User talk:SNUGGUMS

My talk page. Leave messages here. If giving me a barnstar, please post it at User:SNUGGUMS#Barnstars.

Joker (comics)

Hey man! I was wondering if you could take a look at Joker (comics) as the article hasn't been reveiwed by anyone on GA yet. It would be amazing if you could review it like you did with Trevor Philips. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will review the nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Hi I was wondering since I saw you edited stuff on her page if your able to change the main picture please maybe something from recent artRAVE please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.217.174 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Lady Gaga regarding her profile image. See that for details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable parents

So, I remember this being an issue when Miley Cyrus was up for GA status but I do have to point out that it does say "Parents names, if notable". You had said in a edit summary ""Template:Infobox person" actually doesn't explicitly say not to list non-notable parents. Doesn't make sense to list one and not the other (if known) regardless of notability- many FA's list both parents/all children even if one or more is not notable". It does say "if notable", that's how it is for children, and siblings, I don't think parents should be an exception. Exceptions to the rule of course, like Meryl Streep, all but 1 of her children are notable so I don't mind that the one that isn't is in there, but in the terms of parents, why would a non-notable parent be in there? Nobody knows who they are so it doesn't really serve a purpose. I don't want to revert any edit of yours because I trust your judgement, but this is one thing that I'd like to converse about. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If listing only one parent, that somehow could potentially suggest it is the only parent known. For people like Sydney Chaplin, one could perhaps just list mother Hannah- while she said his father was Sydney Hawkes, she was declared mentally unstable and there were no records of the two marrying or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea but if the parents are in the early life section, then wouldn't it clear that kind of thing up? Always, there is an exception to the rule so wouldn't Sydney Chaplin be an exception but the rule is only notable parents? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hannah Chaplin has her own page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok then I'm confused at what your point is lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that listing only one parent could potentially suggest he/she is the only parent known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Known as in not knowing who their father or mother is? But I'm saying that if the parents are stated in the early life then wouldn't that take that assumption away? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as in not knowing mother's/father's identity. Just seems incomplete to list one and not the other when both identities are known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying though is that template says list only notable, not known, parents. They mean like parents who are independently notable and have their own page. I think if the person doesn't know who their father or mother is that should be addressed in the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling this should be taken up on template talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No prob, I moved it here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"This Is How We Do" Cover photo

What would be a reliable source? I can't seem to find one... If you have any, feel free to post them on my talk page! ChicagoWiz 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES would be good, though in this case it's best to wait for Katy Perry herself or her label to reveal the cover art. So far, neither of them have given anything on cover art. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Perry FAC sfn

Snuggums, let me know if you are working on the article, else I will take exclusive lock on it to work on the {{sfn}}. Saw Part of Me again last night and now I remember which part was at what time. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, IndianBio :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Done it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock

This is most probably a sock. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ^^Agreed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Of Shane? Not as obvious as his IPs, but I wouldn't be too surprised. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not of Shane, but of SergiSmiler. His English is significantly better but they are both disruptive and hell bent on adding information to Miley Cyrus' page. "Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you.". Still socking. I could be wrong. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking your friends to create accounts to support you and your views would be meatpuppetry, which is just as bad as sockpuppetry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we filing a report? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. I wonder if there's a separate section for meatpuppetry reports/investigations. I'll have to do more searching through contributions first, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, Snuggums, I think we both created the SPI for Shane altogether. What to do now? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, just merge ongoing cases. I've fixed this myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks dear, also before I forget, here's to the FAC coming along nicely. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, bro *clinks beer mugs* Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pinkprint

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for The Pink Print to the The Pinkprint. Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728). Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014.

Thank you for your time, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

FLC

Could you please leave some input here? Thanks anyway, Simon (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga videography

Snuggums do you think it is a good time to split up the videography from the discography before winter comes, lol? Gaga has over 21 music videos, plus some other unreleased, plus video albums, plus more than 10 film credits and television appearances. That list is going to increase only, not decrease so ala Katy Perry videography, I was thinking the same line. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I was gonna ask you the same thing, IndianBio. By all means YES! I have begun adding content already. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

*Applauds* :D —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is the lead, it'll take some time for me to come up with a good one. If you've got anything up your sleeves, however, go ahead and use that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: KP FAC

Hello, my hands are tied as I'm working on some things, and I don't know if I'll be able to read over it all and leave comments (especially as it's changed quite a bit since I last looked at it), but if I have some available, I'll see what I can do. That said, I can't imagine there being much to do at this stage--it shouldn't be too long now! Best, —JennKR | ☎ 02:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I understand. If it passes, I must say that it couldn't have been possible without all your help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't honestly think of any other way I can help with Katy Perry - it seems to be down to minor niggles over reference formatting, which I find exciting as watching grass grow and only do it if I have to in order for an article to pass a quality threshold. If you want a break, I've got this album I've just thrown up for GAN and I'm sure there's about 8 billion reference errors (give or take a few) to iron out in it. By the way, have you thought about usurping Snuggums (talk · contribs) or are you happy with all caps shouting? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do that, Ritchie, but the account has been taken and has edited on this site. I do think KP is essentially pristine right now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The account made one edit, that was instantly reverted by ClueBot NG. There may be deleted edits, but in effect that account's net contribution to Wikipedia is zero. You could probably make a good case for getting it, or I could do it (my reason would be "I typed User talk:snuggums as it was the fastest way to get there and got the wrong person"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The 20/20 Experience World Tour

Plz write more about this tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.59.252 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for stuff to add Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OK mercy. waiting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.59.252 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you introducing many 'citation needed', 'refimprove' tags, etc. I thought I would suggest some referencing tools (in case you don't have them) so you can provide a reference yourself. These tools are indispensable to me: User:Dispenser/Reflinks for websites and Citation tool for Google Books. Adding a reference instead of a tag will make the encyclopedia much more presentable to the readers. Thanks!- Gilliam (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing how those alone resolved unsourced content, though Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fact is although Wikipedia ranks very high among websites in readership, only a relatively small pool of editors actively contribute. Just a friendly reminder that if you see something that needs fixed please WP:DOITYOURSELF.- Gilliam (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunshine :)

		Sunshine!
		Hello SNUGGUMS! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Spread on! :) DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Hi, SNUGGUMS. I saw at your user page that you have nominated GAs. So can you see if mine work? It's Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Thanks.

I know it is not a music article. Just do it. :) DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look later on..... Don't worry, I'm not picky on article topics when it comes to reviews :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another GAN from another editor

Hi Snuggums, Retrohead suggested that you might be willing to take on a good article review. Rust in Peace is up for a GA review, and the review has been started, technically, but the reviewer has not been at all active since he started the page (on August 8). I'm sure he has his reasons, but I'd like to find someone to take over the review. Would you be willing to take that on? If so, I would appreciate it. Additionally, would you be willing to comment on a FA discussion for Thirteen (Megadeth album)? If you can't do either or both of those I understand. Thanks for your consideration, and take care.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hands are a bit tied at the moment, but I'll look it over when I get the chance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008)/GA2

Hi Snuggums. Thanks for the offer. I would definitely have taken up the review, but right now I'm quite busy due to my IB course work and IOPs. I simply open Wikipedia for minor corrections and comments. Hopefully IndianBio starts work on Wikipedia again in time to address the review. Thank you again--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This Is How We Do

Hello~ :) I put that cover for Brillz Remix because there is no cover released for the original version of "This Is How We Do".Katy also put that cover on her official soundcloud.I think put that cover on the page until they release the cover for original version will be a best idea.

U990467 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as the source used is her official account, U990467, it shouldn't be a problem. Good idea also raising it on talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources are here:

• Katy Perry - This Is How We Do (Brillz Remix)
• READY TO PREP FOR THE WEEKEND TURN @brillzbrillz REMIX of #THISISHOWWEDO out NOW, link is in BIO!

U990467 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While her Facebook doesn't explicitly say it is the cover, the SoundCloud account gives a more official verification by using it on the audio file. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt's infobox

Roosevelt's predecessor William McKinley, is most commonly known as William McKinley, not William McKinley, Jr.. The same pattern goes for John Adams, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Buchanan, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter & Barack Obama, who are not shown as Jr or II, in their predecessor's or successoer's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going with WP:OFFICIALNAME, which for each of those happens to be Jr. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:COMMONNAME trumps. Besides, you only did it for McKinley & only on Roosevelt's infobox & not Cleveland's :) GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't done much work on Cleveland's article, that's probably why :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also all the others. I'd recommend you get a consensus at the appropiate WikiProject for adding Jr, II suffixes, however. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

True, though which WikiProject would that be? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOX & WP:USGOV, are the only one's I can think of. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Okie doke. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

CS1 errors

Do you know how to fix CS1 dates errors? ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't really help you there unless you point out a specific instance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lee Ae-jung is listed in CS1 errors: dates hidden category and I was wondering how to fix the error. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the problem was how one of the references had "Septemp 7, 2007" has the date- I've fixed it to "September 7, 2007". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So does date format also cause error? Are there any gadgets that can fix these problems? ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Both Month-Day-Year and Day-Month-Year work perfectly fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 01:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)

SNUGGUMS, a user has been kind of adding a WP:COPYVIO cover uploaded to commons for the above song. Can you revert the addition? I'm afraid I won;t be doing anymore reverts on the article for 3W. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, not needed, RazorEyeEdits beat you to it by uploading the correct cover art. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyrights are a bitch, but have to be obeyed indeed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA opinion

So, I've seen that CyrockingSmiler has become a reviewer of GA nominations now, and I'm not quite sure he is up to the task yet. Can you take a look at Back to the Shack, Blown Away (song), Let's All Chant, and Say Yes (Michelle Williams song); and see if they were prematurely posted to GA status and then look at this latest one that he is currently reviewing. Just a quick overview, nothing in depth. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed, and will look it over. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Hey, remember Sleeping Dogs? So finally after long weeks me, Tezero and Czar were able to get the article to a good quality. I was wondering if you could review it now that it's GAN. It would be immensely appreciated as you did a fantastic job with the Joker, and Trevor GANs. URDNEXT (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry FA

Just saw this. Congratulations, SNUGGUMS. You and everyone else who worked on Katy Perry did an excellent job. :) Acalamari 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god! Congrats pal :) I'm so proud! This article is a true example of perseverance and dedication. May this be the first of many, many FAs to come. pedro | talk 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Acalamari, Prism, thank you both, gentlemen! This success made my day :'D!! I am truly proud of this masterpiece, easily my best work on Wikipedia. Acalamari, I'm so glad our work finally paid off, wait until our bro Samjohnzon sees the good news- he's gonna be fucking stoked!!! Thank you Prism for your input on helping Katheryn reach the gold star. Same to JennKR, Petergriffin9901, Chasewc91, WikiRedactor, Ritchie333, HĐ, IndianBio, IPadPerson, Ian Rose, Binksternet, Nikkimaria, Dank, Retrohead, Krimuk90, and of course promoter GrahamColm for their help. I will soon file a request for TFA this upcoming October 25th..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My heartiest congratulations to you Snuggums! And yeahhhhh, lets push it for TFA on October 25th. :) PS, next stop is Gaga. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one note Snugs, Katy Perry in English Wikipedia being featured does not automatically make it featured in Korean one, so I have partially reverted the {{Link|FA|ko}} that you added. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OMG, that is soooo incredible. Congrats!!! Simon (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you HĐ :D. Yes IndianBio- I will take Gaga to FAC at some point :), but she needs more work first. Same with Madonna. Thanks for also explaining the bit on Korean wiki. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Btw Snuggums, a lot of work on Gaga is at my sandbox. It's mostly done - just needs expansion of the artistry section and addition of public image and philanthropy. I just started school and I'm very busy - I'll try to work on it here and there when possible, but you are more than welcome to work with me on that until it's ready to go to the mainspace! –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed, Chase, and thank you :3. Those sections definitely need expansion, and I'll tweak some things before moving to mainspace. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I wanna help on Gaga's FAC too, nobody loves meeeee. (In Gaga's voice) :P —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as you don't get too distracted letting her ride your disco stick XD, by all means Be Our Guest! Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Belated (I've had a busy weekend!) congratulations, Snuggums! What I hinted at on the FA page, but couldn't go into detail as it's impertinent their, was that I was particularly impressed at how concise the article was. Especially because it's a female pop singer BLP, which naturally attracts a lot of attention and content additions and so they tend to be quite bloated. I hope you and Sam keep your eyes on it in the future so it stays up to this high standard :) —JennKR | ☎ 16:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jenn :). Yes, female celebs get lots of scrutiny these days indeed, and I'll keep a close watch on her article. After I get Lady Gaga up to FA, feel free to join IndianBio and myself in getting Madge her gold star back! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on the Katy Perry FA! May this be the first of many more FAs to come! URDNEXT (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :3. The next article I plan to take to FA is Lady Gaga, and then Madonna. Of course, there shall definitely be more :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice! You can count on me with helping you with those, I'd love to collaborate with you on a project. URDNEXT (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the sound of that :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too! Do you have an idea of when you're gonna start working on the Gaga page? Just so I can schedule myself. URDNEXT (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on her for a while, but she's not ready for FAC yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'll get to work on it as soon as I get Sleeping Dogs to GA. That way I can focus on Gaga without distractions. URDNEXT (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, talking of female stars, I don't suppose I can tempt you to get Dusty Springfield up to GA status? Just watched a BBC4 documentary on her and thought "wonder what Wikipedia's got?" It's not bad, but it's had two failed goes at GA, so maybe third time lucky? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this some thought, Ritchie. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A picture in the infobox would be a start! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It would :P, I'll look over the article later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SNUGGUMS. You have new messages at Wikipedian Penguin's talk page.
Message added 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure if you use talkback templates or not... The Wikipedian Penguin 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit complete

I found that this article didn't need much restructuring and I find that the career section flows fine. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 08:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NickGibson3900. The main concern was at Talk:Wayne Knight, an IP editor found that section to be really badly written. I said I would take to GOCE, but looks like there wasn't much to do. While this article is definitely not broad enough in coverage to be GA, I figured it would help to tweak the prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Katy Perry

Snuggums, do not get distracted from the matter regarding Mitsguy. The user is pushing the agenda for which he/she edit warred again, and I see that no sources are being listed except what we are thinking about the songs and albums. You know that's not how it works. If the user can challenge the material sourced to W magazine with reliable sources calling it what he/she wants to include, then we can talk, other wise its just forum like discussions going on. You getting me? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to push an agenda, and I do not appreciate a false accusation by IndianBio. I just want the page to state the truth. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Must've got somewhat sidetracked in my explanations, but I see you've come up with a good compromise there which I am fine with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus afds

Added two articles, which are GAs for AFD. Failed WP:NSONGS grossly as you indicated. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Eleven plus

Hey you! I don't care if I failed my 11 plus and went to Aston Secondary Modern, I've got £100 million in the bank and you haven't!

Hmm, sorry, you appear to have accidentally pressed my bezerk button on this topic! :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please just try not to go berzerk all night long over it O_O! It would help to find your peace of mind when it comes to education. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Education" is so speculative a term - it is widely known that people with PhDs cannot do their own ironing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, that made me laugh :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Shady XV

Why did you delete my edits to Shady XV? You stated inadequate sourcing and no third party references.

-Every statement in the article was sourced. -How can there be third party references for an album that has not yet been released? No one but the record company will know info about it. --Rayukk (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) Please see WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER - but in summary, if an album has not been released, and only has speculative mentions on an official site and twitter feed, it's too soon for it to be on Wikipedia. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Rayukk, Ritchie basically said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hey SNUGGUMS. I request you to review the Lucknow article for GA status. I have worked tirelessly on the article pulling many all-nighters to make it a high quality WP article which includes copy-edit and restructuring. Now all it needs is an honest GA review because i will be out in some some days for a few months so i will not be able to provide solutions to the shortcomings which the article may have during the review and the nominations seem to have been pending since May and i wanted a rapid review. And one thing to tell you, i think maybe i'm more fond of music and may have listened to more albums/songs than you, but we share slightly similar taste. Thanking You. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that Snuggums but can i ask you when? Because it really matters to me. Sorry to bother of course. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Within a week. Also, how did you happen to find me? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS as i previously said i will be out in a few days, which is on 31st August, for a few months. Being the nominator, it's my responsibility to provide solutions if any problems arises. So, a week will be long time i guess. I humbly request you to review it till 30th so that i can correct the mistakes you encounter. I found you on GA reviewers page. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So should i take it as a yes? :O Wikiboy2364 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That was too cool. I became hopeless for a while. Much thanks for helping me out. Please review it ASAP. :) Wikiboy2364 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry SNUGGUMS but looks like i overlooked the citations. I've mended all citations and added sources to the unsourced sections. I could have done it even if you have kept it on hold. You can now take a look at it. I hope you will see an improvement this time. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Better, but there's still some unsourced paragraphs within the article. As a general note, the end of each paragraph should have at least once citation. I've placed a tag indicating that the article needs more references. Best of luck, but do NOT renominate right away. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait

So, I was wondering, do you think it's harder to take pages of people to FA than films, games, etc? I noticed how Katy Perry took a long time to pass at FA, where Battman Arkham Asylum passed in a week! NEXT (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. The average FAC lasts roughly one month, and Katy Perry's FAC lasted four weeks. I've seen articles such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band pass in one week (I happened to participate in its FAC), but that was because it got all the spotchecks, media checks, support votes, and such very quickly. Some can take longer than a month, you never really know. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the info! I was trying to know it because I plan taking such articles to GA and FA in the future. NEXT (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Nathan Lane

I was just reviewing your recent edits to Nathan Lane. You seem to have removed a lot of information, such as the fact that he is of Jewish descent (which in stated in one of the references) as well as publisher information from a number of references -- among other things.

I don't want to just revert them all, but it's difficult to look at all the individual diffs and figure out what went wrong or why you removed the info. Please advise.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC) cross-posted to Talk:Nathan Lane

The publisher for The Boston Globe, for starters, is not "Boston.com". Websites are not publishers of printed newspapers. Second, if you look more closely here, it says "Matthew Broderick, who portrays Leo Bloom" followed by this:

Next it was Broderick's turn.

Q: "In playing Leo Bloom, and other Jewish characters in Neil Simon plays, did you draw on your own background?"

A: "I suppose so. My mom was Jewish, so some would call me Jewish."

I understand your confusion, but that bit was saying Matthew Broderick had a Jewish mother (though said nothing about Broderick's ethnicity, or Lane's either for that matter). It mentions that Lane observes Judaism, though. As for Lane's heritage, The Boston Globe says he has Irish ancestry. Both references say he came from a Catholic family. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank for you detailed and patient reply! Apologies about the confusion on my part. Best, BCorr|Брайен 08:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Hey, I was wondering if you consider inconsistent date formats a quick fail. In related news, did you ever see Leprechaun: In the Hood? URDNEXT (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily an automatic fail (aka quick fail), but I might fail an article if it has too many inconsistencies. I have before failed nominations for—among other things—inconsistencies in referring to a subject (i.e. Girl Gone Wild was very inconsistent during its first GAN when referring Allessandro and Benny Benassi as brothers at some points, cousins at others. It was later resolved during its 2nd GAN). I don't think I would fail for dates alone, though. One thing I would automatically fail for is multiple unreferenced sections, especially if tagged as such or if there are any maintenance tags in place (copyedit, close paraphrasing, neutrality, ref improve, etc.) prior to the beginning of a review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thanks! By the way, if you don't think In the Hood is a good film, than take a look at Leprechaun 4: In Space or the classic Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood (all real films. No bs) URDNEXT (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing Refs

I have no idea how to solve this problem with the missing refs! URDNEXT (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, some one is back. So ears and eyes open. I would have thought that he might have changed and learnt from his mistakes but this edit summary totally killed it. Remiding you, he's gonna approach ANI per suggestion to get the topic ban lifted. Just when I thought that I could start work on Artpop, ugh. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

*Shakes head in disappointment* I thought his COI editing had come to an end, IndianBio. It shouldn't prevent us from working on Artpop (I will nominate for GA at some point, but needs more work). Let's see how things go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the Artpop era is dead now anyways, do you wanna sandbox the article and work peacefully? Also Snuggums if I remember correctly, we also had once spoken about working on "Applause". Would you wanna resume it? PS, can you keep a hard eye on Katy Perry discography because it seems as usual its me who's the bad guy for adhering to WP:V. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm..... I actually don't remember speaking much about "Applause", though that could be worked on as well. I'll see how often I can watch for chart inflations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, then who was it who said wanted to work on "Applause"? I'm not high I hope :P —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who that was, we can get your girlfriend's articles up to par, including "Applause". The lead for her videography also is burning up for our love. Which do you wanna work on first? Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nahhhh, my girlfriend is definitely someone liker her though, :P Anyways, the videography would be easy work. I already have it in my sandbox for sorting out, you can start adding there and we can move for FL. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You being a KatyCat doesn't surprise me..... Anyway, impressive so far :), I'll collect some things and add to it. Taking that to FL with you would be my pleasure :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It's strange that you've been apparently checking my page while I was on a nearly five month hiatus from this site, a hiatus primarily instigated by the repeated WP:Harassment I had to deal with every time I logged on thanks to your incessant accusations of sock puppetry without any evidence to back them up whatsoever when a user disagreed with your edits, including a month-long stretch in which I edited no Lady Gaga pages at all. That's undeniably what your actions were, seeing as how your nearly 25 baseless accusations resulted in an "outcome" that "made editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target" (myself)", to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". You also committed the act of WP:Wikihounding in that you "join[ed] discussions on multiple pages or topics [I] edit[ed] or multiple debates where [I] contribute[d], in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit [my] work". Congratulations. You made my experience so miserable and anxiety-inducing that I had to leave for nearly half a year to get over it. Thanks. I'm bringing this to your attention so that you don't engage in these actions in the future. In addition, the main prospect of this message is to lay out the issues that I've noticed you two seem to have with me and address them individually so that you can attempt to work with me in the future (as I've asked several times) instead of attempting to have me blocked repeatedly. I will absolutely attempt to work cordially with you as well.

@IndianBio:

You seem to have been controversial when it comes to Lady Gaga pages recently, with your critical reception on the page for G.U.Y. being called out by nearly thirty separate users and your widly derided lead image for her main page (it seems like you've engaged in a lengthy discussion in the hopes of finding a better image, which is commendable, but the reasoning escapes me as to why you haven't reverted the current image back to the one that existed before you instigated this debacle, seeing as how you didn't achieve consensus before adding the image in the first place). You seem to have a problem with the fact that my edits conflict with yours on occasion, and resort to accusations of sock puppetry based on nothing but the fact that the involved user disagrees with you on an edit that I also happen to disagree with you on as evidence. I respect the fact that you've been editing on this site for a couple of years now, and I'm going to choose to believe that you made these edits in WP:Good Faith; however, they're subjects that require further discussion and you will certainly face criticism, as you've done in the past. I want to note that this is a large step I am taking with how suspicious your edits on this page have been (adding passing mentions of the song from articles discussing ARTPOP onto G.U.Y.'s page and crediting them as "reviews", ignoring the fact that a vast majority of reviews listed on that page are positive, listing all "reviews" with mixed or negative leanings as simply "negative", admitting that you "hate this song", a song who's critical response you've been accused of misrepresenting several times by several users, perhaps in an attempt to make this response more representative of your admitted personal feelings?). I hope to join in on these conversations if I decide to appeal my (excessively lengthy) topic ban. I'm assuming from the fact that you've "warned" Snuggums that I'm going to be seeking an appeal that you're not happy about this situation; I apologize that you feel the need to do that. Sincerely. I'm going to choose to ignore the countless times you made accusations that I had somehow invented dozens of accounts and was operating on IP addresses registered in different countries (I've learned that IP addresses are associated with location and wifi connection, which would make it impossible for nearly all of those accounts you accused of being myself to actually be me seeing as how I would have had to literally fly all over the world to have those accounts register on wifi streams in those countries) for the sake of the communal set-up of Wikipedia. I need you to see that your theory makes no sense and that I didn't invent a million accounts to try to target your edits so that we can move forward. This is a site primarily based around a community working together, and I certainly want to attempt to work with you in the future with the spirit of this community in mind. I've stated in this in the past, but I think it bears repeating: I respect you as an editor. I am fully committed to working together in the future, if I choose to go through with my appeal and it is approved. We worked together several times before a couple of other editors chose to label me as a rabid, biased super fan who was adding unsourced nonsense to pages related to Lady Gaga, and I certainly believe we can do so again. I would ask that you not accuse my edits (and the several other editors' that I've seen you say this to) of being "fancruft". This is a pejorative and constitutes as uncivil behavior. I've been editing on this website for nearly 3 and a half years, and this incident with you and a couple of other editors is the only time I've ever had any kind of problem; it's confounding, but I want to move past it. I would ask that you not accuse my edits (and the several other editors' that I've seen you say this to) of being "fancruft". This is a pejorative and constitutes as uncivil behavior. I just need you to attempt to work with me.

@SNUGGUMS:

Seeing as how I've rarely interacted with you at all, I've been mostly puzzled by your actions. You've attempted to add inappropriate labels to my page, removed information from my personal profile without reason or authority to do so, on top of spearheading most of the baseless attempts to have me blocked with a fervor that mystifies me. Why were you so passionately avid in your accusations? 99% of them turned out to be entirely without merit, and yet you still maintained the idea that I was creating an infinite amount of puppet accounts hellbent on sabotaging your hard work. I've already pointed out that these actions (seeing as how they ended up being entirely without merit) constitute as extreme WP:Wikihounding, so I won't go into that again, but I've also seen the fact that you intentionally sought out supposedly personal accounts of mine on other forms of social media to find "evidence" to use against me in your future accusations, evidenced by the fact that you attempted to post what you believed to be personal photograph of myself on this website with clear motive. I will certainly neither confirm or deny this information, but I will quote a portion from the Wikipedia guidelines regarding this issue and its repercussions:

"Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia.... The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be... attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"

I'm not going to go into these issues any further, although Snugums actions are clearly unacceptable and extremely serious. It's clear to me that you are a couple of teenagers interested in pop culture (information backed up by IndianBio's page and my own inferences about Snuggums) and I understand that "stanning" for pop icons is a current fad, and you two seem to be well versed in this internet-pop-star culture. I don't want to spend all my time arguing with you, as that was never, ever my intention when creating an account on this site three and a half years ago. I want, plain and simple, to make this encyclopedia more accurate. Sometimes you will make edits that I will disagree with, and we will have to work together to reach a consensus. This is a problem I had to overcome after that lengthy debate on the ARTPOP page in which I took a discussion way too far, even though I was doing so because I passionately believed I was doing the right thing. I would ask that you refrain from immediately accusing other users who call out your edits' accuracy of being myself, because this constitutes harassment and it's ridiculously anxiety-inducing and tiring to deal with. I would also ask you to stop accusing me of making COI edits when I've always, ALWAYS backed my edits up with sources and have acted in the way I honestly thought best. It's insulting. Please, please: work with me. I will always back up my edits with sources and facts and logic, and I will certainly hope you do the same. I will most likely refrain from appealing my topic ban for a while because I want to allow you guys some space to think this over. Remember, all I'm asking is for some respect while we work to improve this site together. Thank you. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for the pass! URDNEXT (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

JFK Jr birthdate

Makes you just wanna shake your head. He would have been 82 when he died. I'm glad someone is watching besides me, at least sometimes. I probably would have missed it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I hate date vandalism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism, you think? I was thinking stupidity. Let's compromise and say stupid vandalism. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

XD sounds good- some instances are vandalism, others are stupidity, the rest are both :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Kaley Cuoco

Hi. Regarding your revert, where are the cast credits given in the episode? I rewatched that episode and couldn't find them. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nightscream, it was towards either the beginning or end of the episode, at a point where one name was displayed at a time. Also TV Guide and CBS say she was credited as "Cuoco-Sweeting". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I saw the screenshot at the CBS page, and that's from the opening teaser. (How in the world did I miss those?) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga draft

Appreciate your assistance on the draft. I've made some minor adjustments, but I've also restored some content and I'd like to discuss that here with you.

• The filmography tables - Lady Gaga videography literally says in the infobox, "Lady Gaga video discography". Therefore, that article should focus on Gaga's music videos and video albums - her film and TV work doesn't fit into that and should be worked into the main article.
• Her religion - simply stating that she was born into a Catholic family doesn't provide enough context. Did she rebel against her family upbringing? Begin practicing a new religion later? It's important to have an updated quote from her (the 2010 Larry King interview), and the quote is significant as she denounces religion while also identifying with it. That would be too confusing to paraphrase, and too important to skim over.

If you have any questions or concerns about this, let me know and I'd be happy to discuss further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The videography one I can explain quite easily, Chase- see FL's like Justin Timberlake videography, Michael Jackson videography, and Rihanna videography. They incorporate music videos/video albums as well as TV/Film work. I'm working on Gaga's videography with IndianBio to achieve something like those. The reason why it says "video discography" in infobox is because the discography infoboxes were used, and that infobox automatically adds "discography" in titles. I suppose one could in place try to replicate the style used for things like Madonna filmography. When such content is already included in a separate videography/filmography page, the standard is to just list film roles under "Filmography" section, similar idea of only listing albums under "discography" sections when there is a separate page for discography. As for religion, how exactly does one identify with something and denounce it at the same time? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that videography and filmography are rather different - one has to do with the video aspects of a musical artist's discography, while the other is about a different aspect of their career entirely - and there are some examples, such as Madonna, that make the distinction as well. Also, the problem with listing just Gaga's film roles in the main article is that apart from Machete Kills, none of those roles are significant and are merely cameo appearances.

The best way to go about the videography page, in my opinion, would be for the lead to discuss Gaga's body of work in her music videos, as I'm sure there's an abundance of critical commentary on that - and for the rest of the article to solely focus on her musical videos. Gaga's film/TV credits aren't extensive and fit comfortably in her main article, but they also don't fit in with the music videos, concert DVDs, etc.

As for the religion quote, it is an oxymoron for her to say she is a religious woman while also saying religion is bogus. But both quotes of that are important, and to omit either would be to misrepresent her statement. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So..... if it is an oxymoron and very confusing to readers, why not include something less confusing in place? I'll do some searching if need be, but there's definitely less confusing statements about her affiliations. I get what you're saying when it comes to videography vs. filmography, but keep in mind that Madonna's film/TV career has been the most extensive so far, thus her "filmography" is split from "videography". For Timberlake, Jackson, Rihanna, and Gaga, keeping their TV/film credits listed on their page would be clutter given the amount of work they've done. "Videography" is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "The process or art of making video films", by Merriam-Webster as "the practice or art of recording images with a video camera", and by Dictionary.com as "the art or process of making films with a video camera". Given how television programs and movies are forms of video, Wikipedia standards are to have all video-related material on a videography page except for cases like Madonna and Cher. The first reason I can think of for them is that Madonna and Cher have appeared in many, MANY music videos in addition to many films/TV shows. Their cases are different. Rihanna and Jackson's music video appearances are also quite extensive, less so their TV/film work, which would seem empty on a lone filmography page. Timberlake, one could perhaps argue his film/TV career is enough to warrant filmography, but that would leave his videography page a bit empty with only music videos and video albums. Gaga's videography would also seem empty with just music videos and video albums. If she reaches a point in her career where her film/TV career is extensive as those like Madonna and Cher, then a separate filmography page will be created. For now "Lady Gaga filmography" is a redirect. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said give Gaga's filmography her own page. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to have the filmography as part of the videography. Those tables in your draft are completely WP:UNDUE. Also, those image alignments needs to be corrected. When are you planing to merge into mainspace? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the main idea is to merge this content into mainspace, I have started working on it. Main problem with Chase's biography is that it veers off from the content at hand to borderline gossipy additions about conflicts and other stuff, or give them WP:UNDUE importance. The early life and career beginnings sections are impeccably constructed, but things are in piss with the BTW section. Snuggums, I have again removed the table contents. It is already present in Lady Gaga videography, and does not need another bunch of tables since the Manual of Style for tables forbid us to do so. Coming to the influences and the musical style, I don't know whether you are planning to expand the section or that is what it is, but anyways, the main article Musical style and influence section are pretty much immaculate with minor rearrangements and touch ups. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining table use, IndianBio. There's more fluff to remove, and I'll do some rearranging. I think it's mainly her life and career section that needs work in main article. We'll touch that up in Chase's sandbox, and then move to main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Chase has wonderfully condensed the biography for future expansion also, especially by merging the BTW and AP in one section. I believe minor rearrangement and replace some of the undue fluff with more about the music would do it (let's face it, she's still a singer primarily). I would prefer the musical style and influences as it is in the main article. We can also work in condensing that though Snuggums. And that personal life and public image sections, well, I don't know what to do with them. Have part of a single section? I don't know, let's brainstorm on the talk page of the draft shall we? Snuggums this being your talk page its better you can move this conversation there for continuation. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Her personal life doesn't really warrant a separate section for two reasons: 1) there really isn't much to say on her dating life aside from Rob Fusari and Taylor Kinney, maybe some info on Luc Carl, 2) her high-profile relationships where incorporated into her professional career, with Fusari being her producer, and meeting Kinney while filming the video for "You and I". Therefore, include her dating life in "life and career", similar to articles like Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Madonna, Yoko Ono, Cher, and Katy Perry among others. Public Image should be under artistry as it is now in main article, and I agree that "musical style" and "influences" are fine right now in main article. I don't know if this whole conversation so far should be moved or only parts of it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You can merge/copy it whole, this whole conversation is about Chase's draft anyways :P. And yeah you are correct about the personal life section. I also feel that making it a part of the main biography would be better. Plus the section there goes tad bit overboard with the fluffy nonsense. I removed bits about Elton John worrying about Gaga's health and all. I mean, c'mon, total tabloidy stuff. This is again one of the main issues with a section on personal life. It would later point of time become the target of such fancruft. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry discography

Snuggums, this is actually becoming pretty irritating with these editors trying to add WP:OR and non-updated sources don't you think? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hate when that shit happens Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ashita, Haru ga Kitara"

Thanks for the review mate! Would you be able to comment on its PR? The article is different from others I've done and I was sure about its failure :D Also, my English is not even close to being good, so yeah. Ryoga (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ryoga Godai, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to do so since I was the GA reviewer, but wish you luck getting it up to GA. Ask around for input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule or policy which states so. If you don't want to, it's okay. Can you post comments on the article's talk? Also, if you don't mind me asking, can you copyedit the article. Like I said, my English is abysmal, so please? :D Thanks :) Ryoga (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll copyedit it later on :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Katy Perry to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,302 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 13:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bencherlite, it is my first FA :3. Since TFAR is currently accepting requests from September 23rd to October 23rd, I went to TFARP to put in a request to have her be TFA this upcoming October 25th for her 30th birthday. When should I fill in a nomination on the main TFAR page, though? Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry's First Tour in 2001

I'm a frequent Wikipedia consumer and appreciate the many contributions of editors like SNUGGUMS, but I'm clueless about the editing process nor am I worthy of a such an account.

I didn't find any discussion about this recently released video by Jim Standridge about Katy Perry's first tour in 2001. So I wanted to pass it along to the best expert I could glean from her Talk page.

http://vimeo.com/104457629

99.30.174.45 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP, and thanks for you compliments :). While that video does provide footage of her as a teenager, I can't see how it would be incorporated in to her main page or even the Katy Hudson album's article, mainly since both articles already talk about the tour. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mila Kunis revert

I don't know what "standard" you're referring to, but WP:FILMBIO says nothing like that, and the of list of featured articles, out of the ones that have a separate filmography page, only one that I know of has a list on the main bio page (Angelina Jolie), and it doesn't list all of her films -- only the most notable (I was being generous with Kunis). Those are the standards we go by. It makes no sense to list every film on the bio page when there's a filmography page. It also doesn't make sense to not include her 2 series (that I added) when those are what she's most known for. And a list such as this should not include films that haven't been released yet. I was also being nice by not just reverting it back to the way it was. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When there is a separate filmography page, TV shows are listed on that page instead of main bio. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bloody Mary

Dude you are an allrounder with the redirects for "Bloody Mary", many thanks :P I also have listed some other articles I feel fails WP:NSONGS, have you taken a look? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. Behold the mighty power of Twinkle! There's also so many tracks that are CFORKs these days, you don't need to educate me on that :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not gonna upgrade ya, but yeah, welcome to this beauty. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

OH MY FUCK I don't blame you in the slightest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This Adele article is turning into a pain in the ass, with user:revent specially pushing baseless agenda and WP:OR vehemently. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems also like a case of borderline WP:OWN as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel really bad with the Chase sandbox thing, I did not know he was that hurt truely :( I really liked how that biography came along and really felt it had FA potential. And yes, I do believe it is becoming a wee bit WP:OWN with the Adele article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, IndianBio, we were making progress :(. However, her article could be transferred into my sandbox where you and I can touch it up :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chase replied that he would be working offline on the biography part. So I suggested that you and me we would work on the artistry to the way down of the article and once Chase merges the main bio, we will move for PR. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

M'kay then Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Beatles (album)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Elliott Roosevelt

Hi Snuggums... I apologize that I didn't leave more information about that edit, but I've done much research on the Roosevelt family for many years, and I have never heard of Elliott's middle name as "Bulloch". I am positive that he has no middle name. I know that "Bulloch" is his mother's maiden name and "Elliott" was the last name of his grandmother Bulloch's first husband, but I know that Elliott had no middle name.

Thanks Scott Enos scotte64@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.134.184 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Scott, but Theodore Roosevelt Center states otherwise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Input at FARC

Hey Snuggums, can you offer an opinion regarding Manila Metro Rail Transit System FA status here? I've argued that the FARC was advancing too long and most ineffective, but additional comment are needed because of the low interest. Appreciate if you can jump in.--Retrohead (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Louis Tomlinson#Personal life

Can you please remove "relationship with Eleanor Calder"? Because it is possibly a gossip that is not clear. 183.171.160.155 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seventeen isn't exactly unreliable, but I'll see if there are higher quality ones to replace it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lorde peer review

Hi, SNUGGUMS! Would you please leave some comments at [1]? I want to check if my grammar/spelling is suited to New Zealand English or not. Thank you, Simon (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Prism (Prism album)

Hi Snuggums. I reversed your redirection of Prism (Prism album). You complained that the article didn't have any references, but it did in fact have one—the "unreferenced" tag on the article was out of date. Even if there were no references, obliterating the article without merging its contents was not a good way to solve that problem.

Lack of references is not, by itself grounds for deletion of an article. If the topic is notable, it's better to attempt to find some references. If you don't feel the topic is notable, you should start a discussion on that question. Even if the article is to be redirected, its contents should be merged where suitable.--Srleffler (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The tag was indeed misleading in that case, but one reference isn't really enough to warrant an article. I see you found more, though redirecting is not the same as deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hey Snug, I always value your opinion, so if you can and would like to, check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Downey, Jr. filmography/archive1, trying to get this to FL. Thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TWODABS discography pages

Please do not make WP:TWODABS discography pages. They are a hindrance to navigation, not an aid to it. bd2412 T 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How does it hinder? There is certainly not a primary topic when it comes to albums discographies and singles discographies, and WP:TWODABS states the following:

If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term.

Therefore, I don't see why it would be a problem to have discography DAB's when an artist has separate discographies for albums and singles as opposed to one discography for albums and singles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, they are not ambiguous, because they are not unrelated topics. They are WP:DABCONCEPT topics, capable of being discussed in an article (and, obviously, actually discussed in an article). Remember, a disambiguation page is solely a navigational device; no device is needed to actually navigate where there is an article that discusses all of the concepts sought to be disambiguated. bd2412 T 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent - cheers! bd2412 T 02:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)