User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Cornelia Pillard

I changed the Name Nina Pillard to Cornelia "Nina" Pillard on the DC Circuit page. The precedent for this is Fortunato "Pete" Benevides on the Fifth Circuit page. I think this is the best way to resolve this issue. I think using her proper name is the best way to go. If someone switches the name back to Nina Pillard I think the best thing to do would be to open up a dispute resolution with wikipedia. I will let you make a new link when you get the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Brother (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Appointer or Nominator

Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Safiel: Thanks for the reference. I've always used "Appointer/ed" myself. Apparently I was mistaken, but I thought that was always implied. Thanks nonetheless. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Snickers2686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I tried using the Unblock Ticket Request System and was told my account wasn’t blocked, however when I go to edit a page, I’m told that it is because of a proxy. Why do you believe you should be unblocked? I had to install an extension on Google Chrome that allows me to view certain .gov websites (like judiciary.senate.gov for example) and while it worked for that example, I'm now blocked from editing within wikipedia. If you are unblocked, which articles do you intend to edit? I have been very active with United States federal judge articles as well as maintaining any articles pertaining to deaths within this year, checking their talk pages, making sure there's a death citation, etc. Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it’s in error, tell us how. I receive the following message when I go to edit an article, "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 207.244.64.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by KrakatoaKatie for the following reason(s):" The secondary message I received after trying to submit my first ticket was: Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is leaky colo + open proxy at 199.115.114.218. • Start of block: 08:59, July 17, 2015 • Expiration of block: 08:59, July 17, 2020 You can contact Vituzzu to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferencesand you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 199.115.116.185, and the blocked range is 199.115.112.0/21. Please include all above details in any queries you make. I realize I'm using a proxy, and that's why I'm asking for an exemption. If you look at my editing history, there's been very few reverts given the overall total and no disputes to my knowledge. I am a faithful editor, or as much as I can be, prior to using a proxy and I hope to continue to be in the future. For reference, when I went to submit the ticket, the automated response I received was: There were errors processing your unblock appeal: Your IP Address (199.115.116.185) is not currently blocked. Is it your account that is blocked? And no, my account is not what is blocked.

Decline reason:

The instructions for obtaining IP Block Exemption to edit behind an anonymizing proxy (this is what the google chrome extension you mention using does) can be found at WP:IPEC, under the heading "Used for anonymous proxy editing", and are as follows:

Who may request: An editor who has genuine and exceptional need, and can be trusted not to abuse the right.
How to request: Email the functionaries team or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem.

I would make sure that you have a genuine and exceptional need to edit via this anonymizing proxy before requesting. Otherwise, you would need to temporarily disable that extension to edit wikipedia. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, exemptions are only given where there is an exceptional need. Since you have posted here, and made many edits in the last few days, then you plainly are able to post without using the proxy. Why cannot you continue to edit using this unblocked IP address? Just Chilling (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: Okay, forget it. I guess I'll just have to toggle between using the proxy and not. Thanks anyway. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snickers2686. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Requested move of Jeffrey C. Mateer

Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Stuart Kyle Duncan

Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New Nominees

You've probably seen the news already, but Trump has put out some more judicial nominees with articles needed to be created. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 02:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I appreciate the heads up. I'll see if I can get a few of them cranked out tomorrow and update the ones that already exist. Thanks again! Snickers2686 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Returned Judicial Nominations

What do we do for nominees like David Stras and Jeff Beaverstock whose nominations were returned by the sin die adjournment of the Senate to Trump? Do we just hide them on the list of appointments page with  until they're renominated? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 13:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: Exactly. But we have to update each article to correspond with the sine die adjournment, until/if they're renominated. Then edit the list accordingly (new nomination dates, remove those who aren't renominated, etc.) With a sine die adjournment we also have to remove (or hide) the nomination from the list of pending nominees on each court page as well, because "technically" it's no longer pending before the Senate. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I have hid the nominees who have been returned for now and added notes referring to their first date of nomination and why the nominations expired. Please review my edits at the list page to see if they are alright. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: Looks good to me. Thanks! I'll work on hiding then nomination at their respective court pages. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to this comment before editing List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

I am passing this to several folks for their reference, so if you get this, you aren't the only one, Talk:List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#Speaking_of_not_getting_ahead_of_ourselves. Bottom line, nobody should be removing Judges from the list until the morning of January 4th, when the Congressional Record of January 3rd will be available, properly sourcing the anticipated edit. Safiel (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Homes

Hello. Just to let you know that I undid your good-faith restorationn of a previously removed PROD tag. My rationale, per my edit summary, was that "Sorry: per WP:CONTESTED, "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it." The point is really that it should only be used for uncontroversial deletions, and the removal indicates that the deletion would be considered by at least one other party as being controversal in some way, or at least that a discussion should take place. My re-removal of your tag is purely procedural rather than an endorsement of its suggested notability (although apropos nothing, I would draw your attention to WP:GEOFEAT). The next stage is to nominate the article for deletion, if you consider it to lack the necessary coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Since your note it has now been nominated, so we'll see what the community thinks. I'm aware of WP:GEOFEAT, however, as per my comments in my nomination, I still think it relies more on events that establishing notability of the structure itself. Thank you for your explanation though, appreciate it. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Defence ministers of Albania

A tag has been placed on Category:Defence ministers of Albania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^{T go beyond} 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shaul Kohen

Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shaul Kohen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims importance, subject too complex for speedy deletion, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism or use WP:AFD. Thank you. So Why 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: This article hasn't been touched since May and only provides one reference for the entire "article", that's enough by Wikipedia standards? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly not, but WP:A7 is a much stricter criterion than notability, so declining to speedy delete does not mean the article should be kept. It just means it needs more discussion. Checking with someone who is familiar with such subjects might help. Regards So Why 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nalini Netto

Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nalini Netto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: " head of the state bureaucracy" in India is not a claim of significance? Really? Thank you. So Why 12:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: the page was deleted back in 2013 (See: Talk:Nalini Netto) so why was it allowed to be recreated when the original consensus was to delete/remove the page? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You nominated it for WP:A7, not WP:G4 (recreation), which is why I emphasized the obvious claims of significance. Nevertheless, I saw that as well but G4 only allows speedy deletion if the recreated page is basically the same as the deleted one. That can't be because the new page contains information about things that happened in 2014 to 2017, which a page deleted in 2013 can't have contained. Moreover, the new version (created in April 2017) contains several reliable sources that were published after the old AFD took place. Feel free to take it back to WP:AFD if you believe she does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Regards So Why 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse question

Just to let you know I've left a brief reply to your question at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request for Security vote in Nigeria

Just a friendly heads up on Security vote in Nigeria. I declined your speedy deletion request because the article has plenty of context. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: But is it enough context to familiarize someone with it who doesn't know the subject? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at the requirements for WP:A1. It's not "context to familiarize someone with it who doesn't know the subject", it's contain enough context to identify the subject. A1 goes on to say "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate". Seems pretty clear to me that article did not qualify.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)