User talk:Praxidicae/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Praxidicae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Dear User:Chrissymad

I have been doing several edits to the Draft:IUCN Red List of Ecosystems draft and some related pages. Please let me know if you have further suggestions for improvement.

Jrfep (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chrissymad,

Will you please read the discussion on my talk page, and take another look? I believe that developments in the past two years means that this duo, while not yet notable in 2016, is now notable in late 2018. Please reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I did and I see no actual change from the several other times, as I've detailed on the talk page of the draft. The Billboard source was present in the prior AFD/MFD and iTunes charts do not count. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And the rest are interviews, otherwise unreliable or generally worthless for determining notability (like itunescharts.com). CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 You're also more than welcome to move it to main space if you feel it's appropriate but the sources provided by the person on your talk page, as i've pointed out do not meet the threshold of establishing notability in the slightest. Interviews, a generic website link, sources that were already present in the prior AFD'd article etc...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, now that their debut album’s first week on the charts is over it debuted at number 9 on the Billboard 200. What more is needed to prove this group’s notability? Cheers. Quazarrr (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Praxidicae. Not sure why you marked the above for speedy deletion. It's a weak page about an American comic: certainly we get too many of those, but it appears to be, at least, accurate. You have maybe noticed cross-wiki activity that we haven't? Andrew Dalby 15:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby It's possibly a mistake on my part, I was tagging recent creations by an xwiki LTA who mass creates machine translated articles (poorly translated at that.) See deletions here on Wikidata from other wikis: Andrew Dalby, Flava Flav, Michael McDonald, Kyle Massey. Lately this LTA (MisterAnthony) has only been doing this type of stuff via IP (see global lock on 2600:8800:3980:2550:0:0:0:0/64) but the timing + single account creation and addition by his now locked IP makes me think the account was likely them too. I assume you're a native speaker, so I could be totally off base for this one and will leave the assessment of it to you. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I recognise the type of page creations you're talking about. I have deleted several myself as BLPs that contained false statements. Yes, this could well be one of that group, but it stood out (for me) because it contained no errors! Therefore I think I won't delete it (yet) ... but please keep on watching. Andrew Dalby 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I think the primary concern xwiki with this troll aside from violating the block/lock is more that they're basically putting up gibberish/poor translations, so if it makes sense in the language it's in, I'd agree there's not much reason to delete it. Thanks for reaching out! Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I moved the Chernobyl page to Chornobyl (Ukraine) because the Chornobyl page already existed, so I was trying to contact an administrator to ask to move it. I moved the page because Chornobyl is a city in Ukraine, and therefore the official name is in Ukrainian (for 28 years, somce 1991), Russian is not an official language in Ukraine, so the only official name is in Ukrainian, in fact this rule is applied to all the pages of Ukrainian cities, with the exception, for the moment, of Chornobyl, but I think this is due to the fact that the name Chernobyl is better known historically, but this does not mean that it should also be used on Wikipedia, certainly in the page will be written the name in Russian because it is still a relevant nameMvvnlightbae (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the discussion on the talk pages as the move isn't uncontested or non-controversial. Praxidicae (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

you reverted saying I cant hijack edits, ok I get it but you can? remove the article which is created by someone without saying anything? I don't even know who that guy is in the article you reverted but saw in the recent edits you reverted. anyways I think instead of deleting it you should have gone for AFD or WP:PROP142.252.248.26 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You can't just take an AFD that directs to another subject and write what you please - create a draft and go through AFC and it will be appropriately disambiguated. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

W submitted Draft:Jimei Bridge, declined, and then went ahead and created Jimei Bridge as an article. Is there a proper way to get rid of the draft? David notMD (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, using Template:db-self I presume. That's what I did. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Hope this is the right channel to correspond on an article review .

Earlier today you have reviewed and declined my post for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Team_workers, and I wanted to verify I understand the reason correctly and the means to rectify.

The Decline states: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarize information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

If I understand this correctly - I cannot write this article, as I am part of the initiative that came up with concept of "team workers". If I got it correctly, please help me figure out what are the possible steps to rectify. I would assume that anyone else that is part of the initiative would not be neutral. Would someone else that adopted the concept be considered neutral ? somebody that has published other articles and may rephrase it neutrally? Or perhaps the problem is with a "too personal point of view" of the article (if it is written in a too personal note, I fail to see it, but perhaps it is since I'm looking from the inside)

Thanks much for the quick response,

 Guy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybrandw (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 

Hi,

I noticed that you redacted the revisions made to Dr. Devanand's page. I work with him and he has requested that I use similar information to his biography on the Columbia Psychiatry website that I wrote; I did not cut and paste it directly. It is difficult to paraphrase awards, where he went to medical school, etc. To my knowledge, I properly cited the source of where this information is coming from. Can you provide some further instruction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.1.17 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jalfano73

Your comments on 3/27: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Hi Praxidicae! Sorry to bother with this, and I realize you've reviewed multiple times already. However, i am at a loss with the latest comments. Are you saying that i just don't have enough sources and/or those provided aren't credible enough? If so, do i just need more? I can't do anything about the quality of the coverage. I am merely relaying what i have available to me. Are there any other issues?

Again, my apologies. Doing my best with the feedback in hopes that once and for all i can get this page approved. Thanks in advance for your time, energy, and support.

Joe A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfano73 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Any feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfano73 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Can I please ask why you are removing the text from the above article? Everything that has been written has been referenced. If no other information allowed to be entered into this article then why have the page? Please could you let me know, thank you.

88.108.138.36 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Rizwan

I know this draft has been deleted multiple times as spam, but I think the author has finally achieved a version that is not overly promotional. And I'm not sure what page you claim a copyright violation for, since you didn't list one. I'd argue that the present draft is actually OK (as a draft -- it's clearly not ready for publication and may never be). I would remove the speedy deletion tag on my own, but I wanted to consult with you first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I am new in Wikipedia. The copyright problem is solved. Please remove the template. Smnsbd1971 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Praxidicae.

Earlier today you declined the submission "Fleecehold", and you wrote that "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article".

I had used the Wikipedia article "Neoliberalism" as my model. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

If the Fleecehold submission reads like an essay, then the Wikipedia article on Neoliberalism reads far more like an essay, yet it has of course been published. I have used the Encyclopaedia Britannica for fifty years and it, of course, is full of extremely helpful essays.

Would you be so kind as to pass the Fleecehold submission to a number of impartial editors for close evaluation, please?

Thank you.

Ioscrivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ioscrivo, I took a quick glance at your sandbox and the article you mention. A few thoughts:

• Neoliberalism is a 100+ year-old term, while fleecehold is only about three years old
• That article was published in 2002, and our standards have changed wildly since then. It does read more like an essay, and probably could use a good trim.

Your draft, to be honest, just goes into way too much detail. You have huge quote blocks and paragraphs of text for relatively straight-forward concepts; it's almost half as long as the neoliberalism article! For example, you dedicate an entire section to not only the etymology of "fleecehold" but also "to fleece"; I'm not saying it shouldn't have a section, but I could probably manage to give that definition in a paragraph — something along the lines of fleecehold is a portmanteau of "to fleece" and "freehold"... followed by a quick definition or description of the two terms.

Given the relatively new emergence of this term, I can't quite say whether it's a neologism or not (i.e. whether it will actually gain traction or just be a "fad" word), but it does seem to show up in a fair number of publications. I think if you seriously trimmed down the draft (I hesitate to tell you to just start over, but it's also an option) it would stand a much better chance of being accepted. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

The editor for that article appears very experienced, and came around to COIN asking about getting the UPE tag removed. I almost bought it but now realize it really does look like a duck. There are four or five related articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah there's actually a handful of other accounts I found but appear to have misplaced the info. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Praxidicae,

On 19 July 2018, you reverted to edits to the Enterprise Architecture page made by Eddiexx77. I'm taking a look at the edits and they were made in good faith and were well referenced. Could you explain why those edits should have been reverted? Nickmalik (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Care to explain why you reverted my edits on those 3 pages ? (this and 2 others) do you always just do that without checking ? the nominator didn't even know how to nominate a page for deletion, he created One AFD for all those 4 pages without even mentioning the other 3 which was rejected, and even himself apologized for nominating them. there was no reason to keep that in the page. Mohsen1248 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Being a wikipedian, I should check what wrong is happening and they should get their reward!! NotTfue123 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

NotTfue123 No, it's not your duty as a 6 day old account to involve yourself in sock puppetry tagging. Praxidicae (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also please explain this edit. Praxidicae (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Some one mailed me that Materialscientist was responsible for Tyler Rogers hijacked article.NotTfue123 (Talk)

Please don't dominate :P, Still I am AdministratorNotTfue123 (Talk)

Auto confirmed!!NotTfue123 (Talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

NotTfue123 Great, so what is your other account name? Praxidicae (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If I knew that account username and password, why would I make new account?? NotTfue123 (Talk) 11:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You just said you're an administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean I was!! Things about decade ago... Now I am free from my work so I am contributing towards wikipedia!! Using my knowledge on HTML, CSS, JavaScript.. Please help me in need!! You are administrator I guess, and I may ask you help!! NotTfue123 (Talk) 11:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool so what was your account name when you were an administrator? Praxidicae (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Not an admin, but... ——SerialNumber54129 11:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah!! I guess ArmRust or somewhat.. Tell you later when I will remember NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think—not. ——SerialNumber54129 17:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Because you're awesome! -- Dane talk 16:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, right? I'm beginning to suspect the kid's on the autism spectrum, given his persistence and his total inability to actually listen to what he's told about how Wikipedia notability works. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more the last sentence in this section. In fact, I suspect the TS "coverage" was really just him trolling himself. Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Whenever a vandal has their username in use. When they’re block I remove everything and put the indefblock. And next I put it in redirect due to it being empty. I how that answers the question and yes Ill stop doing it the userpage further. Anyways Cheers A.R.M. 11:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee

Is the other party also getting an edit war warning? Why is my version invalidated when the first person to revert without discussion was the other party? Assuming this continues, who is going to adjudicate this dispute? Cynistrategus (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Denisarona (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have been blindly reverting Waste Control Specialists changes. The other user is adding valid referenced updates. They have also removed a couple of things that may or may not belong in the article (While the former TECQ head's new career is interesting trivia, I don't believe it belongs in this article) but I don't see where correcting that requires a full rollback. I've reverted this today because I see no action to notify the other user as to where they may have gone wrong, nor is there any info in the edit summary. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's COI spam. Praxidicae (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that user's name (and lack of editing anything else) tells the story doesn't it. I've removed the promotional bits and the bits left by protestors long ago. Thank you. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering this adjustment, isn't there perhaps more work to be done? - Wacomshera (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest. Praxidicae (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This is about Mike Whaley, the person is definitely notable. I have added more sources has a reoccurring role in real shows such as Under the dome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source9999 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Im creating his page what are you doing?

Read the links on your talk page. You're creating a ton of stubs about living people who are questionably notable and have no sources. Stop. Praxidicae (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a source its on twitter, if you would look.

Read WP:BLPPROD, WP:RS. Also sign your posts. Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are my pages getting deleted still? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Falcaholic! Thanks for adding all those articles around last weekend's draft! I think one of the reasons why Praxidicae is listing the articles for deletion is because of Wikipedia's own policies around football players. According to our notability guidelines for American football players, a player is notable if they 'appear in at least one regular season or post season game' in the NFL (that way, we weed-out benchwarmers and those who get cut after training camp). Once these players meet that standard, they should be fine! Bkissin (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm not really sure what you have written applies in this case as I was merely adding the source or changing things around. I was asked for a source and provided one. CH-BUESI (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Except your source doesn't title it "Shackleton" so it's as good as unsourced. I suggest you read the warnings Bbb23 and others left you on your talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I read them, otherwise logically, I would not be replying. You are wrong about the title. It is called Shackleton. What you mentioned is an individual episode name. I am not sure why you think I would want to add something that isn't correct. I didn't revert or war, whatever that means. Also, I provided 3 sources for the title. I am only trying to help add information and expand the two or three pages in question. CH-BUESI (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's called Shackleton, provide a source. Pretty simple. Amazon is not a source. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you know it's not a question of 'if'. You can see that it exists and that it is called that from the sources I have already provided. I have reinstated and added 5 sources. I hope it's alright now. CH-BUESI (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I can't tell if it exists because you've yet to provide an actual reliable source. That being said, you'll see a new notice on your talk page. It doesn't matter if you're right - edit warring is unacceptable particularly on a BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please send a copy of the material that was deleted that took 4 hours to cite? I'm not sure why the owner doesn't get to keep a copy for use in other places, but would greatly appreciate it so I don't have to create the post again on the coworking wiki. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backscheider (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please send a copy of the material that was deleted that took 4 hours to cite? I'm not sure why the owner doesn't get to keep a copy for use in other places, but would greatly appreciate it so I don't have to create the post again on the coworking wiki. Thank you.

I am not an administrator, so you'll have to ask the sysop who deleted it. What "coworking" wiki are you referring to? Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I undid your revision and I also brought the deletion template back onto the article. 99721829Max (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

hi Praxidicae sorry i am new to Wikipedia please help me. how can i tag Wikipedia:Speedy keep please help me may i know why you are trying to delete my article Zinga (film 2019)Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This does not even remotely qualify for speedy keep, so stop trying to tag it. Make your WP:NOTABILITY based argument at the AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ok thank you for response(reply) i don't tag any more Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Praxidicae. Can you please help me - I just want to make a good article. What’s wrong on Veronika Didusenko ‘s? What can I do to fix it? VladimirOleyniq (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the article on Hugo Lichte, I appreciated your help. Is there anything specific which I should try to improve for another article? I agree that the contents of the present article should be extended, and I hope for somebody adding more substance to the silent to sound film part and the German-USA common history in this matter. Best regards CAUBOY (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!

A couple of days ago 90% of the content on Ashton College Wikipedia page was removed for the reason of lacking citations to reliable sources.

My question is how do I proceed with editing it? Can I re-publish the content again and add the reference links to the content? Or should I undo your changes to be able to edit the content?

Another question is about the links themselves. I have several of them in the External links categories but in the content itself, all the links go to the official website. Should I replace them with the links to the external sources instead?

Thank you!

First you need to disclose your conflict of interest. Second, please read WP:IRS, the school itself is not a sufficient source to substantiate that size of an article. Praxidicae (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I have not recieved any funds or undisclosed payment. He is simply a great musician, one of the few we have in Sweden. I had no idea the picture was copyright-protected and I did double check, will be better next time however. Anyways, I'm making changes after your notes.

Best Regards

Can you explain how you received the image and permission from him, then? Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I went to his Twitter and received it that way. I asked specifically if I could use a picture from his Twitter-feed. He said yes. That's where I left the chat. I didn't think about possible copyright strikes and I'm usually some what knowledgeble in the issue. It is erased from the page.

Hi Praxidicae,

I added new links and inline citations to Ashton College page yesterday, however, the content was removed again with the comment that "this is nothing more than promotional nonsense".

Yes, the page gives an overview of the programs the college offers, the methods of delivery, its locations and the professional bodies and organizations it is associated with. Not sure what other types of content can be expected from the post-secondary school. Especially, a small-scale one, since Ashton College doesn't have a 100-year-long history and its own football league, for example.

There are other pages about similar-scale colleges and schools that are published on Wikipedia with a general overview and just a couple of links. Why they are ok and the page about Ashton College is being deleted? Just trying to understand the difference.

Also, Ashton College page was created a couple of years ago, as far as I know, and I was just editing it recently. The initial article was shorter and there were even fewer links. However, it was published and stayed on Wikipedia, but after I edited the content it was taken down. Can I revert back to the original version then from 2017 then? Can you please explain how it was better than what there is on the page now?

Finally, what should I do to have it published? This is not the only Wikipedia page about a private post-secondary institution, so I assume it's not the type of content that is not allowed but its form. What should do to improve? Will appreciate your feedback.

Thank you!

AshtonFan (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karikku. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Waggie (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Praxidicae. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wolfe Street Academy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Geek Studies (2nd nomination): Well, I think your interpretation is very poor. My interpretation is based on the whole point of what comes after the first sentence. For the same reason that we don't allow speedy deletion based on one nominator's assessment of a lack of notability, it stands to reason that the rest of G4 is properly construed as not allowing one nominator, several years after an article was deleted on account of a lack of notability then, to decide summarily that the subject hasn't become notable since then. And if a topic is now notable, it doesn't matter a hill of beans if the text of the article that was just posted is identical to the text that was posted several years earlier when the topic hadn't attained notability yet. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is word for word identical, Largoplazo. I think you are misinterpreting G4 and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single person who will agree with you on this one. A WP:BEFORE also shows literally nothing has changed. The only difference is that instead of being hosted on Wordpress, they have a real website. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm laughing hysterically. "It is word for word identical": I point out that you have to take into account more than the first sentence, and your response, once again, suggests that you have only ever read the first sentence, and have no conception that there's more to G4 than that, even after I pointed it out in detail. If you're going to pretend the rest of G4 isn't even there, then you're in no position to comment on someone else's interpretation of it. And your confidence that nobody else reads past the first sentence either is unwarranted. Largoplazo (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This conversation has worn it's welcome on my talk page. If you disagree with the deletion, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - a few weeks ago, you declined this draft, which was entirely unsourced and had been submitted by a new user with a clear COI (for the avoidance of doubt, I agree that the rejection was totally correct!). I thought the building was probably notable though, so I had some discussions with the user at the Teahouse and then on my talk page, and have worked up a new draft, with substantial input from KJP1, this time with sourcing. Under the circumstances, I wasn't sure that it would be appropriate for me just to move the draft into article space, so I've resubmitted through AfC - just letting you know as a courtesy in case you'd like to review it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jevansen (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Good Morning, As you know I have been trying to update the Lucerne Capital wikipedia page for accurate AUM figures. I would love some advice as to how to update the numbers. I have auditors confirmation, bloomberg (3rd party) SEC and marketing materials etc. I am sorry this has been so difficult and would love some advice so we can have accurate info on the site. Many Thanks Jonathan Larken Jonathan Larken (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. I was hoping we could resolve the above issue together. Thanks Jonathan Jonathan Larken (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Praxidicae, You rolled-back the edits I made to the Coffea arabica page. This was my first edit; did I violate a Wikipedia standard? Do you have any advice for making edits that won't be immediately reversed?

My specific concern is the citation I removed. It's published by a subsidiary OmniScriptum and is not a trustowrthy source for information. Instead, it seems to be a word-for-word copy of an earlier version of this Wikipedia page. In effect, SharabSalam created a circluar reference when they edited the page on 1 March 2019 at 01:34.

JoulesRule (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the problem with this page? It is clearly not a copyright infringement, as the "Overview" section is a standard introduction which is pretty much always the same in all the articles about Italian mayors. It is the blog linked in the copyright claim the one which copied and pasted the text from Wikipedia itslef, specifically from the article Mayor of Milan.--Alienautic (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Rupalibhandari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nikhil Gangavane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added a lot more news references to the article including IMDB details. These are big publications around the world. There are not passing references but quotes from Nikhil Gangavane for his importance.

Rupalibhandari (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I had my recent post to the "Kirsty Gallacher" about being caught drink driving page removed without much of explanation. Just wanted to know where I went wrong. A similar post on the "David Beckham" page has been allowed.

I used several national paper's websites as sources which I thought would do. Below is copy of the deleted post. Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you. Davidsmith2014 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Davidsmith2014Kirsty received a two year driving ban after being caught drink-driving on Saturday 12 August^[1]in Eton, Berkshire. She was ordered to pay £170 in charges. Her driving ban was reduced by six months after taking a driving safety course.^[2]She also had to do 100 hours of community service by Slough Magistrates' Court.^[3]

Greetings Praxidicae I'll try not to be a cotton-headed ninny muggin. Just looking for a bit of feedback on your rejection of Storyhunter. i tried to add more reliable external sources, and re-submitted ? can you kindly take another look ? many thanks Deedee2121 (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Deedee2121

Hello,

I have seen from the historic of the wiki page of warner chappel that the part concerning Mumbo Jumbo has been edited/removed many time. Some of the reason were the about the source that was not reliable.

Here the link to an article that I suppose could solve the issue about the source. https://5mag.net/news/mumbo-jumbo-youtube-copyright-warner-chappell/

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.89.40.232 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

  I am new here and having problem with delete the photo . I don't know how to delete it and it's also not use in article.Sorry If I do something wrong . Thanks .

Alexxeos (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is true that the original article did not meet the requirements of this encyclopedia, currently she is a rising actress and a public personality, without a doubt this article should exist only observe the Spanish version of it (Corina Smith), moreover, this article was a direct translation of that article (in Spanish).
Ultimately times have changed since 2015 and there are many reliable references on it on the internet, proof of which are included in this article, and was even nominated for some awards such as the Heat Latin Music Awards.
Twitter and Instagram show their accounts as verified that is to say they consider a relevant figure.
It is more in this encyclopedia sometimes include personalities less relevant than her, or in some way equal to her in what concerns fame, such as Rosmeri Marval, Sheryl Rubio, and even his own father who is little referenced has an article (Roberto Smith Perera).
And because she does not have an article?
Just look at these articles:

• Abril Méndez
• María Lourdes Caldera
• Graciela Cánepa
• Tanya Callau
• Coraima Torres
• Valeria Henríquez

There are thousands of results and references more to Corina Smith on the internet than in these previous examples.
Erickespinal26 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly the same, I did not even know that there was an article about her, and of course the problems were addressed, now it is a relevant figure, and reliable references were added including that of television channels and news media.
Not just social media as they said before.
So now it is written in stone, that there will no longer be an article about her (Corina Smith).
Will they always be erased?
What a bizarre bureaucracy in this encyclopedia, that even discourage and disappointed to follow.
They did not even bother to see the new references.
They only say that it is the same, only because the same mold was used.
Erickespinal26 (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Corina Smith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not the same as the version previously at AfD, so {{db-repost}} does not apply. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Praxidicae. I am a newby and will doubtless make more mistakes, but I appreciate your comments and help and try to do better in future! Dr Sarah Rutherford (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae,

the Stockhausen links that I corrected (and added to) have been put up by other people, in particular Jerome Kohl. He has done a lot in creating and editing Stockhausen pages on Wikipedia. I would not have put the links up myself, but since they had already been published, I just corrected them to the new web addresses and added new ones on that same domain to the Wikipedia page. Please revert the deletions. If in doubt, please consult Jerome Kohl.

Thank you

Albrecht Moritz (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why not? I find it strange that the functionality is mentioned on Template:Interlanguage link#Link to Reasonator and Wikidata if it's not allowed. The discussion I read on the talkpage was inconclusive. Was consensus against inclusion achieved elsewhere?--Auric talk 17:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have any value to add a redlinked (about to be deleted, no less) wikidata item to an article here. I'm not sure what purpose it could possibly serve to help readers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. You seem to have replied to some other question.--Auric talk 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I answered exactly what you asked. Praxidicae (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary was "We do not link to wd in articles", implying that there was a consensus somewhere not to use WD in Interlanguage links. I asked where that the record of that consensus could be found and instead of directing me to where that could be found, you replied as if I had asked some other question.--Auric talk 13:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning above - what value does it add to link to a Wikidata item for something that has no entries? The Nedim Jahic that currently has entries on WD is part of a mass hoax, the one that is referred to in the article is an entirely different person with no actual WD links. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to digress, but the one linked is Nedim Jahić (Bezdomni). The one involved in the hoax is Nedim Jahić (Jonas). Using the wikidata link helps distinguish between them.--Auric talk 15:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you detail the reason for ProProfs'deletion? When I saw the company's page it had only one link and no one offered deletion for years. Now, after I added 9 more links (and still working on new links to solidify the article) and added it to the relevant categories, you offered to delete the article. I would like to participate in ProProfs deletion discussion and help this article to become better. The company has overcome Notability Threshold and I'm going to add more links in the coming days. But I couldn't find what you designated as a major problem. I just found the company innovative and notable enough and invested my time to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

ticket:2019052610004448. I mean, I know that was probably a quick-close anyway, but I kinda like getting those ridiculous replies.

Also, Sphilbrick, tickets like these are probably why we have a backlog... you either learn to not strain your eyes rolling them or you quit! Primefac (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Next time I'm just replying "no". Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hah! Primefac (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't the eyeroll I was expecting: ticket:2019053010009524. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But how are we supposed to find the TRUTH unless we search it out!?!!? Primefac (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tickets like that can knock the stuffing out. Yikes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae,

I created an article about N2WS, a startup which was acquired by Veeam but continues to operate as a separate company. I disclosed on my user page that I am an advisor for the company, however made an effort to create a neutral article based on authoritative sources. I believe I also established notability for N2WS in the article.

It looks like you "blanked" my article and redirected it to the main Veeam page. May I ask why? Can you provide a reason for the speedy deletion? I would be happy to hear about any issues with the article and try to improve it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Gilad.maayan (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sir,

I'm CHKMTS 2 day ago i have created a Wikipedia page of Onima_Kashyap this article not complete and by mistake that was published on Wikipedia page after 24hr when i  open that was deleted from Wikipedia.... Please give me instructions for recover it i have full details about Onima Kashyap she is full under the criteria of person Wikipedia....give me.

If i will re creat it properly under the criteria of Wikipedia it will delete once again? CHKMTS (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - Just added some much-needed information to this page but it was removed and not only the ciatations but the content as well? Any reason why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website_audit

Because it's refspam Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

How is it refspam? Which one? And how is content refspam?

because you're adding links to seo firms. Stop. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, you are listed as the deleting administrator on this page. I followed existing templates for other persons in order to ensure it was encyclopedic, all of the sources were from academic institutions, non-profit institutions or independent media titles. Can you give any more information specifically about why this was accepted and then immediately deleted please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairdene (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from threatening me, this is more inappropriate. I only added an edit to those pages, and I find it appropriate to source them. Papa3kow (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There was no threat. Stop spamming or you will wind up blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There wasn’t any spam. Like I said, refrain from threatening me.

I did not threaten you and yes repeatedly adding a random link to an unreliable source which hosts gossip is spamming. If you want to talk about refraining from things, I'd like you to refrain from accusing me of threatening you. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the sources are not unreliable. I’ll ask that you refrain from reverting my edits. Thanks Papa3kow (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not how this works. If you wish to re-add it, discuss it on the talk page or take it to WP:RSN but please stop editing my talk page about this. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have time for this. Please don’t contact me again! Papa3kow (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I pretty clearly asked for you to refrain from editing my talk page. I am not contacting you, quite the opposite. Praxidicae (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

First, sorry to see you had that weird issue above under section "2019." On the latest page I'm working on, give me a second to work on it. A few others and concepts in the ad space need some work, too. 2601:86:2:A281:8059:4029:F8F3:CBFA (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC) I also meant to say: good quote -- "I edit Wikipedia, I'm already in hell. No need to give me the fire-and-brimstone warnings of your god." 2601:86:2:A281:8059:4029:F8F3:CBFA (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article. It appears you're also editing logged out, so I'd recommend using your account. Praxidicae (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of N2WS (Veeam). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gilad.maayan (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, You recently tagged an article I made with the Undisclosed Paid tag. I wasn’t paid for the article, I’m just a big fan of Mean Girls the Musical, which she happens to be an actress in. If you look at my contribution history, I’ve been making articles for other ensemble members too, and none of it is paid. I just decided to make them. Have I done something wrong? Apathyash (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Praxidicae --- Regarding the deletion of the article Information Radiator, can you say why? It is a new topic, seems important (to me) to have it, two of us have been writing on it. Any information helpful, I'm new at this, thank you, Nadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadia Riat (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Also please tone down your hostility when engaging people on talk pages "whatever you are" is very much seen as a slight. Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the coaching, I deleted that text from the above. I looked at that link and see that in 2012 they decided that the term was not notable or common terminology. My question is (now that it is 7 years later) what might be the test of sufficiently notable and common terminology to warrant an entry? Then we can watch for that to happen. Thanks

So, Bacc at it Again is a page and Yella Beezy does not have a Wikipedia page. I just thought I should create it because the song was big, but if you guys could help to improve the article. I'm a beginner at Wikipedia, so help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoolKabuto (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

How can I undelete the page or edit the content and re publish the page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya Ratnani (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This person exists really, i've mentionned a video in this page

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oye

There is a French Wikipedia page about the referee :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Foote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.126.26.10 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

please do not delete because i am created to Patricia Magtanong Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseatienza (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to undo my edits! My name is XNDUIW!

Then don't add nonsense to articles. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Hi, there - how are you? I'm still working on the article of Anton Bredell. Please revoke your deletion request. I was just busy with some other work. Lefcentreright (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest working on it in your draft space or sandbox as we do not allow any unsourced BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I'm literally about to add sources...Lefcentreright (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Did you bother to read the "in creation' template which literally specifies "the creator asks that for a short time this page not be edited unnecessarily, or nominated for deletion during this early stage of development." Lefcentreright (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I did bother to read it and it had been almost an hour, however WP:BLP does not allow for any old BLP to be thrown into mainspace indefinitely without sources. It isn't hard to add one source. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I have added sources now...Lefcentreright (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. In regards to your removal of the citation, if reliability in a benchmark then there a host of other links and references that should be removed. There is nothing inconsistent with the citation in relation to the others on that page. There should not be different subjective standards for some references vs others.--Mistertumnis (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't allow random corporate blogs as sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, inconsistent. So what about the other references that link to random corporate blogs? I guess those are OK? Either be consistent and remove all of them or leave the edit and being consistent with the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistertumnis (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

They get removed. I'm a volunteer editor, just like everyone else and don't have time to comb through the millions of articles, so please take a chill pill and refrain from making demands when you yourself don't understand policy. Also, learn to sign your edits per the giant notice on the top of this page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. Then it looks like these other "random" corporate blogs as sources should also be removed. Since you are busy, I'm happy to assist since it only will take another minute to clean it up. Do you agree or do you want to leave the rest of the article more subjective in this regard?

• http://blogs.sas.com/content/datamanagement/2016/11/21/growing-import-big-data-quality/
• https://www.blue-granite.com/blog/bid/402596/top-five-differences-between-data-lakes-and-data-warehouses
• https://blog.equinix.com/blog/2016/11/10/why-companies-are-jumping-into-data-lakes/
• https://sonra.io/2017/08/08/are-data-lakes-fake-news/

In regards to the onus being on me to articulate why the content should be included, do you have an actual interest in having that type of dialogue? You simply shut down the conversation with your blanket "random corporate blog" no allowed comment which means there is nothing to discuss. As I referenced previously the content from critique paragraph reflects the information from the article cited. Since there are other corporate entities referenced in other places it is in keeping with the tone and context of the article. Those references to those other random corporate blogs I highlighted have been there for years so clearly after 100s of edits they have met some threshold.--Mistertumnis (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I created a page for the GRP yesterday, why are you and some bot deleting and reverting it? Also can I know why it is being deleted, because I never used a copyrighted reference source, nor did I ever visit that PDF in the deletion notice. There is no resemblance between the two, and I'm happy to add more citations if needed. Thanks.✘ anonymousвهii 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is identical resemblance between that and 4 other sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that's because that source copied from the government PDF that I used and is in the open domain. I will recreate the page and add news sources. This kind of unaccountable abuse of power is ridiculous. ✘ anonymousвهii 15:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because it's in the public domain or otherwise CC-by-whatever licensed doesn't mean you can copy something wholesale without appropriate attribution. I'd also strongly advise you rescind your accusations or substantiate them at WP:ANI.Your choice. Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What part of this don't you understand: "I NEVER COPIED THAT AND DIDN'T KNOW OF IT'S EXISTENCE AND WROTE THAT ALL BY MYSELF". ✘ anonymousвهii 15:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What part of "you cannot copy things wholsesale onto Wikipedia regardless of it's copyright status" and "no personal attacks" do you not understand? Refrain from editing my talk page until you've calmed down and have rescinded your personal attack above. Also I'd strongly encourage you to not edit war in general, but especially while logged out. Praxidicae (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note it's quite interesting you've claimed above "I didn't copy it from anywhere!" followed by "I copied it but it was PD." Which is it? Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What I meant was I went to the indianrailways.gov.in website, and used that as reference. I didn't copy it from the article I was accused of copying from. You're accusing me of edit warring too now? I literally didn't copy anything from anywhere. I went to the refs provided which are free to use as it is Indian government property - per the RTI Act. If I recrete the page with various free to use news sources, you're gonna delete it again, I assume. ✘ anonymousвهii 15:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Anonymousboii You said "I didn't copy anything from anywhere" however earlier you said that you didn't copy from the PDF linked, but that the PDF copied from the website you mentioned above, which you used as a reference. So how is it that the PDF is a word for word match from that website and also your article? Please explain where the text came from in your article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Also in case it's not abundantly obvious by the big giant flashing notice when you edit this page, let me repeat: I'm not an administrator, I didn't delete your article and can't undelete it.Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the big giant flashing notice, you could've changed up the article to make it better, possibly avoiding the deletion. Hypocrisy at its finest. Also, what part was a "word-to-word" match? The lead, which returns 0 matches? The Infobox which wasn't in there? The Objectives, which were in the open domain (Government PDF)? The history, whose references were also on other Wiki pages? Because that's all the article had. Nothing else.✘ anonymousвهii 15:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Anonymousboii If you're going to keep talking in circles, I'm not interested. Take your gripes elsewhere. The onus isn't on anyone to fix a mess you make. Iit was over an 80% match for several paragraphs, which made up the bulk of the article and you keep flip fopping by saying "I didn't copy it from anywhere" to "I copied it from a PD source." This conversation has worn it's welcome. Please refrain from continuing it here. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• And now I've asked you twice to refrain from editing my talk page about this, you've persisted and added another personal attack. Do not edit my talk page from here on out unless it is required notification for an AN or ANI thread. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Anonymousboii, you've been asked nicely to stop posting here. If you think that Praxidicae has acted in a manner that you do not agree with, your next course of action is to go to WP:ANI and file a report. Otherwise, please respect her wishes and stop posting here - clearly neither of you are going to change your opinions. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

• Sorry you got caught up in this Praxidicae. I had tagged the page for deletion due to the copyright violation. It's been deleted now, so hopefully this is over. Thanks for all you do.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Since we *might* be the same person, would you mind paying my mortgage this month? 😛 Marquardtika (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Marquardtika Only if I can pay in M&Ms and witty banter. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Deal! Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It specifically states that if you edit the text, you may remove the banner yourself, even if you wrote it. Even if you don't agree with that, and choose willing to go against the instructions in the banner, you should not revert all of the modified text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the banner, if you don't want to follow the guidelines in the banner, then don't edit. You don't get to make the rules. That is how it works. I followed the rules; the banner should go. Furthermore, you continue to spam my talk page about this issue and threaten me, but I deleted a different banner--one about it being "promotional". Which is ridiculous. I added copious references to the existing encyclopedic text about the topics, which demonstrates it is not just "promotional".

ADP85xzVcQD I don't know if you are unable to read or are willfully ignoring it but the banner I placed very clearly states in big bold lettering do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. As I've already told you, sign.your.edits. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The banner says first and foremost that you can remove the banner if you edit the page. You may not merely remove the banner. If that is not the intended meaning of the banner, the text should be edited for clarity (e.g. one can say "The original author may never remove the banner; all others may edit the page and remove the banner." Order matters in written and spoken text.) But more importantly, if you want to be an editor, you should not insult others (e.g. saying "I don't know if you are unable to read" is essentially throwing an insult suggesting I am illiterate. While I know numerous wonderful illiterate folks, and while I, as the recipient, am supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt, I cannot figure out how that is anything but you throwing an insult at me. The correct thing to do would be to apologize. At a minimum, it is harassment and I respectful request that you not contact me further, unless you would like to offer an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: You are wrong on every count. The author of an article may never remove a speedy delete tag, and every tag states so clearly in bold. Yet, you removed the tag twice. Such conduct, BTW, is blockable, and you're fortunate that I spent more time evaluating the article than your conduct, or I might have blocked you for disruptive tag removal. I won't do it now, but consider this your only warning that if you repeat your misconduct, you risk being blocked. Finally, I deleted the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not how the text reads. If you mean the text to read in another way, you should edit it to avoid confusions. In addition, if you follow the links there is little to no guidance given. You should take this as the helpful comment it is, as opposed to issuing threats. If you don't want to fix it, you are just perpetuating the problem. I am providing you constructive criticism and feedback. Furthermore, nt reprimanding the insults being thrown at me, is also perpetuating a culture of hostility on Wikipedia that really should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This current Samuel Kunz entry is a new entry, the former entry was deleted. In the former version, erroneously the chapter "life" had been copied from a non-redacted draft into the entry. The chapter which was in question, is written completely new, as a comparison between the two entries may prove. The other chapters were okay from the beginning. This entry on Wikipedia represents currently the most complete view on the issue. If any questions, please contact my on my talk page

Rudyguy21 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy: I've just added again the historical info related with the origin of the concept with new quotations. Hope now all is ok for you.Cornelius383 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Urban Innovative Actions is an organisation of the European Union to test new and unproven solutions to address urban challenges.

What should I improve to keep the entry Urban Innovative Actions in the UIA disambiguation page?

--Oliver H (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

DABs are for disambiguating existing articles, not for external links and non-existent articles. Please take a read through WP:DDD. Praxidicae (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Real2Reel (talk · contribs)
• Nafeeesa (talk · contribs)

Just a heads up in case you didn't notice. Regardless if they're being paid, or have some other COI, the articles need to be rewritten. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. Praxidicae (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So why remove that he's a county commission member in LA? I was trying to figure out how to shorten the mention and find a proper location for it other than the lede when you removed it. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Just stopped by to thank you once again for your comments on Draft:Zava. They were very exact and very helpful. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Abhinpl created the draft on User talk:Abhinpl. When I went to leave a message there, I knew a draft on the talk page was inappropriate and moved it to a sandbox. Abhinpl went on to move the draft to article space when it was not ready.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I moved the content to a sandbox.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you move it or copy and paste it into a sandbox? There are no move logs, and it appears that way. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going to move the entire talk page into a sandbox. However this was a move.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, how did the content get into the sandbox which became the mainspace article? Did you copy and paste it or use the "move this page" tool? Because this log shows you as creating it directly as a cut and paste. Which is also why you are seen as the creator. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is also why cut and paste moves are difficult and cause excessive confusion. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I copied and pasted. What else could have been done? I haven't asked Curb Safe Charmer what they would have done when they found the draft in an inappropriate place. But this person did move the sandbox to draft space.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is doubting they moved the sandbox...and as I said earlier, I'm just explaining why you're getting the notifications as creator instead of the actual creator and why there is always confusion with copy and paste moves. Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I notified Abhinpl with the notice you sent me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And both this person's drafts have been speedied.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for my message regarding conflict of interest - I'm just a parent of a rink hockey player updating the pages for the rink hockey pages and learning how to edit as I go along - I don't work for any organisation linked to the sport (just a Science teacher I am afraid) - am I still ok to continue?

I have a draft page waiting for submission - roughly how long does the process takes and how will I know if it has been authorised? many thanks Nic Nic Sollars (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nic Sollars, I was here checking for responses to messages I left and I believe I can give you an answer to both questions.

For the first question, I don't believe you have a conflict of interest but I could be wrong. I think as long as your sources are independent and you can use a neutral point of view you should be fine. Someone will tell you if there is still a conflict of interest, I'm sure.

As for how long your draft will take, if it is written well and well-sourced it could be days. There is a huge backlog and some people report having to wait several months. Wikipedia volunteers work on what they want to work on, so it just depends how interested someone is.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Updated all the old links to rink hockey clubs that were defunct/archived so players can know of clubs in their area on "Roller Hockey Premier League" page - and the links have now been removed - how best can this be solved? - shall I add a list of clubs with wikilinks and a wiki page for each club or reference each club? many thanks Nic Sollars (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen that you had reverted the "Drinking And Driving Wrecks Lives" article from it showing every PSA as well as external links to them. I should tell you that this article has a list of them too, but no links present. What should you do about that? --Bryn89 (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Bryn89, I hope Praxidicae understood your message but it was meaningless to me. Learn to provide links! PSA has multiple meanings - which one applies here? Which edit/s by Praxidicae are you referring to? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PSA was for Public service announcement. Sorry, I didn't mention that earlier. And I was meaning these edits Bryn89 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Bryn89, thank you. Much better. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove or replace any citations on this page, so I'm not sure why I'm getting this warning. I added new content, citing an online scholarly database hosted by Ryerson University. The content in this database is the digitized version of "McLeod, Donald W. (1996). Lesbian and Gay Liberation in Canada: A Selected Annotated Chronology, 1964-1975. ECW Press/Homewood Books" which is already cited in the same entry. Michneri (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

So, this is in regards to TAWT. There is a content dispute over an entry a possible sockpuppet added over at List of music considered the worst, but the entry's inclusion has had support from legitimate editors. Does that override the fact that a block-evading sockpuppet of a particularly disruptive, attention-seeking user added it? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read what I said in the discussion. There is no use in having an LTA page about this nor is there any point to mass tagging suspected accounts that haven't edited in almost a year, in fact it's disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know or care about a content dispute, having the LTA page won't change the dispute and neither does disruptively editing about an LTA and I believe you've more or less been told the same thing by an admin Praxidicae (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. My intent is not to be promotional. I don't want to do things to get in trouble or that will trigger messages like yours. I'm still trying to learn and definitely want to do everything correctly. I've removed the listing of clinics and services that the hospital provides and I will allow reviewers to look at content first moving forward. Is there a next step? Again, I appreciate your patience and feedback, and welcome any additional comments or instruction. D'Nezzy Smith (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The article was deleted. I did a version that removed anything that could be remotely considered promotional. I may be wrong about that though. If you have any specifics to offer to help me understand and do better I'd appreciate them. I've requested review of the new trimmed-down article. Thanks again for your helpful input.D'Nezzy Smith (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

why was this page deleted? It was written from a neutral point of view. It is not a promotion and is a notable topic. Shanemurphy22 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

visiting here, Praxidicia only listed it for deletion; a very competent administrator did the actual deletion. It wasn't me, but I would have deleted it also. It contained 3 duplicative lists of the products of the copy and their purposes; it used trademark symbols for the products, which we never do; it repeated the company names almost in every line, It contained such information as "Bedford Technology celebrates 20-year anniversary", which is obvious from the date of formation of the company; it referred to the firm's "State-of-the-art production line " which puffery; the references were almost entirely to the firm's own site and to press releases published in local newspaper newspaper of the or in a business promotion site; the environmental section mainly gave general information on LEED.

You've declared your coi, but that's not enough. In my 12-years experience here as an administrator mainly working on reviewing articles, it is very rare indeed for a person hired by a company to write an acceptable article about the company--they almost always do what they have previously learned to do--which is to write press releases. Press releases say what the company would like to say, but encyclopedias say what the general public might want to know. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Praxidicae,

I was deleting a broken redirect to this deleted page and noticed that you had tagged it for speedy deletion. That was an accurate tagging but I noticed that you didn't notify the creator, DanuckInUSA, on their talk page that their page was tagged for deletion. This is important step to take and is automatic with Twinkle so please check your Twinkle preferences and make sure that you have set it to notify the page creator for every category of CSD. Months ago, I discovered that my preferences were set to notify creators for only certain categories of CSDs, not all, and I got taken to ANI for not notifying a category creator of a speedy tag. I now try to advise other editors so this doesn't happen to them as well! Thanks for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

Praxidicae as bizarre as it sounds I really could kiss you right now!, I had a feeling they were gonna be blocked for a day and that's it .... but then you came along and saw an end to that theory lol :), Thank you for saving the day I honestly really do appreciate it, Also thank you for your valued contributions to the project :), Happy editing and thanks again, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 18:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there Praxidicae,

I understand that a lot has gone through for Draft:Mariska Pokharel 2 with the owner being banned for sockpuppetry. However, I believe that this article is notable whose multiple works are covered by reliable newspapers like The Himalayan Times here, here and here. It has also been covered on Online Khabar here and by Republica here. Would appreciate if you could give a second look on it!

I've just reformatted the references on the article too.

Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, can you explain why you tagged User:AJ1399/sandbox with a CSD#G3 tag? I cannot see evidence that the user is faking the data. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, see User talk:Ivanvector#U5. There are some imaginative people out there using Wikipedia to host fake climate data. – bradv🍁 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 All of the items I've tagged and placed here came from the http://www.city-dat a.com/forum/weather/2478491-dream-climate-battle-cubitsville-vs-clearstown.html site I indicated on Ivanvector's talk page and they linked directly to their userpages with their "dream climate" where they compete to create the highest rated (fictional) climate data. Praxidicae (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Good to know. How are you finding these? I'm quite willing to block hoaxers on sight, but this one, for instance, appears to have been a false positive. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Please see the link above (i had to separate characters because it's blaclisted) Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a false positive, it's just not part of the collection of socks. These are mostly individual editors coordinating off-wiki. – bradv🍁 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Missed the previous, as I was replying to Bradv. Thanks. The history of that page is confusing; there's two CU-blocked accounts editing it, with a very similar names to the user whose name it's under and another unblocked account... Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's just some vandal/LTA, unrelated (to my knowledge) to all of this nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, Thank you for your time and constructive guidance. I reviewed my draft, removed all links & references directing to Wikipedia. I made sure there was no blacklisted links too. You're welcome to look into it further. Your comment & advice is always welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bysance (talk • contribs) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

the extremely simple answer here is that i have no conflict of interest, dunno where you even got that from emilyapocalypse 16:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

So you created a draft right after someone with a declared conflict of interest had the draft declined and registered on the same day of said decline and it just so happens to use pretty much the same sources and slightly reworded content? Surely you see how suspicious that is. Praxidicae (talk)

to be fair, that's not a coincidence - i saw a couple of ppl talk about the draft in a discord server and my competitive nature immediately made me go "i bet i still remember enough wiki stuff to write something much better than that". i can see why that's sus but yeah point still stands, no coi emilyapocalypse 12:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So this isn't a new account? Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

this one is, but i used to edit huwiki a looooong time ago under a diff name (as also stated on my profile) emilyapocalypse 13:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)