User talk:SNUGGUMS

SNUGGUMS is busy with various other websites as well as work and may not respond swiftly to queries.

watched by friendly talk page stalkers , which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This is SNUGGUMS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Gerda Arendt, and things remains something I'm quite proud of! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Don Ienner's son helping my dad out with his Wikipedia article. Not too long ago I posted a few suggestions to add important information to the article. I saw that you have an interest in music and thought you might like to help with editing this page, since my understanding is that because of my conflict of interest I should not make any edits myself. Here is a link to my suggestions. Thanks so much. GarrettEye (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do indeed have a conflict of interest here, GarrettEye, and I'm glad you realize that. Reverting clear vandalism or copyright violations would be fine, and maybe you could make non-contentious changes like spelling and grammar fixes, but that's about all. I currently am not sure how much I could contribute to the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SNUGGUMS, I am presently third among all time contributors for Mark Zuckerberg's article and knowing that you rank first thought that it would be wise to consult you before nominating it for a GA review. I am presently fixing the citations on the article so that they follow more or less the same accurate general standard. Also it would be great to have you on board if you could assist me in the process given your work on the article. Your co-operation will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, MSincccc, I would get rid of one-sentence paragraphs. Those are discouraged when they make the flow of text feel choppy. The "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section also needs an update, and there's improper uses of italics for some refs. I'll put it up for GAN when ready with your name attached. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS I had just like to notify one thing. Wouldn't it be more accurate to list all news cites as "work" rather than "newspaper" as you have done because that has been done previously for 2 GAs of which I have been part and in other pages as well. Just confirming. If you want to carry on with "newspaper", I have no problem with that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For print papers like Los Angeles Times and USA Today, yes. We have the "newspaper" parameter for a reason and may as well put it to use. When it comes to televised news programs like Entertainment Tonight or Good Morning America, I would use the "work" field instead as those aren't printed pieces. Any organization that wouldn't be italicized is better off going under "agency", "publisher", or maybe "via". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS I hope you remember that we were working to prepare Zuck's article for GA. By the way, I have fixed the lead and a whole lot of citations. Also I beseech you to go through the "Testimony before U.S. Congress" section as I was perplexed as to what is and not to be added to it. That's all for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its second paragraph, there's nothing on whether Zuck showed up to comply with an October 2020 subpoena. The section's third paragraph also discusses a March 2021 testimony about the January 6th Capitol attack without any follow-up on what he said there. We shouldn't nominate with such incomplete thoughts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS Added info from what he said on March 23, 2021. Just check in and see if I have left out something should it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That 2021 addition looks fine, though you still have nothing on 2020 subpoena. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMSCould you please be specific as to what I need to cite about the 2020 subpoena? There is already one from October 1, 2020. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I already made this obvious, but the paragraph ends with "The subpoenas aimed to force the CEOs to testify about the legal immunity the law affords tech platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. US Republicans argued that the law unduly protected social media companies against allegations of anti-conservative censorship." There's no follow-up on what that led to or whether Zuck went to court as ordered for that day. The next paragraph goes into a 2021 ordeal, which was separate from this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS I can't find any accurate source though I have the info. Would you please look after the addition of matters related to the 2020 subpoena yourself? Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the info somewhere, then cite it, and by the way you don't have to ping my username when posting messages on my talk page. I'm already going to see what others write here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you edited A Charlie Brown Christmas to insert the character's full names in the text. However, to the best of my recollection, the full names -- excepting Charlie Brown, of course -- are not used in the special. So within the context of discussing the special, "Linus" and "Lucy", without the "Van Pelt", is likely preferable. I have a COI with regards to Peanuts, but I suggest you consider this aspect and, if you agree, undo the edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, NatGertler, doing so can leave any viewers who don't know Peanuts with an impression that they only have first names. That wasn't a chance worth taking. When reading text aloud, it's best for readers to have some sense of who characters are without having to click links. Imagine yourself reading a print version of the article. If you didn't already know who the Van Pelts were, then what would you think their names were when only reading Linus or Lucy? The surnames help give context for plot summaries and cast descriptions. As I mentioned in the linked edit summary, we Wikipedians shouldn't presume everyone looking at the page will know right away who they are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the special, their names only are Linus and Lucy. Names that are not used in the special should not be used for plot summaries or cast descriptions either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV template

About this edit, I was quoting verbatim from the source to provide context for the nickname. If you think this violates NPOV, fine, that can be discussed, but a more personalised message would be welcome instead of

]

Fair enough on templating, and yes there were clear treatments of certain chart numbers as a sad thing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, The Herald, and I'll make the most of it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Wikipedia! Wishing its members the best for 2024. I look forward to further improving pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just want to let you know

]

I already did,

RapMonstaXY, though still appreciate the notification. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

FAC

Hey, hope you're doing well. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated at my nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)/archive1. Heartfox (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, Heartfox, and have now left comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted an edit listing it as a bomb. Your reasoning was that it made 96 million gross on 80 million budget. And was thus profitable. That is completely false. A studio gets about 50% of gross in revenue so Sony has a bit under 50 million in revenue on a 80 million budget still very much losing money. On top of the reported 100 million spent on marketing. If your going to edit film articles it would help to have a basic understanding of revenue and expenses for the studio in relation to box office totals Holydiver82 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

$100M doesn't seem to be confirmed last I checked, Holydiver82, and either way there still is time for the movie to earn more at the box office. It frankly is a bad habit to prematurely label something as a bomb before leaving theaters. I don't know why anybody lacks the patience to wait for the end of theatrical runs, but they shouldn't be so hasty with such declarations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is it early to call it a bomb when it is still in theatres? yes should wait for final box office numbers. but it is very much currently losing money and the box office totals are likely not going up in any significant way. is it possible it could do over 160 million and cover its budget? anything is possible, sans a miracle it will be a box office "flop/disappointment/bomb/loser/etc" that will lose sony money. really the only question for the film is exactly how much money it will lose at the box office when the final numbers come in and if anyone has reliable enough totals for marketing costs. but again 96 million on 80 million budget is very much in the flop/lose money category Holydiver82 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not jump to conclusions about what its totals will be. When there are no firm guarantees on this, your "sans a miracle" and "only question for the film" remarks sound unfairly presumptuous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the film has been out for a month, it sits below 100 million. even an extremely conservative marketing total would put the total cost to sony well over 100 million. yes, it would take a miracle for this film to suddenly do over 200 million at the box office, especially when the censuses from critics, reviewers, RT, everywhere has been this film is absolutely terrible. its only redeeming quality seems to be to watch it ironically based on "its so bad its fun to watch" you can reference the wiki page to see how poorly the reception has been. bad films that have been out for a month generally do not magically double box office revenue in its final weeks in theatres. Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what watching something "ironically" is supposed to mean or how one thinks it can be "fun to watch" something they think is "bad", but whether films are "bad" is a personal opinion, and whether critics like something is a separate matter from how much gets grossed (there are times when widely praised movies have poor earnings and vice versa in addition to any situations where they do poorly or quite well in both regards). Neither of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see future results, and you shouldn't make assumptions for this solely based on performances of other films or how much has already been generated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sans an act of god this movie will lose 10s of millions for sony at the box office. that is just reality, however unpleasant that may be. someone who doesnt know that box office gross does not equal revenue to the studio probably is out of their depth talking about films Holydiver82 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how much is earned, your snide remarks on being "out of their depth" are completely unnecessary, and please don't patronize others whether you agree with them or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SNUGGUMS, this is from Ben Rector’s team. While we appreciate your input on his history, we would kindly ask if you don’t mind to hold off on making more edits as we want to keep his wiki accurate as possible. Thank you so much for understanding. Thank you in advance for your understand and consideration. Best, Ben Rector (UTC) ADHP2024 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only have made one minor change to the article so far, ADHP2024, and having someone from a subject's team make any major and/or contentious changes their page is frowned upon per WP:Conflict of interest. Same goes for Wikipedians in general trying to edit bio articles on themselves. You might be able to bring up suggestions for specific changes on the talk page and discuss certain aspects of it, but please do NOT alter things drastically. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS, Can I please suggest that you keep out that Ben Rector is a devout Christian and any irrelevant quotes pulled from interviews, that should not be the focus of Ben's Wiki page. No other singer songwriter has a page like that, it should be kept to the facts and the highlights, not include so much storytelling and narrative. Can I also please suggest that his releases are factual so they stay listed as they are non promotional but just an accurate description and timeline of his release history. Thank you! ADHP2024 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are other singer articles talking about their religious affiliations (or lack thereof), and I don't see any good reason to delete this for someone who has used it as a theme for songwriting. Having at least some interview quotes (though certainly not every single one conducted) helps give insight into a subject without just monotonously focusing on only what was released. A particularly glaring problem is you tried to remove family details from his page as that makes it feel incomplete. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the page protection. Most of the edits made here seem to be just a reversion of the work I've done on the article so far. Do you personally see something glaringly wrong with the work I've done here so far that would call for someone to

]

All I know for sure is that the article should be protected from IPs and new accounts, Panini!, and would have no objections to making it indefinite. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again; just making sure I wasn't missing something. Panini! • 🥪 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snuggums. Katy Perry just got added to TFAP as a rerun for October, and I don't see evidence that you or anyone associated with the article was consulted. Any thoughts, in either the yes or no direction? - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets featured on the main page on October 25th for her 40th birthday, Dank, then I'd be fine with that as long as I get to preview the blurb ahead of time as much as changed since 2014. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

]