User talk:Armbrust/Archive 2

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


Contents

AfD Category

Hi,

Saw that you placed McMaster Integrated Science under AfD debates (Media and music). I am a bit puzzled. Could you just explain? Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. From the word program i made a hasty decision. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually quite confused what category to place AfDs in. Thanks for the help -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

I was wondering about the edit about: what is served by changing the template? (Just wondering, since I used TW to AfD the article, I assumed it was formed correctly). Best, -- Bfigura (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of this edit was to categorize the discussion. Since the article is about a corporation this edit is right. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I wasn't that familiar with the afd template syntax. (One of the peril's of using twinkle I suppose). Thanks. --Bfigura (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi there. In response to your AfD vote, I did some work on the Water conflicts article, addressing the major issues. When you have a moment, please take another look at it. It's quite different, so if it meets your standards for a keep vote, please consider commenting over at the article's entry on at AfD. Thanks.—DMCer™ 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have modified my comment according to the changes to the article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look.—DMCer™ 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morgan (snooker player)

You'll probably know how to fix both of those sources (if not, try Archive.org's "Wayback Machine"), if you are inclined to do so. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have found and replaced them. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Darts

Discussion at WikiProject Council subpage
The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts

Description

I think there are enough article to indicate the necessity of this project, which would aim to improve the coverage of darts on the en.Wikipedia. Armbrust (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Armbrust (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spiderone 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Falkybassist (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raphie (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Johnnyg1984 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Joesayers (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Neutral Support, as a taskforce: The topic is certainly notable enough, it's just a question of whether there are enough interested editors, not articles. If not, it should be set up as a taskforce/workgroup of WikiProject Sports. Lots of dead and dying sporting and gaming projects should also be redone as taskforces of that one or of WikiProject Games (e.g. WikiProject Pinball, which I recently overhauled, but is still too moribund to be an active project). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer to do a bunch of category cleanup and stuff, like I've done with Category:Cue sports and Category:Pinball. I would probably not be a regular contributor to stuff within the project's scope after that, as my to-do list is already huge. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I would support this as a taskforce of WikiProject Sports. -- œ™ 08:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the previous two comments, a taskforce will be more suitable initially than a full blown WikiProject. - Nick C (t·c) 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I do note that activity on the topic has been active lately-ish, including a (poorly formatted, but content-okay) glossary of darts article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am certain the recent surge of activity is related to the 2 world championships held recently, as they are no doubt the most watched tournaments. I doubt this activity will last.--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icon image of a person talking
    Icon image of a person talking
     Note to incoming readers: If you came here because I left a note on your talk page, that was because this proposed project/taskforce will need committed editors interested in darts-related topics to collaborate in the project/taskforce, and your editing history suggests you may be interested in participating. This is not a vote, especially not on whether or not darts is a notable enough topic for a project (of course it is). The only question on the table is whether enough editors will focus on the topic to make a project or a taskforce viable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a taskforce. I'm not really opposed to a Wikiproject Darts, but I think the scope is somewhat narrow, and there are too little active editors on darts related topics to justify a project. I do feel many, if not all, darts articles are substandard and it would be a good thing if there was some concerted effort to improve them.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It is a very good idea as darts is increasing in popularity and is one of the biggest sports in the UK. There are articles on darts that are not updated and there need to be more added to players and tournaments articles. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Darts is greatly increasing in popularity. There are many different variants of darts which could be outlined in more detail as well. Falkybassist (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I agree that the quality of articles needs to match the increase in popularity that darts has rightly achieved. --Joesayers (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

I've been notifying other editors that seem like likely participants, based on their editing histories. I don't have any interested in darts articles myself, per se, but have volunteered to do the category overhauling, since I have a lot of experience with that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker biography reverts

Were you planning on explaining this and this? Neither revert is productive. Unless there's a compelling reason to have undone those changes I will be restoring them. In future, I don't expect to have to come to your talk page to find out why work which took me over an hour to complete was reverted without so much as an edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks ugly. And if we add new tournaments to the Ronnie O'Sullivan article then it will horizontal scrolling is inevitable (a new ranking event is anounced in Germany). And the tennis tournaments performance timelines have the same format. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horizontal scrolling is already necessary on the Hendry article. Which is more likely: that another tournament will be added, or that next year will happen? For every year that goes by the current format becomes less practical. The tables need to be split up in the long run to accommodate that, but for now the best short-term solution is to transpose the years and awards. If the tennis articles use that format then thay should be changed too. Unless there's been some previous consensus that the old format was the correct choice then I'll undo these tomorrow. That still does not explain why you chose not only not to notify me but also not to even bother leaving an edit summary when reverting a significant amount of work made in good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against transposing and will revert it again. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this to WT:SNOOKER, but I find your combatative attitude here extremely disappointing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Lists

Hello again from bluedogtn, I just want you to go look at these three lists and tell me what you think of them now, and those are the following: List of French Open Singles Finals appearances, List of Wimbledon Open Era Singles Finals appearances, and List of US Open Singles Finals appearances. BLUEDOGTN 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles look good for me, but they need references (into the intro section) and notes (for players who had not only one citizenship in their carreer like in the List of Australian Open Singles Finals appearances). Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Yes, the best result is still those, but the 2010 is pending and needs to be put in the infobox like I did this! BLUEDOGTN20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion!

List of Australian Open Singles Finals appearances, go comment to keep this from being deleted. 69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a comment. I hope it will help. Will follow the discussion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Finals

Hello, can you go take off the tag because I sourced the following pages: List of French Open Singles Finals appearances, List of Wimbledon Open Era Singles Finals appearances, and List of US Open Singles Finals appearances. Thanks! BLUEDOGTN 01:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed them. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BLUEDOGTN 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPBiography parameter change

Bad news. The |priority= parameter in {{WPBiography}} is now basically dead code and has to be changed to |sports-priority= or for non-sportspeople something else that is taskforce-specific. Letting you know, since you tag (and create for that matter) a lot of snooker and tennis bios. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wildman

Why don't we want this data? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected and relocated the previously removed information. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I guess what constitutes an "other win" that is significant enough for the infobox is an open question... SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Singles Slam Articles

Hello Armbrust, go look at these pages that I did mostly on my own List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions, List of French Open Women's Singles champions, List of Wimbledon Ladies' Singles champions, and List of US Open Women's Singles champions. Thanks BLUEDOGTN 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to this sites are:
  1. The List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions is well sourced. I have added two pictures to it.
  2. On the List of French Open Women's Singles champions in the "Multiple champions" section the "Only French tennis clubs' members competed before 1925" sentence doesn't make any sense to me, as it is not represented in the table. The article is well sourced. I have added three pictures to it.
  3. On the List of French Open Women's Singles champions in the "Multiple champions" section the "Title defended in the challenge round" sentence doesn't make any sense to me, as it is not represented in the table. The article is well sourced. I have added four pictures to it.
  4. On the List of US Open Women's Singles champions in the "Multiple champions" section the "Title defended in the challenge round" sentence doesn't make any sense to me, as it is not represented in the table. The article is well sourced. I have added four pictures to it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Title Defended in the challenge round" means the champion from the previous year won it the next during the challenge round not an open competition. "Only French tennis clubs' members competed before 1925" means outsiders or foreigners could not compete unless they had the backing of a French Tennis Club, so it was not open to outside competition. Good Questions! I think these are close when someone wants to put in the notes like they are on the men's for FL status. BLUEDOGTN 20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Australian Open

Go look at the knock-out charts that I made hideable, and tell me what you think.BLUEDOGTN 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but if he "Singles players" section don't use 2 columns, then i think the playes can have their full names in the table (Marcos Baghdatis instead of M Baghdatis). Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that is a bunch of work, which we can do over a couple of weeks, or you can make it that way if you want it done quicker! Oh by the way, it goes back to the 2008 Wimbledon ChampionshipsBLUEDOGTN 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave the pre-2010's in the shortened form, but for the post-2009's will be all the full name. I have already done the 2010 Australian Open page, go look, and tell me what you think.BLUEDOGTN 02:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have made the pre-2010's for the sake of consistency. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer career statistics

Hello again, go look at the bottom and tell me if you don't think that is OVERKILL! BLUEDOGTN 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the "List of Federer's ITF and ATP matches" section, then i think it is unnecessary and creates size problem. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, which that is what I was talking about! BLUEDOGTN 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive2

Hello Armbrust, I just wanted to let you know, and give you a heads up that I am working on this nomination.BLUEDOGTN 06:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Handball

Is this enough ? --Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is perfectly fine. But if the source isn't right, then you should add references to every match. (At the |report= parameter) .Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think todor66 is a reliable source, this is just a mistake, I will inform them to fix it. also I added another source. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaks discussion

Go here and look at my comment! BLUEDOGTN 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back to WP:Tennis and comment on the current comments on the discussion!BLUEDOGTN 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


User:Bluedogtn/Roger Federer in 2009

What do you think about this article, and the intro for 2009 on the main page will be the first paragraph of this article? BLUEDOGTN 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but if he lost a matche then how can the result be "7–5, 3–6, 7–6(3), 3–6, 6–2"? Shouldn't it "5-7, 6-3, 6-7(3), 6-3, 2-6"? Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them both in the introductions, good work Armbrust, and in the slam chart, but it needs to be fixed on the career stats page!BLUEDOGTN 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "All matches" section shouldn't contains matche where the opponent is a "Bye". These are no matches. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ATP considers it a match just go look, but that is something we can discuss later after I get them all done, but before it is implemented! BLUEDOGTN 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the ATP puts a W in the results section, so they count them as overall wins! BLUEDOGTN 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the ATP counts it that way, than it's fine. It was just funny. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't count it towards the career total of W-L, but they do have a W for a result, which means we need to report it in the tables!BLUEDOGTN 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer

Go look how this article looks now, and tell me what you think of it now?BLUEDOGTN 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions
  1. The tables in the sections "Wins (16)" and "Runner-ups (6)" should be combined in a section like "Finals (24, 16-8)". The table should have a similar format like in the "Olympic finals" section.  Done
  2. The word "legendary" in the section-title "2007 to present: Achieving legendary status" fails WP:NPOV.  Done
  3. I think the tables in the results section should be constantly collapsed.  Done
  4. Reference 51 isn't properly formated. (It doesn't use {{cite web}}.  Done
  5. Reference 1 and 2 are the same.  Done
  6. The sections ("1998–2002: Early career in the ATP" and "2003–present: Top 10 and Grand Slam success") are totally unsourced.  Done
  7. I think the citation in the "Junior ranks" section belongs to Wikiquote.  Done
  8. It would be good if the "2003–2006: Rise to Prominence" section contains a picture taken between 2003 and 2006.  Done
With regards Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do you think it is close to GA or FA status after my work? Why?BLUEDOGTN 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but i can't help you with that, as i don't know the criteria for GA and FA. Great job anyways. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Here is the one on Juan Martin del Potro that was approved to GA, and here is the link, if you want to help me or not! Because, I have it set-up on the Federer talk page.BLUEDOGTN00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Will look at it morning. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan

Why do the season's have 2004/2005, which is a violation of policy, and I believe needs to be changed throughout Snooker Project articles in order to be in compliance! It needs to be 2004–05 to be in compliance.BLUEDOGTN 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the major snooker sources use this format. And the policy says only "avoid" the use of slash charaters in titles, and it doesn't says, that it's forbiden. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under section headings it has a one line sentence, which says it applies to section headings and titles of articles.BLUEDOGTN 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger

The nominator has now provided a reason in the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal: Current events/Sports

Thank you very much for your contribution to this page. On one hand, it has taken most of the workload I used to do... on the other hand, it has left me unemployed, but I'll get over it...
Do you think it would be a good idea to co-ordinate our efforts so that everyone will be in charge of several sports, or whatever way we find suitable to divide the work among us? --Nitsansh (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea. I would like to do the following sports: cricket, handball, snooker and tennis. And for now to add the medalist to the section "Olympic Games". If you agree, then it would be like this: on every day we concentrate on the "chosen sports", but if the result isn't present on the following day, than the other person can add it too. (If it contains errors, than this can be corrected immediately.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try, and see how it works...
I also want to advise you of some formatting rules that were established here that you should be aware of:
  1. Use present time expressions, "win", lead" etc.
  2. Results figures are seperated by – rather that -. If you don't have that character write – (in small letters)
  3. In tennis, I think it's useless at this early time of the year to indicate that someone wins his first title of the year, but if anyone has more than one title since New Year's Day that should be indicated.
  4. In cricket, the practice I use is to indicate century scorers, but in multi-day events to do that only once on the day this mark is achieved.
  5. In individual sports with plenty of competitors, the practice is to indicate the top 3 in the format: place, name, (country or team), score (ignore the comas). Coloured place icons (1st place, gold medalist(s) etc.) are used for final results only. Partial scores are indicated by black&white icons ().
I keep in my computer a file with "frequently used expressions" that I use to copy from whenever I need instead of typing them. I can share them with you. --Nitsansh (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently used expressions

d
, lead the -match series –.
(unbeaten teams in bold)
(teams in bold advance to the semifinals)
(teams in strike are eliminated)
in progress
(All times EDT) 
1st place, gold medalist(s) 2nd place, silver medalist(s) 3rd place, bronze medalist(s) 
win – on aggregate.
(– pen.)
away goals.
(OT) 
(ET) 
(first leg score in parentheses)
(if necessary)
{{cc3|
– 
(–) 
– (–) 
1st place, gold medalist(s) 
2nd place, silver medalist(s) 
3rd place, bronze medalist(s) 
{{flagicon|
{{ct|

Another tip I like to share with you: when I edit the /sidebar section, I do a search for the date I look for, presided by * (for example: *feb 20 for February 20). I used to do it once a day only, I don't see it necessary to remove each entry as soon as a game is over. In this section, use the ndash to seperate the dates for multi-days events--Nitsansh (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan and WP:GAN

Ronnie O'Sullivan GA review

Reviewer: BLUEDOGTN 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Juan Martin del Potro was approved, which is far more evasive of the WP:SIZERULE, so nothing wrong except that!BLUEDOGTN 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    For most of the article yes.BLUEDOGTN 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    If fixed with refs at the ends of each sentence then it will be accomplished, which the nominator is working on.BLUEDOGTN 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    I would have to say it has family stuff in the article about his father and mother going to jail, which is not about this man's WP:Notability, which he is known for his snooker alone not being a son of a father in jail for a murder or a mother for tax evasion, which could very well violate WP:NPOV even if it is WP:V!23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Go look at, WP:NPF, which is a WP:BLP component!BLUEDOGTN 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph on his father's ownership of a sex shop and arrest has nothing to do with him at all, and his mothers tax evasion is not his problem or about him either go look at Mark Ingram, Jr. page, which does not report that his father is in the slammer! Oh, and by the way, Elin Nordegren does not have anything about her not wearing her wedding ring or Tiger's Mistresses, but just says they are working on the marriage after the infidelity and car wreck happened! The reason it is reported on her page is because she is WP:Notability to have an article. O'Sullivan's parents are not, and his parents actions or businesses has no bearing on his notability, which means it must be removed!BLUEDOGTN 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have removed information about his parents. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Go look at the aboved under Focused!BLUEDOGTN 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Their has been some so-called vandalism by anon IP users, which is typical of an unprotected article, and this has been reverted by experience users on behalf of WP:POV to be neutral!BLUEDOGTN 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    I think the image is okay, but I would love to see the release from the photographer or owner of the images copyrightBLUEDOGTN 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It does provide a copyright summary, which is all the standard for inclusion on wikipedia, so I will approve it!BLUEDOGTN 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    This is easy to fix, which is the picture in the infobox needs to have alt text.BLUEDOGTN 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: I am going to pass this article because it satisfies the criterion for WP:GAN, and the nominator has addressed any major and minor concerns with the article from the above discussion. I feel it will be a good article for WP:Snooker to follow to make other suitable articles for this distinction. So, I am going to Pass this article!BLUEDOGTN 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Armbrust, I will be the reviewer for you on this article if you want to put the thing on the talk page of his, and go look at Talk:Roger Federer to see what I had to do!BLUEDOGTN 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of Personal Life does not make grammer sense at all because of the publically highly part! The article is good in the prose quality, but could always be improved in the article. Some sentences could use references at the end of them. I have read the whole article, but I don't understand why the score for the frames are very different depending on event?BLUEDOGTN 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put my comments on Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/GA1, what needs to get done!BLUEDOGTN 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i have Passed your nomination, which it will be archived soon! Thanks, Reviewer:BLUEDOGTN 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer WP:GAN

Roger Federer GA review

Reviewer: Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The following senteces doesn't make any sense. ("Federer made six doubles finals during this time, but lost the Indian Wells Masters event in 2002, which the most prestigious events won are two Rotterdam 500 series events in 2001 and 2002" and "Federer would go onto win two other events that were Master Series 1000 tournaments in Madrid over Rafael Nadal in the final on clay by a score of 6–4, 6–4, and he would win Cincinnati over Novak Djokovic by a score of 6–1, 7–5, which he would lose in one 500 level event final in Basel to Novak Djokovic 4–6, 6–4, 2–6.") Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following sentence should be rewriten. ("In the 2003 season, Federer won his first slam title in the 2003 Wimbledon Championships, which he won it over Mark Philippoussis, and the score of this final was 7–6(5), 6–2, 7–6(3).") Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, but go check to see if you like what I did!BLUEDOGTN 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    1. In the "1998–2002: Early career in the ATP" section the "exacted revenge" phrase should be replaced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually in 2006, which I took it out, and go look at [Google cashe]!BLUEDOGTN 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  3. Overall:
    If meets all the criteria of WP:GAN. Armbrust Talk Contribs 05:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the prose, but go and see if you like it.BLUEDOGTN 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for it to get GA, you have to follow the Pass Criteria in WP:GAN.BLUEDOGTN 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am done for the day, good work! I will either be on here tomorrow or Monday because tomorrow I will be gone for a good while. See you later, good night, and by the way you probably need some sleep, too. Because your are in Hungary, and I am in the States, which means it is probably in the morning your time. So, you have not gotten any sleep!BLUEDOGTN 06:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Champions League

Please don't replace the official reports with the Soccerway reports, this is wrong. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will not do it again. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket scorecards

I'd invite your comment at: WT:CRICKET. Harrias (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating live scores for ongoing matches

For the record let me say that imho this shouldn't be done. Just one opinion here, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a live ticker. --87.79.56.238 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it can be done, as not just the score was modified. Other information was added too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm also very aware that trying to stop people from updating live scores is like kicking water uphill -- I ain't gonna win. Just wanted to speak my mind to someone I guess. Anyway, have a nice evening and let's enjoy the rest of the match! --87.79.56.238 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry random person from Germany, you do not write the rules for the Wikipedia. People always update live events. Football, Olympics, basketball, when someone dies: if it has happened, it gets put into the Wiki. No just freaking drop it.
Armbrust, continue doing what you are doing and ignore this bitter man. --99.182.252.92 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Connecticut Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A legalább 100 százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája”

Szia! Volt egy átnevezésed a közelmúltban és rákérdezek, tényleg jó-e így - én magam nem értek a sporthoz. Ez volt a régi cím: A legtöbb 100-as vagy annál jobb breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája, ez lett az új: A legalább 100 százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája. Ezt biztos úgy kell írni, hogy 100 százast? Nem maradt benne véletlenül egynél több száz? Kösz előre is, szevasz! (Pls. nálam válaszolj!) December 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.156.187.130 (talk)

Nem maradt több benne, mert a "százas break" egy fogalom a snooker-ben. A cím azt jelenti, hogy ebből a dologból ezek a játékosok profi pályafutásuk során profi versenyeken legalább 100-at löktek. Pontosabb cím lenne talán a következő: "A legalább 100 darab százas breaket lökő snookerjátékosok listája". Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Vonn in 2010

Hello Armburst, I just created this article, so go and tell me what you think of it? BLUEDOGTN 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's well written, has many sources, but it's uncategorized. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what is "Combined Disciplines"? I don't understand it. A link would be usefull. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Qatar motorcycle Grand Prix

Hi there! Saw you editing this article. Have you any idea why the infobox isn't working properly, ie not showing the pole riders etc, when the info has been added? I can't work it out! GedUK  20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the infobox isn't working properly, if you hasn't give all the info's to a certain Category (MotoGP, Moto2, 125 cc). In this case the following dates aren't present: fast rider, first rider, second rider and third rider. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this information aren't available at the moment, than you should write "TBD". Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that shouldn't make any difference. I'll try it tomorrow, I've not got time tonight now. Thanks for your help! GedUK  20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Junhui (13)

Is in that particular QF bracket - the second QF bracket - (and quite likely to win it). Leaky Caldron 10:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - misread the rows. sorry. Leaky Caldron 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Snooker Championship

I have explained my edit, unlike you have your reversion of it. The article is the main article for the world snooker championship, not a particular and arbitrary era of it. It is highly against the point of an objective encyclopaedia to use it in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.207.0 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the World Snooker Championship, but it doesn't mean that one section can't describe only one era. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better if both tables were included on List of world snooker champions rather than the main championship article. After all, it is more about the world champions than the world championship itself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the table contains players, who hasn't won the world championship. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that. The sortable table is more informative though so the IP should at least cease in removing it altogether. Maybe we could have a similar table for the classic era, to remove the bias towards modern players. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain...

Why adding three times champion John Higgins is unacceptable. It is not unusual for past multiple sports champions to be referred to in such a style. Leaky Caldron 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he only defend one World Championship, not three. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current tournament link in World Snooker Championship

Hi, Just wondering why you have an objection to such a link. It would only be temporary until the tournament is over. Sure one can search for it, but unless you know the exact wording/title format, most people look for a link as it is quicker and easier. In the current article, one has to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, then click on 'show' on the World Snooker Championship template to list all the tournaments, and then click on '2010'. Or one would have to scroll halfway down to the List of world snooker champions link, and then scroll down to 2010 (which shouldn't be there anyway as the tournament is not over and so there is no winner yet).

Doesn't that seem slightly difficult to navigate? Most sport tournaments, such as any of the tennis Grand Slams, Masters, etc., have an infobox on the top left hand side which one can edit. In fact this extends to every sport where there is a yearly competition, such as Formula One or the any of the football leagues throughout the world. However as there is none for snooker (apart from a list of different tournaments), isn't it then acceptable to have a link at the top of the page to direct users to the current tournament? This is definitely present in other articles as that is where I got the idea from, but unfortunately I cannot think of one right now (most sports are more extensively updated and so tend to have infoboxes). I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Feudonym (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other snooker tournament articles don't use this link. Why should the world championship use it then. And all snooker tournaments have the same format XXXX tournament name. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, other articles not using a particular format is a fairly weak reason for non-inclusion. If we always used that policy then no articles would advance past the stub stage. The World Championship is also more popular so that should set the precedent for the other articles. Anyway, it only would have been for 2 weeks so not a permanent change (I still don't know why you have an objection if its only temporary). Anyway, someone's since added a current tournament tag (it may even be you, I don't know) but do you still disagree to that since "other snooker tournament articles don't use this link"?
By the way, I know all snooker tournaments have the "same format XXXX tournament name", I was talking about new users, and ones which are not accustomed to the format.Feudonym (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because it isn't necesary. The page already contains a link to the current tournament. And it doesn't mater where the link is. Armbrust TalkContribs 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That link is buried all the way down in a template which is also hidden. If that is your reasoning, then a lot of articles would look very different if it were up to you! For someone who seems to be a prolific user and editor of Wikipedia, it is baffling that you're this unhelpful. In future, I'd suggest removing correct and helpful information should at least be accompanied by an edit summary. Feudonym (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest snooker changes...

There a number of your decisions on content that strongly support the view that you wish to wp:own this article. I strongly urge you to allow other editors to share in contributing to it. I have replaced your version which contains a spelling defect, with mine. If you wish to discuss the merits of it please do so on the article's talk page, not here. rgds, Leaky Caldron 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the time I will be writing up a detailed report on your non-cooperative, ownership of the article. You can remove my comments from here but it does not alter the fact that you are seeking to own the article which is against policy and constitutes an unacceptable behaviour. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 World Snooker Championship

Further information: Talk:2010 World Snooker Championship#User Armbrust’s behaviour on this article

I have raised some issues on the talk page of the 2010 World Snooker Championship article. As an editor who was recently involved in these issues you are invited to contribute your thoughts on that page. Leaky Caldron 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undo edit

What's your reasoning behind changing my edit for the current snooker scores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayknighty (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 April 2010

The scores should only updated after the end of the session. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 World Snooker Championship final

The BBC website indicates that Ebdon scored 4 centuries in the final and not 3. Do not change this as this then become unreliable information on your part. Thank you.82.37.11.194 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) and Norway Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Bavaria Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Solheim Cup team navigational boxes

I have made these, and all that needs to be done is the implementation of them into the articles, which the 2007 and 2009 ones have been done!BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have implemented all. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Solheim Cup team navigational boxes

I got done with these, which all that has to be done is implementation of them, but the 2007 and 2009 have already been done.BLUEDOGTN 03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have implemented all. Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletions?

Why are you constantly deleting my selections under the new Category I have started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 May 2010

Because it is meaningles and unnecessary. There's no other category to indicate, that somebody has wone some tournament multiple times. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010 World Snooker Championship. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note: being "right" is not a sufficient reason to edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that, if you continue the sequence of reverts, I will block you because the article is now on the Main Page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WGC Event Articles!

Go look at these and correct anything that needs correcting!

Thanks!BLUEDOGTN 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job!

Hello, even though things might not have gone your way in the editing of that article, keep up the good faithful work on wikipedia! BLUEDOGTN 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Solheim Cup team navigational boxes

I created and made these navboxes, all you need to do is to implement them from 1927-1977 Thanks Bluedogtn!BLUEDOGTN 05:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done and accomplished! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam (2010 Thomas & Uber Cup)

Please find the legal external links for sport events such as 2010 Thomas & Uber Cup, rubaisport is a personal website, and please see WP:SPAM for further reading before revert my editing, even that qualification article is not existing. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of WP:SPAM violates this link? Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #11. I recommend you go to tournamentsoftware.com to find relevant link. That is affiliated with Badminton World Federation. Thank you. --Aleenf1 04:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am done on wikipedia!

I wish you good luck on all your endeavors on wikipedia, I just wish I did not have to deal with burdensome editors in the golfing project! I am just bone tired of wasting my good time, trying to improve and standardize things in golf and tennis articles, when the get rebuked! I bet they in the golf community will miss me, but I don't give a living care anymore! Just look how much I do and no one except you has every approved of me or encouraged me on here! Good Luck WikiFriend and WikiBuddy! Bluedogtn, TennisAuthority, GolfAuthority! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I might come back in ten or so years, but we may never edit together again, so have a wonderful life! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tennis player

I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALL DONE! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 IRB Sevens World Series

I just wanted to understand why you insist on removing the quarterfinals for the 2010 Hong Kong Sevens. You say consistency, but every other tournament has each team that competed in the tournament on the table. Now that you have made that change, only the Hong Kong tournament does not. How is this consistent? Furthermore, go back and look at all the previous IRB Sevens World Series. Every single one of them has all 24 teams from the tournament. Not only are you not being consistent - as you say you are - but this is the first tournament in 10 years of tournaments that does not include every team that participated in the table. Again, I ask, how is this consistent? Bds69 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) bds69[reply]

Ok. Didn't know, but it looked weird for me, that there were no other quarter-finals participiant at the other events. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 French Open changes

Why would you change the tables and colors for the French Open result. The red colors for active players do not look good at all. You should have left the tables as is - 2 tables total. One for men and one for women with the existing color. Your changes are not an improvement at all. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.57.249 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the colors will be removed after the French Open is over. Thus it's better to remove them as the event is happening. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Hungary Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Sweden Theleftorium (submissions) and Iceland Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men's and Women's Singles slam yearly navboxes

This is the pages, if you want to take it and implement them!69.137.120.81 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea to add navboxes to singles/doubles pages, thus will not implement them. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will then, because it helps to aid navigation, simply put!69.137.120.81 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got it done, which this helps navigate these great bracket articles to show off the slams in sequential order for the men's and women's singles.03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk)

I compiled each one into a central navbox!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like these any better?69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.

We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.

If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
I hope you accept! - Bib (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NASCAR races

Thank You for adding the results. Also, for the drivers that has the team name as the sponsor you put "No Sponsor" in it. --Nascar1996 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will pay attention to it next time. (Thanks for the advice). Armbrust Talk Contribs 05:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! --Nascar1996 14:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball

I have seen that you have edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striving4

This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look.BLUEDOGTN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back many of them (especialy the "draw article"), if he wants to change the capitalization in the article titles, than he needs consensus on the Tennis WikiProject and then all tennis articles should be changed, not just several of them. (By the way, good to see you're there. ) Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at List of Australian Open men's singles champions and others, and tell me what you think of the new infoboxes I created to put in place of the pictures?BLUEDOGTN 01:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The surfaces could contain dates too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing NASCAR articles

Hello, you might be interested in assessing these articles. Please note that as of June 20th, there were 193 articles unassessed. Thanks. --Nascar1996 (sign) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I wonder if you could provide edit summaries for your edits. Of course, it is not mandatory. However, if you're reverting the edits of other users (like on Stephen Hendry), then I think some explanation would be good etiquette. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striving4 User:Tennis expert

He has removed your edits and is vandalising my talk page under a new sockpuppet 97.77.159.243. I'm sure there'll be more from this piece of work. Any way to lock my user/talk page to established users only for awhile? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can request page protection there. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's the link I needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:NASCAR

Hello, if you would like, you can nominate anything such as images, biographies, articles and Did you knows, just add it on the talkpages. I may or may not approve them. Note: You can make up any DYKs. --Nascar1996 Contribs / Tasks 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_2&oldid=1094567223"