User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 10

January 2019
Some of the content you included in Christopher J. McFadden has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what part was actually copyrighted? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap.

Jimmie V. Reyna
Hello, is there a reason you keep undoing edits to Judge Reyna's page? If you think something is inaccurate, please let me know. I'm sure you noticed that my additions are heavily cited. Thanks. EditingartIII (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)EditingartIII


 * Your additions to the early life and education section only repeat what's in the first paragraph, i.e. where he got his degrees and such, and I don't see additional citations in that section. His professional career expansion needs additional citations as well. The citation regarding the Ohtli Award circles back to Wikipedia itself, there needs to be an article or press release, something to show when and why he got the award. Please see WP:RS to understand what is a reliable source. There are only two citations for the massive expansive on his personal life section, that may need to be cut down some so it doesn't contradict WP:LIBEL, we have to maintain a source of verifiability on nearly every new addition to any article, (see: WP:VERIFY) There are some claims that contradict themselves or need to be consolidated, for instance:

First it's said, "In 2009, Judge Reyna received the Ohtli Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Mexican government on non-Mexican citizens for work in the U.S. (and other countries) assisting Mexican citizens and promoting Mexican culture" and then later, "In 2010, he was a recipient of the Ohtli Medal Award (the highest honor bestowed by the Mexican government for non-Mexican citizens). The Ohtli is awarded to persons that have been dedicated to opening pathways for Latinos living in the United States." that can be condensed down. I can help you with adding things or perhaps re-writing them, but we need to find accurate citations that contain this information or it's likely to be reverted by myself and/or others. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Headline formatting in sources used by Deaths in 2019
By longheld consensus, we always keep the original formatting as presented by the sources we use to provide proof or guideline of decease, age, notability and cause of death (if known). We do not tamper with the headlines used by the sources at all, so that it is perceived we are staying faithful to exactly what is being reported and so that anyone following the link will see that their headline is identical to the one inserted in any subject line here. If you wish to bring this up at the Talk page there, please do (many others have tried to alter the consensus on this), but for now the changes you made through the script have been reverted. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So where is this consensus so I can familiarize myself with the rules? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, if only there were a set of listed rules! We'd all be the wiser then. Unfortunately, like any consensus it builds over time usually through trial and error, and across many posts - there's not really a way of saying "this or that was the exact point of consensus" - the conventions slip into routine, and leaving headlines "as is" has always been the norm. Editing articles and the information contained in them is what we do, but altering the content or formatting of source headlines (or whatever you might call them) wanders into the realms of creative original research. The best thing to do is head over to the Talk page and open a section about the subject. The replies you get from various regular editors will indicate which way the consensus actually swings, first hand. I can promise that those who have hung around this project for a long time have become conversant with the way things are done there, and are the best indicators by their replies through the Talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 19:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list this seems to be a matter of changing hyphens to dashes: I think that Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers is probably relevant, where it says "Quotations, titles of books and articles, and similar "imported" text should be faithfully reproduced, even if they employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article". This presumably applies to "titles of ... articles" being used as references just as much as anywhere else. Hope that helps. Pam  D  22:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

POV based removal
Can you explain how my edit to the Patrick Bumatay page you reverted is a violation of POV standards? Especially so that it merited complete removal? When the Wall Street Journal editorial board is commenting on a judicial nomination, numerous online sites and political figures are chiming in and the nominee ends up demoted, thats noteworthy to me?

Thanks, DoesPolitics (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of what you added did not state fact. What was the controversy? That he wasn't renominated or that he himself was controversial? Opinion pieces, which is part of you cited, are not reliable per WP:RSOPINION. I'll admit, the method in how he became a nominee might be noteworthy, it just needs a more refined touch—to say it's his lack of judicial but then point to other votes for nominees who lacked judicial experience, I can't see where it adds encyclopedic value. To me it didn't satisfy WP:NPOV because it didn't appear neutral. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com as a source
Hi Snickers2686. I noticed that you recently used celebritynetworth as a source for biographical information in Ronnie Kroell. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Judges appointed by Trump
Hi, just slightly confused by why you undid my edit on List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. The nominations of Michael T. Liburdi and Peter D. Welte have been reported by the Committee to the floor of the Senate, so surely it would make more sense to group their nominations with the others that have been reported to the floor rather than grouping them with the other nominations that are pending before the Committee? Would appreciate an explanation of your rationale on this matter Sdrqaz (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, due to the color blocking, it doesn't matter how they're grouped. The color itself already signifies who has or has not been reported. It was agreed upon consensus amongst the main editors of the page that color-blocking/grouping did not matter, hence why I reverted your changes and kept it the way it was originally. Snickers2686 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. While I disagree with the consensus formed by the editors, I accept that the decision has been made and therefore defer to those who are of greater experience than I.Sdrqaz (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Touchscreens are awkward...
Hey, sorry about the accidental rollback on S.B. Sinha - I meant to open a diff on my watchlist and mis-tapped on my phone. I've self-reverted. stwalkerster (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's okay. I've done a "whoops" or a "Crap! I didn't mean to do that!" a couple times too. Have a good one! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply
I’ve not seen it that way myself. Going by prominent Canadians like Justin Trudeau or David Suzuki they go by the (Month Day, Year) method. Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Georg Katzer
The "self-published" tag on the composer made me laugh, but that was probably not your intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May I have your email address?
Hello! My name is Ada Brown. May I have your email address? I would like to send you something and discuss and issue with you, please. Thank you.

Ada Sosueme1984 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding Race and Ethnicity to Federal Appointments
Snickers, you have really done a wonderful job at keeping this area of Wikipedia clean! I spent a lot of time researching the demographic differences appointed by Obama and Trump. I was really hoping to see this represented in both Obama and Trump's page and maybe even in previous presidential appointment pages. There is not very much published online recently. One interesting fact is that Trump has yet to get an African American confirmed to the judiciary. I think this should be made public. Can you help me find a way to represent this either on the presidential appointment page or another page that analyzes that data? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpakter1 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment on Bpakter1's own comment page, but I see he's initiated a discussion over here. Some quick points: (1) Welcome to Wikipedia! Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. (2) I don't think I object, in principle, to including this information in the tables on Trump's page, as long as the data is verifiable and complete. (3) I am not bothered by the fact that other judges pages don't show this; changes have to start somewhere, and the data could be added to previous pages. Just because other similar articles are organized a certain way doesn't mean this article has to be organized that way. (4) There is no need to launch an incomplete addition; I'm not sure what Bpakter1 meant saying they had "run out of time" to finish, but there's always time to finish data collection before releasing to the public. (5) Perhaps it would be better simply to add a section to the article on "Demographics" rather than adding two columns to the table(s), especially when so many of the entries are going to be identical (i.e., male and white). (6) The addition of this information is probably something that should be discussed on the talk page for the article. (7) Trump has appointed at least one African-American to the judiciary (Terry Moorer is the one who leaps to mind), albeit to a District Court; it is true that he has not yet appointed (or even nominated) any African-Americans to the appellate bench. (8) I think the Alliance for Justice has already collected a lot of the data you are looking for; I'm not sure if they meet Wikipedia's source standards or not, but at the very least they should be helpful in your research. See here, especially the "Judicial Selection Snapshot." LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding Some New Things
Is there anyway you can edit the changes I am about to write about on the List of United States federal judges by longevity of service. I would do it, but I don't know how to do it. R. James Harvey did not end senior status service on December 4, 2017 like it says on the United States district court section. The total combined service section lists him correctly as being in active senior status service, but not the United States district court section. There is one judge that needs to be added on the total combined service section and the United States district court section. The judge is John Francis Grady, who was appointed by Gerald Ford, and many reports claim he retired. The Federal Judicial Center does not list him as retired, and when I emailed them about this, they said that he went on inactive senior status, not retirement like many reports have said. They told me they would have gotten a notification if he had retired. His profile is on the Federal Judicial Center, and it doesn't mention him as retired. He started his judicial service on November 21, 1975 and he should be on the total combined service section and the United States district court section. I do not know how to make these changes, and if someone could do it for me that would be really helpful.Ameet12345 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juliane Bogner-Strauß, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eduard Müller ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Juliane_Bogner-Strau%C3%9F check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Juliane_Bogner-Strau%C3%9F?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Tax Court!
If you are interested, I have 33 drafts underway for United States Tax Court judges, at WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Most of them have (unformatted) Official Congressional Directory information. bd2412 T 01:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)