User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 6

Nomination of A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. 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/A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kleuske (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ballotpedia
What is this ballotpedia thing that you're adding links to? I just reverted one and then noticed there are a ton. We don't normally link random other wikis. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an online encyclopedia referencing American politics and elections at all three levels. Snickers2686 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A. Marvin Quattlebaum (Jr.)
I noticed you've been undoing some of another user's efforts to simplify the titles of various articles relating to federal judge nominees by removing bits of their names. A. Marvin Quattlebaum (Jr.) is another one that that user changed recently (deleting the Jr.), and I believe you actually originally created that article (with the Jr. in the title), so I wondered what you thought about this particular article move since you seem to be more aware of the relevant policies than I am. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Snickers2686 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm of the persuasion that all the articles should be reverted back to their original state, i.e. containing the whole middle name and/or initial. In the case of A. Marvin Quattlebaum, there IS a Senior as well and from what I gather, he is/was a lawyer as well. When I initially started looking for biographical information I came across the information for the father and not the son. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Jr/Sr. make a difference unless there's already a preceding article for Senior, however I will note there are plenty of federal judge articles that include "Jr" in their title (eg: Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., William J. Kayatta Jr., John A. Gibney Jr., Robert N. Scola Jr., William H. Pryor Jr., Morrison C. England Jr., John A. Woodcock Jr., Samuel Frederick Biery Jr., Solomon Oliver Jr., Napoleon A. Jones Jr., Willis B. Hunt Jr., etc...so to me there is precedent. I would be in favor of reverting all the prior page moves, however I don't want that to lead to an WP:Edit war. I did bring it up on WikiProject United States courts and judges and User:BD2412 made the necessary reverts. I know you're heavily involved in federal judge articles as well so I support whatever your decision may be.
 * I think they should all be moved back as well, and it looks like User:BD2412 agrees that any undiscussed page move can be reverted without discussion, so I'm going to go ahead and change this one back. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you going to move the others as well? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved a few of the pages, but if there are any that I missed, feel free to move them. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just moved a bunch more. I went through the Trump judicial appointments article and pretty much just clicked on every name and looked for evidence that it had been moved and then moved it back if necessary. I didn't try looking through Jocular's edit history to see if he's been applying this theory more widely though. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job on the other moves. Just a cleanup note though, don't forget to nominate the re-direct pages for deletion--it just cuts down on the tediousness. It can be nominated under CSD G6 Snickers2686 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see where CSD G6 gives a criterion that applies in this case. How would you characterize the reason for speedy deletion? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it's based on the deletion of a redirect after a page have been moved. (Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it.) Since I've got your attention, another admin deleted the target page for Thomas Alvin Farr and moved it back to Thomas Farr so I'm just going to leave it, don't want to have to be moving pages back and forth for no reason. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed what happened with Thomas Alvin Farr. Unfortunately I think pre-deleting the pages that are currently redirecting just invites more of that kind of administrative interference later on. At least right now the destination page is already in place and related to the current page, so the move is sort of non-trivial to execute. Personally, I don't think that the classification you're offering is on point in this situation unless we're trying to move the pages back to the reduced name versions (i.e., the pages currently serving as redirects aren't actually blocking page moves), which I'm certainly not, so I think I'll just leave well enough alone. Incidentally though, since I've never nominated a page for deletion, if I were to do that, what else would I have to do besides pasting a notice on the page itself? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I've nominated other redirect pages under the same criteria and had no problems, but I see your point. I don't know what else happens after a page has been nominated, that's taken up by an administrator and I'm not one so you'd have to ask an administrator on that. Aren't you one? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But nominating it just consists of slapping a tag on it? Or do I have to go add it to a list somewhere? Haha, no, I'm not an administrator. I don't even have any special editing/reviewing privileges. But I suppose if you thought I was one, it must as least mean that you think I'm a good editor... LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yeah, that's all nominating an article is. You can do Speedy Deletion under WP:CSD where if it fits certain predetermined criteria, then it'll be deleted quicker. There's WP:PROD where you can propose deletion of an article and outline your reasoning as to why and if it isn't touched in 7 days, then it's typically deleted. There's also WP:AFD where if you feel it might be a contentious topic for deletion, then you nominate the article with the intent of discussing it's merits (or lackthereof) with other editors on the article's talk page; said discussion will be monitored by an administrator who will take all views/opinions into account and decide on the merits based on consensus. Those are primarily the three ways to delete an article. Whatever method you do choose, typically said article will be automatically added to the relevant lists/discussions regarding deletion for other users and/or administrators to view as well. Deletion process gives you a more in-depth look at deletion if you care to take a look. You can also activate WP:Twinkle to help with addressing deletion issues; the tool pretty much lays out the criteria without you having to manually adding the tag, it does all the manual labor for you, including notifying the creator--all you have to do is check a few boxes and hit OKAY. And yes, I do think you're a great editor. To me the whole point of Wikipedia is to gain knowledge, but also impart knowledge, wisdom, ideas, discussions to the community at large and I feel as long as anyone remains open-minded, as you do, then collaborating between editors is pretty amicable and straight-forward. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply about how to nominate articles for deletion and the links. I may look into that; not sure how much more deeply I want to get involved, just because I can see how this could take up much more of my time than I want, but familiarizing myself with policies is certainly helpful. And thanks for saying nice things about my approach to editing. Wikipedia isn't necessarily the encyclopedia I want it to be and it doesn't always work the way I want it to, but I try my best to respect its own logic and rules. And you've been a good editor to work with. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

BLPO
Per Template:WikiProject Biography, the parameter blpo should be "set to yes if the subject of the article is not a living person, but the article contains sensitive information about other living persons, otherwise remove this line." —  Wylie pedia  08:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wade Brorby, Steven Hale Anderson
They are not listed on the 10th circuit web site. They may have retired.
 * That more than likely means that they've gone inactive. Snickers2686 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on [[Gregory G. Katsas]
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Death of Laudir de Oliveira
Make sure you get a source in the Laudir de Oliveira article ASAP. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.