User talk:SNUGGUMS

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

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Radio 1 Madonna controversy

User ElectricFirecracker removed your deletion tag from the page prematurely. I re-added it. The user also looks like it *may* be sockpuppet. Maybe you could look into that? Partyclams (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet or not, PROD cannot be restored once contested. It should instead be taken to AFD, or CSD if you can prove that the creator is a sock puppet of a banned/blocked user. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Specht (2nd nomination)

Would you mind taking a look at this, I'm having a hell of a time with the creator of the page who is now trying to discredit anyone who chooses to delete the page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WW sales or US

I was wondering. This article says "178,000 sold to date according to Neilsen SoundScan". Would that be worldwide sales or just United States? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Just United States; the article includes "on the Billboard 200" before that bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. I was confused because Neilsen tracks other countries as well, I think. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to this sooner, but no; I still support moving "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Aguilera talk page

Hi there

I have raised some issues on the Aguilera talk page. Your input would be greatly appreciated as I see you are a regular contributor.

Best regards CJBXT720 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a "regular contributor", though it would help if you named the specific thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the talk page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Aguilera#Voice_section

regardsCJBXT720 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

In the initial AN discussion re: MF you said it wasn't right to discuss anything about a sanction until MF returned. Now you are supporting an IBAN (it would be against MF, too...not just Chase and myself) without MF being able to defend themselves or discuss anything? Makes no sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Site bans are different from IBAN's. As confusing as it might seem, this was to prevent the three of you from getting into more conflicts, though I wasn't so sure if banning MF altogether was necessary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the differences. But the one thing between the two which remains the same is MF's absence from each discussion. You wouldn't support a site ban because MF can't comment but you will support a different kind of sanction/ban against MF even though MF can't comment? Like I said: makes no sense. Your reasoning of "difference between the two" makes even less sense considering the basis of your original reasoning hasn't changed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It has more to do with MF's overall history of actions than it does being able to comment. What I was saying regarding site ban is that if disruption kept up, site ban could be warranted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your explantion(s) still make no sense to me. I'm sure, however, that you have your reasons for why you !voted the way you did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Blank Space

Can you take part in a discussion at Blank Space's talk page? The thread is Talk:Blank_Space#Cover_Versions. Thank you in advance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Knight

I know, I made a mistake, I was going to undo that edit I made, because i knew the source I put in there was not a good one. But you already did it for me, thanks. FrozenFan2 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just remember to keep WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources in mind when editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, the truth is, he "IS" married in real life, I just need to find a better source, the one I found was not that good. FrozenFan2 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another question

Could this information be relevant to the It's Only Time page? "While his new label was hesitant to release an album that hadn't been touched by any of its appointed producers and musicians, Bell said that it only took one song for Universal executives to be convinced it could stand on its own." It was a major-label release and none of their people touched it, so it looks like they just handled promotion and distribution. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1063363/drake-bell -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so what section would I include it on, or just create a new one? Not entirely sure where to place this. And I would make the discussions on Drake Bell related articles on their respective talk pages, but not many people watch them. -- Joseph Prasad (talk)

This type of information is best for a "background" and/or "production" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! You were definitely deserving of that barnstar. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course :), and I keep all my barnstars at User:SNUGGUMS/Awards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Know better"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know better than to revert that much? Has past evidence suggested otherwise? I don't think so. Let's face it, after this report, I'm done. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was you know that you shouldn't make so many reverts on an article. As BusterD said on your talk page, don't simply stop altogether just because of this. For what it's worth, a number of highly respected editors have previously gotten into similar situations as you and are quite fine today. I know it's frustrating, but don't quit now. Email me for more if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SNUGGUMS. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've sent a reply. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I replied back. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I think you should try to convince Joseph not to leave after a few days, when he's had some time to cool down. His behavior is by no means acceptable, and the fact that even now he still refuses to take responsibility for it is not promising, but he can be a valuable contributor aside from the warring and I would hate to see him go. I think that as a past mentor and friend(?) of his, you have a better chance of getting through to him than most people. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I'm curious, why did you bring Joseph to an3 when he made no further reverts following your warning? Given there were only 2 clear reverts, I'm not convinced he realized he had violated 3RR until after the fact, and then it appeared he stopped. Personally, I typically do not bring editors to AN3 under such circumstances. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BBMC, what difference does it make to know why Chase brought JP to AN3? He did, admins were in favor of blocking JP based on his behavior that brought the report there as well as his past behavior and record. If the report had been ignored or declined for action, I can see you asking -- but with the outcome being what it is, your comment is really just more dead-horse beating. Personally, I think a better question is why do you defend the actual trouble-makers so frequently and attempt to vilify those standing up against their poor editing choices and bad behavior? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I've seen others describe you as a "trouble maker" too and given in past I've had opportunity to take you to AN3, but did not, and instead went to your talk page to ask you to please self-revert, I would think you might think it nice to give others similar consideration. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You've seen editors good at Wikilawyering and with axes to grind describe me as such. To try and parallel me with JP is wholly inaccurate (not to mention beyond silly) and only goes to show you haven't been paying attention and/or looked into the facts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, in my direct experience with your edits on multiple pages you seem to aggressively revert. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BoboMeowCat: Joseph Prasad's edits were all "clear" 3RR violations; removing unsourced content is not an exemption to the rule unless it involves BLP or other legal violations as was explained to you at the noticeboard. I brought him to AN3, as stated in the report, because he continued reverting at other articles immediately after being given the warning. While he did not make any further reverts to the article he was reported for, he had at least doubled the allotted number of daily reverts there, which already should have warranted an AN3 thread. The reverts elsewhere right after being warned were just uncouth and showed he did not plan to stop his behavior. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the rationale. I see this [1] but it's not clear to me what's uncouth about it, but perhaps that's because I don't know anything about the article subject, that page, or it's history.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the revert itself that was in poor taste, it was the fact that he launched back into an edit war right after receiving a warning that says: "Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war." And what does he do a few minutes later? Revert at the Drake Bell article despite a discussion going on at the talk page that he replied to once or twice and then abandoned before consensus was formed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, I spoke with him earlier through email and Facebook. Basically, he doesn't see himself returning anytime soon, and also has off-Wiki issues he needs to address. I advised him to spend some time focus on things other than this site. Not sure when exactly a good time will be to bring this topic up again given the circumstances, but he definitely does need time to cool down and recollect himself. I'll wait for him to reach me in the meantime. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thought you'd like to know

...about this: [2]. I got tired of seeing the nonsense arguments at the article's talk page. The discussion going on since February was clearly not going anywhere. Perhaps you would like to notify various projects within Wikipedia about the AfD nom? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Winkelvi; those irritated me as well. I don't know yet if I'll inform WikiProjects about the discussion, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Eminem

Talkback

Hello, SNUGGUMS. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive2.
Message added 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Calvin999 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi SNUGGUMS. I'm not sure I'm speaking to the right person. I joined Wikipedia in March and was fortunate enough to be warmly welcomed from an editor at the WP:Teahouse who directed me to the policies and so on of Wikipedia. It's taken me a few months to learn and get used to.

I have now managed to do a revamp of the article for singer Tove Lo. I need some guidance from a more experienced editor to see if I have written and sourced the article correctly. I noticed your work on Katy Perry and thought if you have time, could you perhaps look through Tove's article for me and advise me on its faults. I'd really appreciate it. Or if there is a place on Wiki which has editors that does this, please direct me to them? (I'm still very lost on here, lol!). Thank you in advance. Slay A Bit (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

From a glance, the general prose quality looks good, I see no poor sources, and the article seems fairly broad in coverage. However, the songs she wrote for others probably is better suited for the "songwriting" section, and I wouldn't go into things like tattoos. I'm not sure if her "hook up with girls on a regular basis" are needed when she hasn't had a girlfriend before. One thing to keep in mind is WP:Manual of Style/Layout for sections and subsections; remember not have them too short or too long when the article expands. Overall, a decent article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. I'll remove the bit about her sexuality. Regarding the songs she's written for others, I feel as if I include it in the songwriting section it will read as one long list and would neglect the progress her career has took on. She is as involved as a songwriter (signed to Max Martin's songwriting collective), as she is a singer, so I kind of think it's crucial to reflect this in the career sections instead? Regarding the tattoo, I included it because it is very prominent part of her image - she doesn't wear tops that cover it up and I saw the very well-written Courtney Love article include bits about her tattoos. Thanks again for the tips! Is there maybe a project on Wikipedia that does checking of grammar, punctuation and so on? I think something along those lines would benefit the article's standard? Slay A Bit (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. The first project for grammar and punctuation that comes to my mind is the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors; their main focus is to improve prose quality within articles. One thing I should note is that since there is a backlog of requests that need to be done, it will likely take a while before someone accepts your request if you file one there. It might also help to consult WP:WikiProject Musicians for other bits. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So helpful. Thanks again. Slay A Bit (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS I could do with some guidance again. Do you think Tove Lo's wins at the 2015 Grammis (Swedish awards ceremony) would be lead-worthy and/or career section-worthy? I'm also a bit stuck as to whether the album's success in Sweden should be included in the lead as well. Thanks. Slay A Bit (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning in article body and lead, but doesn't warrant a separate section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ty! Slay A Bit (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS. Would you consider The Line of Best Fit to be a reliable source for a WP:BLP article? Slay A Bit (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly; look for something else Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:Overlink and tables

Can you kindly please explain to Littlecarmen about overlinking in film awards tables at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor/archive1.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, littlecarmen is right; no need to link terms more than once within tables. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Anurag Kashyap filmography

Please if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Anurag Kashyap filmography/archive1. Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I will probably comment on it within a day or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

AHLR article

I continue to be amazed at how those believing the Alice Roosevelt article has merit still don't see how their edits and the article prior to their edits focus more on TR than Alice. I've been taking out the fluff and poor wording that focuses on TR more than Alice out today - we'll see how long it stands. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It saddens me how WP:BIO continues to be misinterpreted and/or disregarded *shakes head in disappointment*. There is DRV, though I'm not sure how that would go. I've noticed how one user insists on certain additions and edit wars to include them as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes to everything you said here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation?

I just saw this warning you left last month. Please don't leave warnings like that except in cases where someone has added controversial information about a living person. "Controversial" information is typically defined as material that could be considered libelous if not backed by adequate sourcing, not an unreliable website used to support net worth. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, net worth claims can be quite contentious, so I left that warning since WP:BLP says not to add poorly sourced information into such articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The BLP policy is more focused on adding material that could defame a living person, not just facts about money that are disputed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox linking RfC

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Will Smith

I really don't understand why you reverted my edit here. People named Will Smith are covered on William Smith, because some brilliant editor redirected Will Smith (disambiguation) to William Smith. I was searching for a DAB page to find Will Smith (baseball), and came to Will Smith hoping to find a simple link the correct DAB page, and thought I'd find the DAB link there. That's what I attempted to fix by adding the hatnote you subsequently removed. I fuly expect someone to remove the new hatnote for some reason, but hopefully it will stay, or we can find a solution that will direct people to the correct page without violating all the silly guidelines that are out there that make simple tasks more difficult. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Since more of instances "Will Smith" pertain to the actor than anyone else combined, I found it was unlikely to be confused with other entries. The "Will Smith" DAB page should probably be restored; there's enough for a separate page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems to have more to do with a primary topic than a hatnote. Obviously the actor is the primary topic, but per WP:HATNOTE, "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page." - BilCat (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of what referrals are used for, though my reasoning was based on WP:NAMB, which states "In many cases it is preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous". I don't think anybody would be looking for him by searching for "William Smith". His name is "Willard" as opposed to "William" in the first place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an argument for removing the actor from the "William Smith" DAB page. A hatnote is to direct people who search for "Will Smith" who want someone other than the actor, which is what "possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page" refers to. I understand having "William Smith" in the hatnote would be confusing, but that's where the Will Smiths are disambiguated. I'm fine with restoring the previous Will Smith (disambiguation) if that helps to alleviate confusion. - - BilCat (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It would help to restore the "Will Smith" DAB page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Angel Haze discography/archive1

Mind leaving some comments? Thanks Azealia911 _talk 00:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not now, but might later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, SNUGGUMS. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive2.
Message added 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Calvin999 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've said all I need to say. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes

You closed this with a "no restriction", but I don't think that properly takes into consideration the situation. Given that the arguments centred on screenwriters and producers, if you take into account the quality of the arguments, it seemed that there was equal support and opposition for these, with some saying these should be allowed in an exception. For these, I think a "no consensus" would have been more appropriate. However, I don't think anyone was advocating support for other creative roles (composers, editors, cinematographers, etc.) to be allowed. Would you consider a change to the close, or to leave it open a bit longer? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my closure; producers (and other people) do play pivotal roles in film development. I thought about a "no consensus" closure at first until one of the "oppose" votes mentioned crucial roles in production. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Breathe In. Breathe Out.

You just edit Hilary Duff Breath In Breathe Out some information is wrong and missing

1. 1. The release date is June 16 and not the 12
2. 2. Missing a producer named JY La J

please correct does errors or we Hilary Duff Team will have Sony Music Entertainment contact Wikipedia to correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:718:4BBE:0:1D:E9D1:9101 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Verifiability, WP:Citing sources, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research regarding producer info. It needs to be referenced. As for release date, articles go by the earliest release, which Amazon says is June 12th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Here we are again, following and understanding policy regarding GNG, while the fainting masses bow to hero and celebrity worship via a Wikipedia article. I swear, the 'pedia is becoming one giant online fan magazine. They might as well start calling it WikiPeople Magazine ;-). By the way, thanks for your kind words and support. It's deeply appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. I wouldn't go so far as to call the site a "giant online fan magazine", though it is frustrating how much nuances are overlooked/disregarded. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word it properly for the nuance to be noticed, but my comment re: the giant online fan magazine was tongue in cheek. A joke. And yes, definitely frustrating. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I know. At least we're better than Wikia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't get you?

What do you mean by "more neutral". The notable work is more useful then simply just having television. Also why do always remove the awards template on comedians pages, there's a reason why that's there. Written in article prose doesn't make sense. Please give me a good reason why you're right and why something that is suppose to be there shouldn't be there at all. Dog Bark Man (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Template:infobox person and Template:infobox comedian says its okay to use what I'm doing. Dog Bark Man (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. "Notable" can potentially come off as POV for being based on unknown (and potentially biased) criteria while "television" parameter has an established and neutral criterion. Awards are undue weight for infoboxes as they make them look bloated when infoboxes are meant to be concise, and "written in article prose" is self-explanatory; have the awards in a section within article body. Many biographical articles have sections dedicated to achievements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Vincent listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anthony Vincent. Since you had some involvement with the Anthony Vincent redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tassedethe (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dog Bark Man

I don't know if you've thought about it, but it seems that Dog Bark Man may be another incarnation of Atomic Meltdown → Señor Schultz. I guess we'll see. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have suspected it myself, Musdan, though it's not as obvious as previous socks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Him, again? I am shocked that he has several sock puppets over several months. I honestly get peeved at invasive editors who do not read the rules or engage in reasonable discussions. I understand that Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, but they do have to follow the rules like everyone else which includes reliable resources and proper consensus building without canvassing.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairly sure it is him. Same tendentious edits/edit warring surrounding comedians + a few stray edits to Family Guy and Simpsons related articles (all favorite topics of Atomic Meltdown). He is also highly versed in the politics and technical aspects of Wikipedia for someone who has supposedly only edited for 2 weeks. Nymf (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Best Supporting Actor FLC

Hi there,

I understand you are busy, but it possible for you to proofread Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for featured list promotion? I've already resolved Littlecarmen's linking issues with the delegates Crisco 1492, PresN, and head FLC director Giants2008. I would appreciate the help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Monday Morning (Christina Aguilera song)

Snugs dear would you take a look at the above article in terms of WP:NSONGS once? I'm doing its GA review but I'm seriously doubting its notability. Let me know your thought, then I will proceed with the due course of action. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh and can I archive your talk page with the OneClickArchiver? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not notable; only one reliable source giving independent coverage outside of album reviews. I'm afraid lack of notability is an auto-fail. As for archiving, just did a bunch of archiving myself :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Morning (Christina Aguilera song) this was evident then. And woohoo, your talk page loads faster now :) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

Pavanjandhyala has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I might. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A gentle reminder! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your revert in Madonna

If it's in the wrong place, move it. Don't just delete because you don't like it.--A21sauce (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it was really more of "doesn't fit here and I'm not sure it's even needed to begin with" than it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry for not giving a more detailed edit summary, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Madonna

A user is going on adding music certifications as awards to the above page, and was even blocked for edit warring about it and resorting to WP:NPA. The user is back again and warring. Does not pay attention to warnings or talk page explanations. Can you revert him/her? I don't wanna cross 3RR. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Any userbox for Swifties? BTW I have heard that Katy is releasing a song called 1984. :D -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is probably a Userbox for every fanbase you can think of, but I should say that Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I know there is, yet I have failed in finding. Oh the news is not limited to Daily Mirror. It's all over the internet. This one for instance. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SNUGGUMS. You have new messages at Talk:Robin Williams.
Message added 05:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with what others have stated; award additions are overkill. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

GA-review of Kitten

Ping ping! :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Jonas. I should have it up within a few hours. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. Left some comments at the review page. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant too short, wrote too long because I'm stupid! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Revered one archiving on WP:AN

So you know, I've reverted one of your section archivings from WP:AN, on the grounds that that section contained an active discussion about banning a user. I'm not an admin, but I would think that archiving an active siteban discussion would be rather bad form, no? (It could probably be snow-closed, true, but let's wait until it IS before we archive it.) rdfox 76 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I did that was because it had been closed with a note of sock puppetry. My apologies for not noticing there was discussion below the closed bit, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Belichick

I don't mean to pester you, but I was wondering when you might be getting to the GA review of Bill Belichick. I was hoping to be able to work through any suggestions you have over the weekend because my availability next week isn't that great. Thanks, Calidum T|C 04:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have it up before the weekend is over, don't worry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It's disappointing but there is a definitely a lot to work on. Calidum T|C 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Best of luck improving it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One Click Archive

Hi. Just seen an edit of yours using this pop-up on my watchlist and I was wondering if you could do the honours with this discussion that was closed via RFC recently. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

All taken care of, Lugnuts. I do recommend installing OneClickArchiver yourself; it's very useful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'll take a look at that - seems quite handy! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad Blood

Snuggums, I reverted this edit of yours which removed analysis from multiple reliable sources. Several other users wrote on the talk page that the content should remain, you never replied, and the content remained in place; that should have been presumed consensus to keep it. Please continue the talk page discussion if you don't feel the content should be there. Thanks. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of response ≠ consensus. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, there was no consensus to remove the material and seeing as multiple editors disagreed with you on that, it should have been discussed further before you removed it per WP:IDLI. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was really more of WP:NOT than it was WP:IDLI. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple users already addressed at the talk page how your NOT application doesn't apply. But I'd be happy to continue this discussion further there. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Kitten

Since you've outlined all the problems with the article in the first review, the second review should be a walkover. Can I ping you when I've fixed the current issues and perhaps you can do the second review also? Let me know, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but keep in mind that there could be more verification problems than I outlined. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC input

Hey Snuggums, do you have some spare time to check Master of Puppets, my FA nominee? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bisch I'm Medoner

This video was so disappointing. Talk about a hypekill. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I had definitely hoped for more than just brief cameos myself :/. Hypekill is a good term to describe it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Angel Haze discography

Hi, thanks for leaving some comments at my nominated FL. I've resolved all the comments you left the best I can. I'd appreciate if you sounded off with an oppose or support, or maybe even left further comments if you feel necessary. Thanks, --Azealia911 _talk 10:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll look through again Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Prose review

Hi there. Could you take a look at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for me regarding the prose? I think the article is in pretty good shape to go to FAC, at least technically, but I am told that it may not be ready because of the prose. Any advice that you can give would be appreciated. BollyJeff | talk 12:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably do so over the weekend. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe next weekend then?? BollyJeff | talk 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just had a look now. The lead needs to include release date, time range of when filming took place, and what critics said of the film. In plot, "a perfect boy who is the one for her" doesn't sound very formal. Not so sure about "making him a star with this film" in "Production", either. In "Reception", I'd put the bit on recieving "favourable reviews" in the "critical reception" subsection, though the given reference doesn't say what critics said of it upon release. Find a ref to support this. Speaking of references, the cast section DOES need to be sourced, and so does the song list in "Soundtrack". Nothing too bad at the moment, but these will definitely need addressing before FAC, Bollyjeff. Best of luck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So you are saying that the prose itself is not too bad; meaning its passable with a few corrections here and there? BollyJeff | talk 20:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am. It just needs touching up. I didn't look at all the references, but please do also make sure they all support the article's content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

2001 Oscars

Could you possibly proofread 73rd Academy Awards for featured list consideration? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not right now, but I might later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Winchell

Just got your message just now, and I just to let you know, I apologize for not providing a source in the article of my information, next time I will find a source before editing another article again in the future. I'll do my best to be more carful next time. FrozenFan2 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as you remember to provide citations for changes and make sure the references you use are reliable, things should be fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Katy Perry need new claim sales

Thanks for remind me but please take sometime to look at this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Then you will know why I decided to update Perry's claim sales. To encourage the media releasing her new claim sales which is more appropriate with her high certification sales.

And what I do is Right and not a vandalism. I hope you understand.

Thanks Politsi (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of that article, Politsi, but please see WP:Citing sources, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. It is original research to make such claims without providing any references. The figure you gave also seemed inflated. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Hello, Goodbye" GA

Hi SNUGGUMS. I understand the issues you pointed out on the article, but I don't think they merit a quick fail like this. I would like the 7-day period to make adjustments as I think I can tackle these problems in that time period. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason I failed without putting on hold was because there was simply too much missing from the article when I reviewed it, even if a user can get work done really quickly. I unfortunately could not in good conscience promote a very incomplete article. Looking through again, certifications and sales also need to be mentioned in the lead, and so will critical commentary once included within article body. On another note, it wasn't exactly a "quick fail"; it was simply a fail. "Quick fail" is providing only brief commentary and failing, and is for articles that are unstable, have multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, maintenance tags in place ("copyedit", "POV", "ref improve", etc.), or any combination of the three. You are more than welcome to renominate once the referencing is fixed up and it has expanded enough to include commercial performance within nations and has lots of critical commentary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel that the aside from lack of critical analysis and commercial success in other countries (both of which can be summed up rather briefly: in addition, FAs "Hey Jude" and "The Long and Winding Road" make little note of their chart performance outside the UK and US) the article only needs small fixes (i.e. reference format, grammar, etc.) I believe I've already completed the references and I've made a good start on the critical opinion. I understand your point of view, but I think that there isn't quite a lot missing from the article, especially compared to other GAs ("You Never Give Me Your Money," "Rain.") Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pat Brown

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

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

I need yout help

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

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

Wild Brazil

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

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

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

Thank you, actually

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

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

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

Closure Of Merger Discussion

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

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

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

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

Madonna in popular culture

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

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

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

Christina Aguilera should be on the list of Best-Selling Music Artist with 80m-records claim

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

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

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

Ariana on the Main Page

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

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

Proposed revision

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

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

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

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

I'm a bit..

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

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

2015 GA Cup

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

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

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

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

Two years

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

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

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

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

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

Ariana Grande

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

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

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

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

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

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

73rd Academy Awards

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

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

Dorothy Rodham

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

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

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

User:Erpert

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

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

Touch the Sky (Sean Paul song)

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

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

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

Restoring deleted article Touch the Sky (Cartouche song)

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

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

Melt My Heart to Stone

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

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

Re: Steven Spielberg

Care to explain your latest edits to Steven Spielberg?[3][4] I'm not seeing anything on the talk page, so I've reverted your drive-by tagging per best practices. As for your removal of the "Judaism" parameter, the section on Steven_Spielberg#Religion clearly shows that contrary to your edit summary, he very much is defined by his religion. I will chalk this up as an simple mistake of yours unless I see evidence to the contrary. Please think very carefully before reverting. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)/archive1

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

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

Satyajit Ray Awards FLC

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

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

Thanks!!

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

My RfA

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

A problem with some users

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

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

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

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