User talk:Armbrust/Archive 1

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


Current revert to the naming of the Snooker seasons

Please tell me a reason why those season titles should be 19xx/19xx instead of 19xx-xx. I can't find any reason that a version should be named like that. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The it is the used form on all of the snooker pages. If you doesn't like, then you should convert it on all of this pages. (I mean the content) Example: China Open (snooker) Winners section and many of the snooker tournament pages (winners section). Armbrust 17:17 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect - Snooker season 2008–09

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Snooker season 2008–09, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Snooker season 2008–09 is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Snooker season 2008–09, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Masters Snooker

Hi, I'm not sure why you've reverted my edits in the final score summary. I had corrected the format (and even stated in the edit summary) as the break should go after the score, then there should be a comma, like so: 0-114 (114), which is the format for all the other years and also in all formal scores such as BBC Sport for example. Hopefully it was by mistake and won't be reverted again. Thanks. Feudonym (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. But i have 2 questions:
  1. Who made the 53 break in frame 8?
  2. Who made the 55 break in frame 14?
If you see at the Global Snooker coverage then it will be clear that these breaks was made by Mark Selby. (Don't forget there are the names reverse) Armbrust (talk) 2:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, my mistake, I apologise. Thanks for correcting those. Feudonym (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007 World Matchplay

I have reverted your addition of this tournament to the John Higgins and World Matchplay articles. There is no record of this tournament (2007) ever existing. Indeed the purported date 11-15 Feb 2007 overlaps with the 2007 Welsh Open which took place from the 12-18 Feb 2007. I have left the article itself and suggest you find a reference to prove that this tournament existed before linking it to other articles. I personally don't think it ever took place and that the article is fake and should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right this event never happened . No references found. I found World Matchplay (snooker) 2008, that is also a fake. I recommended both articles for speedy delete. And thanks for correcting my mistake. Armbrust (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, the articles had been on there for months and if you hadn't connected it to the main Matchplay article we would be none the wiser. I became suspicious because I hadn't heard of it and it clashed with the Welsh Open dates. The original author needs to be reported to admin if he's going around creating false articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This guy has created quite a few articles. I'm pretty sure this one never happened either: 2008 Top 16 snooker tournament. Also the Grand Prix 1995 (snooker) - now that tournament happened but I think it's still fake. For instance the prize money is £173,000, but in 1995 the prize money for teh world championship was only £190,000. Also it says John Higgins made a maximum break but no record of it here: Highest snooker break. I think everything this guy has done needs to be looked at. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The China Open 2005 (snooker) is a real tournament with faked dates. See Pontins Snooker Coverage[dead link] Armbrust (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the Grand Prix 1995 (snooker) is a fake. See WWW Snooker Coverage Armbrust (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1992 Masters Snooker article is no fake. It match with the references. Armbrust (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article 2008 Top 16 snooker tournament is a fake. I have revised, his/her snooker related contributions, and corrected if it was necessary. Armbrust (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've marked out all the articles he created for deletion. One or two looked legit but could contain false information since 90% of all edits are vandalism. They can always be recreated. All other edits I've reversed, and if any were legit my edits can always be reversed. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World championship navbox

What's wrong with using the standard grouped layout here? I notice you reverted this before, but without providing an explanation. The groups look a lot neater to me. Why the revert? Flowerparty 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then this format is used on all the snooker tournament navboxes. Armbrust (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two question: What is "standard navbox"? And why? Armbrust (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, the other snooker boxes use a similar layout. But they're all based on a pretty ugly original design that was cobbled together from stone-age code. This new layout is inherited from {{navbox}} and it's pretty common everywhere nowadays; it's used in {{cue sports nav}} for instance. I really think the new layout looks a lot better. I'll update all the snooker boxes to use this format if you have no objections. Flowerparty 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Armbrust (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice one. See you round! Flowerparty 18:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Snooker Championship

You seem to have reverted my edits to the table on the above page and I'm not sure why. The table was broken and needed fixing. Try clicking on the Rank column header. Firefox and IE both show the fault. (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. Armbrust (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More reverts

Armbrust, you really need to provide a reason for your reverts. Just automatically undoing any change that you see - it's hard not to interpret that as an act of passive aggression. Any reason for these reverts? Flowerparty 12:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question two: Why must everything be a "wikitable"? Armbrust (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks better, don't you think? Flowerparty 12:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont't think so. The major problem is, that we can't see the "partitioning", beacause it has no colours. Armbrust (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no colours but the partitions are still clear. The colours don't add anything to my eye, they just make the page look uglier. Anyway, I've posted this up at wt:snooker to see what others think. Flowerparty 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass changes to snooker player articles

I have some concerns over multiple changes to the snooker articles. Can you please let me know what you think at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#Mass vandalism. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Snooker Championship 2009

Hi Armbrust. Can I ask why you think snooker should not be linked from the article on World Snooker Championship 2009? On the talk page you say that the role of the article is not to describe what snooker is (I agree with you on that), and that if people want to find out they should go to the article on snooker. I agree with you on that too, which is why I added a link to the article myself. Having a look at the article's history just now, I see that I wasn't the first person to add the link. See 1 2 3 4, and then my own edit. Most of these you have reverted without an edit summary, including your most recent revert of myself. I honestly don't understand why you think that the article should not link to the article on the sport, when you have freely said yourself that if readers want information on the sport they should go to the sport's article. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning to me? Thanks. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As examples, our article on the FA Cup mentions that it is a football cup with a link to the sport, our article on the NFL mentions that it's an American football league with a link to the sport, and our article on January links to our month article. I'd say a link to what something is is one of the most important things an article should have. Why do you not feel this way? Is there consensus or policy somewhere I wasn't aware of? Thanks. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed it because:
  1. You mentioned the FA Cup and NFL. These titles don't say what sport it is. But the from title World Snooker Championship 2009 you can say that it is snooker.
  2. The other snooker tournament pages doesn't have this link either.
  3. I think if someone don't know what snooker is, then he would not search for the "World Snooker Championship 2009". And if he find it at random, and find it interestin then he/she should search on the wikipedia. Armbrust (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright guy. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over it. The reason why a lot of people were confused was because it was linked from the main page's "In the news" section, which is why there was a high number of edits and a lot of people who didn't seem to know what snooker was. I don't care much either way, I just figured that we should always look to aid our readers. Speaking of which, you've created quite a few snooker articles in your time, so keep up the good work. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scottish Professional

I notice you have listed Stephen Hendry as the 1981 winner. I appreciate you got this from the roll of honour ( but I think this is an erroneous entry. In the first place, Hendry didn't turn pro until 1985. Secondly on the same page it also says this in the second paragraph.: "That changed in 1979 when Eddie Sinclair joined the pro ranks and he set up a match against Chris Ross for the title in 1980. Player and promoter, Bert Demarco took up he idea and as, by 1981, six more Scots had turned professional, an eight-man knockout event was staged at Kildrum which was won by Ian Black. Sponsorship was obtained in 1982 when Sinclair regained the title at Dunfermline but the event had to proceed without backing in 1983." Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. My mistake. Armbrust (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Series of Snooker

I've temporarily reverted the year to 2009 on the Shaun Murphy article, but ideally we need to agree on a convention for this. In most cases the year the tournament ends is used, such as the 1972 World Championship which started in 1971 and finished in 1972 and is called the 1972 World Championship.

However, the way football does it with the FA CUP is to refer to the season as 2008/09 and the final as the 2009 FA Cup Final. I see the World Series website refers to the Grand Final as the "The World Series of Snooker Grand Final 2009"[1]. The FA Cup terminology would lend itself well to this. I think the name of the tournament should be: "The World Series of Snooker 2008/09", and the final should be referred to as "The World Series of Snooker Grand Final 2009" like the official website refers to it. Let me know what you think, because we should have a proper convention like how other sports do it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a correction, then it should be clear that it was the Grand Final of the 2008 World Series of Snooker. Armbrust (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki policy on Northern Ireland flag

I'm not sure you're aware but if you read Flag of Northern Ireland you'd realise Northern Ireland doesn't have an official flag to represent it and because of this wiki policy says that Northern Ireland shouldn't be used. See the policy here. Therefore I will revert your change unless you can give a specific reason why the use of the flag is not inapporopriate in this case.MITH 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are reasons to use it:
  1. The IBSF use it to represent players from Northern Ireland. [2].
  2. All of the snooker tournament articles, templates use it, because it reflecting the usage of the flag in the context it is used in snooker.
See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#Northern Ireland flag. Armbrust (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a large consensus either way, but I will tolerate the flags appearance for the moment while third party websites use it.MITH 17:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the consensus of the Snooker Project to use the Ulster flag to represent Northern Ireland, reflecting the usage of the flag within the sport. This was recently challenged, and wasn't fully resolved to everyone's liking but this is not the same as not having a consensus. The consensus for editing Wikipedia is to not adopt a POV, so in keeping with that the flag was removed from the player profiles but retained on the draw and result pages reflecting its usage within the sport. Wikipedia also makes it quite clear in the specific case of the Ulster flag that its usage is prohibited only in an inappropriate context, and I think most neutral editors would not consider the context inappropriate when its usage here is adopting the formalism of an official governing body within the sport. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Wimbledon Championships

Hello. I see, you have reverted my changes on the pages 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Ladies' Invitation Doubles and 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Senior Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles. I had marked Kloss/Nideffer and Bahrami/Leconte as group winners and thus added them as finalist, based on what is written under the group tables: "Standings are determined by: 1) Number of wins; 2) Number of matches; 3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records". I haven't been able to find any official rules, so it's possible that this is not correct, in that case, this text should be changed, or removed. What do you think? Wikijens (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is possible that they would be placed on the 2nd rank. So they should only then added as finalist, if it is sure. Armbrust (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it possible that they would be placed 2nd? Is it incorrect that in two-players-ties, head-to-head records determine the standings? Wikijens (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right my mistake. Armbrust (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding links

Hi i'd like to say that I appreciate your efforts of adding links to the snooker player article, also creating new ones for the new main tour players, which I added on the List of snooker players article. Samasnookerfan (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Racquetball at the World Games

You're right on top of the racquetball results at the World Games. Well done!

One other thing to perhaps consider is that racquetball was in the first World Games in 1981 in Santa Clara, although the International Racquetball Federataion views this as their first World Championships. There isn't a record - that I could see - of this on the World Games web site; no list of spots included in 1981, or other of the early years. The IRF site does list the finalists, but not the third place finishers.

So, given there isn't a clear reference here, I don't know if you want to include it on the page you've been updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trb333 (talkcontribs) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have only added the medalists of World Games 2009. I don't know about the other years. Do as you please, but the results of this year should be complete. Armbrust (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Current sport at 2009 Gastein Ladies

Just curious, was this a revert, or did you not notice my previous edit? If it was the former, could you explain the revert? --Conti| 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not a revert. I just added the Current sport template, because the tournament ends at 26 July, and you removed it 21 July. Armbrust (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the guidelines at Template:Current sport, especially the part that says "This template is for articles which involve an article about an evolving current sports-related event which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving." A current event template (like this one) does not exist to merely inform our readers of something being a current event, it exist to warn our readers, in case an article is being edited massively, of the possible consequences of rapid editing going on. That an even is ongoing (like the 2009 Gastein Ladies) is already obvious from the article itself, and we don't need to inform our readers about that both in a template, and in the first paragraph of the article. --Conti| 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The goal of the template is to show all the current tennis tournaments and not only the only the one in Bad Gastein. Furthernore the template doesn't havethe Category:Current sport in it. Armbrust (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not the goal of the template, and it has never been. It's probably rather confusing considering the template's name and description, but it has never been intended to have templates that point out that something is current. The template does use Category:Current sports events, but you can just as well add that category without using the template. --Conti| 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guideline says "evolving current sports-related event which is either changing rapidly". Then this is a sports-related event. So the main question is: What "changing rapidly" means? Armbrust (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From another part of the guideline: "As an advisory to editors, it may also be used in those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day." So, about a hundred or so edits in a day would be "changing rapidly", in my opinion. An example of that would be 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police (which uses the Template:Current template). Have a look at the history of that article. The article has been edited almost 50 times today. 2009 Gastein Ladies, on the other hand, hasn't been edited at all in two days. I'm pretty sure that there's no definition out there that would call that "changing rapidly". Once again, the point of the template is to warn our readers of rapid change. When no rapid change is ongoing, there is no reason to warn our readers. --Conti| 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in that case we 3 articles about 2009 Gastein Ladies tournament. The main article is 2009 Gastein Ladies, and then here is one article for Singles, and one other for Doubles. These last two articles have the detailed draws, so they change rapidly. The article 2009 Gastein Ladies have the Template:Current sport because the other two are not seperate sport events. Armbrust (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need for an article to be a separate sport event to have a current event/current sports template. But looking at the history of 2009 Gastein Ladies - Doubles, I don't see massive change there, either. It's more change, definitely, but all in all the editing looks pretty normal to me. We have countless articles that are being edited as much. --Conti| 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarify for me please

At least in the article and not on my talk page.... 2007 Lucan Racing Irish Classic Title says 2007, info box says it took place 18-19 August 2007 but the article says "between 2–3 August 2008"? Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a mistake, i have corrected it. Armbrust (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007 Lucan Racing Irish Classic

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 22:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from 2007 Lucan Racing Irish Classic. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 23:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shanghai Masters 2009


Látom, magyar vagy, így magyarul írok én is hozzád!

Szóval, oké, vettem, hogy ez nem egy live scoring, de láttam a World Snooker live scoringján, hogy 118 mellett egy 113-at is lökött Xiao! Azt ne szedd ki, rendben? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniehun (talkcontribs) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Armbrust (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters

"David Nalbandian is the only player in the top 20 who withdrew. He is ranked no. 14"

Didn't Del Potro also withdrew? Enigmamsg 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, but at the time I added this sentence Del Potro hasn't withdrew from the tournament. Armbrust (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 US Open Series

You say Ginepri is not on the list because he only has points from one why are four other players on that table, all of which only have points from one tournament and all of which have less points than Ginepri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4z01 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they have matches left at the 2009 Pilot Pen Tennis. If they don't reach at least the quarterfinals, then they will be deleted too. Armbrust (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current sport template again

Would you please stop reverting me with no reasoning whatsoever? The current sport template (as I explained to you already) exists to warn readers of rapid change and massive editing. As can be seen quite clearly, there is no rapid editing whatsoever going on at 2009 World Professional Billiards Championship. Therefore, the template is entirely unneccessary at that article. --Conti| 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I revert it because the template adds a category. If you would added this category, then I wouldn't reverted. Armbrust (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, if that's the case, then just add the category. I see you've already done just that, which is fine by me. :) --Conti| 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 US Open (tennis) - Men's and women's singles players (format)

Hello, user why did you think you had the right to change a yearlong concensus on this matter when the 2009 Australian Open, 2009 French Open, and 2009 Wimbledon Championships were done this way long before you had the bright idea to change it for the 2009 US Open (tennis) artlcie! I will seek admin attention on this if it is not changed back quickly! (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To your comment i say following things:
  1. What do you mean by "yearlong concensus"? This table was first used on the 2008 Wimbledon Championships and the one year later on the 2009 Wimbledon Championships. Then it was added at the 4th September 2009 to the 2008 US Open (tennis), 2009 Australian Open and the 2009 French Open. So at the 3rd September 2009 this table was on only 2 articles present.
  2. "why did you think you had the right to change" This is Wikipedia, everbody can contribute to the Encyclopedia. So I can contribute too, and with this I can change.
  3. "long before you had the bright idea to change it" On the mentioned 3 articles this tables are only 3 days on.
  4. "I will seek admin attention" For what reason? I mean what have I made wrong. If you dislike the new tables, then it is pointless.
  5. In your recent edit summary you said this: "uncollasped this should be because it is not a navbox and it needs to be open all the time!". I think it should be collapsed, because it is just a list. And that it isn't a navbox don't mean that in can't be collapsed. Why would be there a collapsable wikitable, if I shouldn't be used.
  6. And last: Why did you gave this section such a long title? Armbrust (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not answer any of this since you seem to be ill-informed at addressing points and getting public opinion from the wikipedia community before one random user changes it forever! Yes, and whose to say the mens deserves to go first over the women in the order out, why not put them side by side so both are equal did you think their was a reason they put them side by side! (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you for example see the Champions section of the 2009 Pilot Pen Tennis, then you will see that the men's champions go first over the women champions. (like any tournament article for a year). Armbrust (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like I am not the only one who is against you either! Go look someone else is reverting your edits! (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, looks so. Then it should be. I won't change it another time. Armbrust (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 US Open (tennis) - Men's and women's singles players (Nowrap)

Please don't add Nowrap to the "Men's and women's singles players" section, because for me (with a 1024x768 resolution monitor) it looks so: Photo. Armbrust (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Nowrap makes sure the players' names and seeds are on the same line. Having those on two separate lines doe snot look professional. Envious5 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but if somebody has a lower resolution monitor, than he can't see the whole table. Armbrust (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that there is a way that we could come to an agreement. Envious5 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if we instead 2 tables use 1 table instead, because I think the problem comes from the use of MultiCol. I use Nowraps too, and I can see it without Multicol. Armbrust (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solved. Instead of using Multicol, I use Col, and with it the table can be seen. Armbrust (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TW-RF/Sandbox 5

Hello Armbrust, I am going to be asking a couple of users to help on this in order to get this done because it is a big task that I can't get it done all on my own quickly! Just make sure to alert people before you start on a section by putting your signnature next to section number! Thanks! TW-RF (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For helping on the 2005 US Open - Women's Singles page! (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TW-RF/Sandbox 6

I need you to go here since you like   in the brakets and put them in it if of course you want to! THANKS! TW-RF (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I do it immediately. And i would ad other things too (WC, Q and LL). Armbrust (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You probably can't do that because it does not include this in the source! TW-RF (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. I have not seen the source before writting it. Armbrust (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I finished it. Armbrust (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubles Navbox implementation

Hello, Armbrust,
Here are the links if you want to do them! I created the pages all today. Talk to you later. TW-RF (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I made something. If you thought of something else, then write it down please. Armbrust (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for helping, I'm truly sorry that you feel this way! I'm just trying to make wikipedia a better place! Peace, I won't come back here again if you don't want me to. TW-RF (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you're misunderstaning me. I just didn't know, what exactly you mean't by "do them". So i thinked, i should make it compacter. So i did. This should be a question: Can i stil do somehing with this templates? Armbrust (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes of course, I am putting the men's on today, and will try and do the women's tomorrow if you want to put them go ahead! Just go and look at my edit history to see what I am doing. I got the AO and the FO mens doubles done and just have the Wimb and USO to do and the Year-End... TW-RF (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do this: Template:Australian Open women's doubles champions, Template:French Open women's doubles champions, Template:Wimbledon women's doubles champions, Template:US Open women's doubles champions and Template:WTA Year-End Championships winners doubles. Armbrust (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take and do the US Open Mixed Doubles! TW-RF (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Reply[reply]

I did this too:

Armbrust (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Armbrust, Thank You for your major help in getting these instituted today! TW-RF (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With pleasure. It was a nice challenge for me, and i did it :). Then good night. (3 hour 8 minutes in my time-zone). Armbrust (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Junior Grand Slam Navboxes

I will get on the Junior Navboxes tommorrow and work on it throughout the week! I think the boys and girls singles are a good place to start! TW-RF (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have them, than give me a message and i will help with the implementation. Armbrust (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said you wanted it now fulfill your bargain or promise go to Templates Here! TW-RF (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is better that it be in reverse order than in chronological order because of the many of the older players don't have pages on wikipedia! I left the ones that do not have one un-linkable. TW-RF (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I beginn with the implementation. Armbrust (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thereby announce: the mission "Junior singles navbox implementation" complete. Next mission: "Junior doubles navbox implementation" :):) Armbrust (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, here are six of the eight jnr doubles, I will do the Australian after I get it figured out! TW-RF (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I beginn with it. Armbrust (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have finished with the 6 jnr doubles. Armbrust (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the AUS jnr doubles. TW-RF (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main world championships

You are doing a very good job on this template "Main world championships". I`m little busy right now, but if you need some help I could give you. See you.--Italodal (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TW-RF/Sandbox 7

Hello, Armbrust, I have went and done all except the Pre-open era Mens Doubles US Open, but I will let you take the credit for the creation of all the doubles because the singles have been done but not implemented! Do you want to implement them! TW-RF (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will get the other one done tomorrow! TW-RF (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I beginn with the implementation of these navboxes. Armbrust (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have finished it. Yahooo!!!! :):) Armbrust (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: The Wimbledon (Pre Open) templates were already implemented. Armbrust (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, You deserve the barnstars by the way! TW-RF (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Bluedogtn/Sandbox PI

Hello, I don't know if you care about golf, but here is some more things you can go and implement. I am TW-RF by the way...hello again BLUEDOGTN 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Im workin on it. (I know, Hello :)) Armbrust (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finished it. Armbrust (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, for the barnstar, but I do it because I love golf and tennis. Good Job on your behalf, too.BLUEDOGTN 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Efren Reyes, et al.

Hello Armbrust. I have reverted your unexplained blanking of {{Cue sports nav}} and {{Cue sports bios}} from the above articles. Though I cannot see any good reason for these removals, I cannot know what your rationale was since you did not leave any edit summary explaining your reasons. Especially where you are removing something where it is not self-evident what the reason for it might be, using an edit summary can be very helpful to other editors. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thinked it was evident. The {{Cue sports nav}} was removed because (for example Efren Reyes) isn't a cue sport. And {{Cue sports bios}} was removed because the names aren't in the navbox. Armbrust (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't get worked up over this either way. More than one party has had issues with {{Cue sports nav}} appearing (non-minimized, anyway) on bio articles, and others have defended it, and the other one is very new, and... It's pretty unsettled. I have some "extreme templating" ideas I have worked on extensively that could merge all of these into a meta template that does "smart" things depending upon what kind of page it is on, e.g. showing the Cue sports main one expanded on some articles, just a minimized strip on others; showing a snooker nav box expanded or minimized, depending on type of snooker article, and a cue sports one minimized below it (optionally), and so on. I have it about half-way worked out. I have left it alone for over a year, but if there is any sense of urgency, I can probably dig it up again and start monekying around with it until it works as intended and has even more flexibility. Right now it just has snooker/non-snooker and collapse/don't collapse options of various sorts. This draft code (the content is outdated, I warn you) is at User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports navbox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jasmin Ouschan

Thanks for helping to improve Jasmin Ouschan, which has now become a WP:GA. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTA/ATP templates

Hi mate, I noticed you had reverted my edits (under my IP address) to Template:2009 WTA Tour on the grounds of inconsistency. I am actually planning on changing all the yearly ATP and WTA templates to this format. Would you be able to help me out with this task by doing some of the other years (templates exist at the moment from 1990 to 2009). Is it ok to undo your reversion. Cheers. 03md 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can also comment at WT:TENNIS. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to change, then i don't anything against it. I changed the Template:2009 WTA Tour back. But i don't have the time to help with it because of school. Armbrust (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Fung Kwok Wai

Hello Armbrust, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Fung Kwok Wai - a page you tagged - because: high placings in international events are significant. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker player CSDs

Hi, any reason for CSD tagging the multiple snooker players? I'm planning to decline them all right now, because I believe they have all placed in international semi-finals, which equates notability/A7-ineligibility. Best, JamieS93 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These players have far not enough achievements to reach notability. I mean they reached at best 1 internationaly semi-finals. And if you note that the IBSF World Championship is an amateur event. Armbrust (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And more thing in snooker the word "international" means "amateur". Armbrust (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that you've reverted my declines with two articles; I'm backing off. As written at WP:CSD, A7 is of a lower standard than notability, so I think there's a good chance that other admins would agree with me. Speedies are for uncontroversial cases - please take this one to AfD. Thanks, JamieS93 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will do it. Thanks for informing me. Armbrust (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of Johan Oomen. The arcicle says only that he is a snooker referee. Armbrust (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Jamie here. You might want to review the A7 speedy deletion criteria where it notes "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." A7 speedy deletion is really only for unambiguous cases where there is no remotely credible assertion of significance. In addition to taking some of the articles to WP:AFD, another less intensive option is to simply propose them for deletion. If no one removes your "prod" tag they will likely be deleted after a week. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a thought - is it possible that you could group together some of these bios into a couple of multi-article AfDs? Looks like some of them are close in common; i.e., placing somewhere in the semi-final is the only info given. They'd be considered nearly similar to each other, and it would probably be more convenient to nominate some of them together (see WP:BUNDLE). And prod is also an option, as BTP mentioned. JamieS93 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nominated them together. The discussion can be found there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Perwani. Armbrust (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section (if it´s not much asking). Happy editings! - Damërung . -- 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Szia! A hatályos helyesírási szabályoknak megfelelően a hu:valószínűség-számítás kötőjellel írandó, függetlenül attól, hogy az adott tudományos körökben más helyesírással fut (erre jó az átirányítás ;-)). Lásd hu:A szótagszámlálás szabálya. A cikket visszaneveztem. Cassandro (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan

Look at the early career of Ronnie O'Sullivan, it says he was brought up in Chigwell, Essex and still lives there. You live in Hungary where snooker isn't the main sport. He doesn't live in Wordsley and he wasn't born there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you see these references:
  1. In a BBC Article you cand find this: "1975: Born 5 Dec in Wordsley, West Midlands"
  2. On you find this: "Snooker player, born in Wordsley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, C England, UK. Brought up in Essex,"
Regards, Armbrust (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at these links: 1, 2 and 3, they all say that Ronnie O'Sullivan was born in Chigwell, Essex and not Wordsley, Wolverhampton. The World Snooker Associations website also states that he was born in Chigwell, but I cannot find the link. If you keep changing it, people are getting the wrong information, and thats why I keep consitently changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 3 says that Home, and home doesn't mean that he was born there. The World Snooker profile, says that he lives there. And the other two are wrong. Armbrust (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, lets say that he was born in Wordsley, West Midlands and lives in Chigwell, Essex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but the section "Early career" already states this. Armbrust (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Nemesbőd címere.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Nemesbőd címere.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATP Master Series Winners Navbox

Hello, Armbrust, I just compiled this navbox together, which you can implement this whenever you get the time to do so. Thanks, BLUEDOGTN 23:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have finished it. Armbrust (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATP Masters Series Doubles

Hello, Armbrust, Here is the navbox that I created if you want to implement it, which do it when you get the chance to no hurry, and here is the link and box. Thanks, BLUEDOGTN 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have finished it. Armbrust (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATP Master Series Navboxes?

Hello, Armbrust, Tell me if you like the new one here, or would you just like to keep the other one. Thanks BLUEDOGTN 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the first looks better. Armbrust (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, keep what we got! Okay! BLUEDOGTN 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Armbrust

I noticed you reverted my Tony Drago edit. I don't know if that is correct information or not, but User:Snooker-loopy98 has been making erroneous edits to birth places. Many other editors have reverted his changes. Some of them may be correct, but many are not so I've reverted all to be on the safe side. If you know for sure that Drago was born in Valletta feel free to reverse my edit, but please don't revert it on the basis of Snooker-loopy98's edit because many of them are wrong. He even inserted false information about John Spencer being a world number 1 in the list of world number 1's. If I've reverted anything that is correct then feel free to correct it, but I reversed all his birth place edits because we can't be sure what is correct. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the birth place of Tony Drago on her Global Snooker profile. Armbrust (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine then. Some of them may well be correct but keep an out for him because many of his edits have been false or inaccurate. I don't know if he's vandalising or if he's just getting stuff wrong, but basically we can't trust his edits to be correct. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Games articles

Please stop working at cross purposes to me. You've done a fantastic job gathering and organizing the data, but your wording, including article names, names of games, capitalization, and many other factors are in many cases ungrammatical in English, and in many other cases wildly inconsistent with everything else to do with cue sports on English Wikipedia. If you'll just sit back for another half-hour, I will fix all of this. I've been managing (with help from Fuhghettaboutit and a few others) all of the cue sports articles on this Wikipedia, since 2005. I really do know what I'm doing. :-) I won't substantively alter any of your data. It's just that things like "Carom Three-Cushion" don't make any sense at all in English, and in this language "billiards" is a useless term unless qualified, because used by itself it has three radically different meanings depending upon what regional dialect of English you are using! It's messy, but I have a lot of experience working around it. I will fix it up very quickly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I'm tagging all the articles' talk pages with the {{WikiProject Cue sports}} or {{WikiProject Snooker}}, as appropriate. I want to ensure that you are not offended by them being marked |importance=Low. This is not a judgement about your work! Rather, for WP:CUE, any particular event is generally low-priority, compared to the main article about the series of events as a whole (e.g. Mosconi Cup is pretty high priority, while an article like 2009 Mosconi Cup would be low priority. For WP:SNOOKER, events often have a higher priority (that project is much more focused on professional competition, while WP:CUE is very, very broad), but as the World Games are not ranking events, their priority for that project is also low, just for a different reason. The higher-level articles (like Cue sports at the World Games have been marked as higher priority. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PPS: Thanks for your patience (and help!) with the billiards -> cue sports, etc., adjustments. I've put the categories up for renaming, and that should take care of all of it. :-) You may want to joint WP:CUE as well as WP:SNOOKER. Also, see WP:CUESPELL; I think it might be helpful for you. It is not an "official" guideline, but it might as well be, since it has been in active use as if it were for over 4 years now. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PPPS: Do you have any information sources on the various different kinds of cues used in artistic billiards? Our article says that practitioners use up to 20 different specialized cues, but I have yet to find any details. Maybe each player keeps the details a personal secret? It would not surprise me! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 ATP World Tour Finals

Why the fucking hell did you delete the Söderling photo moron? Why don't you expand the text rather than just puting there it requires expansion? Dencod16 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't deleted the photo. The photo was deleted, and I removed the redlink of the photo. Armbrust (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because i can't produce such long texts in English. Armbrust (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, i am the one that making the daily summaries and it is easier for me if its in the same page, you are just editing the scores. Dencod16 (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if you add prose to the days of the finals, then the article would be with high propability too large. (The article can be viewed faster if it is in a seperate article, like the 2009 US Open (tennis). Armbrust (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. skew-t (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you meant to create the page User_Armbrust/Szakdolgozat under your user space, but you accidentally created it in the default namespace. For the page to be in your namespace it needs to be at User:Armbrust/Szakdolgozat Exor674 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for moving it! --skew-t (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix don't delete broken sources

Please do not delete source citations that go to dead links, as you did at List of snooker players with over 100 century breaks. It took me less than 1 minute to find where the page had moved to and fix the citation; just look around for things. If you cannot find where a source site/page has moved to, and it is not recoverable with, then apply {{dead link}} to the end of the citation to tag it for further investigation. Please do not just delete it, as someone else may be able to find it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Higgins - Timeline

Hi Armbrust,

I have today registered an account to be able to talk to you. I have frequently added changes to the Alex Higgins page. I have today added a timeline for his performances in the World championship. Once I obtained the info, I would have added the UK Championship, the Masters, Irish Masters etc. However you have removed the timeline I had placed. Why is this? ilove8pool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilove8pool (talkcontribs) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the timeline contained false information. The World Snooker Championship hasn't become a ranking event until 1974, and I think it would be better, if you create it under your userspace (under:User:Ilove8pool/Sandbox), and when it is complete then you add it to article. Armbrust (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Armbrust, I will do it in the sandbox OK but I need some guidance. The only payers who won the World Championship before and after it became a ranking event are Ray Reardon and John Spencer and both don't have a timeline so I have nothing to refer to. So what do I do, make two seperate world championship tiers, one being ranking and one non ranking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilove8pool (talkcontribs) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The timeline on the Ronnie O'Sullivan article has something similar (Irish Masters). I made the example for you in the sandbox.
Be aware that:
OK thanks will try and gather the info, its not easy! In the meantime why can't there be a timeline for just the world championships until I collect the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilove8pool (talkcontribs) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it looks not good. And please next time you wrote on a talk page, then type ~~~~ at the end of your message. Armbrust (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Category:Snooker world ranking poinst"

A page you created, Category:Snooker world ranking poinst, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2008 Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some news: Some time ago (I have no idea when; it literally could have been years!) the MediaWiki software was changed such that if you put a talk page in a category (as all WikiProject banners do), the "Talk:" (or "Category talk:" or whatever) prefix is NOT used in the alphbetization. What this means for us is that it is not longer needed to put a DEFAULTSORT below WProject talk page banners at all unless they are bio articles (to sort by surname), or something odd that needs a DEFAULTSORT on the article page as well as the talk page. Should save some time (other than time spent removing DEFAULTSORTS from talk pages that don't need them any more, which is probably 95% of all non-bio cue sports articles. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Happy new year to you, and good shooting and well as good editing (I assume you don't just watch snooker. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō  Contribs. 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Christmas to you Armbrust. You're the hardest working editor on the snooker articles keeping all the scores and stats up to date and we all appreciate your effort. Do us a favour though and have Christmas Day off or we'll feel guilty! Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker nicknames

Nice job Armbrust, it's looking good. Betty Logan (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I thinked it looked funny. Armbrust (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]