Open main menu

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

Joseph P. KennedyEdit

Thank-you for the reminder to not let my anger made me lash out at other contributors. I lost my temper and referred to other contributors as idiots. Your notification was calm,cool and friendly, saying I should stay cool and not attack other contributors. The friendly and respectful tone with which you addressed me immediately doused my burning anger. Thank you for the kind words and conciliatory message. ~~ NapoleonX (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I also appreciate you acknowledging how inappropriate it is to call Wikipedians "idiots". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Never Really OverEdit

I understand you might be redirecting new song articles on the basis of WP:NSONGS saying a separate article is only really warranted when there's enough coverage, but I think it's best to have an article in mainspace for several reasons. One, it's only going to grow, and news sources usually follow shortly after, thus enabling expansion of the article. Two, having an article in a visible place (i.e. not a draft or redirected) helps readers who may be looking for information on the topic—even with what little there is on it; and three, having an article up stops the possibility of newbie IPs or less-nice editors starting a page for it at some other ridiculous title with unnecessary and incorrect disambiguation like "Never Really Over(Katy Perry Song)". It can only grow, and just because an article is a stub does not mean it can't be expanded, even with something unreleased/as new as this (as there may be sources out there the creator or editors thus far have not yet found). Ss112 20:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, what you've said quite frankly feels like a cop-out, especially the "it's only going to grow" bit. Mere announcements (all that's available so far) don't provide any real substance on the song itself pre-release because they don't have anything to cover aside from when it'll be out. We can't draw on its lyrics or genres or anything of the sort. Letting this stay now is premature and will only worsen the already-bad-enough problem of having more articles than are actually warranted. On another note, it's exaggerating to use "several" here when that term means five at minimum. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Paramore songsEdit

Template:Paramore songs has been nominated for merging with Template:Paramore. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 12:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bekah BrunstetterEdit

Thanks so much for taking on the GA review. Just so you know why someone who's not the nominator is jumping in with responses, I wrote most of that article relatively recently, and I'm not sure how much time/effort the actual nominator is willing to expend on it, so I'm jumping in to keep things moving along. Obviously I hope that the actual nominator (who is the original article creator) participates as well, but I'm happy to work with you to get it done regardless. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem, Bakazaka. We'll be fine as long as somebody addresses my listed concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this review. I'm glad the article passed, and I hope we get a chance to work together again. Bakazaka (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, and I'm glad it could be improved enough to reach GA level :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits)

Eminem's fatherEdit

Is aol a better source? They don't refer to TMZ. Regarding if his death is worth mentioning I think it is. He raps about his father in several of his songs and appearantly he has been considered worthy to mention by name. DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat better, DrKilleMoff, though not something I would recommend either. My point on how Bruce's death might not be worth including in the first place is that since he and Em had little to no connection after the separation from Debbie, it probably won't affect the rapper much (if at all) given his resentment towards him and how estranged they were. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it won't but I don't understand why it has to to mention the death. Even if they didn't had any contact, many of Eminem's songs was about him. And after all, he is mentioned by name and I just feel that if his name is worth mentioning we can just as well mention that he has passwed away as well. It doesn't have to be a big aspect of the article, just an establishment within parenthesis. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not a major mention when he was hardly in his life. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

But why mention him by name at all then? Then we just as well can write "his father" without using the name.DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You know that's not what I was getting at. Mentioning who one was born to (and lacking a positive relationship with a parent) is quite a different field from parental death. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it is. It's not like it's a long section about his death. It's just a simple establishment that he has died. Nothing more, nothing less.DrKilleMoff (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Different field because the separation is known to have effected Em and made him resent the guy. The abandonment and his identity (being his namesake) are far bigger elements in his life. Conversely, if Bruce is dead, then it's unlikely to impact him in the long-term when he was mostly a zero in his life. He might not even care about such a death. There is a chance I'm wrong and the rapper will do something in his father's memory, which would make a stronger case for mentioning, but I wouldn't count on that. As far as I know, this also isn't like how Jay-Z made amends with his own estranged father Adnis Reeves shortly before his own 2003 death. Length of text not withstanding, I more importantly still haven't seen any report of Bruce dying that isn't based off of TMZ/AOL. We would need a stronger basis than either of those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page.Edit

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I really do appreciate you taking the time to weigh in. I know it's pretty unpleasant. If I could just ask you to leave a concrete opinion, I would be very grateful. That way, Partytemple and I could continue with other discussions and decisions. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Declining since BudapestJoe seems to have already commented on the matter before I read your most recent message here, plus I don't have a strong opinion anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks anyway. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cait Fairbanks Wiki PageEdit

Hi! I was thinking of creating a Wiki page for Cait Fairbanks. She plays Tessa Porter on 'The Young and the Restless', and she also has her own music career as Cait Fairbanks, and also as Ginesse: &

I think she's notable enough for that now. I've never created a Wikipedia page before, so I'd like to know if you'd be interested in helping me set it up. Israell (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Israell. I don't know enough about her to do much here, but you can consult WP:Your first article for a guide and perhaps WP:Articles for creation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


Balloons-aj.svg Hey, SNUGGUMS. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Mjs1991; hard to believe a full six years have past since I created my account here! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help & instructionEdit

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Hi SNUGGUMS, Well I wasn't topic-banned, but I certainly understand why you thought I ought to have been. I'm going to turn my editing attention to other interesting areas of Wiki. The articles with issues that concerned me have, at present, been discussed and resolved satisfactorily. I want to thank you for always responding when I asked for help or input with a consensus topic, and for guiding me towards pertinent Wiki policies. I've learned a great deal. ☺ Best to you, Hammelsmith

Hammelsmith (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's hoping for the best. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


Hey, I reverted your revert on the Katy Hudson (album) page. Normally I wouldn't revert instead of taking it to the talk but I figured my explanation was sufficient. Regardless, I owe an explanation: Katy Hudson is a Christian album and within the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music, where Radio & Records is considered a reliable source (especially reliable for radio formats that Billboard did not cover at the time, like Christian rock). The R&R charts took over from The CCM Update and continued until 2009, when the magazine ended. The charts were later published under Billboard, which published the Christian rock chart until the end of last year. Radio & Records is also reliable in general and has been noted as reliable in the past as well, as a longtime magazine and chart publisher; their charts are just not as commonly cited because there is no online or offline archive (aside from individual chart entries) and often Billboard has a similar chart format with a complete archive. Per the record charts policy:

Many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems. These charts can be included so long as care is taken in providing a reliable source for the information.

Hopefully this is sufficient evidence. If you're still concerned, please revert and we can discuss on the talk page, but I think this is generally useful and clearly R&R is seen as an acceptable chart. Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Toa Nidhiki05 for the information. I wasn't suggesting the Radio & Records source was unreliable, just that it didn't appear as official/authoritative as the main Billboard Hot 100 chart for the United States, the Canadian Hot 100 for Canada, any Billboard component charts (including its Christian music ones), or anything listed for songs on the WP:Record charts page. That was my bad. Those links you've given do help, and I admittedly hadn't seen the "R&R charts are reliable and a good accompaniment for the Billboard charts, especially in regards to the Christian CHR, INSPO, and Christian Rock formats, which Billboard did not cover for most of when Radio & Records was active" bit before you pointed out that sourcing page for the Christian Music WikiProject. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's primarily of importance for Christian music since we lacked Billboard charts until 2003, and even then didn't get full genre chart coverage until 2009. Christian rock is kind of like the Triple A format in that it does exist and songs and artists do market to it, but is dwarfed by other bigger genre formats so songs often don't make much of a a dent in the big all-format chart (in this case, Christian Airplay). Since Katy Hudson is a Christian album, it's worth a mention imo since it is basically fact the album did receive some promotion in the Christian market, however marginal and unsuccessful it was. Toa Nidhiki05 01:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletionEdit


I'm currently nominating Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) for deletion, I would appreciate your expertise on the discussion with a vote and comment if possible. Moreover, if you do manage to find the time I would appreciate a vote on Talk:Spaceship (Kanye West song) and Talk:Two Words, as well.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarioSoulTruthFan. I'll have a look at those later (probably within 72 hours) and vote when I get the chance. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment and give your opinion os the articles above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: RapzillaEdit

Rapzilla is a reliable source. More niche than Hollywood Reporter, yes, but quite reliable. In this case the same material is reported so it doesn't matter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is in reference to the Dark Horse article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice to know, 3family6. To be honest, I wasn't very familiar with it before seeing it inserted in the Dark Horse article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. It's specific to Christian hip hop, which is certainly niche.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
A very specific type of music for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Inline citations for Filmography sectionsEdit

Regarding this, these sections usually forgo inline citations, right? Given the sourcing in the related articles and that Berry is a well-known actress, do you think the inline citations are needed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2019‎ (UTC)

If roles are already cited elsewhere in a biography page's article body, Flyer22 Reborn, then they don't need to be sourced again in a filmography section. References otherwise would be included for them in there. I've most often seen citations used in such tables when there's a separate page for them, such as Matthew McConaughey filmography and Robert Downey Jr. filmography. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, regarding your edit to the Halle Berry article and this revert by Vistadan, see the above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Billboard 200Edit

As far as I'm aware, you have never expressed any interest in updating this list directly before so I'm confused as to why you have done so this week... Never mind, I see 2017 was the last time you did [1]. But anyway, my point is, please stick with the established citation template used. Yes, I'm aware you find cite magazine correct, but there's no reason we should be changing halfway through to cite magazine over cite web (and please don't change them all to cite magazine, because I don't that's unnecessary, I don't agree, and I don't think other editors who watch the list would agree either). Thanks. Ss112 21:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, I'm not sure what you meant by "I don't that's unnecessary" (all I can tell is that there had to be a typing error), but I did that because Billboard is a magazine and it seemed fitting to use that template accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "I don't think that's necessary". Anyway, as I've pointed out before, those articles are not in the magazine (at least, not in the form they are on the website). We're not citing an article from looking at the magazine, we're citing an article on the website. I really only think it's appropriate to use cite magazine if the actual article is taken from the print edition of the magazine. While yes, cite magazine has the url= option, that's to link to instances where the magazine article is replicated online and someone wants to provide a link so editors can more easily access the article in question (and it's not a required parameter of cite magazine). There are plenty of instances where magazines have articles the online edition doesn't, or vice versa. It doesn't seem appropriate to use cite magazine for an online edition of something just because it also has a pre-existing print edition but where we only mean/can only be sure the website has the article we mean. Ss112 22:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I personally haven't come across any discrepancies between online and print versions of their articles. Not doubting your word on that, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

New PageEdit

Hello, Draft:Khontkar Can you check Khontkar

actually created this material by me. if you can move to the home page SpesilTenkyu.F (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Way too early for that, SpesilTenkyu.F; it needs much more expansion and references first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question Article before delete with AFD. Because referance problem can possible recreate with referances? SpesilTenkyu.F (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Deleted i make TYPO SpesilTenkyu.F (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You can work on it in draft space before submitting to WP:Articles for creation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3 modificationEdit

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

This is just a notification. Thanks.


---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now an "original" proposal and an "alternate" proposal. Just letting you know. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, Steve Quinn. I still feel 1 edit per article within 24 hours is a fair proposal for Anthony22. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your assessment for another editorEdit

You were the assessment editor for user Triff some weeks ago here at Bekah Brunstetter. She has now nominated two articles Donald Glover and Gisele Bündchen for GAN which do not look ready for nomination and might be quickfailed due to poor lead sections with multiple cite requests, etc. Could you look at this since you previously gave her a GA icon for another article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello CodexJustin. I don't have the time right now, but might have the chance later unless someone else beats me to it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no rush on this. The editor you previous promoted is getting messages on her Talk page about poorly written articles which she is nominating for GAN, with her poor interaction with other editors. Apparently, you are the only one she listens to because you promoted her other article weeks ago. Whenever you have time to glance at this is fine. CodexJustin (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You mean the Brunstetter page? It actually was another user who responded to my comments in the article's review and worked it up to GA level based on input. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, she is now taking the Brunstetter page as a platform to nominate 4 GAN articles. She then removed 2 of them when I contacted her about their poor quality, but now insists that Donald Glover and Gisele Bündchen are ready for GAN in spite of other editors contacting her about their poor quality issue. You appear to be the only editor she will talk to since she is ignoring MaryD on her Talk page. Whenever you can glance at this, you appear to be her only Talk partner. CodexJustin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "SNUGGUMS".