User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 13

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Snickers2686, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to John Gibbs (US government official) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 21:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been warned about this before; this is your last warning. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon looking at Melanie L. Cradle and José A. Suarez, both of which copied from https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/07-2020/Governor-Lamont-Makes-Supreme-and-Appellate-Court-Appointments, which has no indication of being in the public domain, I'm blocking you and opening up a Copyright investigation. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Melanie L. Cradle. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 22:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have revoked your autopatrol, NPP and pending changes reviewer rights. Your edits will need to be checked for copyvios by NPPers if you are unblocked. MER-C 08:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennifer E. Nashold for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer E. Nashold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jennifer E. Nashold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel A. Graham for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel A. Graham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rachel A. Graham until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblock #2


What is copyright? The legal right of the original creator to publish and writings or artistic stylings and the ability to authorize others to republish the work of the artist/author

How is Wikipedia licenced? Under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License edits are granted permission to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text unless noted otherwise

Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Because it is content that is essentially not user created (or paraphrased) nor authorized by the original creator to be recreated

Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? Depending on if it's a compatible license authorized for use within Wikipedia and/or falls under free use or public domain

How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? By paraphrasing said said works in my own words and using proper citations. When coming across material that is assumed to be copyrighted, try a different a different source that is in the public domain or omit that use of copyrighted material altogether

Stop violating the spirit of Wikipedia by inappropriately censuring
I will provide source material. The content I am adding is accurate and relevant.

I am concerned that you are violating the spirit of this website by inappropriately censuring material.

Everything I wrote is sourced and properly documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:4:40E0:88F5:FA46:B3A8:1A61 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Snickers2686, the IP editor has now registered as and started a discussion about the Sara L. Ellis article at BLP/N.  Just letting you know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

In the spirit of collaboration, please advise how you recommend we add the following material to the Wikipedia page.

I am open to reviewing your suggestions.

Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case [5], in which a physician by the name of Jaydeep R Joshi filed a lawsuit against another physician by the name of Jay K Joshi ostensibly claiming the latter had imitated him, and used the Lanham Act as the basis of the lawsuit, proclaiming himself to be a "world famous physician", the "only real Jay Joshi", and an apparent subject matter expert in a wide ranging array of medical topics [5]. In a stunning departure from established legal precedent [6], Ellis allowed the case to survive initial motion for dismissal on the basis of a specious trademark claim despite the absence of any notable evidence and likely perjured statements by the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi [5][7]. The case has since been dismissed with prejudice [8] and it is unclear whether Ellis recommended sanctions against the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi, or the attorney representing the plaintiff [8].

References 5. “Joshi v. Joshi.” https://Www.abajournal.com/Images/main_images/JoshiSuit.pdf. 6. Motion to Dimiss for Failure to State a Claim. www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/motioniqbal_1.pdf. 7. Churney, Dan. “Judge Lets Suburban Doc Continue Lawsuit vs Doctor with Same Name Imprisoned over Opioid 'Pill Mill'.” Cook County Record, 5 Aug. 2019, cookcountyrecord.com/stories/512872512-judge-lets-suburban-doc-continue-lawsuit-vs-doctor-with-same-name-imprisoned-over-opioid-pill-mill. 8. Wood, Lauraann. “Ill. Doctors With Same Name Agree To End Trademark Fight.” Law360, 2020, www.law360.com/illinois/articles/1303127/ill-doctors-with-same-name-agree-to-end-trademark-fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's characterized as a "frivolous lawsuit" then why include it at all? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It made the cover of the Chicago Tribune and was nationally broadcasted. It is important for the initial decision not to dismiss relative to the final decision to dismiss with prejudice. Many people still look up the case to this day. The quality of the legal argument has no bearing on the public intrigue it establishes. The public intrigue makes the case note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So if there are national sources, then those need to be included. I only see one source from Cook County. And again, how it was written in the addition to the article was "Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case" so again, if frivolous, then why include it? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Engaged audience1 may be unaware of the sheer volume of frivolous cases dealt with by the courts. I interned with a U.S. district judge one summer during law school, and they had me draft the responses to these, of which there were a handful in that time. A judge serving for any appreciable period of time will dispose of dozens, perhaps scores of these over the course of their judgeship. Therefore, any given instance of such a case is purely routine, and not within our coverage. Incidentally, the number of frivolous cases is dwarfed by the number of legitimate cases, which are more important matters, but also routine. BD2412  T 18:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snickers2686 @Eggishorn

Points taken. I better understand the standards of content generation. I will not post anything based upon the feedback provided. Engaged audience1 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Kate Comerford Todd
I created the article for Kate Comerford Todd, and now see that someone has suggested it be deleted. Do you think it merits inclusion on Wikipedia? – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there have been other articles created for Deputy Counsels beyond Patrick F. Philbin, if there are, I'm not sure who they are. I think as BD2412 said in the discussion just because she's mentioned as a nominee doesn't mean automatic nobility, however, if you can expand the article to showcase why/how she's notable, then I'm sure it could stay. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

KidAd Disruptive Editing
Hey, I've editing pages and have run in to KidAd, who seems to think that if pages aren't to his style, they're wrong. I've noticed you had the same issue with him. I'm new here and it shows that you've been doing this for a while, what recourse can I take since KidAd has threaten to block me from editing. Alexr9873 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Running to an uninvolved user is not a productive way of handling this dispute. It also displays a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You have been given multiple warnings and chances to change your disruptive behavior and have refused each of them. KidAd   talk  18:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh my guy, I'm new so I'm asking for help, so you take that as "BATTLEGROUND" mentality. Cmon dude, just because the style isn't to your liking that means it's wrong? I don't understand how its disruptive, I've attempted to reach out and start a dialogue and you've only responded with threats. Alexr9873 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Commission date
I knew she received it, which is why I edited it...but you undid it. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.125 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I undid it at the time because there was no notice or press release or anything to signify that she received her commission. Editors typically use the Federal Judicial Center for verification and at the time of your edit, they had not indicated that Jarbou had received her commission. Snickers2686 (talk)

October 2020
Your recent editing history at Diana Shaw shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KidAd  talk  20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So then why revert my initial edit without discussing it first? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of edit-warring, discuss your proposed changes to the formatting of the infobox on the article's talk page. I suggest that you self-revert, or I will be forced to take this to WP:AN/3. You have already violated WP:3RR. KidAd   talk  20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already told you why, because it doesn't conform to like-minded infoboxes Hardly any infobox uses the status parameter to indicate an "acting" position. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Telling me why" is not enough. We are talking about Diana Shaw, so other pages do not matter. As far as I know, the only reason the infobox formatting of several former officeholders has changed is that you changed it...today. As I said before, if you do not self-revert, I will take this to WP:AN/3. KidAd   talk  20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you're opposed to using the "Status" field for some reason, can we compromise by converting (Acting) to just Acting? Either format makes the infobox look crowded, but the parentheses add nothing but a visual distraction. KidAd   talk  21:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got a question out to the Teahouse to see if they can provide guidance on formatting. I'm not opposed to styling (Acting) when it comes to the notation of a successor. I think it's just a stylistic choice as to whether to include the parenthesis in the infobox header or not. In regards to styling the main office with (Acting) as a subtext after a break (i.e. Secretary of X (Acting) or prior to the office (i.e. Acting Secretary of..) either way is fine, I suppose, it can be done prior to the office, if need be but that just means a lot of reformatting on like-minded infoboxes beyond just the U.S. Cabinet or diplomats. To me, uniformity is key, it just looks better. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be curious to hear what the Teahouse has to say. Is it alright to make the change to just Acting? I think that is a decent compromise until we hear additional opinions. KidAd   talk  21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me Snickers2686 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Justice Inting's Appointment
See this link http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php/announcements/judicial-vacancies which points that he was appointed to the SC on 22 February 2020 KILLERXR (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in this source does it say ANYWHERE that he was appointed on February 22. His own Court Biography says: "On May 29, 2019, he was appointed as the 183rd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court." Snickers2686 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Kindy open the link of vacancy and you'll see what I mean KILLERXR (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I see what it says but I think that's a mistake. There are MULTIPLE sources that don't mention his appointment until May of 2019.


 * 1) Source: "Court of Appeals' junior justice Inting appointed to SC", Kristine Joy Patag (Philstar.com) - May 27, 2019 - 6:56pm"
 * 2) Source: "CA magistrate Henri Inting is new SC justice" By CNN Philippines Staff Published May 27, 2019 6:40:02 PM
 * 3) Source: "Duterte appoints CA justice Henri Inting to Supreme Court" MAY 27, 2019 6:40 PM PHT by PIA RANADA
 * 4) Source: Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting takes his oath before Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin as the newest member of the Supreme Court. Dated May 28, 2019

When he was nominated versus when he was sworn in are two different things. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess so it was a mistake made by the Judicial and Bar Council, and thanks for every sources you gave Snickers 2686 KILLERXR (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent protection request
Hello, Snickers! You recently asked for semi-protection for the article Supreme Court of the United States. I move-protected it but held off on semi-protection for the time being. But checking this morning I see that there has been a spurt of vandalism to the article, so I have now given the article a month’s semi-protection as well. Just FYI. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate it. There was a bunch of back and forth going on since ACB's confirmation. I'm sure it'll calm down in a week or two. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And thank you, for all the outstanding work you do on our articles re courts and judges. (I took a peek at your user page.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex Kozinski
Categories are meant to be defining. We dont categorise people as from places they left as children unless that place is clearly significant for them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So a place where a person was born isn't significant? I find that severely flawed. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not if they leave as a child and never go back. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the controlling precedent or rule? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That categories should be defining. DEFINING Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Banner shell
Hi there. Please check the syntax for this template because I have had to fix quite a few of your recent edits (example). Thanks! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the way it was formatted? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The banner shell template wasn't working. Check the version of the page before my fix. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're still doing this. Please use the template properly, thank you! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So when did the formatting change then if it's wrong? Because I've used this same format for countless other creations of talk articles and there was never an issue, now suddenly there is... Snickers2686 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been fixing up your templates for several weeks now! The close braces }} are in the wrong place. Check the diff I posted above ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've fixed a handful out of several hundred, I hardly call that an issue. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)