User talk:SNUGGUMS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:XXSNUGGUMSXX)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

What would you call this album?[edit]

I found something that could be added to Cody Simpson discography, a live collection of songs that seems to be exclusive to Spotify, like the Spotify Sessions EPs done by multiple artists like Echosmith. But the thing is, the "album" had 6 songs on it. So would I consider it a live album, an EP, or something different entirely? I know you're not big on discographies, but if you could help, it'd be great. Sorry for always coming to you with questions, by the way. Only editor I feel really comfortable conversing with. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I work on discographies from time to time. My guess would be to list it under "live albums", but you'd probably get a better answer from WT:WikiProject Discographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Still not familiar with those parts of Wiki yet. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Can you also keep an eye on this one? Goes on adding unreliable sources for updating the net worth of BLPs. Targetting the Lady Gaga article now. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be necessary; IndianBio; the account had already been indefinitely blocked by the time I read this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

80th Oscars[edit]

Hi there,

Could you proofread 80th Academy Awards for featured list status whenever you do have the time? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I should be able to soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assistance once again needed[edit]

Hey, so, I need some help. Drake Bell's Ready Steady Go! Tour started in early 2015 according to his YouTube, but according to his website, he will also continue it in 2016. Problem is, the album is mentioned in the section "2010–14: Films, A Reminder, and Ready Steady Go!" section, hence his High School Nation tour was mentioned there, along with the album. And it looks awkward mentioning anything about Ready Steady Go! an entire section (two paragraphs) later. What should I do? Maybe gather more information and make separate section for his acting and music careers, leave it the way it is? Please let me know, I appreciate your help and input. Thank you in advance! -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally think the sections can be merged to make a "2010–present" section. Five paragraphs (what I currently see now combining 2010–2014 and 2015–present sections) is a manageable section length. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Thanks, I will get to that. If there's anything else you can suggest let me know. Maybe a suggestion for a section name would help as well. Because usually there are three subjects, but we have films, A Reminder, Ready Steady Go!, and then the tour itself. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Tours themselves I've found are generally not the focus of a bio section's era; the Ready Steady Go! album by itself already covers that. It's therefore fine to keep the current title from the 2010–2014 section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! I'm actually hoping he does not do much more in 2016... it might start getting super long. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi myname is ROG and i think you are talking about Eminems page. I needed someone to fix that for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogelioorrelana (talkcontribs)

Hello ROG. I'm not sure what you feel needs to be fixed, but I reverted your most recent edit because A) no citation was provided, B) calling someone a "legend" in article text without quotation marks comes off as biased. Verifiability and neutrality are key things to have throughout articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh Thank You and can you please check the article of hip hop artist Big Pun because I edited it and i added a new paragraph and backed it up with links. If theres any mistakes please fix them for me. Oh and can you let me know if theres any mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogelioorrelana (talkcontribs)

I reverted that because this is a fansite and therefore not reliable. For a guide on good sources to use in music articles, see WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Additionally, the {{Main article}} template is better to use than a subsection with "also see" in it title because it saves article space and the text is cleaner. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oscar nominations[edit]

Oscar nominations are obviously noteworthy, which is why they're reported by mainstream sources like ABC News. Are you saying that if she doesn't win, her nomination shouldn't even be listed? Then why not remove from the article that she was nominated for Winter's Bone and American Hustle, since she didn't win those? Oscar nominations are always added to the Wikipedia pages of actors. Aquila89 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly noteworthy in comparison to actual wins. Regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFF currently uses, it's better to focus on wins more than nominations. Yes, I would say nominations she lost are better for List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence than her main article. I hadn't noticed those in her page at the time of removing the Joy nomination, though. Also, not every actor page lists every award nomination they receive, especially when their lists of accolades have their own articles. My timeframe is limited at the moment, but I'll look through her article again later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not every nomination, but we're talking about the Oscars here. Oscar nominations are noteworthy. I find it shocking that this even needs to be debated. I brought up removing her nominations as reductio ad absurdum, not a serious proposal. The Academy Award is the most important award in American cinema. Even if someone is just a nominee, news sources will report on it and it will be used in trailers, posters and other advertising. It adds prestige to the name of an actor - being nominated is already a honor, and it is understood as such. I'd go as far to say that an Oscar nomination is more important than a Golden Globe win. There's a very clear consensus about this on Wikipedia. Every article on actors who were nominated lists all of their nominations, including featured and good articles. Do you really want to remove all of these? Aquila89 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
My stance remains the same regardless of how prominent a ceremony or category is. Just because something is mentioned in the news doesn't automatically mean it should be included within an article, just saying. Oscar wins are certainly more noteworthy than nominations. To say there is a "very clear consensus" that "every article on actors who were nominated lists all of their nominations" is just an unnecessary exaggeration to try and prove a point. Even for articles that do list all nominations, not all of them are mentioned in their lead sections, which should definitely focus more on wins. "List of awards and nominations received by _______" articles exist for good reason and are better places to insert pending or lost nominations of any ceremony or category. Otherwise, bio articles would be overly filled with accolades. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"Oscar wins are certainly more noteworthy than nominations" Nobody said they weren't; but that doesn't mean nominations aren't noteworthy.
"is just an unnecessary exaggeration to try and prove a point." No, it's pretty much the truth.
"not all of them are mentioned in their lead sections" I didn't put it in the lead section. But I think it definitely should be in the article.
"Otherwise, bio articles would be overly filled with accolades." I'm not suggesting to put every accolade in the article (and I didn't add less important nominations to Lawrence's). But this is the Oscars we're talking about. That is notable. Aquila89 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Like I said before, it doesn't matter what the ceremony or category is or how prominent they are. I know you didn't add to the lead yourself, but someone else did (and rather prematurely). Nominations are notable enough for an accolades list (which I linked above), but not for a main bio, especially when subject has already won said accolade in the past. It's not going to kill people to wait until the ceremony passes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"Nominations are notable enough for an accolades list (which I linked above), but not for a main bio, especially when subject has already won said accolade in the past." This is your arbitrary idea and you're pretty much alone with it. I have no idea where are you getting this. I suppose you should go to the Meryl Streep article and remove the fact that besides her 3 Oscar wins, she was nominated 16 more times, because nominations don't matter. Aquila89 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it isn't "arbitrary", and I'm not the only editor who feels wins are more prominent than nominations. My basis is that articles would be overly focused accolades if every nomination someone received in a category/ceremony was mentioned in their bio seeing to it that people gain more nominations than actual wins (i.e. hundreds of nominations compared to maybe 50–90 wins). The fact that they won something adds more to their career than just being nominated for said thing. If the amount of accolades one receives is not enough for a separate article, then it's best to just list nominations in the accolades section. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also not the focus here. Note how I also said in comparison. This means that however notable a nomination might be, a win is much more noteworthy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
"My basis is that articles would be overly focused accolades if every nomination someone received in a category/ceremony was mentioned" Nobody wants that. If Oscar nominations are mentioned, that won't - doesn't, as it can be seen from practice - lead to every nomination being mentioned. Deleting Oscar nominations because you don't want every nomination mentioned is throwing the baby out with bathwater.
"however notable a nomination might be, a win is much more noteworthy." I said it before but I'll repeat it: just because wins are more noteworthy doesn't mean nominations aren't noteworthy. Aquila89 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Even if one organization's pending or lost nominations are listed and no other organization's are, it's less likely to become overly focused on accolades if one just keeps the focus on wins. It would not be "throwing the baby out with bathwater" at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would. You want to leave out something noteworthy (Oscar nominations are noteworthy, this is simply a fact) because including it might lead to the article focusing on less important nominations. Aquila89 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not when a separate page exists for accolades and it is listed there. It's not like I'm getting rid of info entirely. An organization being prominent doesn't automatically mean it should be listed in subject's main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because there's a separate page exists for awards doesn't mean none of them should be mentioned in the main article. You might as well say that her Oscar win shouldn't be mentioned either, since that is also listed. Or that an actor's films shouldn't be mentioned in their main page if they have a filmography page. Aquila89 (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You very well know that wasn't my point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]

I wanted to thank you for doing such a thorough, quality GA review. I know that nominators often start a tantrum when their page isn't immediately graduated, but I actually appreciate the deep vetting and feedback. FYI - I'm also working on the page on Billboard's sister publication The Hollywood Reporter, if you have any interest in that as well. Seemed potentially up your alley based on a quick look at your user page. That one is not GAN ready, but there is a relevant discussion on the Talk page about my potential contributions to the article. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mike Henry Update[edit]

Hi - I am a Family Guy employee was just making edits to Mike Henry's page per his request. Can you please revert back to todays fixes so all of his data is accurate? Familygirl1999 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Citing sources, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:Biographies of living persons. We need to ensure citations support article content. Also, editing a subject's page based on their personal requests can be a WP:Conflict of interest, so take caution since some requests don't have a WP:Neutral point of view. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Drake Bell[edit]

What would I do in this situation? The editor is adding citation needed tags all over the place, even is places where his Facebook is used, and according to WP:SELFSOURCE, it is reliable. I have already made two reverts in the past 24 hours, and one slightly past the 24 hour mark. Given me and this editor's past history, I'd rather not want any trouble, yet I feel like this was done in spite. Can I do anything? Any noticeboard or something? He's not even adding anything or looking for sources. Dumping the tag everywhere, possibly trying to make me waste what will probably be hours trying to find sources for all this when I planned to do this over time. I really don't want to get blocked again. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done in spite? What happens at articles you have edited is not about you, it's about improving the encyclopedia. I am cleaning the article out of unreliable sources and dead links. I have been editing this article for a while, even while you were blocked for 6 months for edit warring and sockpuppetry, Joseph Prasad. I'm not sure why you think cleaning an article of dead links and unreliable sources at a BLP is a bad thing. It is, in fact, a positive for the article and the encyclopedia as a whole. CN tags are merely a reminder to both editors and readers that what is there is badly sourced or unsourced. Again, this is a BLP - there are stricter guidelines for such articles. I could, by the guidelines and policies set for BLPs, delete the content badly sourced or unsourced. I haven't done that. If you care about the article (and it seems you do), find new sources for the unsourced content marked with CN tags before it is rightly removed. -- WV 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
But Winkelvi, do I need to repeat myself? Any source that is confirmed is from the subject itself is reliable, according to what I said earlier. Yet you choose to ignore that fact and just continue removing. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Facebook certainly can't be used for anything contentious, and I personally doubt there is anything it could be used for that can't be backed by (obviously credible) secondary sources. It doesn't seem like this was done just to increase work time or anything, either. Winkelvi also had a point in saying RadarOnline isn't reliable and shouldn't be used when more credible sources are available. It is good that you've taken more caution here than before, though. Even if this leads to more work being done on the article, that's better than being blocked or doing something worthy of a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't even do anything if I wanted to. Because according to him, adding any sources counts as a revert. So, there's that. And now, he chooses not to discuss with me on his talk page - just removes it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say adding sources is a revert. I said that removing a CN tag that was recently placed could technically be considered a revert, which would put you over the 3RR mark. -- WV 03:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Just remember that the use of self-published sources should be limited, and they should definitely not be used for any contentious information. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually removing dead links solely because the links are dead is rarely a good thing. See Wikipedia:Link rot. If the sources are unreliable anyway then sure it's probably okay to remove them because they are unreliable, the same as you would if they aren't dead but that should be the justification for removal. Likewise, if the source is reliable but is superflorous then removing because it's dead may be acceptable. But if the only problem is it's a dead link, then tagging it as a dead link via {{dead link}} is the correct course of action. Not removing it and adding a {{cn}} tag. You should do this even if you have made an effort at recovery, and you should definitely do this if you made no effort at recovery. In a BLP, if you are concerned enough you can probably remove the info outright although you probably should make some efforts at recovering the link first. Removing the deadlink entirely but leaving the info definitely helps no one. Abd I have to assume you made no efforts at recovery as in this example [1], the dead link was trivial to recover [2]. Yes it's a primary source and only supports part of the claim so it would be better to replace it with a good secondary source supporting both claims. But when a record deal was signed is generally uncontroversial even on a BLP and the sort of info that you would expect in the article, so a primary source is fine in the interim. If you don't understand how to deal with deadlinks, I strongly urge you not to do anything until you've learnt as it seems like you're making a mess for others to clean up regardless of whether some of your actions are helping. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External music video[edit]

Hi! Why did you undone two of my edits? You see, it's a commonly used template. And today I've added links to all of Madonna's videos that I could find official uploads of. And I did the same for David Bowie's videos. Almost all of them weren't linked yet.

What you did will simply discourage me (and probably some other people who add links to YouTube) to contribute in the future. The links look good, it's a common practice to add them in the infobox. It's much better to have a link than not to. By the way, a link to the music video is much more useful than an except from the song.

And, by the way, all the infobox data is being moved to Wikidata. Sooner and later everything in the infobox will be imported from there automatically. There's even a special parameter for this already: [3].

I.e. what you did is you unlinked two random articles of around 60 or 70 where I added links today. Please add them back, could you please? --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is repetitive to include that in both Infobox AND external links section, Moscow Connection. Just use it in one or the other rather than both. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I remove the links from the external links section and add them back to the infobox? They look much better there and it will be consistent with the rest of Madonna's singles.
By the way, see Help:Infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a digest of what the article says, so maybe it's perfectly okay to have the same info two times...
But I can remove them from the external links, no problem. It's probably even better this way cause if I don't, someone else may remove the links from the infobox again [for the same reason as you did].)
--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw an older version of this talk page I had in another tab of my browser and thought you replied and agreed already and I "fixed" one of the articles: [4]. Is it okay for me to proceed with the second one? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me as long as it's in only one place and not both. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your help is needed[edit]

Your help is needed at Drake Bell. You know who is exhibiting the same, stubborn, battleground mentality and edit warring behavior that got him a 6 month block. He's barely back a month, and nothing has changed. You seem to be the only one here he trusts. If you can talk him down off the ledge and help him start seeing sense in what I'm saying about the bad sources he keeps insisting on, it would be appreciated. He keeps adding primary sources and unreliable sources. I'm done for tonight with the article as it's obvious he won't listen to reason. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. -- WV 04:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

All I have left to say on the matter is this: while secondary sources are ideal, primary sources aren't always a bad thing. Not gonna get involved in a content dispute right now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Your pick and choose of when you will and won't get involved with him is unfortunate. For him, anyway. I think he's going to take this to the limit and end up blocked again unless someone talks sense into him. As far as the primary sources: they fail selfsource and shouldn't be cited. At least one of the sources being insisted on is unreliable reader-submitted articles from a blog-type site. More than one source is dubious at best. He's way over 3RR on this, his edit warring behavior is obvious, and he is still blaming everyone else for his behavior. Nothing at all has changed. I guess if he gets blocked, he gets blocked. I was hoping for someone to help, but understand that you don't want to do any more for him at this point. -- WV 04:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm just tired of seeing so much Wikidrama and try to distance myself from it whenever possible. Nothing personal. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I completely understand and don't blame you. Too bad though, you're one of the only friends he has here. No guilt, just saying. -- WV 04:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Madonna Infobox Picture[edit]

What about we redo the vote and include the WTG picture? I'm just sick of that ole' 2008 pic. It looks real nice, but are we stuck w/ it forever ('cause it sure looks that way — It ALWAYS comes back)?! The WTG picture was just fine! Israell (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me this; it's not like I implemented the pic myself following the most recent discussion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You have new message (last change) what last change do you mean? I don't know![edit]

This message that I have received from you, Why the hell don't you tell me EXACTLY where you thought that I didn't put reliable source to my changes? I am sick of receiving stupid messages saying that "oh, you didn't put reliable sources for changes". Be specific for god sake! --Ramy5077 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking through your contributions, it was specifically for Demi Lovato's song "Confident". See WP:Citing sources for a guide on citations and WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a sense of what to use in music-related articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my late reply, actually I don't remember changing some information about Demi Lovato's song "Confident", but anyways thanks for informing me that, next time if you want to warn me, tell me where did I go wrong, in which article. I don't want to receive warnings from you saying for example "You had made some changes, but you haven't cited reliable sources" and that's it. You should go like "You had made some changes on Demi Lovatto's song Confident, but you haven't cited reliable sources". Thank you ----Ramy5077 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I need to ask, is it wrong to remove existing source and replaced it with a different source just like what I did to List of captive orcas? ----Ramy5077 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fine as long as the source(s) you use in place are credible and support the information it is attached to. I'm not familiar with "Forever Seaworld" and can't make a good call as to how viable that is, but "Blogspot" (a source you inserted) is most definitely not reliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Leona Lewis[edit]

Would you be interested in working on this with me?  — Calvin999 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to as soon as my current FLC finishes, Calvin999. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure :)  — Calvin999 18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I already left comments there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello, SNUGGUMS! I would like your aadvice on "All I Ask (Adele song)". Do you think it looks like a GA candidate? Can you look over it once? Many thanks. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It might, but before nominating, there should be some prose on charts (i.e. sales and peaks), and try to find more references outside of album reviews talking about the song if possible. Remember that per WP:Notability (music), a song must have significant independent coverage (outside of album reviews) multiple reliable secondary sources AND there must be enough material on the song itself to grow beyond a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cher PR[edit]

Hi, Snuggums! Just did a massive review of the Cher article. All of your points were addressed: there are no more subpar sources, formatting errors, dead links, or bare URL's. I would very be happy if you could take a new look at the article. : )

Now, I have some questions:

  • When the source is, say, the official page for an award, who is the publisher? Example: I don't know if the publisher should be "Golden Globes" or "Hollywood Foreign Press Association".
  • When the source is the official site for a TV program (ex.: Access Hollywood), should I put the program's name under "work"? If so, what should I put under the "publisher" tag?
  • When the source is a news agency website (ex.: PR Newswire), should I put "PR Newswire" under the "agency" tag? If so, is the "publisher" necessary here?
  • When the source's name happens to be the same as the author's name (ex.: music critic Roger Ebert and his official website,, what should I put under publisher? Something like

Aside from that, I can assure you the references are superb now! :) Thanks for your input!!! Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just had a glance now. Much easier to read now that some of the "life and career" subsections have been divided up into more than just decades. To answer your questions in order:
  • Just use "Golden Globe Awards" or "Golden Globes"
  • Yes, the program should be listed under "work", and "publisher" is not required in such instances. Use of the "publisher" field for publishing companies/owners of organizations became largely deprecated in January 2015, especially for references that already have terms listed within "work". The field is now pretty much only used for works that shouldn't be italicized such as AllMusic or CBS News.
  • Since "Agency" and "Publisher" are pretty much used synonymously, it only needs to be included in one field or the other.
  • Yes, though on a side note, Ebert was a film critic rather than a music critic.
Well done with the improvements so far :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Now the references are near impeccable, I think. The points you've made on the PR were also answered. Would you mind resuming our PR? I plan to take the article to GA nomination soon! Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
As for the film critic reference, I made a confusion here. The Roger Ebert reference is used correctly in the article (a review for the 2011 film Zookeeper, in which she voiced an animated character). Just for the record! :-P Lordelliott (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If I do, keep in mind that it might some time for me to find where I left off after the restructuring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I take back my answer to the first question; it should be "Hollywood Foreign Press Association". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright... This leads to more questions. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
These are the sources I'm having trouble with because of the first point (I can not distinguish the publisher when the source is an award page). Could you help me with that? Lordelliott (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The answer to all of those is yes except for, which is Hollywood Walk of Fame. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Yes check.svg Done. Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Look forward to resume our PR! Btw, I just inserted a new info on the Fashion subsection: "In 1977, High Fidelity magazine recognized Cher as 'the personality who has the most influence on the dressing style of the young women in America.'" I'm having an issue with the url used as source because I don't know how to reference a magazine with limited view on Google Books (other magazines referenced on the article, such as Billboard, have the full view option). It would be nice if you could help me with this. : ) Lordelliott (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Those ones are tricky :/. If possible, I'd try to find a different link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rebel Heart[edit]

I think Media Traffic is more reliable than a random site from France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundred Dollar Bill (talkcontribs) 23:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether that French source was credible or not, Media Traffic has been repeatedly rejected in articles as dubious. You'd have to find something else. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


I'm working on Mary Kom for FA. Would you like to help me in the PR?. It is here. I would apppreciate. Thanks.Krish | Talk 12:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I might, but not right away. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for images[edit]

I forgot what license to look for under Flickr to find images to put on here. But I did find an image on Drake Bell in late 2011, and the image on his article is from 2007. So it may get updated by at least a couple of years, since he got a new hairstyle. Could it be used? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what license to look for either. I'd err on the side of caution for now and leave it out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, understood. Looking at the picture I'm trying to get, it says I can "share" which is: "copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms." Looking at the picture there now, it's the same except for having the extra "adapt" option which says "remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI archiving[edit]

Hi, thanks for your wikignome work archiving threads at ANI. Currently, I am the self-reported subject of a case... number 7, mabye. Yes, you heard right, self-reported. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is resolved.

More importantly, the thread has been untouched for 4 days now. I expected it to get archived after 36hrs. If you have have time, could you look into that?

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate my work, though I tend to archive threads that are already closed. That one isn't closed yet from what I can see and I'm not sure how to make a good closure for that thread at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have some thoughts, which I would happily elaborate upon in order to benefit the project by moving things along.... but I will refrain unless asked so no one thinks I'm trying to make an inappropriate WP:POINT. No offense if you have other things to do or lack of interest. Would you like to hear them? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (later) Viel Dank! and have a nice day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help with closures. I do agree that matters have resolved themselves after looking through again, and will archive it myself later on if nobody else does within the next 24 hours. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of non-notable awards[edit]

I understand why you are removing non-notable awards from lists, but when removing content, can you please also update the award counts and leads/infoboxes, especially for featured lists? Otherwise the numbers no longer reconcile and the lists are inaccurate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been doing that as well, Another Believer. Speaking of FL's, would you mind leaving comments here? Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ok, sorry, I thought I was seeing diffs without changes to the lead/infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I left a comment on the FLC nomination. Great work! By the way, if you are interested in promoting similar lists, I'd be willing to help expand or co-nominate the following:
The foundations are strong, they just really need complete referencing and leads. No pressure, just an offer in case you are interested. Keep up the quality work on FLs! ----Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much :). I'll keep those in mind for later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable awards[edit]

Hi, since List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry looks good and you've been working on it for it to be FL, I wonder if there's a guideline for fan-voted awards like magazine's polls (Q awards, Z awards) and some perfume awards that seems really irrelevant. Even World Music Awards that nominates hundreds of people from around the world for Best Song/Best Video since 2014. However, I think personal awards like Best Female Artist, Best British Artist should stay, I guess it has some meaning [5] Some awards articles need a massive edit; is it ok to just go ahead? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate the work I've done :). There is consensus not to include awards from non-notable (has no article and/or is unreliable) organizations per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, there is no guideline or policy that I know of for polls when an organization is reliable and has its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Hey there! I nominated the article of actress Kalki Koechlin for GA Status. Are you interested to review it? Please let me know. Face-smile.svg (User:Kailash29792 refereed me to you.) Numerounovedant (talk) 8:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to decline for now due to my offline schedule, but might later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful Stranger[edit]

Snuggs, I need your opinion on the above article. A user, has been adding some content which is in no relation to the article/song in question. Stuff like what the producer did before or after with the artist in question, stuff we do not add unless related to the song. Would you mind giving two cents? Because the user is reluctant to follow WP:BRD it seems (or doesn't know maybe). —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 20:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You did the right thing when reverting. It might be worth having in Madonna's main article, but definitely not in the song's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Will you help me in keeping the article as it is while I raise a discussion in talk page? The user is reverting continuously and does not seem to be interested in discussion. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 20:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is Mike Henry and i would like to update my page[edit]

How do i go about properly updating my personal information? There is incorrect information throughout (birthdate, place of birth, etc) and I would like to update/improve my page. Unfortunately, there are no internet sites that i can link to for correct information. Please help me and thank you. Familygirl1999 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can't support changes with a good reference, then those changes shouldn't be made at all per WP:No original research. See WP:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for guides on implementing references, and ensure every reference you use is reliable. Keep searching before you make changes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Can we do something about this? TIA. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

O_O very troublesome. I left a warning notice for personal attacks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged. You got there just as I was completing a report at AN/I. Should I leave it or delete it? 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Do keep the post there so other users can see it, and I commented on that anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. Face-grin.svg 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Katy Perry[edit]

Once her awards and nominations FLC is promoted, I would like to nominate (with you of course) for featured topic as by then it it will be complete (also wondering when will be Gaga's and Ms Swift's turn). What do you say? -- Frankie talk 17:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to make Gaga's main article FA asap!!! I've been off this month because I'm on vacation, but when I arrive at home, I'm planing to spend more time on wiki as I used to do lol GagaNutellatalk 05:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to make her main page an FA myself someday. However, the page definitely needs work before it's worth submitting to FAC. It will take a while to fully prepare that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Am I setting another new trend? ;-) Lol.  — Calvin999 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Sia[edit]

Hey, feel free to sign up at the newly-created WikiProject Sia if you are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll think about it Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Great to see that we now have four FLs together! Congratulations on the featured list promotion of List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry. :-) -- Frankie talk 05:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides, I am glad that you added yourself as the co-nominator, something which I always forget to do. Apologies for that. -- Frankie talk 05:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about; FAC/FLC nomination pages tend to only include the name of whoever started the page when first created anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello there! For example, if I didn't have liner notes of an album to refer to when editing an article, would it be safe to use sites like BMI and ASCAP as proper sources? --Idealtype 08:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealtype (talkcontribs)

Perfectly fine as long as such sites support the credits they are attributed to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I notice that you removed billionaire from Donald Trump. Which I thought was great but someone reverted it back which isn't right beacause how is being a billionaire an occupation. Take care 23:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Thanks for the notice. Not sure why that was put back in. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This IP appears to be in use by Atomic Meltdown. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If so, it isn't as obvious as previous socks. However, sock or not, the IP did have a valid point regarding Trump's lead section. I would've changed it at some point even without this notice from the IP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


To all my friends on Wikipedia, this is to let you all know in advance that I will become less active than before within the next week or two, and might even take a hiatus from editing altogether. I'm not retiring yet by any means in case anybody is worried about that. It's just a temporary break to keep myself from getting overworked, and so I can focus on aspects of my offline life. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Overview of Katy Perry/archive1 will be my last major project for a while. Hopefully that passes its nomination. I'll probably become more active again sometime in June. Take care, Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Have a good wiki-break, SNUGGUMS and don't forget to come back once your real life settles down. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz; I will. Just got a few things to finish up first here and then I'm taking time off. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Snuggums! I hope you return refreshed from this vacation. : ) As for our peer review, is it still active? Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That's one of the last things I have left to do, Lordelliott. I'll get to that within the next 24 hours. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy your time off, SNUGGS! We all need it, I should know, lol. --MaranoFan (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Very true Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm so gonna miss you having around you know that don't you? :( —IB [ Poke ] 12:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course I do. Thankfully this won't be permanent. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Breaks are good; they help to prevent burnout and/or retirement. Have a good rest and see you back here soon. :) Acalamari 13:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They really are. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You're among the few editors here that I like. Have a good and deserving wiki-break. -- Frankie talk 07:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)