User talk:SNUGGUMS

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

Country Airplay peak note?

Hey. I remember you adding a note to Katy Perry discography a while back when she charted on the Adult Contemporary chart (and Adult Pop Songs) with "Save as Draft". Looks like Taylor's already charted on the Pop Songs chart with "End Game", and the Country Airplay chart with "New Year's Day": http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8039607/taylor-swift-end-game-new-years-day-pop-songs-country-airplay-charts... do you think it could be added as a note to Taylor Swift discography? I know some editors have an issue with using notes for anything other than extension "heatseeker"/bubbling under charts, but there's no explicit rule that we can't for other charts from that country, so long as it's a note. Ss112 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If a song has in fact been officially released and hasn't entered the main US chart, then such peaks are fine to add. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Censorship?

Hi,

I received a note from you about some content you deleted, but you did not specific the subject or the content. Can you please elaborate. I've been editing Wikipedia pages for almost 10 years and have never had content removed or questioned for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redacter (talk • contribs) 21:21 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking back, you added a large amount of unsourced content in January 2016 that I subsequently reverted as per WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. It's important to ALWAYS provide in-text citations to credible sources—especially for contentious/personal claims on living people as per WP:Biographies of living persons—so people can check for accuracy. It otherwise seems like you're pulling things out of nowhere. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaga pic

This is apparently coming from this. Be ready for another set of vandals ala the Christina article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I personally prefer the Five Foot Two premiere pic for infobox myself, though certainly wouldn't say what you inserted was nearly as bad as those forum users suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Heartbreak on a Full Moon

As I said in my edit summaries, I am not the user (that was BlaccCrab) who added the part in the prose, but I don't think that communicated any bias. I assume "notable" basically just meant "of note" here because it is uncommon—it's not really communicating anything positive like "wow, how remarkable to release an album in the middle of a sales week, great move". I don't think it was upsetting the neutral tone of an encyclopedia, but you've already rephrased the sentence to note its three days of sales anyway, so all this communicating through edit summaries is really quite unnecessary now. Ss112 06:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I already knew you aren't the one who did, and just figured you had a right to know what I felt was inappropriate as well as why. See WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing for more. In any case, I've now made it more concise as you've stated. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Witness: The Tour

Regarding this, what is she doing? Most of the grosses are getting unreported and shows are half-full, but they are keeping on adding dates :(. It seems like they wanna pull up with the overall gross with as much dates as possible. But think about the logistics and all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously KP wants to make more money and give fans another chance to see her live regardless of how much previous shows have made. Why the hell Billboard, Pollstar, and other revenue publications haven't been giving very many updates on earnings/sales is beyond me. In any case, I went to that tour on September 29th and it was a fantastic show, especially when I SHIT YOU NOT SHE FUCKING POINTED RIGHT AT ME IN THE AUDIENCE :D! That easily made my night, and it would've been even better if we got the chance to meet in person (closest I could do was go up about ten feet across from a closer-to-the-audience platform without crossing into the exclusive access zone that my ticket didn't let me enter, though probably didn't get seen then due to massive crowds). Fun fact: while attending that as well as the Joanne World Tour on September 1st (yes I also saw Gaga live and loved it), I held up a sign saying "I help manage your Wikipedia page" :P, but I don't think it got noticed as I wasn't close enough for either of them to read that :/. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

OMGZGGGG you already saw them? That's amazing. Witness Tour looks so colorful and an amazing production by the way. I'm still waiting for both the tours to come to UK. Already got Gaga's tickets, hope can scalpel some for Katy's. And LMAO @you holding up that sign. Amazing —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I sure did, and they're both well worth the money! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

All I Want for Christmas Is You, a Night of Joy and Festivity

Hey. Do you think I should create either a separate section on 'All I Want for Christmas Is You, a Night of Joy and Festivity' for the 'All I Want for Christmas Is You Worldwide Tour' dates or create a new article called 'All I Want for Christmas Is You Worldwide Tour', or leave as it stand as one whole tour and table on 'All I Want for Christmas Is You, a Night of Joy and Festivity'? As by this tweet I'm not sure whether it's still the 'All I Want for Christmas Is You, a Night of Joy and Festivity' despite her still doing the Beacon Theatre residency this year. Technically it's not the residency anymore as it's gone elsewhere in the US and international, so it's a tour. But this worldwide tour includes the original residency still?  — Calvin999 00:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Either that residency concert has become a tour, or she's doing something totally separate. I can't tell which myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's like she's touring the residency. I'll wait for a set list to see if it's different, because the Beacon one has been the same for three years.  — Calvin999 09:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look and assess

I think our old "friend" is back. Please take a look at edits from the new account (I believe it's a sleeper) and the IP found at the following links: [1], [2]. The non-American English spelling of a particular word at their talk page is telling, too. She has been making numerous OTRS requests to have their indef lifted, too. The latest was just last week (and declined, of course). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If you mean MaranoFan, then I'm not so sure about the IP, but the Alexander_81333 account only focusing on Meghan Trainor articles so far is suspicious. I don't think there's enough solid evidence to take to SPI or anything at the moment, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MF. When caught socking as an IP previously, the IP geolocated to Mumbai, where this IP geolocates to. I do think they are connected. It's also pretty telling that after I contacted you, the named account's activity/editing stopped. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Could just be a coincidence that they simply stopped for the day and will edit more in the future. In any case, let's see what the account does later before making any definitive conclusions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition of the word "Legacy"

Per your revert of my edits. FYI:

Merriam Webster:
Definition of legacy
plural legacies
1 :a gift by will especially of money or other personal property :bequest She left us a legacy of a million dollars.
2 :something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering.

Dictionary.com:
noun, plural legacies.
1. Law. a gift of property, especially personal property, as money, by will; a bequest.
2. anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome.

Cambridge Dictionary:
legacy
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ˈleɡ.ə.si/ US ​ /ˈleɡ.ə.si/
​ C2 money or property that you receive from someone after they die: An elderly cousin had left her a small legacy.
​ C2 something that is a part of your history or that remains from an earlier time: The Greeks have a rich legacy of literature.
The war has left a legacy of hatred.

Music industry publicists want to use that word to puff up their clients, so it's often seen, but that isn't a good reason for us to use it here. LK (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence, even if the music industry or press in general doesn't use the term "legacy" in the same way that the above instances do, it's not exclusively limited to the deceased like you've suggested since the living can still impact others in way nobody else had before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm talking about the common meaning of the word. Per WP:MOS, we should use plain English, we shouldn't use words in a non-standard way. People have an 'impact' when they are alive. In common writing, we don't describe this impact as their 'legacy'; especially if they are still active in the field, and continuing having a 'legacy' on the industry. Perhaps if the person had been retired for some time and were no longer in the field, we might use the word, but that's not how it's being used in the articles I object to. LK (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason to insert the president seal

I want to clarify that the reason I want to insert the president seal is that for this VERY LONG list of offices and distinctions, it is not easy to find the succession of the president of the US. Adding this seal can make that line stand out, after all, it is the most important position in the U.S. federal government. MaxPS (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help when the image is too small to even see very well. Read WP:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SNUGGUMS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, SNUGGUMS. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Wishing SNUGGUMS a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Chris troutman :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

John Astor

Hi - I am presently reverting your edits to remove John Astor's article and then remove every link to that page across Wikipedia. You may think the article is not well sourced, but the subject (having been an MP for ten years) is automatically notable, so deleting every link to him is not the right way of resolving this. 92.5.91.49 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

First and foremost, titles don't automatically mean people warrant articles; they have to be covered within multiple credible secondary sources as per WP:Notability in a fair amount of detail. See the sections "General notability guideline" (WP:GNG), "Article content does not determine notability" (WP:ARTN), and "Notability requires verifiable evidence" (WP:NRVE) for more on the matter. Secondly, I didn't "delete" anything; I redirected the page because he didn't warrant his own article per lack of adequate coverage in any legitimate sources that do mention him at all. Unless you can provide quality citations with any decent amount of material focusing on him and not just a brief mention while discussing other family members, there isn't any valid reason to restore him. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? He's a multiple term UK MP! Of course he's bloody notable - the odds of sources not being able to found is 100000000:1. There's currently an article cited in Who's Who (UK). If you don't think he's notable, do some BEFORE and take it AfD! What's the point of a redirect if you're removing links to it?? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Ah I see with removal of redirects you were changing the primary redirect of it..well maybe for a multiple term UK MP don't "boldly" redirect him? Seriously? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I did' do WP:BEFORE and found nothing but brief mentions. You need to actually have solid references available on a subject for them to warrant a page and can't just automatically presume they do solely based on positions held. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Take it to AfD then? Y'know, there's a process for when you think an article fails notability..and it isn't redirecting it. You're essentially deleting the article. There's also WP:NPOLITICIAN.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC) There's also WP:NEXIST - consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. - just because googling doesn't bring up sources doesn't mean they don't exist, and for a UK member of parliament there's an extremely strong presumption that sources exist; many of the sources will be offline as he was MP in the pre-internet era. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting and deleting an article are two separate things. As a non-admin, I don't have the ability to delete pages. Regarding WP:NPOLITICIAN, that doesn't state or suggest that one's office makes them exempt from WP:SIGCOV. In fact, point#3 says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". While a Google search largely focuses on other relatives of the same name and the only times they do talk about this Astor specifically are just brief mentions (even when I add birth year to help distinguish from other relatives), I also searched in Google Scholar, Google Books, and JSTOR, and the results weren't any better. Definitely not a good sign if looking for resources to maintain a page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a good sign..doesn't mean they aren't notable. Also he isn't a "elected local official". I'm just going to note that any UK MP is going to be invariably kept at AfD and that's because they're essentially guaranteed to have sources existing - WP:NEXIST. (not finding sources in google doesn't mean someone is not notable)Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If nothing good can be found in the other links I provided (remember I did more than just Google), then it's beyond me where else people would get viable material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not every book is searchable on google books or JSTOR, and there are definitely newspapers from the 1970s that will cover him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It would really help for such papers to be more easily accessible to the general public as well as our editors so they'll have more to work off of. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Alicia Keys discography

Regarding Hot 100 chart positions above 100, "fabricated" isn't totally accurate. These songs hit the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart, and should be noted as such, in the format of a note. See Rita Ora discography#Singles for examples of how this would work. feminist 13:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Entering the Bubbling Under chart doesn't mean reaching 100-something on the main Hot 100; these are separate charts and shouldn't be treated as one thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hence you don't see a number and only see a footnote regarding the Bubbling under 100 chart. This is common practice on discography articles and sections. feminist 13:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Ss112: who is quite familiar with discography articles, I think. feminist 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

He is, and my point that Bubbling Under doesn't equal 100+ on Hot 100 (it has "100" in its name for a reason) remains the same even if one does add Bubbling Under to a page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is, instead of outright removing the incorrect chart positions, change them to footnotes specifying their positions on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart. That would be much more informative to the reader. feminist 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Belated happy birthday

Sorry, I just noticed its been a week since your birthday. Happy 24th! We are aging like fine wine eh? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and it seems safe to say the answer is yes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy (belated) birthday! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You have my gratitude :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

FDR

If you're going to continue to revert at FDR, then at least make the same changes to the infoboxes at the other US Presidents. Why have just one out of sync? PS: It was with small fonts for years. Now suddenly, you're bothered by it. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I already am in fact doing the same at other articles. Deliberately making text smaller than it otherwise would be is poor practice, especially for places like infoboxes that already have smaller displays than general prose text, and I've removed it from many other infoboxes as well before this one. If it had in fact been there before (which either way remains a bad choice to insert), then it must've been gone for so long I forgot about it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given you some authorship in my edit summaries, while enlarging the dates-in-question, in all US Prez infoboxes. If anyone wants to complain about the 'now' big/clunky dates? they can bring their concerns to you. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

They were never exactly "big" or "clunky", particularly the former given my above comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi SNUGGUMS,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given the article a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I might look at that later when I get the chance. Best of luck either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Funny how you two are bitter about me adding chart info, something with a negative connotation to it (with a reliable source), with other editors agreeing with me but you're trying to block me for "edit warring". What is with you people? I'm "edit warring" but the person deleting sourced information is being a good ol samaritan? You only want me blocked because the two of you both want the info gone so now Billboard is (yet again) apparently not reliable lol. BlaccCrab (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're totally mischaracterizing my points. I'm not "bitter" about anything or trying to block you (can't block people anyway when I'm not an admin), only giving a warning that edit warring can lead to an admin blocking you. I also never at any point even suggested Billboard was unreliable, only that the link used DID NOT support the assertion you made. Billboard links for song peaks list ALL SONGS that entered the chart whether they were singles or not, and doesn't specify which ones had single releases or what albums they were from, let alone the order they were released from an album. You cannot just presume something was a single solely because it charted. What you've added is WP:SYNTH at best by coming up with a conclusion it doesn't state or even suggest. Furthermore, even if what you added was in fact supported by that link or some other citation, I fail to see how it's worth including when many other Eminem singles haven't reached the top 10. It doesn't come off as due weight. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)