User talk:Snickers2686

Clyde J. Wadsworth edits

Hi Snickers: see the Wikipedia article entitled “Same-sex marriage in Hawaii.” It discusses the Jackson v. Abercrombie case in detail and supports my explanation that it was the Hawaii legislature that achieved marriage equality in Hawaii, not the Jackson case. Indeed, the District Court in Jackson rejected marriage equality. The Ninth Circuit on appeal only vacated the District court ruling on mootness grounds in light of the Hawaii legislature’s grant of marriage equality. Jackson did NOT bring marriage equality to Hawaii. The legislature did. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to the nation as a whole.

Anne Witkowsky moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Anne Witkowsky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional biography

Hello,

Is there any reason why you are removing additional biography information from judicial nominees I have inserted? I have included references on all of them. One example is on Jennifer Sung's page. Dequanhargrove (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove: Because the references you're using are from sources that are user-generated content and under WP:UGC that's generally unacceptable. Plus, it looks like the majority of it is lifted word for word which is a copyright violation and against WP:COPYVIO and general practice is to remove such violations without question. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The references come from The Vetting Room website. I do not believe that should be considered as user generated contact nor social media. It is researched with numerous references at the bottom of each article. Also I wrote it in my own words however in order to include the information there will be similar wording. However I referenced the article so it should not be in any violation of policy.

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove:: It is researched with numerous references at the bottom of each article. See? Right there, by your own admission, it's researched by somebody else; therefore it's not original content. Now if you were to use the references vettingroom uses and pull the same information they use, then that's acceptable, but to do a blanket <ref>vettingroom.org</ref> as you do, that's not considered a reliable source and does violate WP:UGC because it's using references from user generated content created by others on a different site. And if you're going to cite cases that she's worked on or represented, then each of those need their own source, not a blanket source for all. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess I am confused because I see the same thing done on numerous other judicial nominees pages & when it’s done by other users I do not see the research deleted.

For example, on the page for Ketanji Brown Jackson the very first reference is from the same Vetting Room page that I reference. So I am trying to understand why it is allowed for some users but not for myself?

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove: No one is singling you out. The difference is that citation is referencing her exact page on that site, not just the site in general. And there are numerous other citations throughout her Wikipedia article that source her DOB, not just vettingroom. No editor on this platform is going to catch every reference to vettingroom, maybe sometimes it's used correctly, maybe sometimes it's not; it doesn't signify any preferential treatment just because sometimes it's left alone and other times not, maybe it just hasn't been caught or crosschecked by an editor. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not state I was being singled out. I stated I am confused as to how so many other articles seem to use the same pages I use & seem to not have their work deleted while my work is deleted. I am trying to understand what the difference is so going forward I can enter the references correctly.

If your saying their errors just haven’t been cross checked while mine seems to always get cross checked then I guess that’s just the luck of the draw on my part. I will try to use more detailed references going forward.

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove:: It all depends on what a user has on their watchlist. In my case, since I created the page Jennifer Sung, I get e-mailed of any changes made to that page as long as I keep that page on my watchlist, so that's how I know. In regards to Vettingroom, you can use it as a general reference for a citation, but in the future, when you're on the website, click on a nominee's specific page, so that way if you do cite that page, it's a little more succinct than just the general <ref>vettingroom.org</ref> but just be careful how you use it and remember to follow the policies I linked for you, cause otherwise you're edits could likely be reverted again. Happy editing! Snickers2686 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful. I will make sure of that in the future. Dequanhargrove (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Snickers2686,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOB / WP:BLP

You've been around way to long to be thinking stuff like this is any way compliant with WP:DOB / WP:BLP. Then you go and add [1]?. Did you read that template you added? Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddst1: So did you remove it from all the foreign language Wikipedias linked in that article as well since they all use the same unsourced date of birth? I mean to be consistent and all... Snickers2686 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Feel free to do so. WP:OSE or WP:AON is no excuse for your nonsense and attempting to use either shows inability to accept responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Future judicial vacancies

Hi there. I see you've reverted my edit again without engaging at the talk page. This is incorrect and rather rude. I think 32/14/18 is the correct position but happy to discuss it. Just reverting without actually checking the sources isn't helping. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewdpcotton:, it's not rude if the information you're relying on is incorrect: Judges taking senior status are:

Court of appeals: 14

• O. Thompson (1st Cir.)
• Floyd (4th Cir)
• O'Malley (Fed. Cir)
• Graber (9th Cir.)
• Berzon (9th Cir.)
• Paez (9th Cir.)
• Fletcher (9th Cir.)
• Tatel (D.C. Cir.)
• Dennis (5th Cir.)
• Donald (6th Cir.)
• McKee (3rd Cir.)
• King (4th Cir.)
• Pooler (2nd Cir.)
• Cabranes (2nd Cir.)

District Courts: 17

• Holmes (W.D. Ark)
• Mosman (D. Ore)
• Nelson (D. Minn)
• Besosa (D.P.R.)
• Vazquez (D.N.M.)
• Gilmore (S.D. Tex)
• Robinson (D. Kan)
• Foote (W.D. La.)
• Phillips (C.D. Cal.)
• Jarvey (S.D. Iowa)
• Nuffer (D. Utah)
• Mendez (E.D. Cal.)
• Freudenthal (D. Wyo.)
• Arguello (D. Colo.)
• Hollander (D. Md.)
• Young (S.D. Ind.)
• Koh (N.D. Cal.)

And Tydingco-Gatewood's term expired in 2006, but that's a territorial (Article IV) court. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. I see it was Bernice Donald you were counting in the 14. Was a little difficult to tell as neither Donald nor Pooler / Cabranes had any sourcing on that page only on the relevant circuit pages.

Your 17 district court vacancies does not include Raymond Alvin Jackson from ED Virginia who is listed as taking senior status on 11/23/2021 on the US Courts future vacancies page so I suspect that is the discrepancy. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewdpcotton:: That's true, I forgot about Jackson – Thanks! Donald's announcement reportedly came in May, but it has yet to be counted at uscourts.gov so I'm not sure what the hold up is. uscourts is a reliable source, but they've been known to misreport things too....in October they reported that Stephen S. Schwartz was retiring in November and it was part of the future vacancy count, the court had to put out a press release saying any news of his retirement was erroneous. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Been checking around in case the Jackson senior status is a discrepancy but it seems to be confirmed by Senator Kaine here: https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/10/06/2021/warner-and-kaine-now-accepting-applications-for-us-district-judge-eastern-district-of-virginia Thanks for updating it to 32/14/18. Not trying to cause a fight, just trying to help get the right numbers. The Donald thing does look odd but her UC Boulder talk 3 weeks ago does seem to confirm she is taking senior status so not sure why its not showing on US Courts yet.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

About Jose Perez (judge)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jose Perez (judge) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jose P. Perez. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird..

I think it’s crazy how, according to your (GVT officials that have been arrested) page or whatever you like to call inadvertently says that not on democrat that works in an important position in the GVT has been convicted of a crime. I looked up gvt officials who have been arrested in the recent years, and how you have 2017-2021 (Trumps presidency) or however you worded it like Obama wasn’t in office in 2017 as well. Take your political opinion out of things your gonna put up as “informational” on the internet. 38.124.248.52 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@38.124.248.52: What are you even talking about? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)