User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 7

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) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 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.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * 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.

Cornelia Pillard
I changed the Name Nina Pillard to Cornelia "Nina" Pillard on the DC Circuit page. The precedent for this is Fortunato "Pete" Benevides on the Fifth Circuit page. I think this is the best way to resolve this issue. I think using her proper name is the best way to go. If someone switches the name back to Nina Pillard I think the best thing to do would be to open up a dispute resolution with wikipedia. I will let you make a new link when you get the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Brother (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Appointer or Nominator
Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. I've always used "Appointer/ed" myself. Apparently I was mistaken, but I thought that was always implied. Thanks nonetheless. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked?

 * Hi, exemptions are only given where there is an exceptional need. Since you have posted here, and made many edits in the last few days, then you plainly are able to post without using the proxy. Why cannot you continue to edit using this unblocked IP address? Just Chilling (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, forget it. I guess I'll just have to toggle between using the proxy and not. Thanks anyway. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Jeffrey C. Mateer
Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * 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.

Nomination of Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump 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/Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies 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. — JFG talk 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Stuart Kyle Duncan
Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New Nominees
You've probably seen the news already, but Trump has put out some more judicial nominees with articles needed to be created. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the heads up. I'll see if I can get a few of them cranked out tomorrow and update the ones that already exist. Thanks again! Snickers2686 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Marquardtika (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Returned Judicial Nominations
What do we do for nominees like David Stras and Jeff Beaverstock whose nominations were returned by the sin die adjournment of the Senate to Trump? Do we just hide them on the list of appointments page with until they're renominated? – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 13:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But we have to update each article to correspond with the sine die adjournment, until/if they're renominated. Then edit the list accordingly (new nomination dates, remove those who aren't renominated, etc.) With a sine die adjournment we also have to remove (or hide) the nomination from the list of pending nominees on each court page as well, because "technically" it's no longer pending before the Senate. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have hid the nominees who have been returned for now and added notes referring to their first date of nomination and why the nominations expired. Please review my edits at the list page to see if they are alright. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks! I'll work on hiding then nomination at their respective court pages. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to this comment before editing List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump
I am passing this to several folks for their reference, so if you get this, you aren't the only one, Talk:List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump. Bottom line, nobody should be removing Judges from the list until the morning of January 4th, when the Congressional Record of January 3rd will be available, properly sourcing the anticipated edit. Safiel (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Homes
Hello. Just to let you know that I undid your good-faith restorationn of a previously removed PROD tag. My rationale, per my edit summary, was that "." The point is really that it should only be used for uncontroversial deletions, and the removal indicates that the deletion would be considered by at least one other party as being controversal in some way, or at least that a discussion should take place. My re-removal of your tag is purely procedural rather than an endorsement of its suggested notability (although apropos nothing, I would draw your attention to WP:GEOFEAT). The next stage is to nominate the article for deletion, if you consider it to lack the necessary coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Take care!  >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since your note it has now been nominated, so we'll see what the community thinks. I'm aware of WP:GEOFEAT, however, as per my comments in my nomination, I still think it relies more on events that establishing notability of the structure itself. Thank you for your explanation though, appreciate it. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Defence ministers of Albania


A tag has been placed on Category:Defence ministers of Albania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T go beyond 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shaul Kohen
Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shaul Kohen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims importance, subject too complex for speedy deletion, please consult WikiProject Judaism or use WP:AFD. Thank you.  So Why  11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article hasn't been touched since May and only provides one reference for the entire "article", that's enough by Wikipedia standards? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly not, but WP:A7 is a much stricter criterion than notability, so declining to speedy delete does not mean the article should be kept. It just means it needs more discussion. Checking with someone who is familiar with such subjects might help. Regards  So Why  19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nalini Netto
Hello Snickers2686. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nalini Netto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''" head of the state bureaucracy" in India is not a claim of significance? Really?''' Thank you.  So Why  12:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the page was deleted back in 2013 (See: Talk:Nalini Netto) so why was it allowed to be recreated when the original consensus was to delete/remove the page? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You nominated it for WP:A7, not WP:G4 (recreation), which is why I emphasized the obvious claims of significance. Nevertheless, I saw that as well but G4 only allows speedy deletion if the recreated page is basically the same as the deleted one. That can't be because the new page contains information about things that happened in 2014 to 2017, which a page deleted in 2013 can't have contained. Moreover, the new version (created in April 2017) contains several reliable sources that were published after the old AFD took place. Feel free to take it back to WP:AFD if you believe she does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Regards  So Why  19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse question
Just to let you know I've left a brief reply to your question at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request for Security vote in Nigeria
Just a friendly heads up on Security vote in Nigeria. I declined your speedy deletion request because the article has plenty of context. Fabrictramp &#124;  talk to me  00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But is it enough context to familiarize someone with it who doesn't know the subject? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the requirements for WP:A1. It's not "context to familiarize someone with it who doesn't know the subject", it's contain enough context to identify the subject. A1 goes on to say "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate". Seems pretty clear to me that article did not qualify. Fabrictramp &#124;  talk to me  19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)