User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Requested move of Ryan Wesley Bounds

Please see the move discussion I have begun at Ryan Wesley Bounds. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

S.D. Fla. Nominees

Just a heads up, POLITICO is reporting that Trump has finalized nominees for three S.D. Fla. seats. Pending his official announcement, I've created draftspace pages for each of them (Draft:Roy Altman, Draft:Rodolfo Ruiz, and Draft:Rodney Smith (judge). I didn't move them to mainspace yet because they likely don't meet WP:GNG as of now. Once they're nominated, please just move the articles to mainspace if I don't get around to them instead of wasting your time making another article for the same nominee. On another note, Rossie D. Alston Jr. will apparently be nominated for a seat on E.D. Va., and his article has already been in existence, if you want to take a look at it. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

FJC Bio Update

Good news, I've completed William Henry Harrison and John Tyler! Along with Trump's appointees already finished there are only 41 presidents left. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 00:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

When you add new entries to the Deaths in 2018 page, please don't move other entries out of alphabetical order, as you did here. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marbe166: Apologies. I didn't realize 'Hydman Vallien' was the full last name, I assumed it was just 'Vallien' Snickers2686 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Kak Channthy

Regarding Kak Channthy. I've never been a fan of speedy deletion, but I really think that you jumped the gun with that article. It did state why it was important/significant. Perhaps not in the global scene but certainly in Cambodia. Simply Googling the name comes up with numerous high profile sites that are mentioning her death and her importance in the country. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Violetriga: Then more needs to be added to the article to assert her importance, because outside of Cambodia, how well known is/was she? The article hardly has any biographical information or prior musical or career history or even a mention of a cultural impact. What I get from it in general is she was a musician, she died and there's a fundraising effort, that's it. So if you can address what I mentioned to expand the article to a wider base, maybe that's a good place to start. Snickers2686 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). violet/riga _^[talk] 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New Nominations

There are a lot out today... if you want to start from the top of the list, I'll start from the bottom in a couple of hours and start cranking out the pages. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Response

I don't get why you're selectively reverting my edits. But his birth date is listed here and on various other sites that list public record information. Koala15 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Koala15: I'm not being selective, just following protocol via WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there is a reputable source, then a citation is necessary. As a Reviewer it's my job to make sure there are adequate sources for content. No hard feelings. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

John Sinatra

Just a heads up that I have created John Sinatra, expected to be formally nominated tomorrow to the Western District of New York. Also, it is John L. Sinatra, not John J. Sinatra, as one of the newspaper articles has incorrectly. His name is correct at his law firm link. Safiel (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Appreciate the heads up. So is he part of another wave of nominees? I mean ideology aside, I wonder why there's so many just sitting on the Executive Calendar? It's like deja vu with Obama's nominees all over again. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is how it is in the modern Senate. According to the news article, I would expect a White House nomination announcement tomorrow. I would assume there are more than just Sinatra, but that is the only one I saw mentioned. Safiel (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Well and not only that but even if there is an announcement tomorrow, who knows when it will be officially transferred? It makes me wonder if the holdup is because of the blue slip process, being as they're voted out of committee without both blue slips being returned, (i.e. Brennan, Bounds). Then again, poor vetting may be the holdup too. Who knows? Guess we'll just have to wait and see what's announced tomorrow. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of startups in Florida

Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of startups in Florida, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: lists of notable organizations are not eligible for speedy deletion under A7. If you believe this to be a non-notable topic for a list, use WP:AFD. Thank you. So Why 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. 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.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Carl J. Nichols

I understood those categories to only include the Senate-confirmed individuals for those positions, such as Gregory G. Katsas for the Civil Division and Rachel Brand for the position of Associate Attorney General, not their deputies. Nichols served as a deputy to some of those positions but not in the positions themselves. Could you revert your edit when you get the time to do so? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 16:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: Are there guidelines somewhere to say when to include someone in a category? I know I've included deputies within the Category:Assistant United States Attorneys with no distension. What's the difference here? I'l revert for the Associate Attorney General, however I think Category:United States Assistant Attorneys General should still stand. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I am going to retract my assertion that only Senate-confirmed appointees were in those categories, and will extend it to all people who also held that capacity in an "acting" capacity. But nonetheless, I do not think that Deputy Assistant Attorneys General should not be in the categories. The people holding these positions are some of the line attorneys in the Justice Department, filing briefs in cases and arguing before courts, while the Assistant Attorneys General category should only be for people who actually were in the leadership position in that division (i.e. in charge of all of the deputies). On another note, did you mean Category:Assistant United States Attorneys when you referenced including deputies in the category? I don't believe that there are any "Deputy Assistant United States Attorneys". I think Category:United States Department of Justice lawyers is a better fit for the deputies in the DOJ. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish:: Honestly, I don't remember what I was referring to, there's so many deputies and associates and assistants, etc within DOJ that it's easy to lose track but I agree, the DOJ lawyer category would suffice. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I figured out what I meant–There isn't "Deputy" AUSAs but there are First AUSAs, which I'm assuming are the same equivalent, in most cases, I think if a person turned out to be a First AUSA, they then may also be appointed an AUSA or vice-versa, like Richard Joseph Arcara, for example, so as such, I do include them in the AUSA category. Just wanted to clarify. :) Snickers2686 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I got you now. But in that case there is not category for First AUSAs specifically, but there is for AUSAs in general. I still think that the DOJ lawyers category is best for people like Nichols. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dob

I saw you added a dob for Martha Pachold, with cite. Not sure where we are at on this...are we not giving dob for judges even when citing a source? Last year some judges complained to wiki admins and they ordered dob is discouraged. Bjhillis. Bjhillis (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bjhillis: As far as I know, as long as there a citation, then it isn't a problem. Now if a judge/nominee puts in a complaint with the Oversight committee, then in regards to that person, certain restrictions apply, but to my knowledge it isn't universal, that I'm aware of or been told. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Snickers2686, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Jolyon Maugham

Hi

I noticed you've tagged this page as needing additional references. Please could you be more specific about what problems there are with the article and what I need to do to fix this. BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@BubbleEngineer: Good job for a start of an article. I realize I may have been hasty in my tag and forgot to explain, I apologize. Maybe it's already stated within the references already cited, however, if you can point the reader to the specific legal cases that involve Brexit. Are they pending? Was there a ruling? What was the outcome? Expand on that a bit. If he's written extensively on Brexit for publications, perhaps summarize his main points? There's nothing that shows the reader how he's involved in the process, other than stating that he is. He's the founder of the Good Law Project. Perhaps include a section to say what that is. All of these points are suggestions, of course. With any expansion, one assumes there will be more references needed/included. Hence the tag. Understandably, I'm not well versed in who this person is, but you appear to be, so act as if the reader knows nothing about this person and thoroughly introduce him and explain his contributions--if possible. If you need any more clarification, feel free to leave me a message. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I get there are lots of things I could expand upon, and thanks for the suggestions, but you could say that about most articles as Wikipedia is never going to be complete. I was just a little alarmed when I saw the tag, as it's something I interpret as someone saying 'read this with a large pinch of salt as many of the statements in here are potentially false'. I accept this may just be my interpretation however. BubbleEngineer (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@BubbleEngineer: I understand it can be an affront, but with Wikipedia, things are always changing so I'd imagine the article you wrote will be changed by you and others in the future and that's okay. Just do what you can and if someone makes an edit you don't agree with, you can either revert it or go to their talk page and talk to them about it or about use the article's talk page itself A good guideline to go by is Wikipedia:Assume good faith, take a look at it just for reference. :) People mean well. Good luck! Snickers2686 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Margaret Howard, 2nd Baroness Strathcona and Mount Royal

Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Margaret Howard, 2nd Baroness Strathcona and Mount Royal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: At the time the subject was a British peer, peers were all members of the House of Lords, which means she passes WP:POLITICIAN. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Snickers2686/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Habst (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Snickers2686/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).