User talk:Praxidicae

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Ritchie333 doubling down on personal attacks". Thank you. Huon (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: November 2018 Message

I did not add any inappropriate, irrelevant or spammy links as you mentioned. Everything I post will be what was relevant when I was looking at the page and couldn't find said information. Please cite examples next time. Thanks. --Zenichan (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You added the same exact link (pricelisto) repeatedly - which has no encyclopedic value. Praxidicae (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Legal Project Management

I'd like to contribute to the Legal Project Management page. I am advised that I should first discuss this with the page's editors, and that there are various relevant policies which I'm happy to inform myself about. I look forward to receiving your guidance as to next steps.CraigMMorris (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @CraigMMorris: The page is located at Legal project management, and the place to discuss your proposed edits is at Talk:Legal project management. If you are being paid to contribute to this topic in any way (or it is otherwise related to your employment or business) you will need to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page per the instructions at WP:PAID. Otherwise, you do not need to seek permission from anyone in order to edit the article. Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Bradv 05:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there - I'd like to contribute some edits to the Legal Project Management page that build upon a previous, more comprehensive version. I work in the industry (previously at a UK magic circle firm, and now at a leading Canadian firm). All the best, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.197.100.74 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy marking...

Don't bother. It actually makes the task a tiny bit harder. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh good! Someone automated it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon there's still about 30 more. :/ Some were blanked by other users, however. Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Malicious Removal of Content

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Virgilisalive (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) (please stop removing content)

Virgilisalive It wasn't malicious and it was a policy violation. Please thoroughly review WP:PROMO and more importantly WP:COPYVIO. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae The edits made are not in violation of either of those rules. (talk)

Virgilisalive That is incorrect and these are policies - and in fact you copied directly from a copyrighted source. If you restore it, you will be in violation of WP:3RR, so please discuss it on the talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with COI editor/serial sockpuppeteer User:Jan Blanicky, etc.

per your nomination of Martina Sanollová and this discussion: User_talk:Explicit#Martina_Sanollová, I was wondering how exactly you deduced that Blanicky was a paid contributor? I mean, It's fairly obvious, but for the sake of my investigating this, I was wondering. I've noticed that alot of these edits had gone unnoticed ( for instance, here), and I 'm trying to undo all of the contributions. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Userpage deletions

This is a tiny point, and I hope that you will not take it amiss. you have recently tagged a number of userpages for speedy deletion; I hasten to say that all your nominations were correct, except that they were incorrectly labeled. "Spam" is not a valid reason for userpage deletion. If you look at WP:CSD you will see the categories which apply to userpages. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Spam applies in all spaces, particularly as they are spambots. Praxidicae (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not wholly true. But to clarify, please indicate the coding (G1 - G13, A1 - A11, etc. ) which you believe includes spam. Please bear in mind that adding spam does not necessary lead to deletion, although it can. More usually spam relates to article-space additions, and tends to lead to AfD rather than speedy. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't need the lecture on how to apply speedy deletion tags, spam applies everywhere, including template space as well. These are full blown spambots and nitpicking what word I use is a waste of both of our time. See a spambot? Delete it. Problem solved. I use a preloaded script to do this so as not to automatically notify bots of deletion since, well, they're bots. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked a few pages in userspace that Praxidicae tagged for deletion. They were tagged with {{db-spam}}, which tags pages for criterion G11, which also gets mentioned in the edit summary thanks to Twinkle. So I don't quite see why there are questions about which criterion Praxidicae thought applied to those pages (and yes, G11 does also apply to userspace). And regarding spambots, I agree that the content of this and this, for example, was put on Wikipedia in a semi-automated way for the sole purpose of adding spam links. G11 clearly applies to such user pages. AFD, on the other hand, wouldn't. Huon (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Single item lists

Hi I saw that you moved a certain number of lists back to mainspace but one of them had only one item List of museums in Molise. I tried to find a guideline that authorises single entry list articles but couldn't find anything that either explicitly authorises or forbids it. That said all the MOS and guidelines talk about entries in the plural. Do you know of any because if I had come across an single entry list article my gut reaction would have been to either DRAFTIFY during NPR. I understand why you moved them all back as a sort of clean-up but in this case should it not have stayed in draft space? Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:02:37, 5 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by MikeAylwin

• MikeAylwin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bullit Motorcycles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Thanks for your response RE article on Bullit Motorcycles. I was wondering if you could please advise further on how this could become a Wikipedia entry - they are a global motorcycling manufacturer, of which there are many pages already in existence on here, so I believe they do qualify for a page themselves? Any advice greatly appreciated.

MikeAylwin (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MikeAylwin Have you addressed the concerns regarding WP:COI? It appears to me from a quick search that there is no independent coverage of this company. Praxidicae (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae I have, I've cited a few independent sources in the article itself including several news outlets? I can add more if needed.

MikeAylwin That's still not addressing my question, have you reviewed the disclosure policy for editing with a conflict of interest or as a paid editor? Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae As far as I can tell there is no conflict of interest and I'm not a paid editor.

AFD

Thanks for restoring the AFD tag. I've kicked it to the SPI board - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acyd101. Cabayi (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MalwareMustDie

@Praxidicae: I changed the layout, cause it looks more "tidy" imo. If you disagree or if I made some mistakes, I'd like to hear from you. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Kyoung H. Park Article

Hi Praxidicae! I was wondering what made my article promotional in your opinion? I believe that this article is written in a neutral point of view, and that the theater and his works are integral to Park's Biography, as he is a playwright. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make it less promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklad123 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh.

Should I be flattered? :-) Thanks for the catch! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution noticeboard discussion re: List of bitcoin forks

There is currently a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the discussion we're having on List of bitcoin forks. Please give your opinion. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Maryland's 46th legislative district

Hello, Praxidicae. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Maryland's 46th legislative district, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of changes

Hi, why were my changes reverted? Thanks! Xtranophilist (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Xtranophilist Because you were repeatedly spamming the same url. Please stop. Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae I appreciate your time and concern but I was adding links to the official site/source. This shouldn't be considered spamming.Xtranophilist (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae, for clarification, which links were you most concerned with? I agree that adding links to Amazon isn't a good idea, but linking to the publisher's website seems reasonable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The mass adding of the original links is my primary concern. When a random account shows up mass adding the same url that has never been added elsewhere before, it appears to be spam (and is.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) C.Fred Linking an article to the publisher might be reasonable, but when publicationnepalaya is the only publisher incvolved across 10 or so articles, then it screams out WP:COI & WP:REFSPAM. Cabayi (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

About sources on hirsch zilber page.

Hello i am working on sourcers. Cos i know that real man in real life and i always see every day. And also i want it to add his picture cos he gaved a permission to add his photos. And he promised me that his wikipedia page must protected it. Marik-modder (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Marik-modder I'm afraid this is simply not how Wikipedia works. We do not allow personal knowledge as a source, especially for living people. Secondly please see WP:COI and disclose appropriately and lastly, we do not grant exclusive editing rights. Praxidicae (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Leopardi's Page

Please guide me through the mistakes . I have tried to cite every possible line . Please don't nominate it for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.17.219 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

IMDB is a powerful source. IMDB has a very strict verification process that involves utilizing information direct from the production companies, Union, etc. prior to allowing any credits to be registered or displayed on a talent profile. In fact, most IMDB credits are only accepted if submitted directly from the production company, union, etc. They do the same for agency representation - which is listed on his IMDB Pro profile as William Morris Endeavor (Agent is listed as Erik Seastrand, which aligns with his website and other information). Here is a link to the IMDB verification requirements and process for your review - https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faqs/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_11# . Additionally, it says he is a union artist with SAG/AFTRA. Research has shown me that is correct. His union member number appears to be 10328365 and status can be verified with SAG/AFTRA very easily. Membership can be quickly verified online here - https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/sag-aftra-eligibility-checker . Additionally, here are the requirements for membership that verify he must be employed on a union project to be eligible for membership - https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/steps-join — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.17.219 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found this additional source in searching through Google about this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:4201:ECA:5423:8399:3013:1CD5 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

IMdB does not have a "strict" anything. It's not a reliable source but even if it were, it's irrelevant as it's not coverage. Also you really need to review WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOG. Praxidicae (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello P, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of good edits

[1] care to ewxplain why you reverted improvements, new refs etc. I'm not used to having constructive edits reverted. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

because most of them are garbage refs and you removed valid tags without discussing it. Praxidicae (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Industry reports and news articles and clarify good claim to significance. Also the tags were placed without discussion and I was already on the talkpage discussing but you are not. Put my edits back. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Praxidicae, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 21:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Wishing you and your family all the best in 2019, from mine to yours. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Club

SPI opened. General Ization ^Talk 06:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert in blocking policy

Hi Praxidicae, you just reverted two of my edits with "Edits to policy need to really be discussed". The first one was a bold edit (since nobody replied to me on the talk page after a week), so, fair enough. Hopefully someone will help discuss it.

However, the second one was a partial revert of a previous edit from earlier the same day, which seemed to be an undiscussed bold edit that had changed the link from meatpuppetry to sockpuppetry as part of a bunch of miscellaneous cleanup. As I'd prefer not to revert it twice, would you consider undoing your revert of just that edit? The text clearly refers to meatpuppetry, as I noted in my edit summary. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, fyi I discussed the edit in question, that had removed the link to meatpuppetry, with the user who made it, here: User talk:Bsherr#Question about edit to blocking policy. Since Bsherr had no problem with me putting it back, and you haven't replied, I went ahead and put back... --IamNotU (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cranksgiving

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

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 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. Dolotta (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Smart highway spam

Thanks for helping out with the problem contributions at Smart highway, Praxidicae. The same user has returned with this edit under a different URL. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Vinjan / Vinzan

Praxidicae The Town name was posted incorrectly and moved to correct page. Vinzan is a known Cannabis company in Canada with published sources.

No, it's spam and the town name is not Vinjan, it's Vinzan as supported by every reliable source, unlike the spammy mess you're trying to push onto Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae Wrong - the city has been known only as Vinjan for over 30 years which is why the article is referenced as such - Vinjan. Furthermore the "edit war" was started by you trying to revert incorrect and out of date information from a 1950 census book.

Go discuss it on the talk page then and stop touching it until consensus is reached. A census book from 1950 is still a valid source, and you've yet to provide a single reliable source to support your claim, Lordtekken. Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Question w/r/t AfC!

Hello! Looking over your concerns regarding my AfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Caileigh_Scott), I wanted to follow up in order to make sure corrections are made, well, correctly.

1) Cited sources. They're noted as not being reliable, but sources are from notable entertainment publications like Variety, Playbill, and Broadway World, as well as other notable political sources (for better or for worse) like Observer and NowThis News. I'm just confused about this note because these are key places where people turn for information on the topics in the AfC.

2) Reading like an advertisement. I will do my best to change the wording, but I studied a lot of existing articles about similar people and modeled the tone and information off of those. I'm sure you're busy but any examples about what seemed sales-y about the text would be helpful.

Thank you for taking the time to make sure Wikipedia is a reliable and accurate source of information!

IssyHam (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam the problem with your sources broken down:

1. Wormhole is basically a blog and is not a reliable source
2. Hudsucker is a blog
3. this is a brief episodic description and makes not even so much as a mention of the subject directly
4. Variety isn't even remotely about Scott, but a single passing mention. See WP:COVERAGE.
5. Prlog is a press release, so not independent
6. Olv is a blog
7. more press releases
8. single passing mention
9. passing mention

I'd rather not continue but the rest are either unreliable, not coverage or not independent. Additionally @IssyHam: you are required by policy to disclose your conflict of interest. Praxidicae (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam, if there are other articles that treat their subject like this, please let us know. I am tempted to edit your draft in agreement with my guidelines for editing such subject, but that would involve some serious cutting. First thing that will have to go is "philanthropist" as a job description, and second the picture with HRC. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies Thank you for taking the time to clarify the issues. I'm curious why press releases are not considered independent, though understand why blogs are not. A bit of follow-up below:

1. this is a brief episodic description and makes not even so much as a mention of the subject directly - the description clearly lists both the comedy group and Scott as an individual, and the episode features her as one of two special guests.
2. single passing mention - but does a single passing mention not indeed verify the information is true and accurate?
3. passing mention - same as above w/r/t "passing mention"
4. Conflict of Interest - I'm not aware of any but will review policies again to confirm.
5. First thing that will have to go is "philanthropist" as a job description - curious about this, not comparing Scott to someone like Sandra Bullock but this is listed among her job descriptions, hence why I thought it was acceptable.
6. And second the picture with HRC - curious as to why? This was taken at a high profile event with someone Scott worked for, at an event for an organization she is listed as currently working for. Not sure what the issue is.
7. As for other pages, I reviewed content of both people of lesser notability, equal notability, and greater notability to attempt to understand tone and content. I was told IMDb is not reliable, which I understand but do not agree with, however a profile such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shauna_DeBono uses lesser sources than I have to back up information. I don't want any valid page removed, but I'm curious. I'm attempting to demonstrate the myriad of ways this person is notable. Would it make more sense to provide less information? IssyHam (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam before we continue, please address your WP:COI. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae There is no COI, I am looking at the page to confirm and submit whatever is needed. IssyHam (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam, the philanthropy part is so poorly sourced that it seems pretty obvious that this is not what she would be considered notable for, and the picture with Clinton, for all intents and purposes, looks like notability is claimed from having had a picture taken with a famous person. It makes more sense, to me, to write up someone else, someone with a better claim to notability (meaning, they've been discussed in-depth in reliable sources); if you have no conflict of interest with this person, that's an easy shift to make, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies That's fair. I know of this person beginning with said philanthropy. The photo can be switched out to a press photo at a charitable event easily. The org she founded existed at a time when Internet sourcing wasn't quite as prevalent, so it isn't that the work wasn't notable, it's that I'm having difficulty finding USA Today print articles from 2008/2009 available online. IssyHam (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that DeBono article; I've nominated it for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam you’ve still not addressed my inquiry about your conflict of interest. Praxidicae (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae There isn't one, I double-checked. I know of this person, know her work across fields (first found her through the org she founded and have followed her TV career since), and was surprised there was no Wikipedia page. I reached out for permission to try and write one, but there's no personal tie beyond that. I'm looking on the page to see what I need to do to formally address it. Thanks. IssyHam (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam Then can you explain how you became the copyright holder of these photos? Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae Due to massive confusion re: copyright law. I'm new here and learning. I'm figuring things out as I go. Hopefully there's some benefit of the doubt when it comes to newbies trying their best. Thanks. IssyHam (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IssyHam, Praxidicae asked me to weigh in here. There is nothing wrong with having a COI (or with being a new editor), it just means you need to disclose your affiliation and be a little more careful about what you add to the related article(s) because you will be under more scrutiny. You keep saying you have no "personal tie", but looking at the history of the OTRS tickets, Scott says that she'll be contacting you and indicates that you do have a personal tie (though due to the confidentiality of OTRS that's about all I can elaborate on that).

If you're able to write an article in a completely neutral tone, that's great, but the question about your conflict has been asked and it would be a really good idea to disclose that. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

PrimefacSure that's fair. This isn't someone I know well or hang out with, but have reached out to for permission to write and w/ a question or two etc. I'm fine to disclose that, I didn't think that would qualify as COI (I thought it was a friend, relative, etc) but if it does, then it does. I have also studied other articles and modeled the tone off of those, which is why I'm confused that it isn't considered neutral, though perhaps the articles I'm looking at aren't the best example, which I wouldn't know. I'll keep studying and editing. Thanks. IssyHam (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted good (and thanked) edit?

Hi praxidae (talk · contribs), nice to meet you. I hope I parsed and spelled your name correctly - you're kind of a harsh task-master… or mistress… argh, what is the gender-neutral form, here? *nervous*

I'm toooooootally down with you flipping the switch on the edits of mine on the 'test strip' article and its talk page. I was trying to understand the article and thought that I had improved its readability for non-science-talkin'-dudes, but, if it stuffed-up the meaning of the content, obviously I am very grateful for the revert! My post on the talk page of that article was a sleep-deprived (it's been suuuuuper hot here - coming into heatwave and bushfire season - and sleeping has been increasingly difficult…) call for assistance from a science-talkin'-dude in editing the entire article for readability by people like me, and providing context for the quality of my edit. I inferred from your revert comment that you didn't care for my talk talk, and that's obviously your preference and I respect that - it *was* a teeeensy bit dismissive and hurtful, and I'd point to me having mentioned that I have Impostor Syndrome in that very talk talk, and ask you to go a *little bit* easy on me… it's not my only brainmeat malfunction… I'm here on Wikipedia trying my best to help, not trying my worst to make everything terrible. I'm sorry that I wasted your time and annoyed you. It was not my intention, and it sucks that you felt annoyed and that your time wasn't being valued. You are almost certainly feeling that way again right now, so here's my last point: the edit I made on the Notifications article was good. It fixed typos, it improved syntax, it clarified some instructional content (which is important when the page is primarily for new people), and it de-vagued a particularly ambiguous piece of information which was confusing and badly-written. There was nothing wrong with my edit. Someone with a bunch of Wikipeen even bothered to thank me for it. So… make it go back the way I had it! I don't know how to unrevert things! I don't care if you're not my mother! Wahhhh!

Okay so I'm shutting up, now. If my phone Wiki-editing page would let me scroll the page up, I'd just delete all of the stuff about myself, because it will just annoy you and prep you for some awesome criticism of my actual good edit. Bleaurgh. It's hot and I need sleep.

I do appreciate what you do. Thank you for making Wikipedia much better. For what it's worth. (You were 100% right about those reverts of the spam refs and the promo stuff - I read it all before I posted this. So I'm sorry if my Notifications edit *is* actually rubbish and I'm a dummy like all the dummies before me. I go now. It okay. We cool. Charlie Sanders (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Desalination / Reverse Osmosis

Hey Praxidicae,

I was wondering why you reverted my additions to the pages Desalination and Reverse Osmosis. Both of your removals are categorized as 'Rollback' but to me this does not make clear what the specific reason was for the removal of my sections.

In the case of my additions to 'Reverse Osmosis', I assume you will agree that apart from military end-users, other decentralized reverse osmosis solutions exist for different end-users in different contexts (e.g. developing countries, remote communities), warranting further explanation. In the case of the 'Desalination' additions pertaining to solar&gravity-powered reverse osmosis, I believe that denying their relevance to the desalination page would also render wave-powered desalination as irrelevant (since wave-powered desalination fundamentally still boils down to reverse osmosis - it's just powered by a different energy source).

I recognise that your reason for the deletion of my additions might be based on a different motivation, in which I case I would gladly like to hear what it is! 195.35.150.204 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Praxidicae,

Have you found the time to reply to the above? 195.35.150.204 (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You added completely inappropriate sources. See WP:OR or WP:NOR. Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for stating the grounds for deletion. I will edit my revisions, provide reliable sources devoid of original research and republish 195.35.150.204 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Krishna

Why is this is a hoax? If it is, it's a convincing one. It's easy to Google references like that one (not that they are "Reliable Sources", but I can't imagine a hoaxer going to that much trouble to fool everybody.) I'm not the author, just someone who noticed. Art LaPella (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Art LaPella I'd be impressed if you came up with any sources since none exist. It's a full blown elaborate hoax by the user. Also that's the creator's instagram. It's a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Art LaPella I have to ask if you actually looked at the source you linked. Just because someone made an instagram post about their hoax (and it is the creator's instagram account) in no way makes it legitimate. This isn't even debatably a hoax. It's just made up garbage by the creator. Praxidicae (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - everything else I found has the same guy's name on it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Armenoid race

Why do you keep reverting my edit on the talk page? This is really disturbing behavior. I guess you're just unable to refute my point so have to resort to silencing tactics. Really nasty. 103.99.75.204 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, can u help me on my page Divya Krishnan ? what should i do to get publish Abidn2 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

NOA building

Hi. Why did you revert my edition on NOA building? I improved the article and added more information. You removed a lot of content! Why is it so?Wikisanchez (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikisanchez Copyvio removals are not subject to the "fix it" portion of removing a prod or CSD. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Copyvio Detector says violation is unlikely.Wikisanchez (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Now. Not when you removed it. Until it's revdel'd, leave the template up. Please read what it says as well. Praxidicae (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Indic script

- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at IIT Delhi metro station, as this contravenes WP:INDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Arjayay Chill with the warnings, please. I'm trying to revert a ton of banned and globally locked sock edits. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

OK but please do not break other guidelines, such as WP:NOINDICSCRIPT with your edits - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's policy vs. guideline here but I was working on fixing them all after I removed the offending edits. Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Arjayay: IMHO Praxidicae was in the right here. Praxidicae is acting within policy and generally policy generally supersedes guidelines. As a reminder we aren't a bureaucracy. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Bella Disu

Please opine. Not convinced better than deleted iterations.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim Same garbage sourced to prs and fluff. I'd delete. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

re Starsunfolded.com

Were you going to put it up for blacklisting? As I said, I don't have a good feel for the threshold for XLinkBot let alone blacklisting. I've mostly given up submitting anything but blatant situations, and have instead started my own list to at least keep track. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: idwiki

Sorry for the late response, I have so many activities in my wiki and, of course, real world. Except the spam link, I don't see any problem in the user page, so I just remove such spam links in there. If I see the user page which contains clearly advert, I will put the deletion tag or replace with inappropriate username tag if the user also use inappropriate username. I don't sure the administrator will delete such the user page as you said it before, because sometime, I still can't understand the administrator's rationale in certain cases. Last year, the administrator didn't accept my request to block the user whom use name Anwar Ibrahim, although the user clearly use Malaysian political figure name. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hanamanteo I respectfully ask you to leave my tags in cases like this as I am tagging spambots which are harmful to all projects and the url alone is not the only problem. Praxidicae (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:23:12, 18 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Elsworthj

• Elsworthj (talk · contribs)
  • User:Elsworthj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings!

You recently reviewed an article that I have been trying to have published on Mami Mizutori, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction. She is a very senior female diplomat of the United Nations and yet she is only referenced on Wikipedia on her husband's page. I work in the communications team for her department (UNISDR) and have been trying to rectify this. The article is deleted citing the fact that her biography is too similar to that of the UN webpage which I clearly referenced. This is natural as this is her approved official biography and any other content would be unprofessional. Please could you help me to have her page approved since it is extremely important to us to address the balance of senior UN male figures being disproportionately represented on Wikipedia. (For example, her predecessor - Robert Glasser - has a page).

Many thanks for your advice. Elsworthj

Elsworthj (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Elsworthj Please read WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY and WP:COPYRIGHT. We do not accept copyrighted content and even if it weren't, Wikipedia article are not based on what the subject or it's organization(s) say about them but what independent reliable sources say. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rejected article: Carrier aggregation

Hello, your rejected my article Draft:Carrier Aggregation today. May you please explain to me in a simple way why the two cited engineering text books are not reliable and how I can avoid another rejection. Fvultier (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Article - Anjali Mukerjee

Hello and thank you for having a detailed look at Anjali Mukerjee page. I have made changes to the content and have rectified the citations. Requesting you to have a look. I understand that this is not a paid addition but written by an amateur writer who is new to Wikipedia inclusions. The subject in discussion "Anjali Mukerjee" is a notable individual in India and has done decent contributions to the society. Kindly have a look and let me know if there are further changes required. Nairji (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Even after neutralizing the content and correcting the citations the article "Anjali Mukerjee" has been deleted, may you please help me with the way forward. Nairji (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Charity Bank submission

Hi. I've just received a notification with your feedback concerning the last submission. I note that there are two main areas that you have highlighted: 1) reliable sources - I have included numerous sources from the likes of BBC, Guardian etc. I note that some now appear behind by a paywall (Financial Times). I will tighten these up by removing these before submitting. 2) reads like an advertisement - the information included was intended to be factual. I will edit accordingly based on your feedback.

If there's any other edits you recommend I make prior to resubmitting it would be appreciated.

Waynepagecb (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Waynepagecb