User talk:Synoman Barris/Archive 4

Your NPP Training
Begin with User_talk:Atsme/NPP_training, when completed, provide response User_talk:Atsme/NPP_training. It's not as hard as it looks at first glance. It's mostly just reading and basically confirms that you're a smart thinker and can handle this task. Don't hesitate to ask questions. Good luck! Atsme Talk 📧 16:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You did something wrong
see this -> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomogyi4 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is something wrong? Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes
It's a mistake, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomogyi4 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ngangaesther (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello kindly review for me this article ,rachael kaki nyamai regards ngangaesther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngangaesther (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hello Nganga long time, I have fixed the article and it seems subject is ipso facto notable under the politician notability. I am sure it will be reviewed and not taken up for deletion. Continue with the good work. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

l have been busy in the office  doing monthly reports, thanks for   article  review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngangaesther (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Afd assessment request: Ken Klippenstein
Hi there. The required seven day period for deliberation has passed and it looks like there is a clear consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Klippenstein. Can you assess if you have the time and inclination? Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hasty
Yeah, It was hasty here. But I think the user maybe confused, so I am leaving message to her talk page. In the meantime you may wanna listen to this A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 06:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yep it was hasty ,normally for short articles like that, I’ll rather tag for A1 or A3, but test is still better. Giving an editor 10-15 minutes to expand on the short article is something that should also be considered so as not to bite them. I guess it will be better to also leave a note on their talk page to see if they are open for discussion. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello please sir delete it as soon as possible.Thanks.
 * She argued. A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 06:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yep Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually found that she's been working on something else, 2020-21 Bangladesh Women's Football League. This is why she stayed calm. A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 13:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , And i see the new article is better too. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989
Can you share with me your thinking behind deciding you were an appropriate closer and the reasoning for the close of Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hello Barkeep, at first i had a thought of relisting, then i swept through each argument presented and to be sincere there was a clear concensus from the Keep side since thier arguments were strong. If i made a mistake feel free to tell me, but for me I think consensus was a clear keep. Cheers  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Dalais Woods
Just wanted you to know that "Draftifying" the Dalais Woods article, given its likely origin as a self-authored autobiography, with very weak (even promotional) sources, was the recommendation of admin. Did you carefully review the article before undoing my move to Draft space? I'm just confused whether you feel the biography has strong merits, or whether you're simply trying to fulfill a procedural order that is more preferred than Draftifying? - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll also need to explain to several editors what exactly you found to be "insufficient" reasoning for the move. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is that a question directed to me? Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Undersourced, incubate in draft space is pretty clear. Do you not believe it to be undersourced? Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought I saw some editors working on the article.Before making a move notify them and per WP:DRAFTIFY, when an editor objects to a move, you cant move it back to draft again( the best thing to do is to log it at AFD). Am I right? So it seems your potentially wheel warring?  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't know about your bad move until after the fact because the history is so mucked up from all the ridiculous moves. If you want to cite WP:SOFIXIT, maybe you should fix it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , That statement “Undersourced move to draft” is never a reason to move to draft. The move to draft guidelines indicate some steps which ought to be taken. I stopped moving articles to draft since i believe they can be fixed. There are two options either the article is not notable (AFD or CSD applies) or you be bold and fix it. Sorry for loosing my cool on you, it has really been a bad day. I’ll go ahead and close this discussion per Rosguill recommendations. Cheers  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I may not fix it now, since I have a backlog of 4 articles waiting for me in draft, maybe I may add it up if it’s notable and I have time. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That statement “Undersourced move to draft” is never a reason to move to draft. The move to draft guidelines indicate some steps which ought to be taken. tells me you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It's literally the default reasoning for WP:DRAFTIFY and for the tool or the purpose of draft space. Draft space isn't backdoor deletion for trash, that's what deletion venues are for. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , You never got it, did you?And I think you never will? Better to leave it here! Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No because accountability applies to using tools here, which you've used and failed to adequately explain. Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , How? By reverting a move am against. I don’t see that as a misuse of any tool! The move reason wasn’t adequate. I’ll find a way to clean up the article if I get time, I don’t want to get myself blocked for potentially wheel warring. Have a nice day, whatever the time is. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So the 100+ or so articles that you sent to draft space with the exact same reason weren't sufficient in reasoning to be moved? I hope you'll go rectify this, in that case. You haven't explained why it wasn't a suitable move either. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , After a certain admin emailing me on my mistakes (mostly on my haste when moving articles to draft) I considered to stay away from the Evad move to draft tool. As you can see fro my log or from yours, the drafts are abandoned by the author and after 6 months they get deleted. On your second concern, if you just took time to read through and carefully understand the above messages, you will find the reason. It’s just that your hasty in replying and pointing to my mistakes. I suggest you just move on since it was all a misunderstanding. Regards Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a note to apologize for having potentially set off a brief dispute between seasoned editors/admins. That was not my intention. It was my first use of the Draftify gadget, and I honestly didn't know if it was condoned or deprecated. We're living in difficult times -- no need to let Wikipedia disputes get the better of us. - AppleBsTime (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll note that while I recommended draftification, my specific justification (COI concerns) was not mentioned in the actual draftification summary or talk page notice as placed by AppleBsTime. In light of that, this dispute could be written off as a misunderstanding, although some more communication before reverting a move to draft would have averted this. signed,Rosguill talk 20:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RM close
Regarding your close of this RM, I believe you are incorrect that there is "no consensus" when in fact there is:
 * Consensus that there should be a DAB page (which was created at Looking Out for Number One (disambiguation)).
 * Consensus that the Laura Branigan song is not primary and should be disambiguated (making the DAB the natural replacement at primary).
 * Consensus that the title of the BTO song should use "Number" not "No.".

Perhaps the only disagreement was whether the BTO song needs parenthetical disambiguation, and for that you only need to evaluate the better argument as both options are redlinks. I'd ask you to review your close and adjust it if you agree. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I overlooked that it seems, I will revert myself and leave another closure to do it. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  16:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk page notice message
Hi Synoman Barris. At 's talk page, you asked me if my message was in Twinkle. It isn't part of the standard suite of messages, but I learned how to add it to Twinkle as a custom warning. The actual template is uw-usertalk, which was created by. It was based off of a message that I created, User:Drm310/Usertalk. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for that. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention it, but
Re your non-admin close. You may not be aware that there was 10 years ago something of a possible racial undercurrent to the reaction of some editors to Asian names, which was in some cases, 10 years ago, stronger than the reaction to, say, Lech Wałęsa as an East European name. I'm not going to be the one that might speculate why 10 years ago some editors found Mỹ Linh more problematic than Édith Piaf, but there you go, they did. It could have nothing to do with Mỹ Linh being Asian and Édith Piaf being European, there could be other reasons. But either way the prospect of not making a racial distinction was for me at least component on why we resolved the issue by treating Asian and Westerners the same as far as Latin font names goes. That was 2009-10. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for letting me know. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)