User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

John Wightman

No problem with the John Wightman article now. However, when I checked my watchlist, I saw that an IP editor had added a purported death date, with no citation. I checked Google News, and searched the Lexington Clipper-Herald and Omaha World-Herald websites, and found nothing. I checked the IP address's contribution history, which showed no history of productive edits, and was brief enough to suggest that an attempt to reach the editor via the talk page would be bootless. In light of all this, I deemed it advisable to revert the death-date insertion and the other edits that grew out of that. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Aaron S. Williams

I have a potential conflict of interest with former Peace Corps director Aaron S. Williams, whose current article is pretty bare. I noticed you created the article on his successor Carrie Hessler-Radelet. The article seems to rely mostly on whitehouse.gov sources, which I understand is considered acceptable for certain government officials? I have a lot of experience authoring BLPs, but never with government sources or on government officials and wondering about sources like this. Any guidance you are willing to offer would be appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Conti

I can't remember who the other cases are, but I've run into a few "retirements" were actually senior judges becoming inactive. When FJC doesn't list something, I assume they're right. But for what it's worth, this doesn't show him retired. There isn't anything updated since 2014, so it's possible they simply never got around to updating it, but Conti's possible retirement is the only event that's happened since then. Star Garnet (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Star Garnet: Gotta love conflicting information! Ha! Snickers2686 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Ramirez

It was Elkin Ramírez who died, not Elvin Ramírez. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oops, my bad. Thanks for the clarification. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michael C. Ormsby

added a link pointing to Joseph Harrington

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

added a link pointing to Joseph Harrington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:The View (U.S. TV series) cohosts has been nominated for discussion

Category:The View (U.S. TV series) cohosts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tomairangi Paki

Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tomairangi Paki, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: member of a notable (royal) family. Per WP:ATD-M, non-notable members should be merged instead. Thank you. SoWhy 07:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Zoltan Sarosy

Okay, so my edits were reverted because of an older discussion....is this wide spread knowledge? There are plenty of articles regarding supercentarians that I've seen that still use the years and days format, so for uniformity, that's why I kept it that way. So either a lot of pages have to be changed or one minor change should be made to maintain stability amongst the different articles. Articles in question include:

• Violet Brown
• Yisrael Kristal
• Nabi Tajima
• Richard Arvine Overton

amongst others....

So which is the correct and widely accepted age format? Just for future reference. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 20

All of those people qualify for the for the age format of years and days because they are notable for longevity reasons only. Zoltan Sarosy, Shivakumara Swami etc. are notable for reasons other than longevity and do not qualify for this format while they are alive. Did you read the discussion? Are you still confused?TFBCT1 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Snickers2686. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 18,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined A1

Hi Snickers. I declined your CSD at Causeway Heights and just quickly wanted to explain why. A1 is for when you have absolutely no way of knowing what the article subject is. Causeway Heights, however, identified the subject as a location in part of a battle. Now, whether we should have an article on this is entirely debatable, and frankly you should probably just redirect it back to Charge of the Light Brigade, but the subject is stated clearly so A1 didn't apply. Best, Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)