User talk:Praxidicae: Difference between revisions

Praxidicae is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

This user wishes she was back in Turks and Caicos But this in no way affects Chrissymad's ability to respond. She just wants everyone to know.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi,

In regards to UVM, you stated that my changes were promotional. I believe that at least the Online Training for UVM should have been left. That was written by one of Aldec's language experts and Research Engineer and it provides readers a free training to learn UVM. It only provides people with a resource to aid those interested in learning more about UVM instead of it being promotional. More information about the online training by Aldec for UVM can be found here. I hope that this can be reconsidered.

hi Chrissy

just been updating the wikipage and noticed that you removed a handful of sectinos including the musicians discography, production credits and some external links may i ask what the issues with these are?

best Daniel

Please see WP:INLINE and WP:ELNO. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Clarification Required
	I noticed that you've been reverting back the description I've been trying to upload from the past week. What has initially uploaded was the incomplete info. The one I've been trying to upload now is the recent description. I'd suggest you don't revert the description back to the original one since it's misleading. Thanks. Jyarcade (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can post anytime on my talkpage, overreacted to a disagreement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is this in reference to something specific? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crissy mad, the wiki page I created for my short feature film, Beyond Failure has been deleted by you. Please note this film is under production and addresses a very important subject in India. Request itbhe reinstated. Please let me know if there is any evidence you require. Thanks.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8864844/ https://m.facebook.com/Beyond-Failing-127226618095929/ Devashishdhall (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrissy,

Thanks for your comment on Philippe_Parreno. The only reason I said that time had passed since the COI edited is that the user listed as a COI commented on the article talk page stating that there was some confusion, and that all their edits have been removed anyway. It was also something I read on the COI guideline page, so thought this was a good opportunity to start fresh and encourage some more edits since there is so much public info available for this artist - this page used to be a really good resource.

Fkw8711 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crissymad, When you say "see SBL", in an AIV report, what exactly is it you're asking an admin to do? There don't seem to be any edits, deleted edits, or filter log hits for any of the three accounts you reported. Is there some other "SBL log" that shows attempted edits that isn't in the filter log? The fault appears to be mine, because User:Edgar181's reply means he sees something too, but I've poked around a little and can't find where I'm supposed to look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBL is the spam blacklist + reported as a bot as it is identical to spambot behavior and the normal spambot links. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are not random reports either, I should clarify. They are without a doubt spambots and there has never been a single instance of a good faith addition of the links they attempted to add. They also meet every criteria of a global spambot pattern as you can see with the NSAMTR filter on Meta. In either case, I've requested a global lack since they meet that threshold. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're going over my head. First, I figured out SBL mean spam blacklist, but I don't see where I can look at the reports of attempted spam link additions. I would have thought it would show up in the edit filter, but it doesn't. Second, I have no idea what a NSAMTR filter is; either it's new since I was last active on AIV, or it's specialized and not widely known. While there are no doubt many admins more up to date than me on all this, when you make reports like this on AIV with no links or context, admins who don't know all this SBL stuff aren't going to be able to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBL is not new and neither is the filter (it's a global filter and I don't have access rights.) The SBL is located in the public log section of any given user under "spam blacklist". This is a standard bot behavior and has been long established also by filter 499. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/spamblacklist shows the attempted edits from the three editors in question. I can see that each of these editors made one attempt each to add a blacklisted link. But since I don't see multiple accounts trying to add the same link, I think this is simply too little information for admins at WP:AIV to go on. I realize that there is a longer term pattern of spamming of these links (otherwise they wouldn't be blacklisted) but without knowing the history (and no way of easily learning that history), it's hard to act on one attempted edit. If these accounts typically make one spamming attempt then abandon the account, which seems likely here, then is it worth your time reporting them or admins' time blocking them? -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are not standard spammers, they are spambots, so yes, they should be reported blocked and globally locked. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I’m pretty familiar with spambot patterns, so I always block on sight locally and think admins should if they’re aware of how spambots work: one edit on any project is enough for a steward to globally lock, and we aren’t actually dealing with real people here. That being said, stewards are more familiar with dealing with these, and reporting them on meta or in #wikimedia-stewards ^connect is often more effective than AIV simply because most local admins aren’t familiar with this. I also don’t think admins who aren’t familiar with spambots should decline the reports, but I also decline every “genre warring” report at AIV since I don’t think it is a real thing, and that pisses people off too... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have added a template message to Restricted Code citing

1. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2018) 2. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2018) 3. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (August 2018)

I edited this page substantially, to remove several things that I thought might be considered "like an advertisement", and leave behind only factual statements, including adding an additional reference to one remaining statement. So I considered (2) dealt with.

I have no idea how to counteract (3) as it is clearly your opinion, but I could cite dozens of pages that exisit on wikipedia for very similar bands, who are not any more noteable than Restricted Code - a band that released several records on major independent record labels, appeared on BBC broadcast sessions and toured throughout the UK and Europe playing major venues.

As for (1), yes I am conntected, but whilst I knew that meant you had to add or edit content carefully I did not think that was a reason to stop publication of the page: after taking the action to resolve your issue (2) I removed your template but subsequently you threatened me with closure of my Wikipedia account if I do so again. So what else do I have to do to have this minor but important encyclopedia page published?

TomCannavanTomCannavan (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you edited them at all is the reason for those tags - you have a direct conflict of interest and it's highly promotional. Please review WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for reverting you on the windmill article last week. I also shouldn't have left that condescending edit summary toward you in the revert. You are smart, intelligent, hard working and you were right to revert me. I studied up recently on article leads and how I have to source every edit (even things I feel are well known) and feel I am getting better at it. Thank you for pushing me in the direction. JC7V-constructive zone 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have gone through my updates again and I was wondering why you reverted two of my edits today. I think they were improvements to the existing content Adewale1983 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Obviously feel free to ignore this if irritating, but I was just wondering if there was a reason you weren't an admin? I see you in all the places I do things and you're always both active and really helpful to everyone else, and I'd imagine you do even more if you have OTRS rights.

It just seems you'd be great at it :)

Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have brought this draft to a very acceptable state by following the comments from a few reviewers. I request you to please review the page and move it to the articles section. This is my first article and I am pretty keen on wanting to see it get accepted. Please let me know if it needs any more improvements. Thank you. Ubhasrk (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Well said. Let me introduce myself, I am a professional musician who teaches music locally, when searching for useful instructional material I found the website whose link I put in the article 'major scale'. i inspected the other external links and found out that the first link was a dead link, the second link points to a website which explains something about major scale. So I decided to add my link (not my website/ affiliate link) so people can benefit from it. It looks like people here did not get my good intentionJEric94 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It's not an indiscriminate collection of links. Please see WP:EXTERNALLINKS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an indiscriminate collection of links. Please see WP:EXTERNALLINKS. Read that a hundred times. Just out of curiosity I wonder, why the other two links are not deleted? Sure one of link is a dead link and nobody bothers fixing it and people just because they don't like my new link they decide to get rid of it without understanding its quality. Do you know any real administrators I can talk to?