Misplaced Pages

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

My talk page. Leave messages here. If giving me awards (including barnstars), please post it at User:SNUGGUMS#Awards.

Carey

Has Carey wrote for other artists? —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for Allure (if groups count). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They would, never knew that! —JennKR | ☎ 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me!

I'm having trouble adjusting the sizes of the images in the Batman: Under the Red Hood voice cast section. Is there any way you can help me with that? URDNEXT (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want them larger or smaller? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Same size, a little smaller than they're now, aligned in 4 frames. URDNEXT (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In a 1x4 row or 2x2 box? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2x2. URDNEXT (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: So

Thank you very much for the review, it has been hugely beneficial to the article! I may take this to a peer review next :) —JennKR | ☎ 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was my pleasure :D, PR would be a good idea for if you ever plan on taking this to FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale FAC

Can't thank you enough for all your help you gave me, when I needed a peer review and then when I needed a review in my FAC nomination. Not many users would do that - they'd just oppose, list a few things and then that would be it. I've been working on this article since 2009 for God's sake and it's my fourth attempt on getting it to FA status. I hope this time it will finally get the gold star!! Again, thanks. Whenever you need any help, just let me know! :) decodet. (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Over the course of the past two months, you've taken her to FA material!! If possible, I'd try to get it as TFA for her 30th birthday in July 2015. Now, let's see what others say this time..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs at FAC

REmember Sleeping Dogs? I just nominated it for FA at the nomination page alongside Tezero and Czar. Are you available for providing feedback at the nom, as you have reviewed its GA? URDNEXT (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Astor.

Hi, I have partially reverted your changes back to the convention positions for articles on peers. Peers titles are used in name captions across wiki because (in the UK and certain other countries) they are legally part of their name) As peers are generally known (by the public and press) by their titles these are also used not stripped to their name in inline links. You can see an identical form used in all the articles on ministers of this type eg. Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_7th_Marquess_of_Salisbury or Jonathan_Hill,_Baron_Hill_of_Oareford I have also re-removed the roman numeral which is not used by any official Parliament/government/crown sources who are very picky about using the legal name (the numerals would be used if part of the name) nor is it the form used by the press in the country he lives and works. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are peers/royalty members that I've much more often seen referred to without a full title (i.e. John F. Kennedy's sister Kathleen). I should mention that adding titles and such is not really "tidying" so much as it is tweaking. I will say that I had reliable sources to back up my additions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kathleen is probably not the best case study as she was a peer's wife for only 4 months and a window with his title for barely 4yrs of her life. I can't think of any obvious 'royals' who are known other than by their titles (unless you mean Prince X -v- Duke of X where they are both) and only a few exceptional celebrities who have later in their careers married peers (a provision provided for in the naming policy). I think it clearer/more obvious and inline within policy/convention to use titles when they are mostly or widely known with those titles and far less obvious without them. I saw your secondary source and I don't doubt for a moment you are acting in good faith. However I hope you can see it from my perspective. I have both the Registrar of the P & B and the Official Roll of the UK parliament (linked) both using the form I have and omitting Roman numerals. They are primary sources and have the unique advantage that they require extensive documentary proof from the people in question to be entered in their records (as they do for all peers) and won't get names etc wrong! When coupled with the UK government using that form as does the UK broadcasters and press (see article links) this is I suggest not an unreasonable position to take in respect of a UK citizens (including the other inline links) who sit in the UK parliament and/or government and is reported upon principally by the UK press. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about primary sources, but secondary sources are preferred when available. Why some would not use it if he has ancestors who did is beyond me (some of which lived in the UK). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess you don't need to disambiguate yourself between various other 'John Smiths' when you have the peerage to do that for you! Or perhaps the natural habit of immigrants to drop a form that exists almost uniquely in America to that expected in the UK. Looking at the house record the other Astor peers look to have made similar submissions well into the past. I'll have a better look when I have more time. All the best Garlicplanting (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There are people in the UK (and other non-UK countries outside of the US) who have suffixes, just saying. I've also found biographies on the families supporting suffixes being part of name without going against peer title(s), even if not always referred to as such in public. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hey Snuggums, I was reading through the Sleeping Dogs FAC and found a problem that I need your help with.

Ref 69, 70 and 71 - these Metacritic links are virtually identical but are used more than once? @Jaguar Each source is used twice: one for the prose, the other for the reviews box. It's common throughout every article in the VG project. URDNEXT (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) No, that's not what he's saying. The citations are basically identical, but they're instantiated more than once instead of just having one for both. It'd be like declaring the same reference twice instead of using a "ref name" tag in an article without list-defined refs. Tezero (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't undestand what I'm supposed to do with those refs. Can you please tell me what Jaguar meant? URDNEXT (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what Jaguar is saying, either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What now? URDNEXT (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nature Boy

Why did you undo my edit on cheek to cheek page? I added a single in the singles category. Nature boy. It was announced and released on september 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialJoCalderone (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason is because the form of release was misunderstood. There is online streaming, and there are internet debuts. In short, they are not entirely the same thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sidewalk Talk and Nature Boy

Snuggums, would you have some time to check the above second article, and maybe do the review for the first one? Just asking, feel free to ignore this message since I know you might be busy. —Indian:BIO · 13:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Always happy to review your work :). Anyway, Nature Boy looks pretty good, though the first paragraph on Gaga and Bennett's edition should instead be in the Cheek to Cheek album page rather than the song article. I wouldn't nominate it for GAN or anything just yet. I will get the GAN backlog moving for Sidewalk Talk. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Snuggums, you are a great help. And yes I will prune the bits on Nature Boy. —Indian:BIO · 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, sir. "Sidewalk Talk" is on hold until September 29th, get to it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Justice FAC

Hey buddy, I've just finished or explained all of your concerns regarding the FA candidature on ...And Justice for All. Can you take a second look to see if there's anything else that needs to be corrected?--Retrohead (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looked through again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Robin Williams talk

Do you mind going back to your comment and repeating "yes" in bold in the front of your statement of support, I would hate to see it missed because it is formatted differently from the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking through, Richard, I don't see what's different unless you are referring to my "The only possible way it could violate BLP is if it was poorly sourced, so yes they should be included" comment. However, I had stated "Yes" in bold prior to that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks a bit like canvassing to me, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing would be more like asking someone "please vote to ____ here" when they had previously not given any input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what canvassing is and what it looks like. The above urging by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is just another form of it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Kennedys

-- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Prism Sales

Regarding your revert of the updated sales of Prism, Snuggums, the info is present at the bottom of the article "Guardians Of The Galaxy drops out of the top 10. This is the first time since the week ending Dec. 8, 2013, that no soundtracks are listed in the top 10. Led Zeppelin's 2007 compilation Mothership tops the 2 million sales mark this week … Katy Perry's Prism tops the 1.5 million sales mark in its 48th week. It’s not far off the pace of her previous album, Teenage Dream, which took 41 weeks to reach 1.5 million in sales." Please check. —Indian:BIO · 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pleae ignore the above, stupid Paul Grein updated the article it shows! He removed quite a bit of the last info and replaced it with Garth Brooks stupid album. —Indian:BIO · 04:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn you for leaving out info, Grein! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is that as per my estimations Katy should have moved 1.5 million by this or next week, and I was so happy to finally see that it was true. Stupid @#$%#%#$@%^^% —Indian:BIO · 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think all KatyCats would be disappointed, IndianBio. Instinct tells me she'll reach it by her upcoming birthday if not the 1st anniversary of the album's release, though. Another present for her, perhaps..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

First GA Cup

Hey Snuggums, signing for the first GA Cup? You are a great reviewer, and some friendly competition should be good for everyone. What do you say?--Retrohead (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been giving it thought, how about yourself? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already signed, check the participants.--Retrohead (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - September 2014 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - September 2014 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now for the one question that we guarantee you have: how on earth will the rounds work??? Yes, we never actually had a solid platform regarding how the rounds would work because we had no idea how many people would sign-up. Even though the competition is about to begin, because sign-ups are still open, it is impossible to say exactly how each round will work. As of now, we can confirm that Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on, so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools of even numbers (for example, every pool will have 6 participants). The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on October 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on October 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. On October 16 or 17, 2014, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVI halftime show

My next project, but its gonna be a real pain in the ass. —Indian:BIO · 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite ambitious! I'm trying to figure out what article(s) I wanna work on myself these days.....

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

AFD non-admin closure

Sorry, mate, but are you kidding me? There wasn't a single policy-based reason for keeping this put up by the crowd of sock-puppeting SPAs. It seemed you just vote-counted this closed. What policy-based reasons from the "keep" sock-draw did you find compelling? St★lwart 00:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the article, Stalwart111, there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG (an argument made for keeping). However, you are free to take this to deletion review. It would also help if an SPI had concluded they were all one account. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case then contribute to the discussion, don't close it. That's effectively a supervote! Did you look at the history of the discussion? Half of the comments have been cleaned up because many of those "individuals" voted exactly the same way - deleting the heading and imposing their position at the top of the discussion. The quacking is so loud I can hear it from down here in Australia. Silly, but I'll take it to DRV. St★lwart 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• An editor has asked for a deletion review of Randall Bell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. St★lwart 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30, I have undone your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell (2nd nomination). Please consider re-reading WP:NACD, which provides guidance for non-admins closing deletion discussions. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother again...

... but do my sentiments and Tezero's recent ones at the FAC have any further bearing on your stance there? According to one of the editors more involved at WP:PLAGIARISM and other policy pages, RationalObserver's personal views on paraphrasing have not been shared by the "Misplaced Pages community ... which is why it has stated for some time now that close paraphrasing is sometimes unavoidable and that WP:Intext-attribution without quotes can be fine when using minor phrasing from a source." Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

William Backhouse Astor, Jr. revert

The change I made, which is a common cleanup, ensures that measure text stays together on one line for easier reading. The guidelines employed by AWB is WP:MEASUREMENT (look for the reference to the non-breaking space). Stevie is the man! 16:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that just makes text look messy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For the editor? Who cares? We do our work for the readers, and follow guidelines. Stevie is the man! 16:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheek To Cheek

I just wanted to let you know that Cheek To Cheek peaked at #12 and not at #13 in Germany. Your source says the same, I guess you made a typo haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeddga (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Georgi Adamia

I'm just letting you know that I have reversed you closure of this afd. Given that participants in this discussion are split as close to evenly as it is possible for seven people to be, consensus, if it exists, is not sufficiently unambiguous for an NAC to be appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik given your participation in the AFD, I don't think you reversing the closure is appropriate. Should be an uninvolved editor who closes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nirmala GA

Hi there
I am The Herald. Its good that you have reviewed the article, but you have never notified me about the procedure and you have closed it directly within 24 hours. May be that's because of the backlog but still you could have slowed down the process. Anyway, I am now going to renominate the article. But before that, can you lay down some more tweaks and points. I have done some improvements in the article. Thank you. The herald 15:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Herald the reason I failed as soon as I did is because at that time, it had too many problems for me to place on hold. I see you've uploaded a new image, but it doesn't have a complete FUR (fair-use rationale). See images like File:RussiaFirst.jpg and File:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg for good examples of FUR to use in non-free images. The characters section was also missing citations and it was worrisome to see only 7 citations used, but my main concern is how the article did not have enough detail to meet the GA standards for broadness in coverage. The article contained no reviews or any detail on what prompted the author to write the book. When reviewing, I was comparing it to GA book articles such as From Russia, with Love (novel) and The Hobbit. Feel free to look at the books listed in WP:Good articles/Language and literature for other examples to follow, or even FA book articles such as Raptor Red and others listed under "Language and theatre" WP:Featured articles. When a reviewer fails a nomination without putting on hold, the bot doesn't necessarily notify the nominator; if a reviewer posts the whole review in one go (like I did) and then fails, the bot won't notify nominator. If reviewer takes a review but doesn't post it all as one edit, the bot will notify the nominator. Good luck with the second nomination, but you should definitely expand the article first and compare it to other FA/GA book articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. You see that I am online now and I have improved it much. I'll see about the images later. Thank you. The herald 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jon Pareles

This article has been in mainspace for 8 years; if Pareles is not notable he should be prodded or sent to AfD, moving to draft isn't going to help anything. I guess unless you are planning a day of revising it, though you could have kept in mainspace and that "undergoing work" template on it. Cheers.--Milowent • 22:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved the page back to main space. Can you undo all of the unlinking to his name you did throughout the project using TW? I think this number of links shows his notability... ----Another Believer _(Talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to mention the unlinking when I hit the edit conflict of AB's reply. In general, unlinking should probably wait until the article is deleted and we are assured it will not return to the mainspace. Best — MusikAnimal 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer, MusikAnimal, can one use Twinkle to reverse unlink? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. 250+ unlinks? I'm not sure if you can undo it with Twinkle. If you act fast, you can rollback the edits one by one with a single click before other people edit the pages. Go to your contributions and right-click on all the rollback links. I can help, just don't think I'm treating it as vandalism when I rollback :) — MusikAnimal 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just realized you don't have rollback... I'll rollback them for you, then. But again, don't misconstrue it as inappropriate use of rollback. — MusikAnimal 22:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The only rollback I have is the one Twinkle gives me :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe I'll write a script to un-unlink. It wouldn't be terribly hard as the edit summaries are consistent. Maybe even submit a pull request to Twinkle! Best — MusikAnimal 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale FAC suggestion

Hi -- just a note to suggest that you might want to unbold or strike your oppose at the Ashley Tisdale FAC; it still shows on the summary FAC tool as an oppose, and while I know the coordinators always read carefully, they'll probably open up the collapsed section and it's nice to know there's nothing they could make a mistake about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack White

Can you please indicate which references in particular you noted as unreliable? I'm trying to get this to GA status.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I question the use of "Undercover.com", "aCharts", MySpace, "MyRareGuitars.com", Blogspot, "psychoPEDIA", "Glorious Noise", "MusicStack.com", "Spinner", "B3 Guys", "trakMARX", "Idiomag", "efluxmedia", and "gothamist.com". The reference formatting itself is also quite a mess (among other things, I see use of ".com" for magazines, instances of italicizing websites when they shouldn't be, and some without work parameters). Suggest putting that up for peer review for further scrutiny before taking to GAN. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup -Round 1 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 As we move into the middle of Round 1, we wanted to report some of the lessons we've learned thus far, as well as announce a major rule change going into Round 2, which begins November 1. Remember, sign-ups for this year's Cup ends on September 15. Thus far, we're very happy with the results of the competition. One of our major goals, reducing the long backlog at GAN, is well on the way to being accomplished, mostly due to the enthusiastic efforts of Jonas Vinther, who has earned over 250 points. Over 80 reviews have been made thus far. Thank you all for your efforts and for your part in making the GA Cup a success. However, this is the inaugural year of the GA Cup, so there have been some unforeseen circumstances that have come up. One has been a glaring inadequacy with the rules, which the judges feel makes the competition unfair. As a result, there will be a major change in the rules, starting at the beginning of Round 2: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. What this means is that you must provide some feedback to the article's nominator, and must wait for him or her to respond before passing the article. If the nominator has not responded in the standard 7 days, you can fail the article. We're instituting this rule change to prevent the possibility of competitors passing articles for the sake of passing articles (or failing them) and to gain more points. We believe that the change will make it more fair to all competitors in the GA Cup. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we increased the "guarantee" for Round 2 to 25 participants. The exact number will be decided in the near future. We thank your for your participation, and for your flexibility and understanding as we learn what works and what doesn't work in this competition. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup Newsletter Correction

Hi everyone,

It was brought to the attention of the judges that there was an error in the newsletter sent out earlier today.

Sign-ups for the GA Cup will close on October 15, 2014, not September 15, 2014 (as mentioned in the newsletter).

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You and Singer-songwriters

Thank you for all your edits, they make sense once it actually gets through my head. So, would Drake Bell, Miranda Cosgrove and Taylor Swift count as Singer-songwriters? --Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Those would be singers and songwriters rather than singer-songwriters because they are not folk or acoustic singers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry, I feel so dumb. What is an acoustic singer, exactly, one who plays an acoustic guitar? Also, I found an article saying Drake Bell is a singer-songwriter. http://blastoutyourstereo.com/music/music-reviews/album-reviews/drake-bell-ready-steady-go-album-review-9247 -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly the best of sources. There's often confusion regarding the term, which prompted the discussion I linked to you on Talk:Justin Timberlake. Examples of acoustic singers can be found here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Katy Perry, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Misplaced Pages Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 25 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 Hello GA Cup competitors! The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal. To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system. Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Misplaced Pages a better place. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cissy

Just to let you know, the reference in the plot section of The Cissy was added to source the unconventional spelling of Wendy's transgender name, not as a source for plot events. However, if you still don't think that needs a reference, that's fine too. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am aware, and still don't think it needs referencing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Delisted Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 as WP:GA

I saw you delisted the article. I didn't think the conversation had reached a consensus. Plus, I don't the arguments against it are bascially saying the article should not be there. I don't think the argument is legit since we have already have had a deletion discussion. Casprings (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Those arguing to delist where concerned with how neutral the article was, not whether the article was warranted. I delisted due to neutrality concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But they based that on the premise of the article. There are no means to fix it.Casprings (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It was more of the wording choice (namely WP:WTW) that RightCowLeftCoast was concerned with than premise. Lithistman agreed with wording concerns and premise. The GAR result was based on wording choice more than article premise. RightCowLeftCoast also was not sure if it was broad in coverage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LoveGame

I am proposing "LoveGame (Lady Gaga song)", but you may have ignored it and paid attention to the spelling instead. Well, you can re-read my OP and then change your vote. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My vote remains the same, George. There are no other articles on Misplaced Pages titled "LoveGame", so there is no need for DAB. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant "Love Game (Lady Gaga song)", which I proposed as alternative. My primary proposal is retaining the correct spelling and adding back the disambiguation. By the way, there are other "Love Game"s. --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not with the spelling Gaga's song uses, though. Her song uses it as one word while other articles do not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Haim

I started working on this a few days ago, thinking "there's bound to be a GA in here", but actually going through and checking the prose, suitability of sources and facts, and verifying everything is a bit of a long slog. That said, pretty much every source you would need is online, and any band that covers classic Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac and Beyoncé has got to be worth writing about. Can you help? Ritchie333 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another under-referenced FL

Woody Allen filmography was promoted to FL status in 2008. It needs extensive work in referencing.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, it indeed is underreferenced! I've listed it for FLRC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snuggums

Hey! Grats for making Katy Perry a FA, you did a really good job. I want to make Rihanna a FA too one day, but at the moment I am too lazy and kinda not motivated to work on it. Also it has a lot of work to be done on the article too :/. Cheers! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomica (talk • contribs)

Thank you sir :3! KP happens to be my first FA, and will be TFA this upcoming Saturday for her 30th birthday :D!! Easily the work I'm most proud of, getting it up to GA this past June and to FA in August. Riri does need work before a GAN, but I'm sure you and/or Calvin999 will get your girlfriend up someday :P. I will give these preliminary comments before GAN/FAC:

• There should be no sections with just referral links (not counting "see also" section). Her "honours" section should have a paragraph or two discussing major awards and commercial success, perhaps rename it as "acheivements".
• Her "personal life" doesn't really warrant a separate section; with Chris Brown and Drake being involved in her professional career, her dating life and wealth should be intertwined into "life and career", and should really just contain high-profile relationships.
• Citations are generally not required in the lead section per WP:LEADCITE

There is more to do, of course, and I would wait AT MINIMUM until after her eighth album is released and the article has stabilized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the IPs will come around to add every single thing that happens with R8 now. I am so excited btw, I hope it's true she is releasing it in November. I am so bored, I need new music from her :/ :D. Btw, thanks for the tips, I will definitely use them when preparing the article. Of course I will ask you for more then.— Tomíca 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem :). Feel free to put her up for PR beforehand as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

VA Tech shooting GA review

Hi, just curious why you removed the GA review results from the talk page. How can the article be improved if there is no information as to what is wrong with it? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The results can be found in article history, I simply removed the transclusions. Transclusions are often removed from talk page after a review concludes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How odd. Many people won't know that there is any GA review to be found in the history. But if you say so. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You can read more about such histories at Template:Article history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I learned something. But that system effectively means that editors at the level I was 15 minutes ago can't help address issues that are preventing GA, because they are not aware of those issues. I've been registered since May 2013, have been heavily involved on a daily basis since May 2014, and have over 6,000 edits. But I understand that you're not responsible for the system. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Extremely pleased

While you mentioned before that it would be up today, I'm nonetheless extremely pleased to see Katy Perry's article on the Main Page this morning. Congratulations again and thank you for everything you've done and continue to do for her article. :) Acalamari 08:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, Acalamari :D. I probably made many KatyCats very happy by doing so. Let's see if the birthday girl herself notices her article is featured on the main page..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAPFRAG

It's not a big deal to me, but CAPFRAG actually says that full sentences should have periods. Just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Noted, but the instances I reverted weren't really full sentences. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Perry was part of the 2008 Warped Tour lineup."
• "Perry's California Dreams Tour grossed over $59 million."
• "Alanis Morissette (left) and Freddie Mercury (right) both significantly influenced Perry and her music."
• "Perry became a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in December 2013."

Yes, they are full sentences. Some things are matters of opinion, but in the English language, something is either a sentence or it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, and kudos on the Main Page appearance! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ten Seconds Songs

Hello, I have nominated the redirect of Ten Seconds Songs to YouTube for speedy deletion, I don't see the relation. If I am missing something please let me know. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Among other sources, Crystallizedcarbon, he has a Rolling Stone cover talking about his YouTube videos going viral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, since Ten Seconds Songs seems notable, and the term, I don't think, defines or it's defined by YouTube (Even if its videos have gone viral in youTube), it may be more appropriate to create a full page rather than just a redirect to YouTube. What do you think?--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time, I made a redirect since he is most widely known on YouTube, and was busy searching for sources to make his page when it got CSD'd. There's also sources like CBS-Local and Fuse covering him. I'm not sure whether his article should be titled "Ten Second Songs" or "Anthony Vincent" (real name), though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry image

The nude version appears to be stuck in a cache someplace, even though it doesn't show when viewing the file. Give it a day to let it purge before restoring it.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake, Kww, it appeared to be deleted when I viewed the file and was showing the original image. It's a shame to see vandalism to her article when it is TFA, and her 30th birthday. I'm now trying to figure out what a good image to use in place would be. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MoP

Hey Snuggums, can you check the progress on Puppets? By the way, I blanked your signatures as they differentiate from mine, which are in green. Thanks for picking the article this soon, hope to get it finished today.--Retrohead (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Raining Men (song)#Suggested move

I invite you to join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)