User talk:SNUGGUMS: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This is SNUGGUMS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

My talk page. Leave me messages here. I can also be contacted through email.

I will work in citations for the sections you mentioned in your review. What other areas of sourcing require improvement? If everything was more thoroughly sourced, would it be GA-class? Spartan7W § 23:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other things that need sourcing have been tagged. It would have a better chance of being GA material once it is all sourced. From a glance, "Brown also sided on the controversial" reads awkwardly, and I'm not so sure about using YouTube (potential copyright violation) or "The Daily Beast" (questionable reliability) for references. On the plus side, it seems fairly broad in coverage, the article is stable, and the images all have appropriate licensing. One thing to think about is putting the article up for a WP:Peer review for wider input before renominating. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know if you could help me to create my "User Page" with these "Userboxes"? I have no idea how to make it. Thank u. GagaNutella (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a page with the codes. Thank you anyway.GagaNutella (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings SNUGGUMS, this is Emperorofthedaleks, I'd like to tell you about the article I've recently created for a nature documentary TV series, Wild Brazil (called Brazil Gone Wild in America, where it airs on Discovery Channel) in the hopes you could help me build it because it is a stub and lacks references, information, tilecard (BBC or Discovery version either one is good), links, etc. If you can't help I understand but if you know a user who can help and tell them about it it would be greatly appreciated, thanks, --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet, but I might. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be useful to have a description of each episode (you may have to watch them first) in the Episodes section, you can go into as much detail as you like, the more the better. As well a title card is needed (the BBC version preferably), as all other series in the Continents strand see Land of the Tiger (1997), Andes to Amazon (2000), Congo (2001), Wild Africa (2001), Wild New World (2002), Wild Down Under (2003), Europe: A Natural History (2005), Wild Caribbean (2007), Wild China (2008), South Pacific (2009), Madagascar (2011) and Wild Arabia, they all have title cards present, which User:Baguala contributed, but I can't get in contact with him maybe you can. Also [[User:REVUpminster] is good with titlecards. Some information on the production of the series maybe useful, in fact check out all the other Continents series I've listed above as their pages show the average layout to follow.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snuggums. I actually agree that my edit shouldn't have been in there, and I guess you looked at the article history to see I removed a more tabloidy version. My figuring was to put something halfway proper to avoid tabloidy editors from inserting worse over and over. But I didn't feel comfortable doing it, so I'm glad to have another editor on my side. And you did appreciate I was acting in good faith, so what can I say? It's a mutual admiration society!

If you haven't already, you might want to do the same to James Packer. Keep up the good work! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mutual admiration society" is an amusing term :P. I've also removed it from Packer's article. Don't know why some editors insist on including gossip, but I'm as against it as you are, Tenebrae. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have closed the merger discussion on the Grand Theft Auto V article with the opposite conclusion of what the consensus actually was. I was actually considering closing it in favour of the merge the only reason I didn't was because I was directly involved. While I am aware a merger discussion is not a simple vote there are far more comments in support of merging than against, and neither side cited any rules which would apply in the situation. Therefore I fail to see how you reached the conclusion you did I think you should have added your opinion to the discussion rather than closing it. Mainline421 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I found the arguments about meeting notability criteria (the re-release does in fact meet WP:GNG on its own even when one doesn't include coverage on the original edition) and having enough content for a split to be the most compelling (article could become WP:TOOBIG if merged). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right but that was not the consensus merely your personal opinion. You can't just declare your opinion to be the consensus. Mainline421 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just my opinion, though; other editors stated this as well. I simply found it the most convincing argument given. It's understandable how one might have viewed the consensus differently, but keep in mind that one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. As you proposed the deletion of the article, this meaning that every article that is listed on the Category:Depictions of people in popular culture, should be deleted?. Actually, the most of thing can be listed on other Madonna-related articles, but the list is go to go, because can be no-neutral later for the others articles (And the currents references in the articles is just the 1% of the work). Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed deletion I placed only affects the above linked article, not others. Whether other articles should be kept is a separate matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concurr with Snuggums, Madonna in popular culture is extremely redundant in place of Cultural impact of Madonna. I will seriously consider author-DB1 deleting this if I were you Chris. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just realize that you handle the article of Aguilera and Perry... Actually a lot of artists in that list entering the list because of my reliable editing. If you are really care about Aguilera article, please take some time to look of her total certification sales then you will realize that her 50m-albums claim is absolutely OLD. But it's up to you.

But sorry for bothering you. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politsi, you need to provide in-text citations explicitly giving such figures per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research AND make sure the sources you use are reliable. The sources currently used in Aguilera and Perry's articles do not include such figures. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande, a list to which I have been a major contributor, is currently (on June 26) on the Main Page as Today's featured list. Just thought to share it. :) -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 00:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the daily feature! Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links within the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought, but I'm going to have to decline; red links are nothing but unnecessary clutter for navboxes, as there's nothing to navigate with such links. Navboxes probably need more than three blue links to begin with anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider voting strategically? Otherwise, we are likely to get stuck with an anything-goes guideline that permits two blue links and 48 red links in a navbox -- that's where we're headed now. Given that alternative, isn't some sort of compromise better? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better, but I'm still against red links being in navboxes at all. We have WP:EXISTING for good reason. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late but your Birthday wishes were very cute :) Good to see you around my friend! What have you been up to around here?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're still around as well, Petergriffin9901! I've been reviewing some GAN's lately and am participating in a GA Cup that starts in July and ends in November, where users try to review as many GAN's (and perhaps some GAR's) as possible for points and to reduce the GAN backlog. Made it to Round Four in the previous cup. Let's see how I do this time..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the second anniversary of when I first created this account! Glad to have reached this point :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation to you, you've done A LOT!!! Really proud. GagaNutella (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well, it is indeed a joyous day my dear Snuggy :) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got that right! Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just needed a piece of advice from you for Ariana Grande. Do you think that the aforementioned article has a chance to be a WP:GA after it has a major c.e. of prose, the replacement of poor sources and correct wiki-markup, refs. format? I am not exactly planning it 'cause GA (but WP:FL) is not my thing, but I might give it a try sometime later. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 23:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might have a chance in the future, but is going to need considerable work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snuggums, since you've got experience with BLP articles, do you mind looking at the recent edit history on the Ariana Grande article and providing some suggestions? I have done a recent edit to fix all of the reference formatting you've mentioned via the tag as well as removing the sentence and source deemed unreliable in the Public Image section and it was reverted. Thanks! — AYTK talk. 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unreliable sources (see here for more) from a glance, and the "diva" comments should be removed per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS. I see FrB.TG has tried to improve the article recently, though it still needs more work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried removing the "diva" comments but have been struggling to because SchroCat keeps reverting it. Please advice. Thanks! — AYTK talk. 15:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meat socking/canvassing will get you into very deep water Aytk. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you could proofread 73rd Academy Awards for featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Birdienest81 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SNUGGUMS! I see that you recently converted the article about Dorothy Rodham to a redirect, and removed links to her name from multiple articles. You did that unilaterally and without discussion, based on your opinion that she is not notable and does not qualify for an article here. But unilateral redirects like this are supposed to be done only in uncontroversial cases. That was not the case here. The article survived AfD as "keep", and most of the discussion on the talk page leans toward keep. If you think her article should become a redirect, you should go through the usual Requested Merge process. I have reverted the redirect and restored the article. I also started to restore her name to lists where you had deleted it, but I found there are a dozen or so such edits you made, either removing her from lists or removing Wikilinks from other articles. I would appreciate it if you would revert the rest of those until the matter is decided. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply being bold with the redirecting, which users are allowed to do, though hadn't seen the talk page discussion. Probably will AFD at some point. One thing I should note is that one's notability (or lack thereof) isn't just based on my opinion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, users are allowed to be bold, including to boldly redirect an article if such redirection would be non-controversial. Before doing one, though, it is a good idea to check the talk page to see if it really is non-controversial. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he not listening? He's not adhering to the rules at all.  — Calvin999 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 6 and 25 place in Belgium and song was charted in Germany, Austria or French. What is wrong? Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSONGS, Eurohunter, which is the notability criteria for songs. It says that in order for songs to have separate articles, there must be enough information available on the song to grow beyond a stub AND it must have significant coverage outside of album reviews from reliable secondary sources. Since it doesn't meet either of those criteria (I checked), charts in this case are moot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check article. Eurohunter (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums I hope you are not going around deleting articles which "compete" with other songs? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, In ictu oculi. First of all, non-admins can redirect pages but do not have the ability to delete them. Secondly, see my above response to Eurohunter about notability criteria for songs. Users are allowed to be bold and redirect such articles when they aren't notable enough for separate entries. The above song you linked was redirected because it fails the notability criteria for songs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to make sure you realize that your redirect was reverted again, but not by me. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That really shouldn't have happened (not your fault) as it failed to take into account the talk page discussion and notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your latest edits to Steven Spielberg?[1][2] I'm not seeing anything on the talk page, so I've reverted your drive-by tagging per best practices. As for your removal of the "Judaism" parameter, the section on Steven_Spielberg#Religion clearly shows that contrary to your edit summary, he very much is defined by his religion. I will chalk this up as an simple mistake of yours unless I see evidence to the contrary. Please think very carefully before reverting. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a section/subsection on one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) doesn't necessarily make it a defining characteristic. By "defining", I mean something that someone is particularly noted for. Speilberg isn't really noted for his religious views in comparison to, say, his directing and producing. As for the BLP sources tag, that was because lots of content was (and still is) missing in-text citations. It wasn't exactly an instance of "drive-by tagging". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I appreciate that this is a big ask, but given that you recently reviewed one of my GA candidates on Inside No. 9, perhaps you'd be able to take look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)/archive1? Absolutely no pressure- feel free to ignore this message! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declining for now, but wishing you luck Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well. Whenever you get some time, could you please take a look at this FLC nomination here and put your comments? Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet, but I might Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... for looking over "Sexxx Dreams" and "Swine" recently. The former is currently nominated for Good status and I think the latter is almost GA-worthy, but first it needs a bit more info about the rape discussion she had with Howard Stern. It would be nice to get the Artpop articles promoted to Good status before her next release. Speaking of which... I am ready for some new material -- the Cheek to Cheek project didn't appeal to me at all. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I hope I'm not bothering you again at this moment, I hope you are an admin, I really hope. Here's the thing, these users named MarnetteD and Ebyabe keep following me were ever I go on articles and keep on undoing my edits, can you please get them to stop, because they are really starting to get on my nerves already. All I'm doing is looking for sources for articles and trying my best to put them in articles, but no matter were I go they keep following me and keep undoing my edits and say my edits are unsourced, I know I made one mistake on one article I did. I didn't provided a source on it which I did by accident and I didn't mean to forget, but I learned my lesson now not to forget this time. When they were talking to each other on talk pages they keep making jokes about me over and over and I really want that to stop to . So as of all that I said, can you do something about them, If you are an admin. I just want to make the wiki a lot better for providing sources in articles and updating information on them a lot better too. I just want them to stop hurting me. I just want to edit in peace. FrozenFan2 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, FrozenFan2. As for those users, they are reverting you because your edits are either unsourced or unreliably sourced. You've done this on multiple articles. For example, in this edit, none of the sources you added were reliable. I'm sorry to say that keeping this up is not going to help you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Snuggums. I checked your main page and didn't think you were an admin? Regarding FF2, yes, they continually add unreferenced or poorly reference material. Any attempts to reason or discuss this with them is treated like personal attacks. As can be seen above. Thanks for reverting them on Wayne Knight, btw. Oh, and FF2, if you're reading this, you might wish to report your issues at the Administrator Incidents Noticeboard. So you can actually get some uninvolved admins to look at your situation. However, beware the boomerang. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....., I had a feeling you didn't believe me. I'm not the one causing the trouble. FrozenFan2 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I don't believe you; I'm saying that you need to use better referencing in articles. If you are not sure about whether certain sources are reliable, feel free to ask users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubting whether we have this or not (not the whole section). I think we can leave the description blank as all of them have the same thing "A low-budget music video directed by Glen Ballard". Any thoughts? -- Frankie _talk 11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The videos should be kept, but I'm not sure what to say in their descriptions. However, it is worth noting that she was credited as "Katheryn Perry" in her earliest videos. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. In Armenian Wikipedia i'm trying to make the article about the song "Real and True" good. A user added some Billboard charts like Rap Digital Songs, Rap Songs, Rap Streaming Songs etc in the "Chart" section, but i guess they should not be there as i never seen those chart in English Wikipedia. I just would like to know what to tell that user, why those charts should not be in the section? Thnx --Eurofan88 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what to do on that page, but consulting WP:Record charts and/or its talk page would probably help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be amazed by the low standards too many Wikipedia editors have for what makes notability. It completely boggles my mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, Winkelvi. WP:BIO seems to be the among the most overlooked/erroneously disregarded notability criteria these days :/. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you're invited and express your views on Talk:When Marnie Was There#Edits reverted without adding summary. Jotamide (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline, but hopefully things can be sorted out soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS! I have a question about Billboard' publisher. You told me before that Billboard's publisher between 1989 and 2009 was Nielsen N.V. so I'd like to know what was its publisher before 1989. I'd like to know as I'm reviewing a FLC and some of its sources list Billboard before that year. Thanks! Erick (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "News Media", Magiciandude, but it turns out use of publishers for works has become widely deprecated since the beginning of 2015. Nowadays it's just the work that's used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh interesting, I'm surprised I didn't hear about that until now. So "News Media" is the publisher then for Billboard articles before 1989? Erick (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, yes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the help! Best, Erick (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, back in February, you gave comments to the first FL nomination for Azealia Banks discography. Unfortunately, the nom failed per lack of involvement. I've been working on the article in the mean time and have now renominated. I'd appreciate it if you could give some comments for a second time. Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help. Take a look at my talk page and the associated article for more. I just put in a PP request and the editor in question is totally ignoring my comments, edit summaries, sourcing guidelines, and three warnings. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking into references myself, Winkelvi, I find that Ann Rule was in fact born on October 22, 1931. Hopefully this helps stop any WP:IDHT editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the article talk page, we have varying years and ages at the time of death per several reliable sources. We are waiting for the family obituary to come out to get the right dates, therefore, in the meantime there is (was) an embedded note regarding this and both years were included with a caveat. What would help is getting it back to where it should be until we have reliable sources that agree. Does that make sense? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I just simply thought the issue was an editor refusing to provide good quality sources. My bad. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. They ignored every explanation and warning, went to the editor who opposed me at the article talk page, and were encouraged to continue making pointy, non-policy edits. So, naturally, that's what they did. At this time, a wise admin saw the forest for the trees and reverted and full protected. Sometimes, I just... Well, never mind. You know. Thanks again, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't u know that she was born on March 27,1970 and not March 26 ,1969!!!!! Plus she is 45 yrs. old and not 46 yrs. old!!!!! I looked on the internet she was born on March 27,1970. Killertink (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources differ on her birth year, Killertink. While the majority of reliable references I've seen support 1970, a consensus was reached on the page a while ago to include both years. Start a thread on Talk:Mariah Carey if you feel you have a convincing enough case to only include 1970. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snuggums, I know you are active on both the Music and Lists WikiProjects, so I wondered if you would like to have a look at the above article and add your opinion on how (or if) it could be improved – I have some serious reservations about the article, which I have aired in two separate discussions on the talk page. I note this page has been nominated for deletion once before, but it was decided at the time to keep it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, I'd say the referencing needs work based on the tags in place. I'm on the fence as to whether it even warrants a separate article to begin with when List of best-selling music artists already exists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on both counts – even when there is a reference in place, a closer look reveals it doesn't always have a correct citation. There is so much that is unverifiable or simply missing (as I have noted on the talk page), it can't really be used as a definitive list. Plus I am having to contend with an obsessive Fifth Harmony fan who keeps adding that "Worth It" has sold 2 million copies, when a read of the citation clearly states that it has sold 1.2 million... a statement backed up bythe fact that it has only been certified single platinum by the RIAA. They've made the same claim on the "Worth It" article in the Certifications section, but I've already reverted them twice today, I'm not going there again. Richard3120 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've just seen that their latest bout of messing about has resulted in adding a citation to the Pussycat Dolls instead of Fifth Harmony... sigh. Richard3120 (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Girls' Generation discography about whether or not Gaon and Oricon should be italicized (e.g. Oricon Albums Chart vs Oricon Albums Chart). I'm thinking they shouldn't be italicized, and they aren't in places like Template:Albumchart or even the articles about the charts (Oricon Albums Chart, Gaon Music Chart etc.) I've never seen Ultratop in italics, for example. Am I wrong here? I'm asking you because I've seen you discuss this kind of thing before. Random86 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence with these. Not sure MOS:TITLE supports italics in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Cool for the Summer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob^Talk 08:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many articles in the past few months where you have removed hatnotes claiming the article titles are not ambiguous per NAMB. This only applies if the article title is perfectly clear and there is 0% chance it can be confused with another topic. Instances such as Born This Way (song) do not apply when there are other songs that may not have an individual article, but meet the criteria of MOS:DABMENTION by association with notable topics/people. Per NAMB: A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused with the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). Chase (talk | contributions) 22:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For articles like the "Born This Way" song, it's unlikely anyone would confuse it with another song article when there are no other notable songs with that title and "(song)" helps distinguish it from other articles such as its parent album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Born This Way" is also the title of a song from Reputation, a notable album by Dusty Springfield, a notable artist; and the title of a song from Whoop-Dee-Doo!, a notable musical. It is unlikely that the reader is looking for those songs over Gaga's, which is why the Gaga article is not further disambiguated as Born This Way (Lady Gaga song), but the hatnote should remain in place for readers who might be looking for the others. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cool for the Summer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the music video for Demi Lovato's single "Cool for the Summer" is her "most sexually liberated video" and marks "a new chapter of her career"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cool for the Summer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am one of Lorillard Spencer's grand-daughters.

I tried to add-in my mother's name to the list of his children, but you would not accept the edit.

My mother Katherine Talmage Lorillard Spencer (later Mrs. Joseph H. Doherty), was the 1st child of Lorillard Spencer and Katherine Force. She was born on December 3, 1923 and died in December 1992.

My uncle William Spencer (who you list) is still alive and can attest to the fact that he had a sister!

Here is a link to just one article listing my mother as one of the sibling.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9E01E6DE113CE033A0575AC0A96F9C946792D6CF

I purchased this single article from the NYT. If the link doesn't work, I downloaded the article and can send it to you as an attachment. I don't see where to attach things.

BTW, in other wikipedia articles about my family, there are Many mistakes!

I have articles in print (for instance my mother's obit and newspaper article announcing her wedding to my father) that I can scan or photograph later.

Thanks, Sheila Talmage Doherty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheila Talmage Doherty (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I removed it, Sheila Talmage Doherty, is because you didn't include any in-text citation to support your addition. See WP:Citing sources for a guide. Please click Special:EmailUser/SNUGGUMS to email me the article linked above since it is currently only available with a subscription. It is true that lots of articles on Wikipedia need work and source-checking, and I will be happy to review the article and add anything to Spencer's article that can be reliably sourced. Feel free to also send any other newspapers you have on the family. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Sheila Talmage Doherty: Alternatively, you're also welcome to re-add the content to the article yourself with a reliable source to back it up, even without offering access to the paid article to other editors. As per WP:AGF and WP:PAYWALL, it is not required for the reliable source to be accessible to all editors at all times. It is sufficient for some editors to be able to verify it, even if others cannot. Snuggums is absolutely correct about the in-text citation, however. You may wish to read Help:Referencing for beginners, especially the part on Using refToolbar, which is a powerful tool to add citations easily. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi there,

Would you please proofread 78th Academy Awards for featured list promotion when you have the time? I appreciate your feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might, but no right now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snuggums,

Not trying to rush you, but were you planning on reviewing Kurt Vonnegut at the peer review? It's been nearly three weeks, and I wanted to close the review at the end of three weeks. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 08:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the delay. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your eyes and experience at the Columba Bush article. When you do so, please take a look at the recent history there and the newest additions to the talk page. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please make sure that the awards listed in the infobox under this parameter, which you are deleting as deprecated, are represented in the article? I just caught one on Mary Tyler Moore which wasn't. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which award was that, Beyond My Ken? Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Comedy Award Lifetime Achievement in Comedy. I added it to the awards section. BMK (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the note. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're removing the citizenship parameter from various infoboxes; however, such as in the case of Dawn French, you've removed the only mention of her citizenship nationality from the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, Bretonbanquet; Dawn French's nationality is mentioned in the lead's opening sentence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about citizenship nationality, not the unsourced, assumed sub-nationality in the opening sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the bit I removed was assumed as well. From what I've seen in articles, nationality in opening sentences is based on birth country unless a portion of the text specifically indicates otherwise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really – anyone born in the UK has entitlement to British citizenship and there's no suggestion she's a citizen of any other country. She was born in the UK, Wales to be exact, yet we have "English" (unsourced) in the opening sentence and now no mention anywhere in the article of the country of which she is a citizen. If that doesn't strike you as suspicious, it should at least strike you as unencyclopedic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, I went ahead and changed it to "Welsh" since she was born in Wales. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know it's not about making any of us feel better, but about making things encyclopedic. Welsh might be better than English, but her legal nationality is still missing. I'm not attacking you specifically (or personally) but it's a good indicator of how badly Wikipedia handles the nationality of British citizens. All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been editing Swift's 1989 tour article, but his edits are vandalism. I have no idea how to report someone. Can you help me? The name of this user is Atthecopa. If you go to the article you're gonna see. Thanks GagaNutella^talk 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't block users since I'm not an admin, but will have a look at the article history Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the user has already been blocked for 24 hours Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I really thought you were an adm... by the way, you should be one ahaha GagaNutella^talk 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :), I'll probably run in 2017 or 2018. Don't feel ready enough for the mop yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snuggums. I have nominated the article, List of accolades received by Enthiran, for FLC. Feel free to leave any comments at its FLC page. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline for now, but wish you luck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be there, or should it be at "I'm In Love With a Monster", per the MOS? I don't know if either of these are correct, or one of them. But there's a lot of cut-paste moving by Fifth Harmony die-hard stans who can't seem to follow the rules of Wikipedia! And I'm coming to you because of your vast knowledge of music-related articles! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into MOS:CT, Livelikemusic, the lower case "a" should be used. The other should redirect and have a {{r from other capitalization}} tag within it so people know which article to edit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. I have to request a history-merge anyway, due to cut-paste moves. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PopCrush can't be crushed it seems. :( And it recently became a GA also. Poor Calvin. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had been eradicated from articles ages ago. It is sad to see something promoted to GA with references to that site. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IPadPerson (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some eyes at the Jared Fogle article along with some wisdom and help insofar as policy and dealing with a stubborn newbie editor who is truly testing my patience. Edit warring is going on, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]