User talk:SNUGGUMS



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

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated,, and things remains something I'm quite proud of! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Don Ienner
Hi, I am Don Ienner's son helping my dad out with his Wikipedia article. Not too long ago I posted a few suggestions to add important information to the article. I saw that you have an interest in music and thought you might like to help with editing this page, since my understanding is that because of my conflict of interest I should not make any edits myself. Here is a link to my suggestions. Thanks so much. GarrettEye (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you do indeed have a conflict of interest here,, and I'm glad you realize that. Reverting clear vandalism or copyright violations would be fine, and maybe you could make non-contentious changes like spelling and grammar fixes, but that's about all. I currently am not sure how much I could contribute to the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination for Mark Zuckerberg
Hello @SNUGGUMS, I am presently third among all time contributors for Mark Zuckerberg's article and knowing that you rank first thought that it would be wise to consult you before nominating it for a GA review. I am presently fixing the citations on the article so that they follow more or less the same accurate general standard. Also it would be great to have you on board if you could assist me in the process given your work on the article. Your co-operation will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * From a glance,, I would get rid of one-sentence paragraphs. Those are discouraged when they make the flow of text feel choppy. The "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section also needs an update, and there's improper uses of italics for some refs. I'll put it up for GAN when ready with your name attached. SNUGGUMS (talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SNUGGUMS I had just like to notify one thing. Wouldn't it be more accurate to list all news cites as "work" rather than "newspaper" as you have done because that has been done previously for 2 GAs of which I have been part and in other pages as well. Just confirming. If you want to carry on with "newspaper", I have no problem with that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For print papers like Los Angeles Times and USA Today, yes. We have the "newspaper" parameter for a reason and may as well put it to use. When it comes to televised news programs like Entertainment Tonight or Good Morning America, I would use the "work" field instead as those aren't printed pieces. Any organization that wouldn't be italicized is better off going under "agency", "publisher", or maybe "via". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SNUGGUMS I hope you remember that we were working to prepare Zuck's article for GA. By the way, I have fixed the lead and a whole lot of citations. Also I beseech you to go through the "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section as I was perplexed as to what is and not to be added to it. That's all for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In its second paragraph, there's nothing on whether Zuck showed up to comply with an October 2020 subpoena. The section's third paragraph also discusses a March 2021 testimony about the January 6th Capitol attack without any follow-up on what he said there. We shouldn't nominate with such incomplete thoughts. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 06:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SNUGGUMS Added info from what he said on March 23, 2021. Just check in and see if I have left out something should it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That 2021 addition looks fine, though you still have nothing on 2020 subpoena. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @SNUGGUMSCould you please be specific as to what I need to cite about the 2020 subpoena? There is already one from October 1, 2020. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I already made this obvious, but the paragraph ends with "The subpoenas aimed to force the CEOs to testify about the legal immunity the law affords tech platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. US Republicans argued that the law unduly protected social media companies against allegations of anti-conservative censorship." There's no follow-up on what that led to or whether Zuck went to court as ordered for that day. The next paragraph goes into a 2021 ordeal, which was separate from this. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SNUGGUMS I can't find any accurate source though I have the info. Would you please look after the addition of matters related to the 2020 subpoena yourself? Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have the info somewhere, then cite it, and by the way you don't have to ping my username when posting messages on my talk page. I'm already going to see what others write here. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @SNUGGUMS the GAN for Zuckerberg was QF by @48JCL. They left reasoning, Maybe I am missing something but it looks like you deleted their review without clearly stating why? Tagging the nominator @MSincccc here as well. Czarking0 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I only deleted the transclusion after it got G7'd,, just so you know. 48JCL requested for the GA1 subpage to be deleted after initially giving the quick-fail notice without leaving any suggestions for article improvement. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 48JCL said the nom was invalid so I would think the talk page should reflect that the article is not currently a GAN? Czarking0 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was before the user noticed how MSincccc had previously left a thread asking about taking the page to GAN, hence the G7 of the review earlier, so it seems fine to keep up and wait for another reviewer unless the nominator wishes to withdraw this. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Czarking0 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A Charlie Brown Christmas names
I saw that you edited A Charlie Brown Christmas to insert the character's full names in the text. However, to the best of my recollection, the full names -- excepting Charlie Brown, of course -- are not used in the special. So within the context of discussing the special, "Linus" and "Lucy", without the "Van Pelt", is likely preferable. I have a COI with regards to Peanuts, but I suggest you consider this aspect and, if you agree, undo the edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary,, doing so can leave any viewers who don't know Peanuts with an impression that they only have first names. That wasn't a chance worth taking. When reading text aloud, it's best for readers to have some sense of who characters are without having to click links. Imagine yourself reading a print version of the article. If you didn't already know who the Van Pelts were, then what would you think their names were when only reading Linus or Lucy? The surnames help give context for plot summaries and cast descriptions. As I mentioned in the linked edit summary, we Wikipedians shouldn't presume everyone looking at the page will know right away who they are. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the special, their names only are Linus and Lucy. Names that are not used in the special should not be used for plot summaries or cast descriptions either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV template
About this edit, I was quoting verbatim from the source to provide context for the nickname. If you think this violates NPOV, fine, that can be discussed, but a more personalised message would be welcome instead of a template. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on templating, and yes there were clear treatments of certain chart numbers as a sad thing. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * Much appreciated,, and I'll make the most of it! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 has arrived
Happy New Year Wikipedia! Wishing its members the best for 2024. I look forward to further improving pages. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mariah Carey nominated for TFA
Hello. Just want to let you know Mariah Carey has been nominated for TFA. Feel free to voice your opinion on the nomination page.  RM X Y  (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already did,, though still appreciate the notification. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC
Hey, hope you're doing well. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated at my nomination Featured article candidates/Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)/archive1. Heartfox (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I am,, and have now left comments there. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mariah Carey listed for FAR
I have nominated Mariah Carey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Scarlet Violet  (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Madame web
you reverted an edit listing it as a bomb. Your reasoning was that it made 96 million gross on 80 million budget. And was thus profitable. That is completely false. A studio gets about 50% of gross in revenue so Sony has a bit under 50 million in revenue on a 80 million budget still very much losing money. On top of the reported 100 million spent on marketing. If your going to edit film articles it would help to have a basic understanding of revenue and expenses for the studio in relation to box office totals Holydiver82 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * $100M doesn't seem to be confirmed last I checked,, and either way there still is time for the movie to earn more at the box office. It frankly is a bad habit to prematurely label something as a bomb before leaving theaters. I don't know why anybody lacks the patience to wait for the end of theatrical runs, but they shouldn't be so hasty with such declarations. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * is it early to call it a bomb when it is still in theatres? yes should wait for final box office numbers. but it is very much currently losing money and the box office totals are likely not going up in any significant way. is it possible it could do over 160 million and cover its budget? anything is possible, sans a miracle it will be a box office "flop/disappointment/bomb/loser/etc" that will lose sony money. really the only question for the film is exactly how much money it will lose at the box office when the final numbers come in and if anyone has reliable enough totals for marketing costs. but again 96 million on 80 million budget is very much in the flop/lose money category Holydiver82 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not jump to conclusions about what its totals will be. When there are no firm guarantees on this, your "sans a miracle" and "only question for the film" remarks sound unfairly presumptuous. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the film has been out for a month, it sits below 100 million. even an extremely conservative marketing total would put the total cost to sony well over 100 million. yes, it would take a miracle for this film to suddenly do over 200 million at the box office, especially when the censuses from critics, reviewers, RT, everywhere has been this film is absolutely terrible. its only redeeming quality seems to be to watch it ironically based on "its so bad its fun to watch" you can reference the wiki page to see how poorly the reception has been. bad films that have been out for a month generally do not magically double box office revenue in its final weeks in theatres. Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what watching something "ironically" is supposed to mean or how one thinks it can be "fun to watch" something they think is "bad", but whether films are "bad" is a personal opinion, and whether critics like something is a separate matter from how much gets grossed (there are times when widely praised movies have poor earnings and vice versa in addition to any situations where they do poorly or quite well in both regards). Neither of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see future results, and you shouldn't make assumptions for this solely based on performances of other films or how much has already been generated. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sans an act of god this movie will lose 10s of millions for sony at the box office. that is just reality, however unpleasant that may be. someone who doesnt know that box office gross does not equal revenue to the studio probably is out of their depth talking about films Holydiver82 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of how much is earned, your snide remarks on being "out of their depth" are completely unnecessary, and please don't patronize others whether you agree with them or not. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ben Rector
Hello SNUGGUMS, this is from Ben Rector’s team. While we appreciate your input on his history, we would kindly ask if you don’t mind to hold off on making more edits as we want to keep his wiki accurate as possible. Thank you so much for understanding. Thank you in advance for your understand and consideration. Best, Ben Rector (UTC) ADHP2024 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I only have made one minor change to the article so far,, and having someone from a subject's team make any major and/or contentious changes their page is frowned upon per WP:Conflict of interest. Same goes for Wikipedians in general trying to edit bio articles on themselves. You might be able to bring up suggestions for specific changes on the talk page and discuss certain aspects of it, but please do NOT alter things drastically. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi SNUGGUMS, Can I please suggest that you keep out that Ben Rector is a devout Christian and any irrelevant quotes pulled from interviews, that should not be the focus of Ben's Wiki page. No other singer songwriter has a page like that, it should be kept to the facts and the highlights, not include so much storytelling and narrative. Can I also please suggest that his releases are factual so they stay listed as they are non promotional but just an accurate description and timeline of his release history. Thank you! ADHP2024 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there are other singer articles talking about their religious affiliations (or lack thereof), and I don't see any good reason to delete this for someone who has used it as a theme for songwriting. Having at least some interview quotes (though certainly not every single one conducted) helps give insight into a subject without just monotonously focusing on only what was released. A particularly glaring problem is you tried to remove family details from his page as that makes it feel incomplete. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ben Rector
Thanks for the page protection. Most of the edits made here seem to be just a reversion of the work I've done on the article so far. Do you personally see something glaringly wrong with the work I've done here so far that would call for someone to WP:TNT it? Also, I'm curious if there is a genuine COI issue to be found here... one guy did claim to be Ben himself, but the content they removed is very out of character for him (here lol). Panini! • 🥪 17:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All I know for sure is that the article should be protected from IPs and new accounts,, and would have no objections to making it indefinite. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again; just making sure I wasn't missing something. Panini!  • 🥪 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFAP
Hi Snuggums. Katy Perry just got added to TFAP as a rerun for October, and I don't see evidence that you or anyone associated with the article was consulted. Any thoughts, in either the yes or no direction? - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it gets featured on the main page on October 25th for her 40th birthday,, then I'd be fine with that as long as I get to preview the blurb ahead of time as much as changed since 2014. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kanye West lead
Hello, SNUGGUMS. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kanye West lead, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Album Certification
Nice gag. If the RIAA or BPI certifies a release for a certain amount, then that's the amount. And yes, downloads, as well as streaming equivalents count towards total album certifications. Plus, original record certifications were ALWAYS for copies shipped to stores, NOT over-the-counter sales. As an obvious example, the four KISS solo albums were all certified Platinum(1 million copies each), despite most physical records being returned unsold to the record label. I don't like "streaming equivalents" counting towards total sales any more than you do, but that IS how these certifications have worked for years... 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no "gag" on my part, IP; you shouldn't have deleted pure sales based solely on certification level. If you have some other citation talking about copies sold (whether physical or digital) that doesn't just merge it with stream counts, then by all means feel free to instead add that. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue what your point is. Did you see the Teenage Dream US certification? 9-times Platinum, but only about 3.1 million listed as "Sales"!!!! What are the chances of that, realistically? And why are you ignoring Certifications to go with "pure sales"? if one copy is bought today, then your "pure sales" become instantly obsolete. Assuming they were accurate at all to begin with. But Certifications can be known exactly. In any case, those "pure sales" figures are from some years ago. They're undoubtedly obsolete either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that the numbers without streams DO matter and should be acknowledged as a different figure from what one would get when counting streaming equivalent units. You might be surprised how large such discrepancies can get. Either way, I most certainly did see the UK and US certification levels. While it's hard to track day-to-day updates for sales (especially when the press seems to focus primarily on first and second weeks before later going into cumulative totals from time to time), my understanding is that the most recent known non-streaming numbers are what articles should use for the sales/certification box. From what I've seen, certified unit levels are mainly implemented when one doesn't have a more specific figure to use, so that was why I deleted the UK and US numbers that included streams. It would be nice to have a more recent update that isn't just going off what BPI, RIAA, ARIA, or anything similar certifies something for, but unfortunately pieces under 4 years old aren't always available. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kanye West lead


Hello, SNUGGUMS. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Kanye West lead".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

96th Academy Awards problem
Hi there,

I have a problem regarding edits toward the 96th Academy Awards. A user with the code 46.44.158.42 keeps adding red links to the article even though previous Oscar ceremony lists that have been promoted to FL do not have red links. Before this gets out into an edit war or canvassing war, can you help mediate this problem? Here is the link to the talk page: Talk:96th_Academy_Awards#REDLINKING:_edit_war_(2_varieties:_corresponding_foreign_articles_vs._no_articles_at_all).

Oh, also he keeps citing names for the In Memoriam that using the respective reference (A Frame) that don't confirm if said names were placed at the end of the In Memoriam segment on the actual telecast or if they were just listed on the AFrame newsletter itself because of no room for the final slide or actual montage clips. And based on a previous FLC, the references have to match the claim or facts that is being stated.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just left some comments on the thread. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Maintaining featured status/good quality standards on Wikipedia conflicts
Hi there,

The content regarding the 96th Academy Awards continues, but just as I feared, now User:46.44.158.42 is accusing me of Wikipedia:OWN. I've had a similar dispute almost a decade ago with a User:Atomic Meltdown regarding the 84th Academy Awards (you can see the dispute back in 2015 on the edit history here). I understand about ownership, but I'm trying to get this ceremony list eventually up to Featured lists standards. I'm just following what has been advised to me from fellow editors who have worked on featured articles and/or featured lists. I'm afraid he might try to undo what I did without having a compromise or resolution and it will spiral into another edit war. And as far as I'm aware, one of the criteria for featured list promotion is that the article be stable. That's why I'm asking clarification from folks who have worked on featured content what they think given that I plan to nominate it for featured list come July.

Furthermore based on this message, User:Bbb23 determined that I was not in violation of WP:3RR.

Also, I have concerns that the user my attempt to put back the indiscriminate list of names that were "supposedly" added to a slide at the end of the In Memoriam segment, but as User:RunningTiger123, the way it would be presented would case MOS:SEAOFBLUE problems. In a previous FLC, RunningTiger123 said I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.. But more importantly, the two references used to back up the claim that all those names appeared on the actual telecast do not support the claim. There is no indication on either website to indicate the names appeared during the broadcast. So either this statements should be find a WP:Reliable sources backing up the claim, or it should be removed because this would be considered Original research or source synthesis.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a relief that Bbb123 debunked the claims against you, and none of your edits that I can think of came across as attempts to own articles. Just try not to edit war too much when maintaining article quality. Atomic Meltdown is notorious for sockpuppetry that continued long after getting indefinitely blocked. The Oscars in general and Seth MacFarlane-related matters were common areas that user focused on both after and before the block began. I haven't seen that name come up in quite some time. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, he/she did calm down about, but he still insists that it was disruptive editing to make the changes to the 96th Academy Awards thinking that it started with the red links. I'm trying to prepare the list for FLC like I have always done so for the past 11 years. I was going by the consensus of how featured content is presented based on past feedback I have gotten via the nominations. Otherwise, wouldn't the other featured lists just be written without any some sort of standards or oversight? I believe in quality over quantity. And yes, I'm trying to not engaging in an edit war, hence the talk page discussion. Birdienest81  talk  18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oscar ceremony pages: A list or an article?
Hi there,

User talk:46.44.158.42 asked why the Oscar ceremony pages on Wikipedia are considered lists and not articles on this talk page. I'm not very sure how to answer that questions aside from the fact that's how the folks at Wikipedia deem it. Though from how I view it, even though particularly the featured list ones have details of the ceremony, the majority of the "article" is mostly presented in a list format such as the winners and nominees, winners/nominees tally, presenters and performers, and In Memoriam honorees. They still dwarf the prose section of the page.

If you had time, could you respond to his question on the talk page.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I have no clue why they're counted as lists when there's lots of non-listy prose outside of the lead (e.g. ratings and reviews). <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Many thanks,, and it's hard to believe 11 years have now passed! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice
Hi Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. 2001:D08:2921:B6C4:17DE:443A:A377:4A85 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This notice feels rather out-of-left-field, but sure I'll leave comments there. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Madonna
Hi there SNUGGUMS, I hope you're doing well. Thank you for continuing to maintain high quality pop culture pages on this encyclopedia.

I have free time now due to the summer and I'm very interested in taking the daunting task of finally bringing Madonna to FA. I am willing to spend however many hours it takes. Doing a quick read-through of the article, it seems that most of everything pre-2012 is high quality, but post MDNA can be improved / supplemented with more high quality sources.

Since you have experience bringing three very important pop culture articles to FA, what would your advice be, given that Madonna has had such a long and very illustrious career? PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I am,, and the wishes are appreciated! Hopefully the same applies for you. Believe it or not, I've also been planning for a while to do this with Ms. Ciccone's bio, just never had enough time to get that done. Aside from touching up any issues with prose (especially spelling and grammar), my first recommendation is to ensure it uses the best possible sources for claims AND that they actually back up the text attributed to them. You might be surprised how often people overlook how text doesn't always align with what given citations say regardless of article classification. Once that's resolved, we should ensure it covers all the major facts without excessive detail. Have a look at WP:Featured article criteria for more. I haven't yet had the chance to assess the article for any glaring issues, but will ping for input on what needs to be improved when that user has done lots of work on it and other Madonna-related pages. Someday perhaps the three of us could nominate it together once everything is up to par. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Would love to do so, and I have a lot of free time on my hands so I'm very excited to put a lot into this project.
 * My primary concern right now is that a lot of the things that are cited in her article are from biography books from the late 90s and the early 2000s; while I do not have an issue with citing books, many digital copies of these are behind paywalls and usually the references do not have any quotes, just a page number. At the very least I feel like adding proper quotes would help the poor sourcing a lot.
 * I also feel that the word count of the article can be lowered down a little, especially in the latter half of her career. I will look more into FAC to see how it can be improved. I don't think there are any glaring issues (besides the whole biography books thing) but instead more of a general need to update the quality of the text. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Going through all those books would take some digging, that's for certain. Not sure how much would be appropriate to include as quotes for such in-text citations. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion
Hello, SNUGGUMS! Since you are listed as an active member of the United States Presidents WikiProject, would you mind leaving a comment at a project talk page discussion about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just left a comment on the thread. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Barbie (film)
Hey. Please review what you are going to remove before saving the page. As you can see at the bottom there's info related to the Themes section that you removed. ภץאคгöร 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There already were "Philosophy", "Feminism", and "Masculinity" sections discussing themes,, so it's not like I removed much on the matter that wasn't previously alluded to. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not whether you removed much on the matter or not. Their content is different from the removed text and your edit summary only mentions the other text. Better to be more careful. ภץאคгöร  23:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)