User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 17

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Snickers2686. Thank you for your work on Jude Pate. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   10:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret J. Schneider for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret J. Schneider 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/Margaret J. Schneider 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 until the discussion has finished. BD2412 T 21:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

New message from Philipnelson99
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:D. Garrison Hill. &#x0020;Please check the messages here, I'm not sure why you reverted my edit or added a verification failed tag Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
I recently made some additions to the Wikipedia page "List of judicial appointment controversies" that were complete with links proving the nominations were controversial. Someone deleted them without a word of explanation. Who do I ask about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6E8B:1252:DCA2:9116 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

John G. Koeltl
Hi, I don't understand why you want to remove a useful link. Please give a good reason (which a link to an irrelevant MOS section is not) for this. Apokrif (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Show me in other judicial articles where that is linked. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is about John G. Koeltl, not other articles (to which you can add similar links).
 * Please explain why you refuse a link that is relevant and is not forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Apokrif (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to explain where precedent for this has been established. If you can list none, then you need to gain WP:CONCENSUS for this change. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read Manual of Style/Linking. Apokrif (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Try again. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking working ? Apokrif (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get to ignore what it says calling it "an irrelevant MOS section" and then turn around and cite it to me. That's not how this works. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked me to give you the link a second time, which I did (in a different form). Does it work now? If so, please read the text I linked to (not the irrelevant parts you already referred to; please read my edit summaries to understand why they are irrelevant). Here is the most relevant part: "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" Consider including links where readers might want to use them" Apokrif (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that's the SAME source I cited to you and you called it irrelevant. Edit summaries are not to prove a point, that's what a talk page is for. Do whatever you want then since you refuse to listen. When you're reverted by others, then maybe you'll realize your error. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This MOS page has several sections, the ones you referred to are not the relevant ones. Please read the part I copy-pasted above. Apokrif (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't paste a "part" you're referencing the whole page. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did paste, it's the quoted text that follows "Here is the most relevant" above. Apokrif (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I opened a more general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking Apokrif (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that discussion. Snickers, just so you know, SEAOFBLUE is about adjacent links.  It opposes links like this:  Sea of blue.  A SEAOFBLUE is a problem because it's difficult for people to figure out that Sea of blue is three links to three different pages.
 * When you want to indicate that someone's added more links that you personally believe are necessary, try Overlinking (which is a section of the guideline you dismissed above as being irrelevant...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I dismiss it? Again, the whole damn article can't be cited and then turn around and certain sections be dismissed. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norma Holloway Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief judge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying Nominees
Hi there @Snickers2686,

I wanted to quickly point out (if you haven't noticed already), that some of the nominee articles you created are under the wrong section it seems. Namely, Francisco Mora, Robert Faucher, William Duncan and Joey Hood have all been confirmed. therefore, they aren't nominees anymore. Same thing with some administration nominees too. I just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks in advance for your response. Losipov (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "wrong section"? I'm confused Snickers2686 (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer honestly. You have two sections for ambassadors: "Ambassadors of the United States", and "Ambassadors nominees". Under the latter lies several nominees that have since been confirmed (Mora, Duncan, Hood, Faucher). They are no longer "nominees", so they should be included in the "Ambassadors of the United States". Same thing with some of the federal judge nominees; just by a brief glance, Hsu, Nardacci, Reyes, Calabretta and others are already confirmed. Therefore, they should be in a different section. There are other sections that experience this same thing, but those are two that I saw. I hope this clears things up. Thanks again.
 * (And like I said in my previous comment, this is really a minor thing, as I just wanted to give you a heads up to what I noticed.) Losipov (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thought you wanted a conversation??
Hmmm. Thought you had reasons to actually explain and defend why you're right whenever you're specifically pointed out why you're wrong? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * would LOVE you to enlighten me beyond "I've edited every page and I like it that way." Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't engage bullies. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * YOU are rving badly and haven't ever given a single actual reason when I repeatedly point out that it's wrong. So, yes, I would like to to give a damn reason. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not having this discussion with you. Cuss at me again and I'm taking it to the admin notice board Snickers2686 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated the Colleen Joy Shogan page
Thought you'd like to know. I used some of the same sources added by the IPs, but I didn't get into the details of the hearings, I just said the hearings happened, and mentioned the dates, the votes, etc. I have more sources I may add to that, but I'd say it is more neutral than it was before. I can agree that the IP address is wrong to say "Point of view is strictly neutral and sufficiently documented" for their text, which was pretty biased. If I find any other reliable sources, I might add them to her page. And there isn't really a good image of Shogan, as the of her is from the side, but there will likely be another one which will be posted at some point on Wikimedia, which can be used on the page instead. I also added in some of the pertinent issues mentioned in the hearing (her position on the ERA ratification, reducing backlog of veterans’ records requests, declassifying older historical records, transparency on records related FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Civil Rights Cold Cases, making NARA more efficient, expanding existing public-private partnerships, and engaging underrepresented groups). I don't think the whole part about some article she once wrote and the part about her Twitter account is even worth mentioning there, as it would arguably violate WP:BLPGOSSIP and be contentious (going against WP:BLPREMOVE). Anyway, I'll create a google alert for Shogan, and will add any other reliable sources as they come in.Historyday01 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin R. Sweazea


The article Kevin R. Sweazea has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Delete per Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have restored this one based on the subject's unsuccessful nomination for a district court judgeship. I don't think that magistrate judges who are nominated for Article I seats should be PRODed, as they tend to have coverage of the failure of their nomination. BD2412  T 04:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So a nomination DOES establish nobility? I thought that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." or "are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable". Seems conflicting in my view. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Inherently notable" means that they are automatically considered notable sheerly by dint of that being their status. I agree that unsuccessful nominees (of any background) are not inherently notable, but I wouldn't consider them to be on the same level as ones like Margaret J. Schneider, for whom there was nothing else to say except that they were a magistrate judge. I would say that a magistrate judge who gets nominated for a full federal judgeship is more likely to be notable than one who merely serves as a magistrate judge, and would rather explore that possibility through an AfD than have it PRODed. With Sweazea, for example, it seems he initially had the support of the senators from his state, and then they withdrew their support. I would be interested to know whether there is any coverage of the reason. BD2412  T 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies 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/Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies 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 until the discussion has finished. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Julia K. Munley for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julia K. Munley, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Julia K. Munley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Matthew J. Maddox for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew J. Maddox, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Matthew J. Maddox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret Garnett for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Garnett, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Margaret Garnett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathleen Marie Sweet for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathleen Marie Sweet, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Kathleen Marie Sweet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Brandy R. McMillion
I added the Pro Bono case Brandy McMillion worked on for an African immigrant who was persecuted for her Christian faith in Africa was before the US Immigration Court. The citation was from Perkins & Coie's site, which a reputable law firm. Why would that be deleted? Starlighsky (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the addition you're referring to. Anything you add needs to have a reliable source and I didn't see any sources that seemed reputable. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added it and saw your cleaning up the page and so on on the log after that. I am not sure what happened. It might be that it was Pro Bono it was removed, I don't know. Starlighsky (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * if you're referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandy_R._McMillion&diff=prev&oldid=1162602023], I'm not surprised it was removed as it was a very poor addition. The authorship thing was formatted very poorly. The pro bono thing lacks any independent source, as the only citation you added was from her law firm Perkins Cole i.e. not only a primary source, but one which is realistically a form of advertising from her law firm. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I can find the citation for the case in case citations. It is a complicated issue because a law firm citing a court case about someone who was persecuted for being a Christian is factual information. However, the placement of the information in an annual report format could be in issue. This is worrisome because these types of cases are about human rights. I could have replaced the reference instead of it being deleted.  Starlighsky (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by case citations, but if you mean you are citing the case directly then please stop editing articles concerning legal cases especially those that involve living persons. You're clearly extremely unfamiliar with how wikipedia works and in particular what sources are suitable for writing articles. You don't seem to understand basics like WP:BLPPRIMARY or even WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. You also seem to be under the impression that the only thing that matters is whether information is factual which completely ignores very important considerations like WP:DUE which will generally only be established by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not citing cases directly, so that is not a problem...problem solved.
 * I completely understand WP:BLPPRIMARY as well as  No original research. Unfortunately, what I had written was misunderstood. I know how to do proper legal citations under the rules of Wikipedia. Starlighsky (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is really is all I trying to say about the issue of the articles about educated women professional up for deletion here on Wikipedia,
 * this quote is from Wikipedia in an article about Wikipedia:
 * "Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, and detailed. A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women."
 * Gender bias on Wikipedia Starlighsky (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With the article and citation about the KSR Standard, the citation is exactly as cited. The publisher is now part of Westlaw, which is reputable publisher in the legal profession. There is nothing I can do at this point about it, but wanted to avoid any misunderstanding. Starlighsky (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Advice needed on deletion
Hello, I need your advice on an article that you nominated for CSD in 2017 (but apparently was contested), namely List of fund manager companies in Uganda. I was thinking of AfDing it when I noticed this. I've never AfD'd a list before, and I just couldn't locate the specific guidelines for that. It just seems irrelevant enough to me that it would warrant deletion. What do you think? 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  06:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles J. Willoughby Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles J. Willoughby Jr., to which you have [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Charles_J._Willoughby_Jr. significantly contributed], is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Charles J. Willoughby Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)