User talk:Armbrust/Archive 4

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Archive 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 20

Contents

Starbase Indy

Thank you for your feedback on this draft. I have added some inline references and have corrected URL links to eliminate 404 errors. Would it be possible for you to look at it again to see if it would pass muster? Thank you, Janeway1701 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have invested a little work in the draft too (you can see it in the history of the article) and i think it can now moved to the article name-space. If you don't know how, leave a message. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank your again for your assistance. I was afraid of using too many in-line references from the sources and overdoing it, but I see now that the more facts that can be backed up, the better. I was looking in the Article Wizard about moving the page, but any tips you could give would be appreciated. Janeway1701 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to read about page move, than I suggest you to read Help:Moving a page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

2004 European Open (snooker) and lost/forfeiting

Regarding this, "forfeit" is correct. It doesn't have to be voluntary. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This part of the Rules of snooker is completely unsourced. The sourced doesn't mention this situation. This by World Snooker says: "Stephen Maguire made breaks of 68, 50, 60 and 66 in a 4-0 win over Peter Lines, and will now play Dominic Dale, who beat Bjorn Haneveer 4-1 despite losing the second frame by a score of 12-0 after missing a red he could see three times in a row." Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what another article (Rules of snooker) and that source has to do with anything. Also, why do you keep edit warring? A discussion was ongoing but you still felt the need to force your version in the meantime. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no source that states, that missing the object ball three times in a row, if it is visible, means that the player forfeites the frame. And the source doesn't say forfeiting. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Forfeit" is just an ordinary dictionary word; see Merriam Webster ("to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime") and Wiktionary ((1) "To suffer the loss of something by wrongdoing or non-compliance", (2) "To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules"). We don't need the source to say an ordinary dictionary word to use it. Armbrust, now you're just making yourself look silly. The RfA established that you kept on making these daft mistakes and focused too much on minor things, then edit-warring to keep them in. When you're wrong, you insist you're right and eventually you realise you weren't. But then it happens again and keeps continuing. Can you not see a pattern? I'm surprised that you don't seem to be taking the advice on board. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed an ordinary dictionary word, and doesn't mean what you think it means. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think, you can revert it, but then i will ad {{cn}} to it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be mightily POINTy behaviour. Instead of saying that if I did something you'll go and take action, why not respond to the rather lengthy comment I made above? The first step to dispute resolution is discussion between the editors. When one person tries to discuss in a constructive way, and the other person just says "if you do that, I'll retaliate", it doesn't look good for the latter. It basically forces the matter to go further, rather than have it come to a place where both parties can agree on. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not pointy at all. I would support such tagging, since using "forfeit" here is clearly a novel synthesis of your personal interpretation of world snooker rules and your personal [mis]interpretation of some dictionary entries, not supported by snooker sources. Nor by usage of the terms "loss" and "forfeit" throughout the sports, gaming, political and other worlds. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly dubious to say "forfeiting". No source states, that violating this rule means the forfeiture of the player, but losing the frame is a fact. Losing this particular frame is true, but forfeiting is a speculation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I quite understood that. If we change it to "forced to forfeit", would you agree on that? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for this claim, then ok. But I doubt you have. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained it's a dictionary word so we don't need it to appear in the source exact. If the word used accurately describes what's said in the source, that's enough to use that word in the article. Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere I'll open a thread at the NORN noticeboard for more input if you agree with this (OR noticeboard seems to be the most appropriate venue for this). Christopher Connor (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dispute over "forfeit" vs. "lost". Christopher Connor (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much activity at the OR board, I'll continue the discussion here. This source uses the word forfeit to describe the situation but in a different match. The rules at the World Snooker site say the frame is "awarded" to the opponent. Basically the circumstances fit the definition of "forfeit". Christopher Connor (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think not, because the player don't make the shot intentionally as a miss. As the "awarded to the opponent" is in the rules it can be used instead of lost and should be used instead of forfeit. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the definition of "forfeit"? I gave it above from dictionaries, but your comments lead me to suspect you don't. It doesn't matter whether the player makes it intentionally or not; see the definition. One of the sources says "forfeit" to describe the same situation—what have you got to say about that? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

By my understanding of the word, the use of "forfeit" would be legitimate in this context. However, if some editors are not happy with the term, why not just use the phrasing in the rules and say "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule". It's only a note after all, it just has to clarify the nature of events. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. The difference has nothing to do with voluntariness or intention, but whether the rules is of the game play itself (loss) or of the administration/running of the content (forfeit). It's a stark, black-and-white difference. The three-misses rule violation is a loss. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't want to accept anything than "forfeit" and to reach this goal, you are clearly not capable to reach a compromise. As Betty Logan says: "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule" is the rule-compliant wording. What you (CC) do could be interpreted as a border-line forum shopping. After the WP:NORN was not quick enough for you, and my answer was not to your likening, you notified WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question? Was the use of "forfeit" in The Times incorrect? Why are you saying I cannot reach a compromise, instead of discussing the issue at hand? Betty says the use of forfeit is "legitimate" and "correct". The proposed wording matches the definition of forfeit. I have already explained why the word "forfeit" doesn't need to appear in the source, yet you still have difficulty understanding this. Also, why have you posted struck-out text? I'll respond to these points anyway. The NOR board is inactive and didn't come to a conclusion. Since we couldn't seem to get anywhere, I posted at the Snooker project for more input. By any definition, that is not forum-shopping. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer wandering into this discussion from WT:SNOOKER (i.e. someone not invested in the debate) I have to say that I agree with the observation that you do not appear to be willing to compromise and appear to be entirely insistent upon "forfeit", for reasons that do not hold up under scrutiny. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that I was not precise enough. I mean't a reliable source about the rules, not one match. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to hold a discussion instead of giving non-answers. The source described the incident as a forfeit; all such incidents are a forfeit. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To "forfeit" a game/match/contest means that the win is awarded to your opponent in an involuntary context. Such as when Maguire lost a frame over the chalk incident, it would be correct to say he forfeited a frame. When John Virgo had a few frames awarded against him in the 1979 UK, it would be correct to say he forfeited several frames after his late arrival to the match. To "lose" a frame generally means that the outcome is decided competitively. To "concede" a frame means that you have surrendered it voluntarily. To "forfeit" means that you lose the frame through being penalised, often for a transgression of the rules. I think the usage of "forfeit" is correct to describe this situation. I honestly don't think we need a source to use the word because unless "forfeit" has a specific meaning within the rules of snooker then the word can be applied generally. Betty Logan (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all correct except your conclusion (and the niggle that a concession is a form of forfeit - forfeits do not have to be involuntary, they simply aren't "decided competitively" as you very aptly put it. As the three-misses rule is part of the rules of actual game play (competition), violating it must, by definition, be a loss rather than a forfeit. "Forfeit" does have a specific meaning within sports, including snooker. I elaborate below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it then, since you haven't responded, that you finally agree it's acceptable? Christopher Connor (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it, because it seems to me, that there is consensus for the use of "forfeit", not because I agree. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that solves the immediately problem. You say you still disagree so it may be worth going over the discussion to see why we don't need forfeit to appear in the source. Betty and I have tried to explain, and there's nothing more I can do about that. If you accept its usage, that's it as far as I'm concerned. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A "consensus" of a handful of people who do not understand the difference between two words is not a meaningful consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent from and in response to entire thread thus far] I have gone point-by-point through some of this, but much of it is not germane to why I'm commenting here (in response to this discussion being flagged at WT:SNOOKER). To summarize this in one go: The difference between "loss" and "forfeit" is not a snooker issue, or even a cue sports matter more generally, at all, but basic and very simple sports terminology, with a quite clear difference. A forfeit is failure or lack/revocation of permission to compete (further or at all), because of something that a) you do voluntarily (by declaration, e.g., conceding mid-game because you have to leave your match to deal with an emergency), b) by default (e.g., because you didn't show up for your game), or c) by referee/tournament director/governing body declaration (e.g., because you punched your opponent in the face, used steroids, wrote a bad check for your entry fee, etc.). Forfeits are part of the rules around a game for its smooth operation, but are not part of the rules of a game proper. The three consecutive misses rule in snooker, analogous to the three consecutive fouls rule in nine-ball (one probably derives from the other, though which way I'm not sure), is an on-the-table rule of of the game and its play, not an off-table rule about the game and conducting it. Your opponent winning because of a rule of of the game play, such as the rule in question here, is your loss, not forfeit. A three-miss violation, like its pool counterpart, is especially obviously a loss not a forfeit because either your opponent craftily put you in a position to fail by that rule, or you are less than maximally competent and put yourself there. Either way, that is 100% game play, and 0% contest administration, ergo a loss by definition, and cannot possibly be a forfeit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see your point, though I often hear the commentators refer to it as a forfeit, and some news reports say that too. I don't know if the basic definition of forfeit has to refer strictly to a violation of a rule outside of gameplay and I'm not aware that the word has a special definition in a sporting context. Anyway it's not something I'll be pursuing as it's a minor matter in my opinion. (I think this thread brought up several issues: OR, sourcing, correct use of terminology.) Christopher Connor (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. As for the commentators and sportswriters, a few imprecise usages don't make a rule. If World Snooker changes its published rules to use the term "forfeit" then we have a source. The DicDef argument doesn't hold up, because most dictionaries don't actually support the "it's a forfeit" interpretation to begin with, and they aren't sport-specific works. Just because it's not something outrageous like a claim that space aliens invented snooker doesn't make it non-problematic under WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc., to insist upon using a particular word not supported by reliable sources (and a few sports journalists using "forfeit" where most don't, and most non-journo sources don't, doesn't constitute reliable sourcing for anything other than that some sports journalists aren't choosy about their wording. :-) Anyway, I heartily agree that the case brings up all three of the issues you mention. I think it should really be a discussion, more broadly, at WT:SPORT. That WikiProject badly needs a Manual of Style sub-page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any need to go through the thread and make point-by-point responses, and I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Like I said, the word is widely used by snooker commentators who must presumably know something about sporting terminology. Even Clive Everton uses it in his reports so you must also be accusing him of misusing terminology. Based on that I think accusations of OR are a bit extreme. So too when you say I'm not willing to compromise when I already have (see above), and before anyone has put forward such a well(if forcefully)-argued rationale as yours. You seem to be rather aggressive about this, and about saying I was insisting on using the word (when that's not the case), when Armbrust did not make the argument about misuse of terminology but put forward a stubborn resistance just because a specific word didn't appear in the source; it's clear he didn't have the misuse of terminology in mind otherwise he would have articulated it. You say the usage isn't supported in reliable sources, but I've shown above that it is. And a link to SOAPBOX is wholly inappropriate here. I agree more stuff about these issues should be put down in guidelines; perhaps you could start this yourself? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A dragged-out editwar over one word that has spiraled out of control into a misplaced debate on a random user page and a noticeboard alert, instead of simply being a normal consensus discussion at the article talk page, or maybe brought up as a general non-snooker-specific discussion at WT:SPORT, is to me strong evidence of soapboxing (on both sides perhaps - I should not have singled you out). I call them as I see them, and am not taking anyone's side, or opposing anyone's side, for any kind of personal reason. I apologize if I've misunderstood your actions, position or intention, but you have seemed to me to have had an axe to grind on this "forfeit" issue, and perhaps I just plain misread you. On the issue of commentators' use of "forfeit", I'll reiterate and rephrase: Off-the-cuff usage by commentators doesn't trump the published, world-standardised rules, even if more than one commentator does it (especially given that more than one don't). If the rules don't use a term as specific, specialized and meaning-laden as "forfeit", then the best that can be done with this word, under WP policy at WP:NOR and WP:V, in the context of White's three-miss fault and of the rule in general, is to avoid the word. Maybe reword the White passage and footnote so that it says that his opponent "won" because of the fault, and not use "loss" or "forfeit" of White himself (though I don't see a real justification for such circumlocution), and maybe, if consensus feels the issue warrants any attention at all, mention at the snooker rules article that some commentators refer to this fault as as a forfeit while others and the rules themselves do not. Even that seems completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I feel, personally, that this is about as important/sensible as going on at length at the Lord of the Rings article that some people, including review writers and many other people who should know better, incorrectly refer to it as a "trilogy". Neither pass the WP:RELEVANCE and WP:COMMON tests for me. PS: Phrasing like "was awarded a win" or something like that (someone suggested some such phrasing somewhere in this debate on one of the at least three pages on which is being held), to imply some kind of debate and decision by tournament judges or referees would be blatant OR absent evidence of any such active ruling. I'd bet more money than I have that it didn't happen, since it wasn't anything that required any such discussion and adjudication, being a simple matter of the rules of game play, like having to shoot away from the object ball when the cue ball is frozen to it, or not shooting at a colour ball unless after potting a red, or any other plain rule of the game. As for WP:SPORT guidelines, I've been working on it a tiny bit at a time, and hope others have too. I started with WP:CUESPELL, for cue sports, but some of that and much of WP:CUENOT can be generalized out to sports more broadly. I've seen here and there similar efforts in other sports. Will take a lot of work to find and merge them. Anyway, sorry again for being irritating. I must have misinterpreted your position on the matter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation that "forfeit" is clearly confined to administrative rulings within sport. In accordance with its general definition it would not be a misuse of English to say the player has "forfeited four points" if he fouls for instance. Anyway, I suggested the phrasing "awarded the frame" because this is the terminology used in the actual rule that was applied. I don't see the point in arguing over terminology if the rule book itself provides an adequate terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• If this discussion is resolved, I think it would be wise to copy it over to Talk:2004 European Open (snooker) since it relates mostly to that article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

InterMapper

InterMapper should not be an article for deletion. It is quite a notable company. Spun off from Dartmouth College in the USA in 2000, Dartware is a pioneer in the developement of network monitoring, mapping and alerting software. It has over 5,000 global customers. References include:

1. http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/product-review/Dartware-InterMapper-5-2.aspx
2. http://download.cnet.com/InterMapper-RemoteAccess/3000-7240_4-11570345.html
3. http://www.networkmanagementsoftware.com/intermapper-network-monitoring-review

It is an award winning company: http://www.intermapper.com/company/press-releases/705-dartware-wins-export-achievement-award Dflevy (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see the sources: #3 is a download site and not reliable. The source about the prize is a primary source, and the award is not significant. #1 and #2 are good sources, if you expand the article with this sources, than I notify me and I will reconsider my !vote. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

In light of this, please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series and note whether that changes your mind or not. Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Live Scores

Hi i'm getting the info from here: http://snookerbacker.com/ This information is meant to be coming straight from the venue but your right I should wait for it to come on the World Snooker draw. However, we might be waiting a while! Samasnookerfan (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Snookerbacker is not a reliable source and Global Snooker is not what it was, after Janie Watkins left. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

inre Parade High School All-Americans (basketball) CfD

Hello - I have added rationale for designating "boys" and "girls" categories for this topic. Would you mind going to the CfD page and reconsidering your opposition? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Peter Ebdon.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (October)

The WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 4 · September 26, 2010 – October 25, 2010 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current contributors Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) Airplaneman (talk · contribs) NerdyScienceDude (talk · contribs) New members GD1223 (talk · contribs) - 19 October How to help WikiProject NASCAR Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Expand the articles in Category:NASCAR stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mary Hendrick, Kelley Earnhardt Elledge, Jack White (NASCAR), Wayne Anderson (NASCAR Modified driver) Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, J.D. McDuffie, 2010 Aaron's 499, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin Expand : Phoenix International Raceway, Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2024 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Photo : Jamie McMurray, Richie Evans, South Boston Speedway, Michigan International Speedway Stubs : See all here Update : 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2011 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2011 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Other : More Add content to the portal Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages. Images Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month. It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE. A Camping World Truck Series truck at the Charlotte Motor Speedway.	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Article alerts NASCAR articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Total GA 4 2 7 2 15 B 28 57 52 8 145 C 18 34 29 12 93 Start 24 109 289 191 613 Stub 20 52 259 502 833 List 9 43 1 1 54 Category 9 8 17 Disambig 4 1 13 18 Portal 1 4 5 Project 10 10 Redirect 1 4 5 Template 2 12 2 2 19 37 Assessed 97 279 683 727 59 1,845 Total 97 279 683 727 59 1,845 Current Good Article Nominees: 2010 AAA 400 2010 Sylvania 300 Auto Club Speedway New articles: 2009 Winchester 400 Jerry Marquis 1979 Texas 400 Poor and Stupid Wilkesboro Metropolitan Area Lawrence Jacquelin
Article of the month – Alan Kulwicki, selected as a good article Alan Dennis Kulwicki (December 14, 1954 – April 1, 1993), nicknamed "Special K" and the "Polish Prince", was an American NASCAR Winston Cup Series (now Sprint Cup Series) racecar driver. He started racing at local short tracks in Wisconsin before moving up to regional stock car touring series. Kulwicki arrived at NASCAR, the highest and most expensive level of stock car racing in the United States, with no sponsor, a limited budget, and only a racecar and a borrowed pickup truck. Despite starting with meager equipment and finances, he earned the 1986 NASCAR Rookie of the Year award over drivers racing for well-funded teams. After Kulwicki won his first race at Phoenix International Raceway, he debuted what would become his trademark "Polish Victory Lap". Kulwicki won the 1992 Winston Cup championship by what was then the closest margin in NASCAR history. He died early in 1993 in a light aircraft accident, and was unable to defend his championship. He has been inducted into numerous racing halls of fame and was named one of NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers. Kulwicki was known for being a perfectionist and doing things his own way. An engineer by trade, his scientific approach to NASCAR racing inspires the way teams are now run. Despite lucrative offers from top car owners, he insisted on driving for his own race team, AK Racing, during most of his NASCAR career. Described by his publicist as "a real hard type of person to get to know", he remained a bachelor throughout his life. (More...)
New images

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 03:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

3rr violation

Just a note saying you've broken the three-revert rule on Ronnie O'Sullivan. Probably best to not revert anymore and discuss on the talk page. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

 Ⓢock  00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lapps in Finnish folklore"

I provided seven strong reasons why Lapps in Finnish folklore should be deleted. Would you care to describe why it should not, rather that simply removing the tag? Dinkytown talk 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, i didn't see the article history nor the talk page. Maybe you should written "See talk page" as rationale. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page regarding my submission [1], you will see my statement as "(Proposed deletion... See talk page...)". Also the Proposed Deletion tag also mentions in reading the talk page. It also states "...please explain why you object to the deletion...", which you never explained your reasons for your objection. Can you please be considerate enough and reinstate this deletion by copying the deletion statement that I submitted at the above link, so that the time is included. Proposed Deletions are time sensitive. Thank you. Dinkytown talk 22:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Huza River

You have suggested the deletion of the Huza River article based on its lack of notability. The issue of notability of rivers has been discussed and a consensus has been reached that no river is too small or too insignificant for inclusion in Wikipedia and that there are no notability criteria which would justify the exclusion of any river. Afil (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I like your cat. Afil (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Liang Wenbo and rankings

Here you removed a ref that explicitly does verify the content it was supposed to source. As such, the addition complied with the content policies. Doesn't matter about it changing; if you disagree, find the appropriate wording in a policy. Therefore, please revert your revert and apologise to the IP. Also, it would be good if you would actually reply to my messages, instead of just deleting them. Hiding negative posts is a never a good thing. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you knew that it didn't matter whether the rankings will change. All rankings change, by definition, and when they do change, so too can the article. That's not the issue. No, seems to me like you're propogating misinformation to gain an advantage over a dispute with an IP. Then when I point out your violations/misuses of V, WP:OWN, CIVILITY, and BITE, your response is to delete my posts and to go around inappropriately tagging articles I've created, instead of having a discussion which I've invited you to. That is remarkably mature behaviour. It may also constitute a violation of HARASS. Please reverse your latest edits and the earlier one so that we can put a stop to this nonsense. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Power snooker table drawing.svg

There are three errors in the picture ...

1. "D line" not to be.
2. The background should be blue.
3. Red balls in the middle of the ball on the power snooker logo should be (but it is difficult to fail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ğaaw (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no errors in the picture, because (1-2) "D line" was not there and the table was blue at the Power Snooker tournament because it was made for this event. Power Snooker is played on a snooker table, but only with nine reds, which are placed in a diamond rack. (3) The Power Snooker logo is copyrighted, and therefore it can be used only as a fair-use image and thus it can not be added into the drawing. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Power Snooker and Ronnie O'Sullivan

Hi, I seen you edited out my inclusion of Power Snooker saying, it is a variant of snooker. I notice that players who have won 6 red snooker titles, which is also a varient version of the game, have these wins included in the infobox. These players include Jimmy White and Mark Selby. So should Power Snooker not be included? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.192.233 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I have changed the other infoboxes too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Rafael Nadal in 2010 AfD

Go and give your opinion on the matter.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (November)

The WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 5 · October 26, 2010 – November 25, 2010 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current contributors Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) Airplaneman (talk · contribs) Wayne Olajuwon (talk · contribs) New members XnascarX24fan (talk · contribs) 11 November How to help WikiProject NASCAR Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Expand the articles in Category:NASCAR stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See all here Assess : See all here Cleanup : Days of Thunder, Rusty Wallace, NASCAR Thunder 2003, Bill Weber, Wood Brothers Racing, Amber Cope Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, 2010 Aaron's 499, Mark Martin Expand : Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo, 2008 Daytona 500, 1991 Daytona 500, Ken Schrader Racing, Win-Tron Racing, Venturini Motorsports Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2024 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series East, 2024 ARCA Menards Series West, , List of female NASCAR drivers NPOV : Criticism of NASCAR, RahMoc Enterprises, Mara Reyes, NAPA Auto Parts 200, NASCAR Kinetics Photo : see all here Stubs : See all here Update : 2025 NASCAR Cup Series, 2025 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2025 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, 2025 ARCA Menards Series Verify : NASCAR rules and regulations, 2008 Dickies 500, Frank Cicci Racing, Scott Lagasse Jr. Other : More Add content to the portal Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages. Images Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month. It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE. The Alan Kulwicki Ford Thunderbird that he used to win the 1992 NASCAR championship displayed at Alan Kulwicki County Park.	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Article alerts NASCAR articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 8 1 9 FL 1 1 GA 3 7 51 24 1 86 B 25 41 40 82 188 C 39 71 147 745 8 1,010 Start 43 158 664 1,695 14 2,574 Stub 3 38 236 1,051 5 1,333 List 13 35 25 29 102 Category 1 410 411 Disambig 47 47 File 129 129 Project 24 24 Redirect 1 6 10 30 401 448 Template 2 394 396 Other 13 13 Assessed 114 334 1,191 3,657 1,418 57 6,771 Unassessed 6 377 383 Total 114 334 1,191 3,663 1,418 434 7,154 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 25,644 Ω = 4.93 New Good Articles: Auto Club Speedway Current Good Article Nominees: 2010 Sylvania 300 2010 AAA 400 2010 Price Chopper 400 Phoenix International Raceway Daytona International Speedway Indianapolis Motor Speedway New articles: Colorado National Speedway Portland Speedway Labonte Jeff Fuller (NASCAR driver) 1989 Holly Farms 400 TNN Motor Sports/TNN Sports
Article of the month – Auto Club Speedway, a recent good article Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway) is a two-mile (3 km), low-banked, D-shaped oval superspeedway in Fontana, California which has hosted NASCAR racing annually since 1997. The track was also used for open wheel racing events until 2005. The racetrack is located near the former locations of Ontario Motor Speedway and Riverside International Raceway. The track is currently owned and operated by International Speedway Corporation and is the only track owned by ISC to have naming rights sold. The speedway is served by the nearby Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 freeways as well as a Metrolink station located behind the backstretch.Construction of the track, on the site of the former Kaiser Steel Mill, began in 1995 and was completed in late 1996. The speedway has a grandstand capacity of 91,200 and 28 skyboxes. In 2006, a fanzone was added behind the main grandstand. Lights were added to the speedway in 2004 with the addition of a second annual NASCAR weekend. In 2011 the track will host only one NASCAR weekend. (More...)
New images

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Get ready. The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivalries

I would put these up for deletion also if I were you.BLUE_DOG^TN 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Becker–Edberg rivalry I added {{refimprove}} and {{expand}} to the article, it have reliable sources.
• Dementieva – S. Williams rivalry I'm not sure, you can put it up for deletion if you want.
• Henin–Jankovic rivalry at AfD.
• Ivanovic–Jankovic rivalry it is proded.
• Jankovic–S. Williams rivalry at AfD.
• Jankovic–V. Williams rivalry at AfD

Thanks, BLUE_DOG^TN 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I just put the ones up for deletion, where there was little to nothing text. Will do soon. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tennis rivalry prods

Regarding tennis rivalry prods, it would be good if you could slow down. You prodded about 25 such articles in the space of 20 minutes, and it would be hard to evaluate each article in so short a time. Your rationale "It is just a repository of results" is also not in itself a reason to delete. Rather, the reason would be a lack of notability ie lack of sources. I can't go through all of them but, for example, Evert–Navratilova rivalry is a notable rivalry that actually has sources. Can you say whether you read the sources in that article and in others? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think one third party source is enough. If you think they should remain, than you can contest the proposed deletion and/or improve the articles. But without improvement I will take them to AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The current state of any article is not the point of AfDs generally, and it's the nominator's job to check notability before nominating any article. Clearly you've done little research on any of these articles; your boilerplate rationale still doesn't give an appropriate deletion reason. Still, no one can force you to do any of that. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All articles are up to AfD and the community will decide, which articles will remain. If the there is consensus for them to stay, than I will respect that. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1990 ATP Tour Championships article style

Saw your changes. There are some stylistic differences between the 1990s and the 1980s pages. Just curious, why such differences exist. If there is a preference to use the 1990s style, I can use it for subsequent pages, which would save total work. ;-). Loner t (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In the tennis articles we use flags only in templates and tables and at doubles draw articles there is a <br/> between the names in the "TennisEvents" templates. And please add categories to the pages you create. If you need help, just ask. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The 1990 template did not have categories, but the 1970-1989 articles do. Let me know if there are any specific ones missing. ;-) Loner t (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tennis rivalry AfDs

Should they all be under one AfD? CTJF83 chat 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but then again maybe not. I don't want a result, where many people object the bundled nomination and than these articles must be nominated again separately. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok CTJF83 chat 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Evert–Navratilova rivalry

Good work! It was only a matter of time before all these results lists were nominated. However, I think you may want to review this particular nomination and consider withdrawing it given the comments so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evert–Navratilova rivalry. I do agree with your concern about the content of the article (and the others you nominated), but AfD is not requests for article improvement. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have withdrawn this one. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Graf–Sabatini rivalry

Hi can you have a look at this rivary that you've listed for deletion, and that I've done some work on. These two have met 40 times and it's 19-11 excluding the first 10 matches and according to this their rivalry is one of the top ten of the open era. Most of their matches went all the way and most of them were in the semis and finals of tournaments. Which therefore would meet your notablity claim and also establishes that it's a worthy rivalry (BTW we maybe should open up a topic for this, since we need some clear boundaries here) to be included on Wiki as some even say that this is a greater rivalry than Graf/Seles. KnowIG (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have modified my rational for deletion in light of the new additions. The new rational is: "It is just an indiscriminate repository of results. It is indiscriminate, because article says not why these 20 results were selected out of their 40 matches." Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you take another look and tell me what else is needed in your opinon. Cheers KnowIG (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now it contains enough text for me to withdrawn it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

• In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

• Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: The community has spoken

• Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot submission problem

Hi Armbrust, Thank you for using MessageDeliveryBot. Unforunately you're submission could not be allowed due to our polices on personal messages. The full rules can be seen at User:MessageDeliveryBot/Rules. Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Dominican films

The page has existed for several years, I just changed the title because it was inaccurate. It was under List of Dominican Republican films, but I created a redirect there to the new page. It should not be deleted, but obviously improvements should be made. Perhaps you should look into articles before you propose them for deletion? --El Mayimbe (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Most of the entries don't have a Wikipedia article and all entries are unsourced. The only external link in the article is dead. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you are now willing to discuss, rather than just nominating for deletion. So can you please go to the original page List of Dominican Republican films, this will bring you to List of Dominican films but at the very top you'll see where it says redirect from..., click on it and go to the history. There you'll see that it has been around since 2007. So now that we have established that it has been around for awhile and no one has tried to fix it, we can get on with the fact that I obviously am trying to. So if you are patient perhaps the page can be improved?--El Mayimbe (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, when the article was created. It contains no references for the films, which explains, why these films are related to the Dominican Republic. I think further discussion should be made there. Ultimately the community will decide, what happens to this article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An AFD discussion takes at least 7 days. If you improve the article, than I will withdrawn my nomination. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ellice Hopkins

Hello Armbrust. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ellice Hopkins, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. BTW, yes it was close to A7 when you tagged it, but tagging an article as A7 when it is only two minutes old means you risk tagging something that will soon not be an A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome As Fuck

Please don't redirect it again. Joseph507357 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I either redirect or nominate it for deletion (there is no information for a standalone article). Which should it be? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add more information. You should wait a while before doing that. You did it right after I made the article. Joseph507357 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, give weeks for expansion, but if the article remains in it's current state, than I will redirect it again per WP:TOOSOON. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Racquetball at the World Games

Hey, I've adding links to sources for racquetball at the World Games for 2009 and 2013. Let me know if did that properly. Older games info will be harder to come by but I'll see what I can do. Trb333 (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have formatted the references. If you found sources for the older games, then please use the same format. If you have questions to that, than just ask. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Will do. I think the info I have for the other events is from magazines. Is it enough to cite the magazines or should I try to make electronic copies of them? I could take a digital image(s) of the page(s) and then upload that to wikipedia. I haven't loaded images onto wiki yet though, so I'm not entirely sure how that works. Trb333 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's enough to cite the magazines, you don't need to make electronic copies. In this case you should add the title of the magazine, the number of the magazine you use and page numbers in the magazine. If you know the author of the article, it should be added too. If you don't know, which format to use, then add it to my talk page and I will add it to the article for you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry ChristmasAt this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (December 2010)

The WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 6 · November 26, 2010 – December 25, 2010 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Featured Announcement I am proud to announce that a file relating to NASCAR has been promoted to featured status, the first for our project. The nomination, which ened December 15, 2010, was nominated by Nascar1996 and received nine supports. This couldn't have been accomplished without our projects participants, so thank you and I hope you continue to improve the project. -- Nascar1996 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy Holidays Everyone! Current contributors Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) Airplaneman (talk · contribs) Wayne Slam (talk · contribs) New members Impala99 (talk · contribs) - 26 November How to help WikiProject NASCAR Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Expand the articles in Category:NASCAR stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mary Hendrick, Kelley Earnhardt Elledge, Jack White (NASCAR), Wayne Anderson (NASCAR Modified driver) Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, 2010 Aaron's 499, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin Expand : Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo, 2008 Daytona 500 Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2024 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Photo : Richie Evans, South Boston Speedway Stubs : See all here Update : 2025 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2025 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2025 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Verify : NASCAR rules and regulations Other : More Add content to the portal Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages. Images Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month. It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. on pit road, as his team completes a pit stop during the 2008 Dodge Challenger 500 at Darlington Raceway on May 10, 2008.	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Article alerts NASCAR articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Total GA 4 3 9 2 18 B 30 57 50 8 145 C 21 35 31 12 99 Start 21 110 292 191 614 Stub 18 52 262 516 848 List 9 45 2 56 Category 1 2 4 11 18 Disambig 4 1 1 13 19 Portal 1 4 5 Project 10 10 Redirect 2 4 6 Template 2 14 5 4 19 44 NA 1 1 Assessed 98 287 701 747 50 1,883 Total 98 287 701 747 50 1,883 New Good Articles: 2010 Sylvania 300 2010 AAA 400 Current Good Article Nominees: 2010 Price Chopper 400 Phoenix International Raceway Indianapolis Motor Speedway Charlotte Motor Speedway Completed Peer Reviews: 2010 Sylvania 300 - Archived Review New articles: Johanna Long 1971 Myers Brothers 250 1966 Columbia 200 1961 Buddy Shuman 250 1971 West Virginia 500 1977 Talladega 500 1976 American 500 1964 Wilkes 400 1965 Gwyn Staley 400
Article of the month – 2010 Sylvania 300, a recent Good Article The 2010 Sylvania 300 was a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series stock car race held on September 19, 2010, at New Hampshire Motor Speedway in Loudon, New Hampshire. The 300 lap race was the twenty-seventh in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, as well as the first race in the ten-race Chase for the Sprint Cup, which ends the season. Clint Bowyer, of the Richard Childress Racing team, won the race, with Denny Hamlin finishing second, and Jamie McMurray third. Pole position driver Brad Keselowski maintained his lead in the first lap, but in the second lap Tony Stewart pulled ahead. Chase for the Sprint Cup participants Jimmie Johnson, Kurt Busch, and Hamlin were in the top ten for most of the race, but in the closing laps all of them suffered spins or other problems. Hamlin was the only one to recover and finish in the top five. With two laps remaining, Tony Stewart was leading the race when he ran out of fuel, giving the lead to Bowyer, who also led the most laps in the race with 176. There were eight cautions and twenty-three lead changes among eight different drivers during the race. The race was Clint Bowyer's first win in the 2010 season, and the third of his career. The result advanced Bowyer to second in the Drivers' Championship, thirty-five points behind Hamlin and ten ahead of Kevin Harvick, but because of a penalty three days after the race, he fell to twelfth in the standings. Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, thirty-two points ahead of Toyota and seventy-four ahead of Ford, with nine races remaining in the season. A total of 95,000 people attended the race, while 3.68 million watched it on television. (More...)
New images

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 01:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

"Unsourced" athletes

People like Fung Kwok Wai almost always have sources, generally in Google news archive, and it's helpful to look before prodding. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of LPGA Championship champions. 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. Trafford09 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Norbreck Castle Hotel

Hi, you recently added Norbreck Castle Hotel to the category Category:Snooker venues. As you feel it is notable would you please consider putting a reliably-sourced example of an event in the text as well? Thanks. – Regregex (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added an example with a reliable source. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian occupation of Baranja and Bačka, 1941–1944

Please tell me what's wrong with this article? It's truth that I am new to this project, but I know what is an encyclopedic style. Also, I know how to use and cite a reference or footnote. I cited it well, but you probably think that is incorrect. Voodo Child (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the citations. I just think that two sources are not enough, but if the books contain all information, than you can remove the {{refimprove}} template. By the way: Congratulations for creating your first article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it contain, you can see you can see here and there. Thanks, I'll be here a while, maybe I send some pictures from the archive. Voodo Child (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, formatted the references. In the future, I would give you the advice to use the following format for citing books: <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |title= |year= |publisher= |isbn= |pages= |url= }}</ref>. For further information see: {{cite book}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but if there are more authors? Voodo Child (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then instead of |last= and |first= parameter use |first1=, |last1=, |first2= and |last2= (if the book has two co-authors). The template currently is capable to indicate 9 co-authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's done, thanks again! Voodo Child (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Darts categories

I have undone a number of your category changes. This is because they are either wrong or you have unnecessarily removed categories. It may be worth reviewing the primary purpose of categories (aid to navigation) before embarking on further changes. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have seen. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IIHF

Hey, why do you come to the WC pages and want to change everything with the GK times and Nowrap for example? It has never been used, so let´s stay with that how it was done for the 2010 IIHF World Championship e.g. Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. By the way I don't want to change everything, I just edit the results in. It just looks so, because I don't know, how it was previously done. (Also I haven't reverted, for correcting my edits.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the results, of course that´s a huge help for everybody involed, thumps up! Just use it the way it has been used the last several times. ;) Kante4 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think now I know, how it should be done. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks nice, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ATP World Tour/WTA Tour qualifying draw AfD's

Your vote will be very important. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying. PL Alvarez ^Talk, 20:26, 4 Janury 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships – Division II

First of all, good work on this page. I was wondering, if there was a tidy way of explaining why China and Romania were included at this level despite being declared demoted the previous year. I added a note, and a source, that explains the lack of a 2009 Div. III, but I am concerned that it would be "original research" to note that that saved China and Romania from relegation.18abruce (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Could you give me the source you mentioned? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link. The website is in French, so good luck if you don't speak it. Look at juniors for 2008/2009, there is an explanation for why there was no Div. III, and why China replaced N.Z. in Div. II that year. It is a fantastic website for international hockey. 18abruce (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I could find, why there was no Div. III in in 2009 and why China replaced New Zealand there. Unfortunately I can't find the place, where it is explained, why China and Romania were not relegated, despite finishing their groups at last position (which should mean relegation). In these they are just in the Div. II, but there is no explanation why. If you can give a more special link, than i will look after it. (Used Google Translate for translation). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kin Endate

About 11 months ago, you were involved with the deletion discussion for Kin Endate. I recently found the page because it's the third most redlinked article on the wiki. I believe that several pertinent items not present in the original article - his pre-discovery images of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and his extremely high number of asteroid discoveries - may push a revised article past the notability boundary. I have created a draft at User:Pi.1415926535/Draft of Kin Endate; I would be much obliged if you could offer comment or edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It says "590 asteroids (571 with Kazuro Watanabe and 22 separately)", but 571+22=593. This should be corrected. I think the draft can be moved to article space. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 06:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

After further discussion at WP:ASTRONOMY and more editing, I have moved it to article space: Kin Endate. Thanks for your help! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Cottage by the Lee.jpg

Hi, Thank you for your message, I fully understand. I've now added the missing info, I just couldn't quite remember what one should do and how to go about it. It's a long time since I added an image. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingspanmusic (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rodolphe Hottinger

Thanks for the feedback on the Hottinger article. I'll look into creating a different page with Hottinger dynasty, or adding to a page that already exists (Hottinger chronology, i think). As for in-line citations, there's just one problem - almost all of it comes from one source: the Max Gérard book that is cited at the end. Is there any way to make this explicit? many thanks! Pczoll (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Use this: <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |title= |year= |publisher= |isbn= |pages= |url= }}</ref>. I think it's clear how to use, but if not, than just ask. And it is better to add the information about the Hottinger dynasty to the already existing Hottinger chronology article, which at the moment is in a very poor state. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the speedy reply. Just a few questions:

• I could take some time to clean up the Chronology page (which i did not create), but is a chronology, while what i wrote is really a history of the dynasty. Isn't it possible to create a "Hottinger dynasty" article and link it to the chronology, or do you still think it's better to add to the chronology article? (can we change the title of an article? :-)

• There is a way to change the name of an article. See: How to move a page. Unfortunately con can't move the page because, you haven't made 10 edits to article (user space drafts are not articles). In any case please don't create a separate article and work with the Chronology page, because Wikipedia has only one article for every topic. Bye the way I think House of Hottinguer would be a better title. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I understand more or less how to add an inline citation (or should be able to figure it out) but in the case of the "family history", since all the info comes from one source, how to avoid having the same inline citation at the end of every paragraph?

• There is nothing wrong having one source at the end of every paragraph. If you use one reference for more than one paragraph you should use <ref name="NAME"> instead of <ref> to the first paragraph you use the source and in other instances <ref name="NAME"/>. Please be sure, that the name is uniq. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the Hottinger Chronology article tagged as "not citing any references or sources" when there are a list of sources at the end of the article?

• Maybe because at the time the tag was added, there were no references and it wasn't removed, when references were added. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your time. Pczoll (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

THANKS, THAT SHOULD DO IT! Pczoll (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on File:Nebulized Rhodium Silver Alloy.jpg

I'm not sure what I am missing on this image. It would be super appreciated if you could point out what I need to add to make this compliant for Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It has no copyrights tag on it. These tags can be found there: WP:ICT. Add the most appropriate to the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what I am missing. I followed the wizard, and I looked at that page you said, and put {{Non-free promotional}} into the image. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Every image must have a copyrights tag on it and it's now ok. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Reduction of SVGs

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that SVG files are, by their nature, impossible to reduce the size of. Therefore I have been removing the {{fair use reduce}} tags from SVG files. The proper procedure in dealing with SVGs is to ensure that they are rendered in small sizes. Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 06:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Files for upload

Just an FYI, since I saw you around WP:FFU; Graeme Bartlett messaged me and said he was going on a Wikibreak, and asked me to look out for FFU. I am on what is increasing becoming clear to be a very poor attempt at a wikibreak myself, as classes have started for me and I need to devote time to that instead of this. I'll still be around, but not every day. If you're up for it, please do continue to help out at FFU whenever you have the chance. I'll be around too, but I can't do it all, and I can't guarantee it'll be timely or efficient. I'm also messaging a few others when I get the chance, so it won't be all on you, but still, FFU could use the help if you're around to offer it. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FIS Snowboarding World Championships 2011

Hey don't mean to be rude, but instead of adding tags to this article and sub-articles, why don't you contribute and help fix it. Thank you.Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Have formated the references, but I can't nothing to with the missing results at the parallel giant slalom subarticles. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page got spammed by you

Man lighten up on the Nazi copyright regime (joking here). I uploaded those pics and another user will link them to their articles. We are working in tandem on this thing but you must allow for a little time for him to do it. Please remove all the warning templates.--LexCorp (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the templates, because they're used on the articles now. Maybe you should coordinate fair use image uploads. This way you can avoid the Nazi copyright regime. (Last sentence was obviously a joke. Bad joke, but still a joke.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (January 2011)

The WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 7 · December 26, 2010 – January 25, 2011 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current contributors Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) Wayne Slam (talk · contribs) New members Bhsbean52 (talk · contribs) - 14 January TheChrisD (talk · contribs) - 17 January Gaeaman787 (talk · contribs) - 19 January How to help WikiProject NASCAR Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Expand the articles in Category:NASCAR stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mary Hendrick, Kelley Earnhardt Elledge, Jack White (NASCAR), Wayne Anderson (NASCAR Modified driver) Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, 2010 Aaron's 499, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin Expand : Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo, 2008 Daytona 500 Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2024 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Photo : Richie Evans, South Boston Speedway Stubs : See all here Verify : NASCAR rules and regulations Other : More Add content to the portal Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages. Images Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month. It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE.	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Article alerts NASCAR articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total GA 5 3 9 2 19 B 29 57 51 9 146 C 21 36 32 12 101 Start 22 112 297 192 623 Stub 17 55 263 520 855 List 10 46 2 58 Category 1 2 4 11 129 147 Disambig 4 1 1 14 20 Portal 1 4 5 Project 9 9 Redirect 2 4 6 Template 2 14 8 4 36 64 NA 1 1 Assessed 98 294 713 753 196 0 2,054 Unassessed 30 30 Total 98 294 713 753 196 30 2,084 New Good Articles: Daytona International Speedway Current Good Article Nominees: 2010 Ford 400 2010 Price Chopper 400 Phoenix International Raceway Charlotte Motor Speedway New articles: 1993 First Union 400 Pat Tryson 1979 Southeastern 500 Kenny Francis John Graham (racing driver)
Article of the month – 2010 Ford 400 The 2010 Ford 400 was a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series stock car race that was held on November 21, 2010 at Homestead Miami Speedway in Homestead, Florida. The 267 lap race was the thirty-sixth in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, as well as the final race in the ten-race Chase for the Sprint Cup, which ends the season. The race was won by Carl Edwards for the Roush Fenway Racing team. Jimmie Johnson finished second, and Kevin Harvick clinched third. Pole position driver Kasey Kahne maintained his lead on the first lap to begin the race, as Edwards, who started in the second position on the grid, remained behind him. On the fourth lap, Edwards became the leader of the race. Hamlin, the points leader, before the race, spun sideways early in the race, resulting with damage to his splitter. Afterward on lap 73, Martin Truex, Jr. became the leader, but after the final pit stops Edwards was first. He maintained the lead to win the race, after leading 192 laps. There were ten cautions and 25 lead changes among nine different drivers throughout the course of the race. It was Edwards' second win in the 2010 season, with the other being only one week earlier during the Kobalt Tools 500. Jimmie Johnson won the Drivers' Championship, 39 points ahead of Denny Hamlin. Johnson's team owner, Rick Hendrick won the Owners' Championship, and Chevrolet won the Manufacturer Championship with 261 points, 44 points ahead of Toyota. A total of 67,000 people attended the race, while 5.605 million watched it on television. (More...)
New images

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hyphenated-man.jpg

Hi, Apparently, you left a message concerning the album cover in question, then removed it. What's up there? -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake, which I have corrected. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thought so. Just double-checking. Thanks, chief. -- CJ Marsicano (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Chapman University logo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Chapman University logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates pictures reverted to old versions because of too high quality

Hi Armbrust, You've reverted a couple of my contributions because the resolution of those pictures was supposedly too high (although the height was only about 400px). Can you qualify your edits with official Wikipedia regulations that stipulate the maximum size of movie posters? The most common rationale for the non-free media use of poster images says: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original poster. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as counterfeit artwork, pirate versions or for uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." In my view that definition applies to all of the images I've added to Wikipedia articles. Ymmv99 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it use it high quality for a non-free image. (By the way I only see two case, where i reverted you to a lower quality image.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My view is the size of those pics was fine. It's clear we disagree on what exactly the defintion is for "lo-res" and "inferior quality". I compare a 400x600px bitmap image to the quality of the original poster. Such an image can never be used as a counterfeit artwork, it doesn't compete with the original artwork (we're talking about 80 year old movies, one of them is actually a lost film!), the artwork cannot be used for pirated versions, etc.Ymmv99 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection to speedy rename withdrawal?

Will you please withdraw your objections to several speedy renames found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? I explained why several college basketball categories need to be renamed as such, and if you don't withdraw your objection the speedy noms will be discarded. It is frustrating to think that my valid noms may have to be taken to a full CfD even though they perfectly qualify for speedy renaming. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I have seen it again and they don't qualify as C2C anyway, because the new title aren't "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" form. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Altered Beast iPad.jpg

Added rational for screen-shot. Thanks! Jamesderektate (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed tag. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Size made smaller. Jamesderektate (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to 2011 Snooker Shoot-Out

On the shoot out page, can't you just write all matches are played over 1 frame which will last no longer than 10 minuetes. Instead of writing (1-0) then score etc. I know one can easily do a frame in the time limit and be in the second but the premise of the event is a 1 frame shoot out especially after what was said to Ryan Day, just 5 frames left. Just think it would look cleaner. KnowIG (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I wasn't sure, because the World Snooker results page unfortunately don't include the scores. Have removed, because if only the frame score are needed, then it's pointless. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Jzuro.jpg

I created the image from a 1920 public domain publicity photo and have added this info to the page. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) in Hyderabad, crop.jpg

Hi, Armbrust. You have marked the above image (File:Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) in Hyderabad, crop.jpg) for speedy deletion, saying it is a copy of a file at commons. It is not an exact copy. It is cropped so as to focus on the animal in a way more suitable to the article. The original has far too much dead space. I have removed the deletion banner and hope you will help me take whatever action is necessary to preserve the cropped image either here or at the commons. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks or the info. If you want a file moved to Commons you can use {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Added to the file. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, then I would have the file deleted, or will that happen anyway? Well- I will add the banner and watch to see what happens. Thanks again.μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Snooker Shoot-Out

Just because the standard rules of snooker have been changed slightly does not mean it is no longer snooker. Compare with 20/20 cricket. The official title is the Caesarscasino.com Snooker Shootout and therfore this is what should be used for the article title, probably without the sponsor name. Dergraaf (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The rules were not changed slightly. There were major changes: ball in hand, players have to hit a cushion OR pot a ball with every shot and all foul will result in ball in hand. Power Snooker had snooker in it's name too, but it wasn't a snooker tournament either. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The official title is still the Snooker Shootout, not the Cue Sports Shootout. Whether you personally consider it snooker or not is irrelevant. The media organisations that are covering this tournament are all referring it as snooker so by changing it to cue sports you are potentially breaching WP:NOR unless you have some reliable sources that say it isn't snooker.Dergraaf (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The official name is just a name. Most snooker tournaments don't have snooker their name, but use the rules of snooker and thus they are snooker tournaments. Using different rules means it's not snooker. Just like six-red snooker or snooker plus are not snooker, this is not either. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Premier League Snooker has a special rule of shotclock but it is still a snooker tournament, Power Snooker and Shoot-Out have a bit more special rules. You mentioned "There were major changes", I wonder who has the authority to decide a change is MINOR or MAJOR. --阿pp (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The shot clock is a tournament rule to make the tournament faster. If you compare it to six-red snooker where only the number of reds was changed and it is not snooker, then in light of the rule changes for this tournament makes clear, that it is not snooker. It is just a variation of snooker. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In basketball, decades ago the NBA first introduced the 3-point line, 4 quarters of 12 mins, 24-sec shotclock, all different from then FIBA rules, but they are still playing basketball. FIBA adopted some rules from the NBA. Even today, the NBA adopts different rules from FIBA, but under either rule, they are both considered as basketball. What i am trying to say is that a new variation of rule does not give the game a different name or category. PLEASE consider the possibility that each variation has the chance to become offcial rule. All sports are developing. --阿pp (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I say this format is exiting and fast. But it is not snooker in my opinion. Just as power snooker is not snooker. And I hope this will never become official rule (at least today it isn't.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

	Shotclock	Time format and limit	Foul Rules	Considered as
NBA	Special	Special	Special	Basketball
Shoot-Out	Special	Special	Special	Not snooker?

I agree with Dergraaf. You are potentially breaching WP:NOR unless you have some reliable sources that say it isn't snooker. --阿pp (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but where are the sources that it is snooker? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a tournament held by World Snooker. The broadcaster Sky Sports considers it as snooker[2]. British media considers it as snooker[3]. Now it's your turn. --阿pp (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

These sources didn't convince me, because there is no text which says it's snooker. They place it in their snooker section, because there is no other place. It has no official name. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Both websites have OTHER SPORTS sections. According to Snooker, this tournament matches all descriptions in the intro section. I am stating that the game is snooker but may not be official/standard snooker just like in the NBA they play basketball but not FIBA/internationally recognized/standard basketball. May we compromise by using the phrase snooker tournament with unofficial/special rules? --阿pp (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think from this: "snooker tournament played under a variation of the standard rules"? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this description as long as this tournament is catogorized under snooker tournament. --阿pp (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Made the changes. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:-) --阿pp (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Triggerfinger-album.png

Thanks for uploading File:Triggerfinger-album.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AmazingToshikoAkiyoshi.jpg

Hi, It appears you flagged the image "AmazingToshikoAkiyoshi.jpg" from the article Toshiko's Piano today as lacking an appropriate fair use rationale. I checked and the appropriate fair use rationale seems to be there - since ~October, 2007. Is there some concern about the fair use rationale template used? Or the contents of the fair use rationale? It seems to be in order but maybe I'm missing something? Pugetbill (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. I have missed it. Sorry. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Coventry City LFC logo

Please give me a minute, while I write the article. Thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011

No problem. After you created the article and added the picture too, then you can remove the notice. I suggest in the future you create the article and upload the file later. Happy editing. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok will do, thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barry manilow I reissue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barry manilow I reissue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina Wing patch, Civil Air Patrol

Insignia is owned by Civil Air Patrol, a government chartered 501(c)3 entity. Who must release image? Can I not post a photo of the insignia on my uniform? Nelsonde (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this picture. If you don't own the rights for it, than why does the page has an "All Rights Reserved" license? The license you added at WP:FFU and license of the picture doesn't match. If you have changed, then you can submit it again. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)