User talk:Armbrust/Archive 17

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


I noticed you reverted my edit at WP:ANRFC. I am the user who initiated the current request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. The comments I removed were comments made by an anonymous user who submitted a closure request before the thirty day period of the request. I simply removed it because I believe it is no longer relevant (it does not need the attention of an administrator) and that the updated status of the request, that it is waiting for assessment by an administrator, should be clear. I am writing to apologise for my edit, since it appears as if you think it was counterproductive. (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk)Reply[reply]

No problem, as long as you don't do it again. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Since you closed out the debate over whether to move Catherine Ashton to Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland (the result was no move), could you close out the Betty Boothroyd and Virginia Bottomley debates on same subject when you have a chance. There has been no movement on either in quite a while and way more than 7 days have passed. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Relisted the first and  closed the second. (The first also needs to be closed by an admin, as the target contains more than one revision.) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I thought about nominating File:Thurston magician poster.jpg for FP status, but after a closer look I think it could need some restoration. Could you help me with that? Armbrust The Homunculus 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost every other item in is higher resolution, and similar or better artistic merit. Indeed, one is an FP already. I'd rather not start with one of the worst-scanned posters of a magician for which lots of posters are freely available. For example: or even the very similar or
Is there any particular reason you prefer the one you linked, or are you simply unaware of the other options? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: The later, I didn't know about the other pictures (because quite honestly, I didn't search for them). The image could be replaced (after restoration) by either "Kellar's successor" or the "The Great Magician - The Wonder Show of the Universe" posters in the infobox of the Howard Thurston article (although I would prefer the second). The others are not good for that IMO. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do the second, methinks. But I'm onstage this week, so give me a few days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/I'm a dealer in magic and spells
I've done it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, and now it's promoted. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload of Bollywood Hungama images

Hello Armbrust can you upload more pictures from this site. Gogo212121 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I can. At least if you give me the links to the files, that you want to be uploaded. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Armbrust I have a right to upload photos to Wikipedia on this site. Gogo212121 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can only upload images on Wikipedia, if you have made 10 edits and your account is older than 4 days. Also images from Bollywood Hungama can only be uploaded if they pass certain strict criteria, which can be found at commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. However if they fit these, than should be uploaded to our free media repository, the Commons. You do not need any special permissions to upload there, and you can use the same username and password you use here. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Armbrust how to become an administrator on Wikipedia Gogo212121 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Armbrust how many edits I need to do to become an administrator on Wikipedia Gogo212121 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone can become an administrator after a successfull Wikipedia:Requests for adminship nomination, although I strongly discourage you from making such a request at this time (as it would certainly fail). There are no required standards, although accounts, that are younger than 6 months and have less than 3,000 non-automated edits, rarely pass. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Armbrust you told me to send a picture to upload photos sent Gogo212121 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gogo212121: Is there a reason, why you don't want to upload the images to Commons yourself? Armbrust The Homunculus 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UserGogo212121 Hello Armbrust Why can not I upload pictures that says it was there Gogo212121 (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's called WP:COPYRIGHT - it's the law. You cannot simply steal pictures that you find on the internet DP 10:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gogo212121: I have no idea why you can't. You're already autoconfirmed, also the file should be uploaded to the Commons.
@DangerousPanda: In this case it's okay. See: commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FP criteria 5 and 6 seem to matter

Seem to matter, as this is an encyclopedia, so I don't understand why you promote a FP not supported by the article text, when this is noted in the FPC. I bring this up in the FPC talk page, and I am letting you know of that discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

That's because the closer's job isn't to evaluate the image against the Featured picture criteria, but to determine, whether there is consensus to promote the image or not. With 7 supports and 1 oppose there was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diagram of Jupiter, that the image should be promoted. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, WP:Consensus deals explicitly with raising concerns such as mine, that the diagram does not meet FP Criteria.
"A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised."
Failing the criteria to be a FP is a proper concern. Lol. Should I nominate it to be delisted nw? Let's take this to the community discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That doesn't mean, that one oppose !vote will magically outweigh the other seven support !votes. From the lead of WP:FPC: "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image". Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a quick query - say this user created articles in violation of the restriction, would they be eligible for CSD per G5? GiantSnowman 14:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it does. WP:G5 says, that "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block", and topic ban is a subsection of the banning policy. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I thought as much. Hopefully it won't come to that. GiantSnowman 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

Hello. I see you have opposed the speedy renaming of the categories related to WP:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods, but you haven't started a discussion anywhere. The change has been made to the template, the pages are already moving to the new category name. 117Avenue (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@117Avenue: You should revert that change. The renaming doesn't pass the speedy criteria, and therefore it needs full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments on WP:CFDS appeared that you opposed the renaming of the project, but you are only stating that the category move does not meet speedy criteria. Is that correct? 117Avenue (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@117Avenue: Yes. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Hi, when you get a chance can you close out the talk page discussion and move the above-referenced article. There is a consensus the article name should be simply Betty Boothroyd. There has been no movement in quite a while and it's long past 7 days. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@[email protected]: Sorry, but I can't do that, as the target of the move (Betty Boothroyd), contains more than one revision. This needs to be closed by an admin. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've taken care of it. :) Julia\talk 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be my guest. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Then could someone fix the resulting junk, since the new cat doesn't exist and has 64 entries, and the old cat still has the request for comments. --Bejnar (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bejnar: Created the new category. Unfortunately the old category will still exist for a while, at least until the job queue updates the links tables. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Bolinus cornutus 01.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Julia\talk 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bin Laden

Do you think we should run Situation Room on 1 May or 2 May? I mean, the photograph was taken on 1 May local time, but bin Laden was killed on 2 May Pakistan time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crisco 1492: IMO it should run on 1 May, because the Situation Room will be the bolded articled, and it was taken on that day (local time is the determining factor in this case) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, so basically what I was going for. Ready for the complaints about how we missed the anniversary by a day? I know I am! They'll complain about anything... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E-Mailed You Carefully-Edited Logos For WEZR (AM) & WKKB

I've E-Mailed you some logos that I've edited in MS Paint. Check Subject Titles That Reference WEZR (AM) & WKKB. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better-Quality versions of logos for WEZR (AM), WOXO-FM, & WTME are available here & here. The logos for both WEZR (AM) & WTME have since been updated and the Former Logo for WTME appears to be simple enough to be kept in the article, as well as the former logo for WEZR (AM). DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sent you an E-Mail Message where Transparent PNG versions of the logos from This Adobe Page were attached (for WEZR (AM), WOXO-FM, & WTME). The E-Mail Message was sent to you at about 8:45AM UTC. All former logos appear to be simple enough to be kept in the articles. The logos for both WEZR (AM) & WTME have since been updated. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done For the future, upload requests go to WP:FFU and not my talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:AnomieBOT would've templated the close in a couple of hours. I wasn't sure if you knew this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I know this. I just didn't want to wait for it. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Quick Question.

On the files on WP:FFU that use Cc by 3.0 from Bollywood Hungama, should those be uploaded to Wikipedia, or be denied and told to upload to Commons since it is available under a free license? TheMesquito (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of them. They should be uploaded to the Commons (after cropping out the Bollywood Hungama logo). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era

Hi, thanks for moving Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era.--Wolbo (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wolbo: Be my guest. Now you can make the changes to article you mentioned in the RM nomination (if necessary). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy renaming process

I am rather frustrated by your opposition to renaming Category:Redditch District Council elections. This is a standard naming format for these categories (alongside "Council elections in Redditch"), and the presence of the Redditch local elections article is not relevant to the naming of the category. As I noted on the discussion page, I am concerned that this is something of an abuse of process, as you seem to be complaining about the naming format of the categories in general, rather than the specific cases put forward, which are clearly in line with the established naming convention.

This is the second time you've opposed such a request (last time you opposed Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council elections becoming Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council elections), and I am rather concerned that if I find any more misnamed categories that you will oppose again.

Could you reconsider your opposition, and also let me know if you will continue to do so if future mistakes are identified? Number 57 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, apologies if this comes across as a little brusque, but it's been a long day... I'm just trying to avoid going through the whole CfR process when the outcome is obvious. Cheers, Number 57 22:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well standard naming formats are not covered by the C2D speedy criteria, and now that the category is at full discussion it's not eligible for speedy renaming. I also think that the presence of the Redditch local elections article is relevant, because it causes a conflict between two speedy criteria, and this can only be resolved with a full discussion. Regarding you question about mistakes, I can't give a general answer. It's completely dependent on the nominated category. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: No problem, everyone can have a long a day. In such cases I hear an album of System of a Down, Static-X or Splipknot. They calm me down. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response. I still don't see why the presence of the Redditch local elections is relevant, because it is unrelated to the well-established naming convention for that category tree. Surely WP:C2C is also relevant in the sense that the suggested correction maintains the estabilshed naming convention? Number 57 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well we have to agree to disagree on this one too. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure request (WP:LEAD)

Hey, Armbrust. Knowing of your closure of the Mariah Carey birth year WP:RfC (a closure that I previously noted here at your talk page earlier this year so that you would correct a typo you made in it) and that I think you regularly close WP:RfCs, would you be willing to close this one about the WP:Lead, which I made a request for at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? It's a WP:RfC that should have been closed by now, but the discussion got a comment today from JzG (talk · contribs). Looking at the edit history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, it seems that that's where JzG came across this WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but this RfC is way too long for my taste and I really don't want to read it. Hopefully it will be closed soon. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created this category, for an article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. We later had a discussion on the talk page, and renamed it 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I do not understand why this does not meet speedy criteria. It should, to be in line with the main article, under criteria D:

D. A rename to facilitate concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.

Please explain why you've said what you've said? RGloucester 20:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The C2D speedy criteria contains more than what you quote. It clearly says:

This applies only if the related article's current name [...] is [...] uncontroversial – either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename.

Given that neither of this applies, this category can't be speedily renamed. The mentioned discussion wasn't a requested move, which last for a minimum of seven days and is closed by an uninvolved user. For how to initiate a full discussion see WP:CFD#HOWTO. BTW adding the speedy renaming tag back to the category isn't enough for it to be renamed. It's needs to be listed at WP:CFDS, where I will oppose it again. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of all this. I suppose you figure 'controversial' different than I do. I guess it can be left, as I have no desire to endure a discussion. It is a shame, though. RGloucester 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole topic area is controversial by nature. Also there are two section on the talk page challenging the current article title. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you say so. Thank you for your assistance. RGloucester 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alberget 4A


I disagree with this merge consensus. This AfD came from DRV, I believe that the article has potential for further expansion. I'm not seeing any GNG issues. If you disagree I would prefer an admin close as I generally do with article coming from DRV. Thanks! Valoem talk contrib 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO an AFD doesn't need to be closed by an admin, just because it cam from DRV, which overturned a speedy deletion. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding gensim_logo.png on Files for Upload

Could that logo possibly be uploaded as non-free logo to serve as primary identification at top of the page, due to it being a low-res logo? TheMesquitobuzz 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should wait with that for a bit. If the about page on the website is modified, then we can upload the logo under a free license. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014


Can we have a bot like that of FPCBot in commons for FPC closures and parking in en-wiki too?? The herald 07:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO we don't need one. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that's right. till the time you are there, 24-hr open, that's not needed. But a bot can do that more faster, eh..?? The herald 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NODEADLINE. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. We don't have the throughput Commons does. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Davis - List of snooker players' nicknames

Dear Armbrust, I have no idea why you have removed material which is both researched and true from my edits of List of snooker player nicknames...including the fact that the puppet himself repeats his nickname? You've also removed my concession about the tag, "Interesting." I was perfectly willing to compromise and modify my original work - is this not the essence of a cooperative encyclopaedia? But I see you even removed those. Having contributed to wikipedia for a number of years on assorted topics, only once in this time have I suffered what I would call a malicious edit, when another writer recommended an article for deletion within minutes of my researching and writing it. But that is not really the point. Mainly I cannot understand why your edits seem to be suppressing material with which you do not agree, even to the extent of removing the citations provided for it. Ronnie O'Sullivan is not the same case - the nickname was provided under different circumstances. I see that you have also reverted other people's "good faith" edits, and I wonder with what authority you proceed to nullify others' work? I am reverting your edits and adding a citation of IMDb (Internet Movie Database). (incidentally, sorry to revert one of yours, but I did not know how to get my work back without doing that. I have restored my work manually.) I very much hope that you might respect the validity of my research. I hope that you had a good Bank Holiday. FClef (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well for first Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (that's Wiktionary), but an encyclopaedia. I also have removed it again, as IMDB isn't a reliable source, see WP:IMDb/RS. The Nickname article also clearly says in it's Conventions in various languages section, that "English nicknames are generally represented in quotes between the bearer's first and last names". This is the case here too. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have corrected the speed error "dictionary," which you graciously point out. (Snowed under with university teaching and working quickly.) You failed to spot my other "deliberate" error in the initials IMDb, which I've also amended. Your citation of wikipedia seems to be an example of post hoc, propter hoc reasoning. Unfortunately you have not addressed the suppression of material points, which I, as a good faith contributor, consider important. How does Wikipedia feel about the removal of citations which support work? And the removal of compromise (like my "shortened to Interesting", etc.) Does Wikipedia like dogma? FClef (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You call it "suppression of material", but I say it's removal of incorrect information. Also already said Youtube and IMDB are not reliable sources, and the source doesn't say that this is a nickname either. There is no need for a compromise (which look awful BTW), as the nickname isn't 'Steve "Interesting" Davis" but just simply "Interesting". Armbrust The Homunculus 09:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 World final article

I see this revert. Please note that we'll be converting these bullet points to something approaching decent prose in due course. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a book of trivial facts. It would be great if you'd help. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you show me where the consensus was reached to convert it to prose, then I will gladly help. Otherwise not. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, your help is not a requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Hello. Do you contest the guideline's validity? (I'm inquiring because you redirected Conan (TV series) to a disambiguation page before hundreds of incoming links were repaired and allowed that change to stand when another user reinstated it.) —David Levy 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I applied AGF to BDD's change, and didn't check for incoming links. Currently, however, there are no links in the article namespace. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BD2412 (similar user name coincidental, I believe) repaired the incoming links in the article namespace (410 of them, to be specific) the following day.
To be clear, there's no question that BDD was acting in good faith; the change (at that point) simply wasn't consistent with Wikipedia's consensus-backed practices. —David Levy 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with an article you moved...

Hi Armbrust - I see that last month you moved Otago Region to Otago, after a request and two supports. It's a shame there wasn't any posting about the discussion at WP:WPNZ, and that I wasn't aware of that discussion (and neither were any other Otago Wikipedians, by the looks of it...). Otago can refer to Otago Region - the current official name of the region, or to Otago Province, the former subnational designation for the area. Under the new name, there is likely to be significant confusion between the two. There are also other concerns - note that the vast majority of articles relating to the area also have "Otago Region" as part of their names (as - until this name-change went through - did all the categories). This has also thrown a major spanner in the works as far as uniformity is concerned, since all other New Zealand regions use "Region" as part of their article and category names. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's really not ideal, but there was a clear consensus for the move. @Good Olfactory: Armbrust The Homunculus 10:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current "Otago Region" is the clear primary meaning of "Otago", hence the proposal. The discussion was one of a series—all of the articles on NZ regions are being discussed in turn (a group discussion on all of them resulted in a general feel that individual discussions would be preferable). I also don't think there's a need for all the region articles to use the same name formatting. In some cases, such as "Otago", the name is the primary meaning. For others, such as Wellington Region, it will not be, so the latter will have to be disambiguated in some form or another. Finally, there was a posting at WP:WPNZ about the discussion: see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree on the clear primary reason. Otago Region and Otago Province are both widely described as being "Otago", with neither one being primary. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard of classification

Hi dear friend! We Iranians have followed English Wikipedia as an exemplified encyclopedia in order to set our WIKI (Persian Wikipedia). Then in Wikipedia:Featured pictures, We are in two-ways to categorize painting featured pictures and famous people featured pictures. We see paintings in famous [1] [2] [3] and famous in painting [4]. What are the rules of parting of them? What has caused some paintings add to famous pictures? and some famous pics add to paintings? thanks Alborzagros (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this is a question regarding portraits. I tend to place the pictures in Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings if the artwork has a standalone article, and to the various people pages otherwise. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 11:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yours Truly Alborzagros (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:In the Conservatory - edited.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Hallo Armbrust, ich übersetze gerade den Artikel de:Dreiband-Weltcup. Ist noch in meiner Sandbox. Dabei ist mir aufgefallen, dass der Link zu General average keine Disamb. zu Glossary of cue sports terms#general average enthält. Ist das ratsam? Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guter Idee. Habe es dazu-gegeben. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, Danke. Ich habe noch eine Frage. Es betrifft den Artikel: Balkline and straight rail. Im letzten Abschnitt hatte ich die verschiedenen Cadrearten aufgeteilt in metrische und imperiale Maße (s. meine Bearbeitung vorher), mit eine Tabelle. Die wurde mit der Begründung herausgenommen, das die Amis das ja erfunden haben Blabla. So wie es jetzt ist, sieht es nach der doppelten Menge an Cadrespielen aus, was es definitiv nicht ist. Siehe auch dazu Carom_billiards#Balkline. Dort hat er es noch nicht gesehen und gelöscht. Was tun? Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Du sollst es mit Fuhghettaboutit besprechen, und wenn ihr euch nicht einigen könnt, dann eine Diskussion auf der "Talk page" öffnen. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What has to happen now for the page to be moved? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An admin needs to deleted the target page, which is already nominated for speedy deletion per G6. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done by Crisco 1492. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Armbrust! Thanks for fixing up the mess I made of that. I've considered awarding myself the Barnstar of Administrative Incompetence ("for completely fuddling up a simple CSD G6 move") but I'd probably add to another user's talk page by mistake. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Everyone can make a mistake. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Armbrust. You closed the requested move discussion on the talk page linked above, but the page hasn't been moved to its rightful title. Is there something else that needs to be done to get this page moved? Versace1608 (Talk) 12:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same as in the #Public journal section. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't it be worth putting an auto archive on this page, rather than you doing it all? Although I have to confess I don't know if there are any bots capable of recognising that it can archive when a thread is marked with the  Done symbol. Number 57 13:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAIK such a bot doesn't exist. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was wondering whether Cyberbot I may be able to do it, as it archives the WP:RFPP page based on the existence of {{RFPP}} Number 57 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked the bot owner. Number 57 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but I never mark the requests with {{done}}, if somebody else closed it. In this case I use {{close}} every time. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked for that to be included in the code. Number 57 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, der Artikel ist übersetzt. ich hoffe, ich habe alles richtig gemacht. dabsolver ist auch schon rübergelaufen. Wäre aber nett, wenn du nochmal prüfen würdest. Es gibt hier noch eine kleine, nicht aktuelle Liste. Die erübrigt sich wohl. Der Titel BWA World Champions ist eh falsch. Es wurden von 1988 bis 1991 ein paar als WM gewertet, weil die UMB keine eigene WM ausgerichtet hat. Hier gibt es noch einen Fehler. Habe SLA gestellt. Evtl. stimmen noch irgendwelche Links nicht. Mal sehen. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Erledigt. Besser später als nie. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irgendwas übersieht man ja immer. Danke. Kannst ja Billiards World Cup Association auch noch mal durchgehen. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es sieht gut aus, aber es sollte expandiert werden. Es hat keine Informationen darüber, was passierte nach dem es gegründet wurde. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Hi! I was wondering if the request for move on that talk page closure should have read NOT moved? Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man, that was fast! Nice work. Also I closed a request for move (non admin) at Talk:Region of Queens Municipality, Nova Scotia. Is there a problem with this? Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2014‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing procedurally, but you forgot to remove {{requested move/dated|Queens, Nova Scotia}} from the top of the section and to add {{subst:RM bottom}} at the end of the discussion. Now  Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text Logos & Public Domain Question

Hello, Armbrust. I just uploaded a ton of Bounce TV affiliate Text Logos to their corresponding articles. I'm messaging you right now to ask for a 2nd opinion. I rested on the decision to consider the Bounce TV logos to NOT be within Public domain, because the colors are too complex. The logos are a grayish color but it's not a solid, uniform gray but, instead, the gray's shading varies throughout the logo. But there was one instance where a Bounce TV logo was in solid black, in which case I rated the logo as a Public domain logo. For example, Text Logos such as this one, I considered as a NON-Public domain logo that was subject to Non-Free Rules and I considered this text logo to be within Public domain. I suppose that the uneven "O" character might also be considered adequate grounds for considering the logo to be a NON-Public domain file; although, I'm rather lax in my determinations and I rested my decisions on the complexity of the coloring alone. For Text Logos, Solid Colors = Public Domain and Uneven Colors = NON-Public domain. It was a tough call but I decided that the complex colors definitely played an adequate role in my decision to consider these text logos to be NON-Public domain images. Please, let me know what you think of this decision, Armbrust and whether you feel it was a sound one for me to have made. I just figure, "better safe than sorry" because Wikipedia has been known to treat instances of Copyright violations very seriously. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DizzyMosquitoRadio99: I think this is a reasonable approach. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bryaninops yongei

I’ve expanded the Bryaninops yongei stub article you listed at reward board to what should meet the criteria for a start-class article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Award delivered. @Crisco 1492: I have scheduled File:Wirecoral goby.jpg (formerly on WP:POTD/Unused) to {{POTD/2014-06-19}}, but left the creation of the caption to you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Is Spirit going to DYK with this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea, but he didn't create an entry yet. If he does, than this can be moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crisco 1492: An article with an image on the POTD unused list has been expanded recently: Dioctria atricapilla with File:Schwarze Habichtsfliege Dioctria atricapilla.jpg. Is this enough for it to run? Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enough to run, but still a borderline stub/start class. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. I have scheduled it (without caption) to {{POTD/2014-06-25}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which, coincidentally, is where the Mirkin image would have run if consensus had been for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I didn't even notice this. My idea was that there should be five days between two POTDs about animals. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. I'll just have to avoid getting too many birds in there... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to say that I don't understand the problem with bird POTDs. They look very different to each-other. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love boids. I hate the haters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm already working on a DYK for another article that I created, so you can write this article's DYK if you want. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't mind nominating it, Spirit of Eagle. Armbrust, do you think we should, or just go for POTD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to nominate it if you want, but it would be good if the FP wouldn't be used for it. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K, after work then. I've got a brief respite right now, but I'll be out of the house again in 15 minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there, Armbrust. Could you help me out and delete these stubs I created some time ago. They are either not notable enough or no third-party sources is available.

Thanks in advance. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonas Vinther: Sorry, but I can't deleted it as I'm not an admin, but I nominated them for speedy deletion. In the future just place {{db-g7}} to the top of the article. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks mate, I will do. And I see they are all deleted now. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unorthodox revert

So why did you allow the revert your closure at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rt. Hon. Herb Grey Parkway construction? We both know it has no chance of passing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I wasn't in the mood to argue with him, and his latest comment ("it was a non admin closure, so yes, I got permission from me, myself and I") makes me think he has absolutely no idea how FPC works. If you think you can reinstate it. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carom Federations

Hi Armbrust, habe folgende Artikel übersetzt: ACBC, ACC, CEB und CPB. Bitte mal durchsehen. Bin mir nicht ganz sicher ob ich die Infoboxen richtig aus gefüllt habe (auch UMB). Vielleicht willst du ja auch noch einen stub-baustein einfügen. Kennst du jemanden der aus dem Spanischen übersetzen kann?. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Erledigt. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke. --LezFraniak (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iffley Road

Thanks for closing the AfD on Iffley Road rugby football ground. Would you know if it requires an admin to remove the copy vio template? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SW3 5DL: I don't know, but I wouldn't remove it in your place. Better to be safe, than sorry. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Better to leave it. I left a note on an admin's talk page as I've never seen this type of notice before. Thanks anyway. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow up. It turns out the template is to alert an admin that a deletion is needed on the copy vio edits. The admin I asked went ahead and deleted the edits and removed the template. So learned something new on WP today. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about these request pages

I got it.[5] I wanted to know if large discussions can be made on these pages. Ping me. OccultZone (Talk) 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OccultZone: Well they can handle large discussions, although they are not designed for that. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interestingly correct. OccultZone (Talk) 23:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This time I also agree with moving the article name. But, two inputs are not a consensus, for future reference let a few more users give their inputs for move of the name before making it. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I only closed it, because it was a relisted discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Khalid Belaied Abumdas

Hey Armbrust, I saw this conversation on Twitter and thought I'd let you know that Khalid's DOB is 20 January 1987 see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apple device page moves: undo please.

I notice you have decided almost unilaterally to re-move many Apple pages ordinals from numbers to names without proper discussion. These have previously been discussed a number of times now, and there were clear and obvious reasons why we should NOT use first/second/etc. in place of 1st/2nd/etc. for these products. So can you please undo the edits accordingly, before I'm forced to re-raise it on the appropriate admin boards to have it undone, yet again. Proper discussions should always be carried-out before such a large change was re-imposed on the titles for these pages, which have a knock-on effect on a huge number of other connected pages and their content – and having checked the page histories concerned, those discussions most certainly did not properly occur (THIS is certainly not a proper discussion: and certainly NOT "result of the move request was: moved all as proposed"!), so such edits are completely invalid and against WP policy. As a regular editor, I'm sure you'll understand this is the correct course of action according to the WP guidelines we all have to follow. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Jimthing (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say, that I unilaterally moved the pages, and than link to an RM (Talk:iPad (first generation)#Requested move), which had consensus for the renaming. Sorry, but this can't be undone without a new RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's untrue, as I said above, it was previously discussed and previous consensus was to leave as it was as it was for very clear reasons, not least it being the brand name Apple themselves use in their own documentation, which overrides the WP naming scheme guideline (plus many other reasons, including legacy, page layout problems, et al – eg. here).
In fact the very first comment on your RM makes this very clear: "There has been quite some discussion about whether to use spelled out ordinals, and these pages were recently moved back to numeric ordinals, while iPhone (first generation) remains intact. We should keep the usage of ordinals consistent" – which is exactly as they were BEFORE your so-called consensus that lasted all of seven days; a ludicrously short timeframe for such a massive re-edit that causes many issues on other pages across the site. You also failed to ping other regular users talk pages for opinion (just as you failed on your response above to add a talkback to my talk page). Hence please do the appropriate and right thing, and undo your mistake accordingly, given the RM failed to reach a true and proper consensus in the first place, hence is invalid, so other editors don't have to waste their valuable time re-sorting this out again for you. Jimthing (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus can change, and it looks like in this case it did. Also it's not the closers job to "ping other regular users talk pages for opinion". Disagreeing with the result of the RM doesn't mean that it's invalid. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"it looks like in this case it did" – I'm sorry but "looking" like it did is not the same as it actually being so. There was no CLEAR CONSENSUS full stop, therefore your edits were not correct according to WP policy, regardless of anyone disagreeing or agreeing with them. It was 2:2 (as proposer, your vote does not count) – as I said above the first replier was against it, even making it very clear that this had been discussed many times before, going so far to state "these pages were recently moved back to numeric ordinals", which you completely ignored to find out why – instead going ahead and unilaterally editing, creating other legacy issues you failed to even notice nor were considered or discussed anywhere in the request. You also didn't check the talk pages for all the edits you wanted to make for previous comments about such a change either (eg. here is one clear example). You've also entirely ignored other points I've made above: 7 days with only 4 replies (with NO CLEAR consensus) is not long enough and not enough replies for such major page naming decisions (and their consequences) to be made. And it's also considered good faith to ping other users on such major changes, especially when hardly any replies were forthcoming meaning other editors very clearly did not even see the request in the first place, given as it was hidden away on a single talkpage of only one page of the many that you edited. Jimthing (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense. I didn't propose to move the articles, that was (whose !vote obviously count, even if you don't like it) and as nominator he automatically supports the nomination. Also consensus isn't based on head counts, but on the strength of the arguments, and the users supporting the move had a guideline-based argument (WP:ORDINAL). By closing an RM it isn't necessary to evaluate all discussions, which took place in the past, but only the current one, and therefore Talk:IPad#Naming convention isn't relevant (for which you, as an involved editor, can't declare what the consensus is anyway).
WP:RM discussions can be closed after 7 days, and therefore the discussion is long enough, and WP:CONLIMITED doesn't even apply (mostly because the result of the RM didn't go against any established policy/guideline, and because the discussion you mention was never closed to determine its consensus).
The argument that "it was hidden away on a single talkpage of only one page" shows you have absolutely not clue, how the RM process works. 1: all discussions are listed on WP:RM until they are closed, and 2: because this was a multi-move proposal, therefore a bot placed a notification on the talk page of all other involved articles. Also notifying/pinging other users (not required by the RM process) is courteous, but it has nothing to do with good faith.
BTW arguing this any further would be just a waste of time, if you think there is something faulty with the close than you should raise it at WP:Move review. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I accidentally misread that RM thinking it was opened you, my apologies. Shame the other editors who commented didn't know (or care?) about the back history of the page name issues, as they jumped to conclusions without checking past discussions on fully-factual WP guidelines for these. The problem I find on WP, is that unless you keep track of the right pages, you can end up not noticing an RM or whatever has been started, and then the change has taken place before one has had a chance to notice and attempt to stop it; is there a good way of tracking such things...? Anyway, I'll sort these myself, thanks. Jimthing (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what the watchlist is there for. You need to add pages you're interested in on this list, and then check it periodically (say once in day). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Claude Monet - Springtime - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used the script - I see you already put it into "Paintings", so I think that's the promotion complete? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly as you say. Thank you for closing it. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! Saw it during my check for FPC urgents, and I'm always willing to close things if I haven't voted on them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marsh frog FP

Is there a reason that you reverted my promotion of the Marsh frog 2 FP and then re-promoted it yourself? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the voting period didn't ended yet, and it wasn't a speedy close. (Currently speedy closes are only for unsuccessful nominations.) The voting period is there for a reason, and you tend to close nominations constantly early. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was closed 20 minutes early, with seven supports and no opposes. I really don't see the problem. It's not like I'm skipping a day. I was there, it was close to time, so I closed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you should have waited that 20 minutes, or left the closure to someone else. There is no deadline. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014


Hi. I was asked to log it here at WP:AN. Where do backlogs get raised? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it's actually AN. At "Are you in the right place?" it says "Administrative backlogs → you can add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page or post a notice here.". ANRFC is the place to list individual discussions that need closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker Season 2014/15

 – Information was added back with an appropriate source. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies! Finding a reliable source is proving difficult so I'll wait until one becomes available... I got the info from but I understand it's likely not 'allowed'! Thanks for flagging this up. Cheers. Woodlandscaley (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Armbrust, pardon my technical backwardness, but why is it that when I click on a pic. I can no longer see how big (number of px) it is? Sca (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know, I can still see it at the file description pages. They are missing for you probably because Wikipedia:Media Viewer was turned on for all accounts, and you didn't turn it off yet. The page also contains how this can be done. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah — changed in 'preferences' — thanks. Sca (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per NYB, the RfC which actually needs closing to resolve this is at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I know. However that fall into the "too long, don't read, don't close" category for me. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FPCs by person

Hey, Armbrust, I don't suppose you have either

A. A list of FPs by nominator (creator/restorationist if possible), particularly the top ten.
B. People who have had 40 or more FPs since the start of this year?

I want to cover FP milestones for users in the Signpost, but there's no lists like there are for articles (so far as I know). Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know from such lists either. Probably because they didn't exist. I'm afraid going through the monthly FPC archives is the solution. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, well. Thank you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Thank you for your close of the Requested move on the above page. But what happens now? Can random editors such as me just go ahead and move the pages? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged the target pages for speedy deletion, and a random admin will move them. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! (Kelapstick)

Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hossein Vafaei ranking points

At he's listed with his 200 points. Also it would be logical because he only gets a one-year tour card and only players have to start on 0 points who receive a two-year main tour spot. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually the Indicative Prize Money Rankings Schedule 2014/2015 Season says that "Players who finished outside of the top 64 in the 2013/2014 season but regain a tour place by any means will start on zero prize money." and it doesn't say anywhere that this only applies to players with a two-year tour card. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Kuwait Towers RB.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thank you. BTW just noticed that this was the first successful bird FPC nomination in the last four months. Wow. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That'll leave some breathing space in a couple years... so I guess having birds every eight days or so will be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of categories for discussion

Hello Armbrust! I notice that you deleted a few categories I nominated for speedy move under criterion C2A, saying that they were "untagged".[6] Could you let me know what this means or point me to a page that could explain it to me, so that I can make a proper submission? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I found the detailed instructions and I think I can get by. First time submitting CfD's, so I went too fast. Madalibi (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Madalibi: Hopefully it's not WP:CFD#HOWTO, that's only applicable for full discussions. For a speedy renaming the relevant instructions are in the lead of WP:CFDS:

They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.

And BTW only categories you list on that page and tag are eligible for speedy renaming (the "Plus entire tree" isn't enough). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've started tagging them and should have no problem with that. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think I've expanded the article on the White-throated rock thrush beyond stub-class, after seeing it on WP:REWARD. --Jakob (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Awards delivered. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want to do the scheduling? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but for now I will wait whether the article will be nominated at DYK. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't intend to nominate the article for DYK. I couldn't find a sufficiently hooky fact. --Jakob (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have scheduled it for {{POTD/2014-07-26}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification


Hi Armbrust,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:In the Conservatory - edited.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 11, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-07-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curlionis pictures

Armbrust. I think I made the wrong decision about the Čiurlionis pictures category. They are more illustrations then paintings. Do you think it is possible to move them? They look weird among the other pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think they look weird. Also according to the Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis article he was a Lithuanian painter, thus he created paintings. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was my reasoning too. But I still think that some of them are more like illustrations. Ok, never mind. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

AfD closures

Hi. When closing AfDs as 'redirect' please remember to add the appropriate 'R from...' template, in particular for schools: {{R from school}} to the redirect page so that it automatically adds the appropriate message and populates the school redirect cat. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kudpung: Well I try to tag every page (after closing an AfD on them as redirect), but I don't think LHPS Highlanders ("the athletic teams fielded by Lake Highland Preparatory School") is a school. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be right. I was just going through the special watchlist for recent school AfD closures. No harm done though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Know me

You may have known me, just look at my talk page.HotHat (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of my old work was paid for that I did with respect to tennis, but I did so within policies.BLUEDOGTN 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See.HotHat (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah! Last time I gone through my archives, I thought "What's Bluedogtn is doing now?". Hopefully HotHat isn't the last username you use here. Cheers, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluedogtn. I am gone now for quite a while.BLUEDOGTN 22:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Girls (5 Seconds of Summer song)

The move request for Good Girls (5 Seconds of Summer song) appears to be malformed.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an aside, though, I like to see move requests from you, because they are usually spot-on.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sphilbrick:  Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 12:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Would you be willing to close Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC? I started the RfC but did not vote in it, so I could close it myself, but I think it's preferable to have another editor close the discussion. Thanks, --Pine 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Doing.... Armbrust The Homunculus 06:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done That was a long reading. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Armbrust, thank you for reading, 'digesting' and closing the Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC. Regarding your comment: "There was, however, no discussion about the the conditions, under which it should be re-enabled", it was mentioned, at least by me, that Media Viewer should only be enabled when all the beta testing has been completed, all the bugs and faults fixed and resolved and offered as a default only where there is overwhelming approval for it. I think if MV was fully tested, worked fine, offered the same easy access to file information, links and other functions, etc, and 'offered' to (not forced on) Wikipedia overall it would have received a much better reception. There is one lingering question. Will the WMF media viewer project team be compelled to respect consensus and the decision of this RfC? Or do they still have the option of doing what they please? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have closed the sub-sections (for logged-in users & for non-logged-in users) separately, before reading the rest of the discussion, and closing the whole discussion. So it's probably in one of the other sections (too long to read it again), but it certainly wasn't discussed enough to form any consensus about the conditions for re-enabling of Media Viewer. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again for taking on such a huge task. As there indeed wasn't much discussion about 'conditions' for enable, only that most editors/readers simply wanted it disabled, it's not hard to assume that they don't ever want to see this viewer again, under any conditions. That is my speculation at least. In all fairness, they should have discussed 'conditions for enable' before it was dumped on everyone's lap. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate for you to change your original wording in RfC's closure note silently after your original description got implemented and subsequently reverted. Matma Rex talk 15:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Armbrust and Matma Rex: -- Armbrust, thanks for clarifying a point in the closure notice. Since this is where the notice will be viewed overall the clarification is completely appropriate. Thanks also for your consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is any problem with it, I just added two words which were simply missing (and they are present in both subsections anyway). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I have only pointed it out because people have already commented on the exact wording you used on the talk page. Matma Rex talk 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, WP:CONLIMITED applies (as you may have noticed from the talk page). I had posted to a new section earlier, but it is gone now, and the old link takes me here. — Gryllida (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I have not, because I have never read that talk page. (Because the section you posted had the same title as an already existing section.) Bye, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration request

Please let us know if you are planning to make a statement on the request for arbitration. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I don't really have anything to say regarding this, so I will not make a statement. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again Armbrust. Since you closed the RfC of June 2014, I would encourage you to reconsider and say something at Arb'Com to help everyone resolve the issue involving this RfC, which is being brushed off as inconsequential by some WMF members. (See my response.) The RfC ran for more than a month, many editors and readers weighed in and as such it wasn't difficult to see the trend emerging that media viewer was not well received due to all of its bugs and faults. Anyways, whatever you decided, your efforts were appreciated. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014


Hi Armbrust- Could you please have a look at this and let me know if the formatting/layout is acceptable. Thanks in advance--Godot13 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Godot13: Tweaked it. What do you think? Armbrust The Homunculus 17:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I'm not sure the originals are needed. It confused me for a bit. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hear you, confusion was my main concern. I just thought being able to see both works side by side might be helpful. I might just put a link in the engraving description to the original work... Thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I moved The Louvre to Louvre, but I had to manually delete the talk page, and move the original talk page over. I think it is fine, but I usually don't have to do that. Can you check to make sure everything is fine?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks okay to me. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seattle categories

I'm not sure why you think Seattle categories need to include "Washington". Seattle itself does not. They don't appear to need disambiguation. Am I missing something? – Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories need to be unambiguous, because they require maintenance. Also if you check Category:Seattle, Washington, almost every subcategory uses "Seattle, Washington" instead of just "Seattle". Armbrust The Homunculus 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I see, thanks. — Brianhe (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British and Irish articles

I've tentatively began editing British & Irish articles, as you've explained that my topic-ban 'expired' April 3. Just wanted to thank you, for the clarification that I was 'again' able to edit those articles :) GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: Great, but be careful. If the previous issues resurface, than you could find yourself in another topic ban. (Hopefully that will not happen.) Armbrust The Homunculus 05:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mert èn ponytosan igy akarok válaszolni ennek a személynek , mer elég volt ebböl a sok állandó civodásbol minden miatt ami az útjaba kerul. El akarom választani egy kulön válaszra. Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hafspajen: Okay, but in this edit you removed two of his comments. You should add them back. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoppla. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW the way you indent your comment looks absolutely horrible. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Köszi. Meg mondom miért. Lehet rémes, de nem az a fontos hogy civódunk, hanem az hogy mit szavaz, mert az eltunik a sok vacakban. Tul sok a vacakola´s mostanában. Hafspajen (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Closure request (AfD)

Hi, I was kindly referred to you by another editor regarding afd closures, and wondered if you might be able to consider and close the Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation when you have a moment. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that discussion is too complex and don't think it's a good idea for me to close it as a non-administrator. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Can you refer me to an administrator whose decisions you believe are fair? It would be nice to get this wrapped up. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know some of them, you could ask Number 57 or Joe Decker for example. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Armbrust, close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govt Girls PG College, Rampur too. Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haym Solomon relist

Hi. You relisted my requested move of Haym Solomon to Haym Salomon (currently a redirect to the former). Is this really necessary? The sources support the requested title and nobody (else) cared enough to even comment after a week. Sounds about as non-controversial as it gets here . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, IMO it is. I relist RMs almost every time, if there is no outside input, which is the case here. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le Moulin de la Galette

Withdraw nomination Le Moulin de la Galette. Alt not acceptable, wrong colours. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Alt was nominated by me after Crisco's oppose (he wanted more pixels and I suggested the Google Art Project Gigapixel version based on the holding museum's own image). Hafspajen's image was not properly sourced. It claims to be the museum image, but it plainly isn't its published image and it's hard to reconcile with what you see in Google's Virtual Tour at the Musée d'Orsay (too pink). I do think it's rather possible that in fact it's an image of the smaller version auctioned for a then record price at Sotheby's in 1990 and reputed to be held in a private Swiss collection. The Sotheby catalogue for that is still available and I have ordered it and will let you know.
I should have liked the nomination to take its course. I have renominated the Gigapixel version. Most of these have made their way to Featured Picture status by now.
Concerning an editor at that forum who has (literally) screamed his dissatisfaction with me, every time he makes a pointed remark to me I reserve the right to respond in kind.
I don't feel you need to respond to this. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and Question

Armbrust, Thanks for relisting the requested move of Anne of Burgundy, Countess of Savoy! I'm hoping perhaps you can answer the question I have about the next step: What is done in cases of apparent apathy like this? Is it a sign I should have just moved the page myself? As the 2nd seven day period is ending with still very little response, should I just move the page now, or will an admin or helpful person such as yourself move it, relist it again, or should it be left alone? I appreciate any advice on the process, as I've not moved a page before. Thanks1bandsaw (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the second 7 days end without further comments, then the article will be highly likely moved per WP:SILENCE. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Csontváry Kosztka Tivadar

What do you think about this one File:Csontváry - Traui látkép naplemente idején.jpg? Such a great painter, but almost all works are lingering under the 1500pxX1500px, and according to Featured picture criteria 1500px or more is needed for a nomination. I don't wan't to nominate any that is not 1500px or over. This one might work maybe. Or this? File:Csontváry Kosztka, Tivadar - Pilgrimage to the Cedars of Lebanon - Google Art Project.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no opinion on either of them, but you have to consider the sizes of the original paintings in relation to the resolution of the files too. The first has a size of 34.5×66.5 cm with a 4,029×2,028 pixels resolution, while the second has a 200x205 cm (~2x2 m) size with just a 1,653×1,656 pixels resolution. So the first would probably have more chance at FPC. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand what you mean. I wasn't thinking of nominating them for a while, and just added the first one to the article, so it needs at least a week more. I was just frustrated that this really great painter is so little known - outside Hungary. Wish there were better files on Magányos cédrus , or Taormina, a fantastic picture, that one, really breathtaking. Wish we could get some better files on his works. Do you have any solution on this problem? Just feel free to nominate it, if you will, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only nominate paintings at FPC if (1) there is an article about it or (2) it's a portrait, and there is an article about the depicted person. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. But do you know any way of solving the problem with the not so good files on Csontváry? Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately I can't help you with that. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

RFA 2014

Extended content