (ex. ArbCom case), he may have trouble there.--v/r - TP 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per above. Concerns with judgement. While you know your stuff, judging by your answers to my questions, I find your recent conduct in at RfA to be unsatisfactory. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, sorry but in addition to my concerns in neutral below, this is too recent and is really too far from good faith (see the first two diffs provided by Mato). Also I don't know what you're trying to achieve by sweeping it under a collapsible box. I'd rather someone who admits they make mistakes and apologises to the user, and you seem unwilling to do either... - filelakeshoe 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not ready for prime time yet. Concerns about lack of edit summaries, but mostly concerns with communication skills. Bone up on those, and come back in awhile. In the meantime, this is a hard-working editor that the project needs. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. I'd like to support, but the candidate's approach to other people's RfAs gives me pause. The transcluding of an RfA for someone with 11 edits was a bad call, as was the question-bombing of another candidate. The frequent reference to meaningless statistics in other RfAs also bugs me. Nonetheless, I'm leaning support and may switch after considering what others have to say, as the candidate has done good work elsewhere on the project and from what I can see is generally courteous and responsive. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral opposed my reconfirmation without rationale. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Switching to oppose, per questionable RFA transclusion linked by 28bytes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on Sarek... "Because he opposed RfA of editor X without rationale" would be a somewhat dubious reason to refuse to take a closer look at a candidate's qualifications. But if it's about your RfA that closed three days ago, this is petty at best. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's neutral. Now, if it had been, say, Guerillero (talk · contribs), who criticized my "cowboy diplomacy" and lack of GA/DYK writing, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But without knowing why Armbrust opposed, I can't judge his judgement in return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning towards support since his work with articles and files seems to be generally good. However, I am concerned by looming communication issues. The fact that he hasn't addressed really simple concerns raised on the previous RfA (enabling "alert me when I leave the edit summary blank" in preferences takes a mere second) is a bit baffling, and I know many of you will think this is really dickish and I wouldn't oppose Armbrust for this alone, but I have high standards for English language in an admin and with the grammar mistakes in the question answers, I would be worried about him entering content disputes. I know from my work on cs.wiki how difficult it is to pick out NPOV issues, for example. But good luck, - filelakeshoe 17:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) switched to oppose - filelakeshoe 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me naive but I certainly hope that WP:COMPETENCE should apply to administrators also! I haven't made up my mind about Armbrust yet (I'm waiting for an answer to my question at least) but nobody should object to someone who looks to see good communication from an administrator candidate. -- Atama頭 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning oppose. The bean-counting of automated edits is something I find concerning, particularly as there are potential RfA candidates I know who would make fantastic admins yet do large amounts of counter vandalism work using automated tools. I also find the conceit that the answer to an RfA question is too close to policy difficult to fathom. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did alter his oppose shortly afterward: [2]. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:33pm • 07:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in a way that addressed my concerns... however, I'm aware that his personal !voting criteria at RfA do not reflect how he would function as an admin... and I'm moving this !vote. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning oppose (for now). For lack of edit summaries. My position may change to support or oppose though based on the candidate's answers to future questions.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I respect Armbrust's article work, but I find that 28bytes's diffs concern me. Likewise, I find that the removal of this comment and the editing of other editors' comments is a bit concerning; there are more diffs if you which to dig them up. It's generally considered etiquette to leave others' comments alone, even if they contain grammatical mistakes. I may change my opinion based on answers to the questions, however. —mc10 (t/c) 22:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If a comment was removed, it means that the user has read it and seeing as its his talk page he is allowed to do so. Neither of those edits was controversial, though I didn't see the point in correcting the capitalisation of the second diff you provided. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:29pm • 07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he is allowed to remove a comment, but it's polite to at least reply or send the user a message. And it's also considered etiquette to not edit other's comments. (I don't remember what guideline it was exactly; if anyone can dig it up for me, that would be appreciated.) —mc10 (t/c) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TPO? Jebus989✰ 18:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lots of good and some unfortunate bad. Some of the diffs and examples referred to above (e.g., RfA transclusion, lack of edit summary usage) show an unfamiliarity with convention (as opposed to policy). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I was leaning towards support until I saw that 20-30% of edits lack Edi Summaries. Jamietw (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - doesn't pass my flinch test and leaves me with a worrying feeling Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. WP:EDITCOUNTITIS regarding edit summaries aside, I see a good editor who needs to be just a little better before gaining the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. No one problem raised is killer, but overall I'm seeing enough problems mentioned (edit summaries, RfA issues listed above plus a !vote to oppose without an explanation, some grammar issues) that I'm not comfortable supporting. Answers to Fastily's questions look to be outstanding (but I'm not the best with images, Fastily did I miss something?). A quick glance at this editor's recent contributions showed an image gnome who does a lot of useful things around here. So summary: very very helpful person, not sure they are ready for the tools. I suspect they will be in a few months. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Steve Davis

Early life: I kinda agree it needs more; I found a little, but don't have time to write it up; maybe it'll help: Born in Plumstead in London, Davis is always associated with Essex, to where his family moved when he was a teenager and where he still lives. His father Bill was a keen player and introduced Davis to the game to which he became "addicted", as he put it, by the age of 15. [3]

DAVIS, Steve, MBE; British snooker player; b. 22 Aug. 1957, Plumstead; s. of Harry George Davis and Jean Catherine Davis; m. Judith Lyn Greig 1990; two s.; ed. Alexander McLeod Primary School, Abbey Wood School, London; professional snooker player 1978; - book, "International Who's Who 2000, Volume 63" [4] - can be seen in [5] (or, get down to the library!)

HTH.  Chzz  ►  20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_6&oldid=1094567230"