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.

Caroline Kennedy

I apologise for any inconvenience. Alongside user LosPajaros (though not directly with him), I have recently been adding public-domain voice clips of American politicians, nominees and ambassadors to their Wikipedia articles. While LosPajaros is adding voice clips to articles of incumbent U.S. senators and representatives (example: Ted Budd, John Fetterman), I am slowly adding voice clips to articles of U.S. military officers, past U.S. senators since the 2009 election and nominees to various executive branch positions, including ambassadorships.

The voice clips I am uploading to articles are in the public domain due to being part of confirmation hearings filmed by C-SPAN on U.S. government-owned cameras. Opening statements, which often list down the qualifications and policy priorities of nominees, are usually the only public-domain voice specimens of these individuals I can find lacking background noise, sudden tone changes or unexpected interruptions. Many other places I can get voice clips from are speeches to private organizations which cannot be uploaded (fair use not being allowed on Wikimedia Commons). Thus, these voice specimens, being easy to get, would serve some purpose for those wanting to know more about the subject without necessarily having to constantly link to other pages (even more apparent for obscure individuals where the hearing is, possibly, the only high-quality audio sample available). Prominent figures including U.S. presidents have voice clips, but I digress (WP:SYNTH is in effect here).

I am well aware that Ambassador Kennedy is, well, a Kennedy, but that did not factor into any decision to add the voice clip. Many other individuals I have added voice clips to (career ambassadors as opposed to political appointees, for example) do not have the same potential partisan following that Ambassador Kennedy may have. That said, unlike some other nominees, Kennedy (such as in the Booknotes external link in the page) may have more readily available voice specimens. I am not an American citizen; I live in Singapore. With this in mind, I wanted to revert your edit, but not wanting a dispute, I want to hear your views first. I fear that not doing so might end (I apologise for any pessimism) in mass reversion of any work I may have done in the past few days, and perhaps that of LosPajaros as well. SuperWIKI (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

My removal had nothing to do with family connections or positions held, SuperWIKI; it was because I didn't see anything of value it could accomplish that the prose didn't already do. Anybody who just wants a simple overview could look at the lead section. However, it is nice to know these clips aren't copyright violations, even when much longer than the 30 second maximum allowed for fair-use audio. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! In terms of the audio clip, would it be objectionable if I re-added it? While the lead indeed is representative of Ambassador Kennedy (which is more than I can say for the more sparse pages of other nominees), I still feel the voice clip adds further to the page. While opening statements often have the prior qualifications of the subjects, the voice clips are not intended to be analogous to or replace the lead; rather, they provide voice samples where public-domain ones cannot be found elsewhere. SuperWIKI (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I oppose putting this back in. Aside from hearing what somebody sounds like, what does the sample add that text cannot? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, I have decided against re-adding. Unlike most articles I've added clips to, Caroline Kennedy's article seems well-built enough with sources and content to not need additional audio puffery. Regardless, the audio clip still exists on Wikimedia Commons as a public-domain clip. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes as a source

Should it really be used to confirm an actor's DOB? Because I'm looking at other celebrities that have age disputes on Wikipedia and what RT has listed are most certainly incorrect because other info for those actors such as what year they graduated high school or college are on their pages(with legit cited sources) and those years don't match up to what the DOB that are listed on RT.

To give a couple more examples, RT has the singer Ric Ocasek's birth year listed as 1949. However when he passed away in 2019, it was confirmed that he was actually five years older. RT also still has John Leguizamo's birth year listed as 1964. Over a year ago it was revealed that he's four years older. Kcj5062 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's possible such age updates came in after their pages were last edited, Kcj5062, but either way this is far from the worst thing I've seen used for a DOB. You'd be hard-pressed to completely eradicate that from all articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alfred Vanderbilt Jr.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alfred Vanderbilt Jr.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —holly {chat} 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cultural impact of Taylor Swift

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cultural impact of Taylor Swift, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like I just accidentally added an extra "e" to the end of "magazine" and someone else has already fixed this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Most of Kylie Minogue albums are released by Parlophone/BMG Rights Management, with a star and letter K hybrid logo/trademark appears on physical release (as for example which is actually has registrated by "KDB Pty Ltd.") Plus "Darenote" is a copyright holder and not a record label (which has under licensed to BMG on the recent albums). Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. 113.210.105.84 (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you posted this on my talk page, but very well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

As you're a frequent editor of music articles, I wanted to consult you on Ariana Grande. I have been trying to get that article to GA for quite some time, but an editor driven by pure Grande fan bias has taken control over that article and has plagued it with fancruft, puffery, original research and unreliable sources, and would not let anybody else trim/tweak/clean-up the article. The lead, especially, is so unreadably large and extremely puffed. The editor would not also not engage in decent talk page discussions either. I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I have stopped editing that article. Must this be taken up to the Music Project page or admins' noticeboard? Please let me know. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 11:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Mirrored7, Ronherry, that user does seem quite persistent from a glance at the article history! If the talk page for WikiProject Musicians or a thread on Dispute Resolution can't settle anything, then ANI might have to do as a last resort. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ℛonherry☘ 14:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry If you decide to file an ANI, please ping me or leave me a message on my talk page. I have evidence I would like to add. (Snuggums, sorry for hijacking your talk page for this message.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aoi: Sure. I will let you know. ℛonherry☘ 11:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Hey, I was wondering if you would like to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The First Vision/archive1 if you have time. Your comments are always appreciated. Best, Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Not right away, Heartfox, but I should have something up within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ten years

This is a couple days late, but the most recent June 30th marked a full 10 years since I made my Wikipedia account! Some days have been better than others as I've gone through many ups and downs over the past decade. Overall, it's been worth sticking around, and maintaining article quality is still an ongoing task. To all of the Wikipedians out there who are still dedicated to keeping pages in good shape, stick to it for as long as you can! I'll do what I can to continue making them better, whether in big ways or small. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Katheryn Perry" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Katheryn Perry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11 § Katheryn Perry until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Reception

I tried explaining this to Smuckola on their talk page, but they are part of the group of editors who feel all response to a song, including chart performance, should be grouped as part of "reception" as it's how it was "received", and I was dismissed with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even though I linked to the style guide for albums and the original way TenPoundHammer formatted the article... Ss112 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Those Wikipedians were fully in the wrong for trying to lump charts under "Reception". I could understand splitting that page's section with subheadings for musician's thoughts vs. what critics thought, but not trying to treat charts as a related matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

JFK's religion and its relevance

Hello, I noticed your edits where you removed the information about JFK's being the first Catholic President from his article's lead. Your reasoning was that it is a "minor detail". I am shocked by this decision, and I am even more shocked by your reasoning, which I find it a bit callous.

This might be a problem of presentism - Kennedy's faith is incredibly important in the context of his election as well as the American history. Anti-Catholic prejudice was extremely widespread in the United States, and it was an important issue for both 1928 and 1960 presidential elections, as in both cases the Democratic candidate was a Catholic and had to battle claims of Catholicism being "corrupt, superstitious, undemocratic, or un-American". Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. stated that this prejudice was even stronger than anti-Semitism for example, calling it "the deepest bias in the history of the American people". Robert Kennedy also called it the "anti-Semitism of the intellectuals".

And indeed, this anti-Catholic prejudice was so extreme that Catholics faced discrimination on par with African-Americans, and Ku Klux Klan did persecute both groups in the same vein. To this end, Catholic immigrants were often not considered white (since, after all, they did not fit the WASP category), and African-American were even sometimes called "smoked Irish". That Al Smith lost the 1928 presidential election, and lost it in such a landslide, is in fact attributed mainly to his religion and the resulting anti-Catholic prejudice: "It was Smith’s religion that generated the most controversy, and the “Catholic issue” is now considered determinative among historians for explaining his crushing defeat. For both Republicans and Democrats looking for organizational networks to oppose Smith, the Klan appeared as a godsend."

That Kennedy was able to narrowly win the 1960 election is very significant in that it signifies the ability of a Catholic to get elected despite the prejudice. It was a complete reversal of 1928. And yet, Kennedy's religion was an important national issue in this election. As anti-Catholic prejudice was still very present, many voters changed their vote against Kennedy once they found out about his religion. To quote one of my sources here: "When Kennedy asked why he was declining in the polls, his staff told him frankly, “But no one in West Virginia knew you were a Catholic in December. Now they know.”"

So once Kennedy's victory became clear, it was also a victory for religious tolerance in this regard. Incredibly relevant, I would say: "John Kennedy’s election restored faith in religious freedom and the First Amendment. American Catholics especially felt their acceptance as equal citizens with the election of a coreligionist to the White House. Patricia O’Brien recounted the sentiments felt around her native Boston after the election. Spirits reawakened and people believed something great had happened. Her own family celebrated Kennedy’s election as a symbol of Catholics’ attaining a level of full citizenship."

As such, I really find it unreasonable to call this information irrelevant. Kennedy's religion was incredibly important, was an important issue during the 1960 election, and his victory as a Catholic had tremendous implications for the American culture and society as a whole. Thank you. Brat Forelli (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

At no point do I deny his Catholicism or how Catholics have endured prejudice, I just don't believe it was among the guy's most prominent aspects. Furthermore, I know of Catholic whites who emigrated to the US and their race was never counted as something else based on not being WASP. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and thank you for explaining your reasoning. Are you talking of Catholic whites of the 21st century? In this case, I don't doubt that excluding someone from the "white" label on the basis of their religion is absurd today.

But this was the case for groups such as Italians and the Irish in the 19th century, and for the first half of the 20th century. In case of Italians, they were indeed considered a separate race compared with the "African" one: "Italians, involved in a spectacular international Diaspora in the early twentieth century, were racialized as the ‘Chinese of Europe’ in many lands. But in the U. S. their racialization was pronounced, as ‘guinea’s’ evolution suggests, more likely to connect Italians with Africans."

Same applied to the Irish immigrants in the USA, as the "Irish were frequently referred to as "niggers turned inside out"; the Negroes, for their part, were sometimes called "smoked Irish," an appellation they must have found no more flattering than it was intended to be."

So it was a long way from such attitudes to 1960, when the first Catholic president was elected despite entrenched anti-Catholic prejudice. The election of Kennedy, especially in contrast to the landslide defeat of Smith from 1928, signifies an ultimate decay and rejection of such attitudes. Brat Forelli (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

More than just 21st century: I also meant Catholics from Europe who moved to America long before 1960, including those with Irish/Italian ancestry. Can't say for sure whether those particular individuals just got lucky to avoid such discrimination, but regardless, the pre-1960 sentiments you've brought up are quite disturbing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

POV wording

Just letting you know I reverted an edit you made at Love Story (Taylor Swift song), (Tragic" [along with "tragedy"] is an inherently subjective description that implies something is sad, and we shouldn't treat opinions as facts). Tragedy is an established literary genre and describing Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy is not POV. Ippantekina (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have done so as that ignores how it contains a connotation of something being sad, Ippantekina, and whether we Wikipedians find things to be sad doesn't belong within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is an established literary genre it is not personal opinion. Indeed Shakespeare has his own genre of tragedy, and I see no problem with describing Romeo and Juliet as such, as it highlights how specifically Swift's lyrics deviate from Shakespearean prose. Ippantekina (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, inserting our stances on whether something ends on a fortunate or unfortunate note makes it slanted, regardless of what she or Shakespeare intended. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Italic Removals

Hey, I've seen you remove italics from image captions on several FAs now. Given the amount of editors writing and reviewing these, that's a lot of people who seem to disagree the usage is incorrect. Have you considered starting a discussion at some forum, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting? Image captions are not mentioned at MOS:NOITAL so it does not seem to be obvious. Also, I've left replies at the FAC page.--NØ 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the double comment, but upon further research MOS:CAPFRAG seems to have left it up to individual editors, only emphasizing that a consistent approach be used throughout the article. It would be a good idea not to refer to this as "incorrect use" in edit summaries since this seems to be a matter of personal preference. Regards.--NØ 23:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That page is one I admittedly hadn't seen before, MaranoFan, but something about using italics for parentheticals comes across as dubious. Those more often are used for names of works. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Alicia

So apparently, this is fairly common phrasing or use of the word. Perhaps if you can come up with a replacement for that point of critical reception we can discuss doing so. But to remove it with nothing to fill the hole doesn't seem constructive, especially given it's stood this way since the article's promotion. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the first type that link mentions appears to be the closest match, Teflon Peter Christ, I'd say we could use something less vague like "melody" or "music's sound". Maybe even "orchestration" or "composition" would be better options. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Beyonce

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I added back the quotes that were removed. It shows how she feels about her church and also how she sang her first solo there from a young age. The citation is used twice on her Wiki page. The second time is about singing her first solo there so the quote is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowroads (talk • contribs) 05:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

My qualm with that is how it edited out a big chunk of article text in between sentences, Mellowroads. Assuming the quote field gets used, I wanted to have it more accurately represent the first one without giving an impression that they followed in closer succession. I didn't initially notice the ref got re-used later on and apologize for not factoring this in before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits)

@SNUGGUMS: The quote is already so long so I removed the irrelevant part about the pastor. If you feel this is necessary to include, then it's fine. Mellowroads (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I saw your recent adjustments. The apostrophes you added aren't needed since an ellipsis (...) is used to show that they aren't consecutive sentences. This website shows how to use them. I also suggest removing the pastor part since it's irrelevant to the article. Mellowroads (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"GA Cup" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect GA Cup has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § GA Cup until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote Refactoring

Hello once again. I was having a look at WP:QUOTE recently and it states: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text to avoid interrupting the pace, flow and organization of the article". It says this is completely okay and encourages indicating this clearly using square brackets. I think some of my quotations you have changed might not flow as well. For example, "Adele's friends were unimpressed by an initial snippet of it but 'they loved [her] patience in it'" forms a more coherent sentence for someone reading through the article compared to "Adele's friends were unimpressed by an initial snippet of it but 'they loved my patience in it'". The latter phrasing might raise the question of who "me" is. Let me know what you think!--NØ 10:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that the "my" or "me" in that case would refer to Adele herself, MaranoFan, especially when right before the quote there's a "she" within the "she claimed that" bit. Altering this into a bracketed word unhelpfully lessens the faithfulness of source representation. It can look like one is trying to hide something (take for example the 2001 censoring of Kevin Spacey's name when Anthony Rapp spoke of him making inappropriate advances) and either way feels best to refrain from such refactoring as much as possible. Such brackets tend to make me grow suspicious when I see them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label

Hi SNUGGUMS. Therehere is a discussion on the talk page about label in the infobox of The Storm Before the Calm. Any contributions would be helpful. 183.171.121.219 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing to say on this matter, IP, and thus decline to join the thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Audience reception

Hi Snuggums. I saw an edit summary of yours wondering why an "Audience reception" was added to Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour. I feel obliged to answer you as it was me who split the prose about the audience away from the critical reception section. Wikipedia's guidelines for the standard structure of a film article suggests an "Audience reception" section if necessary. I am aware not a lot of film articles have this section, but that's because they're just films, not pop culture events per se. Films that are preceded by intense fan buzz often generate commentary from critics reporting on audience behaviour at the theaters. Plus, this section can also contain the audience ratings as per the guidelines. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 04:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Ronherry, and it did at first stick out as an unusual sight for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Gerda Arendt, and things remains something I'm quite proud of! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Don Ienner

Hi, I am Don Ienner's son helping my dad out with his Wikipedia article. Not too long ago I posted a few suggestions to add important information to the article. I saw that you have an interest in music and thought you might like to help with editing this page, since my understanding is that because of my conflict of interest I should not make any edits myself. Here is a link to my suggestions. Thanks so much. GarrettEye (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you do indeed have a conflict of interest here, GarrettEye, and I'm glad you realize that. Reverting clear vandalism or copyright violations would be fine, and maybe you could make non-contentious changes like spelling and grammar fixes, but that's about all. I currently am not sure how much I could contribute to the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination for Mark Zuckerberg

Hello @SNUGGUMS, I am presently third among all time contributors for Mark Zuckerberg's article and knowing that you rank first thought that it would be wise to consult you before nominating it for a GA review. I am presently fixing the citations on the article so that they follow more or less the same accurate general standard. Also it would be great to have you on board if you could assist me in the process given your work on the article. Your co-operation will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

From a glance, MSincccc, I would get rid of one-sentence paragraphs. Those are discouraged when they make the flow of text feel choppy. The "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section also needs an update, and there's improper uses of italics for some refs. I'll put it up for GAN when ready with your name attached. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I had just like to notify one thing. Wouldn't it be more accurate to list all news cites as "work" rather than "newspaper" as you have done because that has been done previously for 2 GAs of which I have been part and in other pages as well. Just confirming. If you want to carry on with "newspaper", I have no problem with that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

For print papers like Los Angeles Times and USA Today, yes. We have the "newspaper" parameter for a reason and may as well put it to use. When it comes to televised news programs like Entertainment Tonight or Good Morning America, I would use the "work" field instead as those aren't printed pieces. Any organization that wouldn't be italicized is better off going under "agency", "publisher", or maybe "via". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I hope you remember that we were working to prepare Zuck's article for GA. By the way, I have fixed the lead and a whole lot of citations. Also I beseech you to go through the "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section as I was perplexed as to what is and not to be added to it. That's all for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In its second paragraph, there's nothing on whether Zuck showed up to comply with an October 2020 subpoena. The section's third paragraph also discusses a March 2021 testimony about the January 6th Capitol attack without any follow-up on what he said there. We shouldn't nominate with such incomplete thoughts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Added info from what he said on March 23, 2021. Just check in and see if I have left out something should it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That 2021 addition looks fine, though you still have nothing on 2020 subpoena. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMSCould you please be specific as to what I need to cite about the 2020 subpoena? There is already one from October 1, 2020. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought I already made this obvious, but the paragraph ends with "The subpoenas aimed to force the CEOs to testify about the legal immunity the law affords tech platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. US Republicans argued that the law unduly protected social media companies against allegations of anti-conservative censorship." There's no follow-up on what that led to or whether Zuck went to court as ordered for that day. The next paragraph goes into a 2021 ordeal, which was separate from this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I can't find any accurate source though I have the info. Would you please look after the addition of matters related to the 2020 subpoena yourself? Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have the info somewhere, then cite it, and by the way you don't have to ping my username when posting messages on my talk page. I'm already going to see what others write here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A Charlie Brown Christmas names

I saw that you edited A Charlie Brown Christmas to insert the character's full names in the text. However, to the best of my recollection, the full names -- excepting Charlie Brown, of course -- are not used in the special. So within the context of discussing the special, "Linus" and "Lucy", without the "Van Pelt", is likely preferable. I have a COI with regards to Peanuts, but I suggest you consider this aspect and, if you agree, undo the edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, NatGertler, doing so can leave any viewers who don't know Peanuts with an impression that they only have first names. That wasn't a chance worth taking. When reading text aloud, it's best for readers to have some sense of who characters are without having to click links. Imagine yourself reading a print version of the article. If you didn't already know who the Van Pelts were, then what would you think their names were when only reading Linus or Lucy? The surnames help give context for plot summaries and cast descriptions. As I mentioned in the linked edit summary, we Wikipedians shouldn't presume everyone looking at the page will know right away who they are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In the special, their names only are Linus and Lucy. Names that are not used in the special should not be used for plot summaries or cast descriptions either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV template

About this edit, I was quoting verbatim from the source to provide context for the nickname. If you think this violates NPOV, fine, that can be discussed, but a more personalised message would be welcome instead of a template. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough on templating, and yes there were clear treatments of certain chart numbers as a sad thing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Much appreciated, The Herald, and I'll make the most of it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 has arrived

Happy New Year Wikipedia! Wishing its members the best for 2024. I look forward to further improving pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mariah Carey nominated for TFA

Hello. Just want to let you know Mariah Carey has been nominated for TFA. Feel free to voice your opinion on the nomination page. RMXY (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I already did, RapMonstaXY, though still appreciate the notification. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC

Hey, hope you're doing well. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated at my nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)/archive1. Heartfox (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am, Heartfox, and have now left comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mariah Carey listed for FAR

I have nominated Mariah Carey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Madame web

you reverted an edit listing it as a bomb. Your reasoning was that it made 96 million gross on 80 million budget. And was thus profitable. That is completely false. A studio gets about 50% of gross in revenue so Sony has a bit under 50 million in revenue on a 80 million budget still very much losing money. On top of the reported 100 million spent on marketing. If your going to edit film articles it would help to have a basic understanding of revenue and expenses for the studio in relation to box office totals Holydiver82 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

$100M doesn't seem to be confirmed last I checked, Holydiver82, and either way there still is time for the movie to earn more at the box office. It frankly is a bad habit to prematurely label something as a bomb before leaving theaters. I don't know why anybody lacks the patience to wait for the end of theatrical runs, but they shouldn't be so hasty with such declarations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

is it early to call it a bomb when it is still in theatres? yes should wait for final box office numbers. but it is very much currently losing money and the box office totals are likely not going up in any significant way. is it possible it could do over 160 million and cover its budget? anything is possible, sans a miracle it will be a box office "flop/disappointment/bomb/loser/etc" that will lose sony money. really the only question for the film is exactly how much money it will lose at the box office when the final numbers come in and if anyone has reliable enough totals for marketing costs. but again 96 million on 80 million budget is very much in the flop/lose money category Holydiver82 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions about what its totals will be. When there are no firm guarantees on this, your "sans a miracle" and "only question for the film" remarks sound unfairly presumptuous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

the film has been out for a month, it sits below 100 million. even an extremely conservative marketing total would put the total cost to sony well over 100 million. yes, it would take a miracle for this film to suddenly do over 200 million at the box office, especially when the censuses from critics, reviewers, RT, everywhere has been this film is absolutely terrible. its only redeeming quality seems to be to watch it ironically based on "its so bad its fun to watch" you can reference the wiki page to see how poorly the reception has been. bad films that have been out for a month generally do not magically double box office revenue in its final weeks in theatres. Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what watching something "ironically" is supposed to mean or how one thinks it can be "fun to watch" something they think is "bad", but whether films are "bad" is a personal opinion, and whether critics like something is a separate matter from how much gets grossed (there are times when widely praised movies have poor earnings and vice versa in addition to any situations where they do poorly or quite well in both regards). Neither of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see future results, and you shouldn't make assumptions for this solely based on performances of other films or how much has already been generated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

sans an act of god this movie will lose 10s of millions for sony at the box office. that is just reality, however unpleasant that may be. someone who doesnt know that box office gross does not equal revenue to the studio probably is out of their depth talking about films Holydiver82 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of how much is earned, your snide remarks on being "out of their depth" are completely unnecessary, and please don't patronize others whether you agree with them or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ben Rector

Hello SNUGGUMS, this is from Ben Rector’s team. While we appreciate your input on his history, we would kindly ask if you don’t mind to hold off on making more edits as we want to keep his wiki accurate as possible. Thank you so much for understanding. Thank you in advance for your understand and consideration. Best, Ben Rector (UTC) ADHP2024 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I only have made one minor change to the article so far, ADHP2024, and having someone from a subject's team make any major and/or contentious changes their page is frowned upon per WP:Conflict of interest. Same goes for Wikipedians in general trying to edit bio articles on themselves. You might be able to bring up suggestions for specific changes on the talk page and discuss certain aspects of it, but please do NOT alter things drastically. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS, Can I please suggest that you keep out that Ben Rector is a devout Christian and any irrelevant quotes pulled from interviews, that should not be the focus of Ben's Wiki page. No other singer songwriter has a page like that, it should be kept to the facts and the highlights, not include so much storytelling and narrative. Can I also please suggest that his releases are factual so they stay listed as they are non promotional but just an accurate description and timeline of his release history. Thank you! ADHP2024 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are other singer articles talking about their religious affiliations (or lack thereof), and I don't see any good reason to delete this for someone who has used it as a theme for songwriting. Having at least some interview quotes (though certainly not every single one conducted) helps give insight into a subject without just monotonously focusing on only what was released. A particularly glaring problem is you tried to remove family details from his page as that makes it feel incomplete. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ben Rector

Thanks for the page protection. Most of the edits made here seem to be just a reversion of the work I've done on the article so far. Do you personally see something glaringly wrong with the work I've done here so far that would call for someone to WP:TNT it? Also, I'm curious if there is a genuine COI issue to be found here... one guy did claim to be Ben himself, but the content they removed is very out of character for him (here lol). Panini! • 🥪 17:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

All I know for sure is that the article should be protected from IPs and new accounts, Panini!, and would have no objections to making it indefinite. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again; just making sure I wasn't missing something. Panini! • 🥪 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFAP

Hi Snuggums. Katy Perry just got added to TFAP as a rerun for October, and I don't see evidence that you or anyone associated with the article was consulted. Any thoughts, in either the yes or no direction? - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)