User talk:XXSNUGGUMSXX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My talk page. Leave messages here.

My behavior[edit]

XXSNUG, I do apologize for my behavior previously, it was a heat of the moment and I did snap. The issue regarding you transferring an incomplete content seemed (still do) bad faith to me and that led to it. I would not like to interract with you anymore and I hope you keep it that way too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology much appreciated. As for future interactions, we'll see what happens..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: AfD[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I left some thoughts here. Cheers,  Gongshow   talk 17:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

People as a RS[edit]

Per our discussion at the Miley Cyrus GA nomination, I thought you maybe interested to know that People is considered a WP:RS per this discussion. I only went looking for this when I removed People as RS on a page and had another editor revert it saying "People is reliable as they come". I was with you, it's very gossipy type magazine, but apparently it can be used. Thoughts? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously think a re-assessment case needs to be made, though I don't quite have all the evidence on hand for that right now. Remember, "reliable gossip magazine" is an oxymoron. Not only are such magazines often inaccurate, they also are often poorly supported and/or biased as I explained on the GAN. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Then XXSNUGGUMSXX feel free to start a new discussion (which I doubt will turn out any differently, so I personally wouldn't even bother wasting time on it). Claiming that WP:RS deemed it to be an unreliable source is in fact an inaccurate statement, as it clearly states in the link Lady Lotus provided: "Consensus was that People magazine can be a reliable source in BLPs." You may feel differently, and you're most certainly allowed to, but the project does not, so you cannot remove yourself or request the removal of People references. Unless of course, there are other reliable sources out there that dispute the claim that the source has made. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing to it that odds are against me for if I opened a reassessment case, my general plan is to simply use more reliable sources in place. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

Thanks for the help. I apologize for editing with poor sources. I never knew how to cite sources.

No worries, glad I could help. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E.T. (song)[edit]

The article E.T. (song) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:E.T. (song) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You struck out my comment - please don't do it again[edit]

Hi,

You struck out my comment on Talk:Artpop, accusing me of being a sock-puppet of some other user.

I'm not a sockpuppet of him/her or of anyone else.

Please don't do that again.

Thanks.

--94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You did it again. Please stop. --94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If you continue doing this then I will raise a conduct dispute against you. Clearly you have a 'beef' with some other user - I don't want to get involved. I suggest you post a case at Suspected sock puppets and let admins deal with it rather than dragging me into this. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction, User:IndianBio did the second revert. Still, I don't appreciate the accusation. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing to it that your edits primarily concern Artpop and Reece socks, sounds suspicious..... even if I'm wrong..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct. I posted the RfC comment in question from my previous IP address, Special:Contributions/78.86.131.23. Before that RfC I'd never had anything to do with this subject. You should get evidence before you start accusing and censoring. --94.193.139.22 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
While people could be wrong in saying you are Reece Leonard, there is WP:DUCK, which states "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". In other words, the fact that your comments were promoting the same idea as Reece shortly after he got blocked makes people suspect block evasion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hot n Cold GA review[edit]

Hey Snuggums, I know you said you'd be willing to review the "Hot n Cold" article to get it to GA status — I've just nominated it, so if you'd be able to review that would be brilliant! There's no rush; if you'd review it whenever you get the chance I'd be grateful. Thanks! :) S△M talk 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing now, Sam :)! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast[edit]

That was very disrespectful that you would just fail the nomination like that. No matter how many problems you think there are, i'm the type of guy that would do whatever it takes to get it passed. Koala15 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you would, but now would be the time to work on the article itself. Again, after the points I listed have been addressed, I can re-review it for a pass. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I could have probably fixed everything by the end of the day, there was no need to fail it. Koala15 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, though it definitely is making progress. Another hurting factor was the recent edit warring, which made the article unstable. If you feel you could address all the points I listed so quickly, feel free to do so and I'll review it again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think i fixed everything you mentioned in your review. If your still interested in finishing the review, feel free to. If not i will re nominate it. Koala15 (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I will say now- the article is in much better shape than when I first reviewed it. More stable, more concise summary, and less stubby paragraphs. Kudos to that. I'll re-review if you nominate again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yoko Ono[edit]

Hi. You recently GA reviewed this article and quickly failed it. Could I suggest that you put it on hold instead so the nominator has a chance to fix the issues? Although I also reviewed and failed it, I was hoping that the work on the article would eventually lead to a pass. The major issue at the moment I see is there are still unsourced or questionably sourced bits, but hopefully those could be fixed. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, I personally would regard something like this to be more of a "quick fail" as I spent a few hours reviewing Yoko Ono's article and providing an in-depth analysis, though feel free to call it that if you wish. I've also often seen people give in-depth reviews and fail before long like here and here. The sourcing does indeed need lots of work. After contributors address the issues I mentioned, they can renominate. We could even re-review together at that point. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA[edit]

Thanks again for all your help with the GA. Koala15 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure :) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please?[edit]

Hi Snuggums, would you mind opining here pretty please? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Sub genres and its parent genre in the infobox Thanks! —CoolMarc 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure Marc. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hello Snuggums, could you please leave some comments on my peer review for "Trouble (Natalia Kills album)" please? I would really appreciate it! :) prism 15:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Giving input was my pleasure in return for you peer reviewing "E.T."! Hope my suggestions were helpful. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Unconditionally[edit]

User:Lil-unique1 added electronic music in the infobox that he told the introduction is electronic, which it says "minimalist electronic production", but I think electronic music is not a genre because is talking about production, and Muumuse is a blog (where it says power pop). 183.171.177.129 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Electronic music IS a genre. Sourcing is another story. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
An electronic production makes the song of the electronic music genre. Minimalist describes the number of layers/instruments within the production. There's no question here that the song is both power pop and electronic. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Lil-unique is spot-on with this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)