User talk:SNUGGUMS

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Grateful for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Quick edit request

Hi SNUGGUMS, good day to you :)

I recently made an edit on Honorific nicknames in popular music to add "Queen of Camp" to Katy Perry's table. However, something in the formatting bugged out and it looks weird. I'm not experienced enough with tables, would you mind fixing it for me? Thank you xoxo PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem, PHShanghai, and I just changed the table here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! <3 PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please I need your help!

Could you please do the Bloody Mary English page please? It exists in other languages but not English yet and I can't do it since it won't translate as I rarely make English wikis. JulienSorel1965 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No I cannot, sorry. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

The wishes are very much appreciated, CAPTAIN RAJU! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Madonna change

I did read and understand your justification. However, it violates one of the first rules of journalism, that you "assume the reader knows nothing." Especially since there is a rather more famous "Madonna." it is entirely appropriate to explicitly state why she is referred to as "Madonna," rather than her full name.

Yes, the reader may guess that this is her stage name, but it needs to be explicit. This is an encyclopedia. The reader needs to know why the article "Madonna" is about a singer, not a religious figure. Cecropia (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We're not exactly journalists or supposed to be those, Cecropia, and to call her first name a "stage name" is misleading. That term goes for people who go by something that isn't derived from their legal identity (e.g. Alecia Beth Moore recording under the name "Pink" or Shawn Corey Carter being known as "Jay-Z"). The religious figure Mary being known by the name "Madonna" doesn't change how unnecessarily repetitive it is to use the first name more than once in opening sentence. As for why the title only uses her first name, it's what she tends to go by. We could simply insert some referral note at the top of the page pointing to Mary's article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SNUGGUMS!

Happy New Year!

SNUGGUMS,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Same wishes to you, Moops, and I very much appreciate this! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User repeatedly editing with unsourced erroneous material, not sure who to contact

I had to revert erroneous unsourced information from this page Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and investigated the user in question, User talk:RyanBarnes2007. Saw you most recently posted there related to another matter, and that the next case would lead to a block from editing for said user. I don't believe you have the power to do this, but if you could direct this info to the necessary people I'd appreciate it. I was lucky to catch this early, as these edits seem like something that could slip through (luckily they have been caught so far) and are dangerous to the validity of the articles. I am still rather new to this whole thing and want to stay within my area of discretion... Thanks.

Retta283 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What I actually said is that it may lead to a block, Retta283, and I don't have the ability to block other users when I'm not an administrator. Hopefully someone who is can handle the matter appropriately. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Logos in music artists' infoboxes

Hey SNUGGUMS. Have you come across any similarities to this on articles you edit? I've removed the addition of the logo, and cited Template:Infobox musical artist#image, which only says "an image of the act" should be there. Considering music artists' logos/typefaces are not widely used on en.wiki, I'm sure there has to be some other reason we don't or precedent though—do you know of one? I know Template:Infobox musical artist#name says that a logo shouldn't go in there, but since it wasn't used in that param I don't think that applies. Ss112 01:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not once have I ever seen any insertions like this before, Ss112, and I sense it might go against criterion#3 of WP:Non-free content criteria. Adding such logos either way feels decorative above all else. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Date format in article history

Snuggums, the bot doing OTD always use ISO date formats in the template, Altering the format within the template does not alter the output. Would you mind leaving the OTD parameters as the bot does, as the next time the article is OTD, the date will be added to the template in ISO date format. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to be consistent with date formats in the article history, SandyGeorgia, when the others listed use DMY. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yea, the prob is every bot that works on different templates that get built into articlehistory uses different conventions (sigh) ... but in the case of OTD, they always use ISO dates, which is why I usually merge them to AH usually the same format. OTDs tend to repeat every other year, so the next time, it will come in as an ISO date in a single line (as I leave them), so your change will be out of sync in the future. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It would really help for all bots to use the same date structures, whether it's MDY or DMY. Why they don't already is beyond me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It sure would!!!!! But that's actually the least of the problems with article history since we lost gimmebot and now have so many different bots operating there (sigh) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your reverting of my edits and your attempt of threats

Hi SnugGum. I totally understand your rage or justice mentality against poorly sourced information against your "perfect wikipedia" regarding the article List of fandom names.Thus, I would try to fix this, cause I do have a source for the supposed what you call "disruptive edits" that I have made, so I can surely provide a source and it would have been no hassle if i provided in the first place. That said, I think your reverting of the edit regarding the change of Zendaya's fandom was totally unjustified. I doubt that you actually read the original source material in the original wikipedia(which was https://hellogiggles.com/zendaya-new-name-fans/), but if you read it, you can see that there was literally no mention of the word "Zlegends". This was what was written in the original wikipedia article, and I changed it back, since there was literally no mention of this in the source material(to cite the oriignal source material,it says it was traditionally z swaggers, but they are trying to change the name, which is currently unassigned). Rather in that specific case(not the other ones if that really pissed you off cause yes I could have provided the sources for those but only this), I was fixing an already disruptive edit that happened at some point at an unspecified time and was kept with the wrong information all this time without fixing. So I think It is absurd to say I "disrupted wikipedia" in this case in that specific incident. rather I was true to the original source material. Hope you hear my concerns sincerely with this instead of macro reverting it just because a change happened. Thank you.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

By no means do I have a "rage" or any "justice mentality", Waltzingmogumogupeach, and I never said you disrupted the encyclopedia. That's a completely unfounded accusation. Me leaving a notice on your talk page wasn't supposed to come off as a threat; it had been more of a warning that continuing to add unreferenced content could lead to an admin blocking you, especially after others had previously requested for you to not do that elsewhere. It indeed would have helped to add a citation to begin with when making changes. I also never once suggested Wikipedia was in any way perfect. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok sorry. Sorry for coming off as cocky. I admittedly was a bit pissed because of a frustration that I kinda had in the sense of my contributions not being acknowledged tho I did acknowledge that I would do better next time since I am still learning. And I honestly didn't expect you to reply, so thanks for that.I hope I can do better for the community.Thanks. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As long as you remember citations in the future, things should go more smoothly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

PR request

Hi SNUGGUMS, hope everything is going well! I've recently created a peer review discussion for a recent song article that I have been working on with the goal of an eventual FAC. Your comments on my previous PR requests were very helpful so I wanted to ask if you can take a look. Regards.--NØ 07:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, thanks, and I just left comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Note on X-Men/MCU/DCEU characters

There is a long-standing consensus to have separate articles on these characters, due to separate coverage of the performances of the actors and their reception. As there are now more than forty such articles, a centralized discussion would be required to overturn that. BD2412 T 05:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

How could that possibly have formed, BD2412? I see no good reason to keep such redundant pages and would rather not have Wikipedia be treated like a fansite for comic book characters. The place has already been too lenient with having them in the first place. I suspect some die-hard fans were extra determined to have more than one page because they happened to really liked a particular performance/movie. Regardless, any commentary from critics can be included on the original character articles instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We have very strict criteria for inclusion for the creation of these articles, which requires them to encompass a large number of appearances and reviews or tentpole appearances as main characters within the franchises, and to independently pass WP:N. There are numerous aspects of these articles that can reach a point at which they are inappropriate for inclusion in articles on the comic book characters, such as the casting process for selecting actors to play the roles, and tables of awards won for those performances. If you would like, I can invite numerous other editors to further educate you on these matters, if you need to further your understanding. We have a very active WikiProject dedicated to it. BD2412 T 06:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Details on casting process seem like they'd be a better fit for their respective movie pages, and same goes for awards. We could leave brief summaries of plot and perhaps other things on one general character page and that would be plenty. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't work with respect to characters that are recast for later installments (as these characters sometimes are, and as Mystique specifically was, with multiple different actresses cast over multiple different films), nor is it helpful for a reader interested in knowing how the character was developed by producers, or how these various performances were received, over the entire course of eight or nine films and perhaps accompanying television productions. BD2412 T 07:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

For franchises that have their own pages, one could probably sum up the key points there within two or three paragraphs, four at most. Any trivial parts can be omitted entirely. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 07:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize

I just find it very annoying sometimes with some of these wise ass admins. They seem to choose who to target while letting others do what ever the f**k they want. I sware it's like they have sticks shoved deep up in their sh***y ass****s! P.S. I'm not the one to sugarcoat things! I tell it like it is. However, Wikipedia sucks and i'm quitting. Goodbye, you sexy SNUGGUMS you. TypeWriter686 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Bashing admins with remarks like these won't help your case, TypeWriter66, even when they make the wrong calls on things. Just for the record, Binksternet (a user I saw you make very inappropriate comments towards) is not an administrator and never has been one. While Wikipedia isn't anywhere close to perfect and lots of its articles are in subpar shape, I wouldn't go so far to say it "sucks". The place is a work-in-progress that can only be improved from within. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

92nd Academy Awards and reliable sources and trivia bloating

Hi there,

I've noticed that someone keeps putting trivia that seems kinda of bloated not so distinct. Specifically, the fact that Parasite was the 12th Best Picture winner with no acting nominations. I think someone else did that before the list was promoted to FLC, but some experienced editor/administrator removed it because was not distinct in nature. I also had a similar discussion during the 60th Academy Awards when I mentioned Last Emperor being the eighth film to do that feat. In that discussion, one of the fellow reviewers said it would be better to note that it was the first since Gigi to do that instead of sounding like 12th, 16th, where it now seems distinct. While I agree that trivia is not necessarily bad, too much of it would make articles bloated especially if they don't include reliable source (Collider and Insider I find sketchy to be included in FL worthy articles). I fear this will escalate into an edit war. Birdienest81talk 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

While Collider and Insider are by no means the strongest sources to exist, Birdienest81, they're far from the weakest. The bit you're talking about does sound quite trivial and I hope the edit warring stops soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Hey, I hope all is well. If you have time and are willing, I was wondering if you could take a look at my current FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Don't Wanna Cry/archive1. It currently has two supports plus an image review and a source review. Best, Heartfox (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Doing fine lately, Heartfox, and you can expect comments from me within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

I've gone ahead with the re-nomination of the James Madison article at FAC. There is a rewritten Slavery section now and it would be nice to hear your support/oppose comments. Possibly you could revisit the review which you had started 2 months ago if time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)