User talk:Praxidicae

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

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

Archives

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

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

Removed multiple table rows in "Comparison of file verification software"

About --> Revision as of 11:08, 4 June 2018 Why did you remove the majority of the table rows in article "Comparison of file verification software"? Your comment says "Massive link farm", but I am trying to understand why you consider all of those rows to be bad or unreliable links. Jmonti824 (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing wrong?

Hello, Yesterday I tried to change a redirect into an actual page for Luciana Ravizzi. The redirect doesn't even go to correct section (its old). I have done the whole page of which all is fact. I have also included references to verify that this is in fact her. Can you please advise why you keep reverting? Absolutrosk (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC) You managed to undo all of my edits seconds after I made them (3 times), can you please respond to my query? I have done everything asked and am not sure what I am doing wrong. Please advise. Absolutrosk (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder

Hey Chrissymad, thank you for sending me AFCH participant's criteria. Unfortunately, I skipped it unintentionally. I will refrain from further reviewing until i meet the criteria.

Kostas Greece91 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pema Browne

I am in the process of creating this page for Pema Browne and you keep placing a deletion on the page. This is extremely unhelpful and really ridiculous. I'm sure you could police other sites, it's a large web out there. She just passed away and I'm trying to create this page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungleboy65 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jungleboy65 If you wish to contest the deletion, follow the instructions in the notice. Also please keep your uncivil comments to yourself. They're not appreciated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No uncivil comments just please stop trolling and mind your own bushiness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungleboy65 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jungleboy65 No one is trolling, the directions on the deletion notice are in big bold letters. Please stop insulting people because you refuse to read them and dislike the way an encyclopedia works. The next time you come to a user's page to call them a troll for restoring a deletion notice that is currently being discussed, you're going to find yourself at WP:ANI. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I am in the middle of resourcing and creating the page, please leave me alone to do the work! No need to threaten me with banishment from Wikipedia. Thank you

Jungleboy65 Then I suggest you read what the deletion notice says. It's not up for speedy deletion, it's up for a 7 day discussion, which you should participate in if you find that you disagree. I'd also suggest you cut out the name calling immediately. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Chrissy let's end this so I can work. Thank You

You guys are really too much. My god my mom just died and I'm trying to make this page, as she was a well known artist and literary agent in New York City. And all u do is flag it for deletion before I'm done and tell me to read links. You guys are absolutely no help at all. I don't how old you guys are, but this is really grade school stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungleboy65 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jungleboy65: We don't allow biographies on Wikipedia without sources - could you link to 3 or 4 significant newspaper articles about Pema Browne and we can revisit the deletion, if necessary. Nick (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Nick I have all of the supporting articles, but no one gave me a chance to even site them. I was in the process of doing that, but everyone kept wanting to delete the article. To be honest, I am a published author and write for many national magazines for the past 30 years and I have never seen such arbitrary policing of any site. I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past and never had this type of issue. You are making this very difficult for anyone to want to even participate in this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungleboy65 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Latinos in Action page edits

Hi Chrissy, can you explain why my edits for this page were reverted? The original page didn't have any sources and I linked several other pages, so I'm confused why you would have deleted them. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so my apologies if this comment isn't formatted correctly. Mockingbirdkayla (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)mockingbirdkayla[reply]

Macomb Page

How is adding information about the local public radio station in the news media category considered spam? How is it considered promotional to add additional bullets under the attractions and events category? Please stop changing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoopU (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Do you think Human Rights Watch qualifies as independent/reliable/published? I realize it's not "a range", I was hoping that as a stub it could attract a wider range but I wasn't sure where to look.

In what what could I make the tone more formal? This is an article reporting on grievances which were expressed over 10 years ago, not expressing grievances. I'm not sure what is meant by peacock here, I'm basing the name of the article on an established precedent of how to describe family separation policies of various administrations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchMarshall Sourcing aside, the entire tone of the draft sounds to me like someone with a grievance rather than just basing it on fact. Like "look, they did it too!" I think you need to reword this in particular and expand in detail. The 1996 policy is vastly different than that of 2008 and 2018, so the whole "From 1997-2000 over a million children/spouses had their families split up" is somewhat misleading and emotional. Overall I think it's misleading (not sure if it's intentional or not) as your source here does not state or imply that families were forcefully separated (as in, traveled into the US together and forcefully removed from one another) just that a travel restriction/ban prevented return access but it actually does mention that Bush and Clinton had tightened and then subsequently relaxed laws to allow for contact. Your section implies that it was the US, or rather the Clinton Administration responsible for this when the source does not and in fact focuses on Cuba's responsibility. It would be like saying "As a result of the Trump administration, millions of families were separated in Syria" which is not the case, no matter what political leaning one has. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policies that separate families can be different in how they do it. Whether it's by separating people as they cross borders illegally (in 2018) or by deporting people who had been living here awhile (1997-2000). I'm not sure how it's misleading, "over a million" is a pretty conservative representation of the 1.6 million estimate made by human rights watch. I could change that to "approximately 1.6 million" if that would be less 'emotional'.

The wording of the article is simply describing whose administration the changes happened under. I don't hold Clinton directly responsible for Cuba's policies just as I don't hold Trump responsible for the pre-existing laws which make illegal entry a misdemeanor crime that can result in prison sentences. Clinton choosing to enforce Cuba's wishes and Trump choosing to enforce federal criminal laws do make these policies associated with their administrations, and both policies separated families.

I'm introducing this as a stub, statements about later relaxations which reunited families could be added too. This is an afterthought though, and not the primary topic. The topic of reuniting families could possibly be separate topics:

These could describe what efforts the various administrations have taken to reunite separated families. Given that these would deal not just with families split up by the administration in power at the time, but also those split up by previous administrations, I'm not sure if it should be delegated to a subtopic of "separation" articles. Families separated by a given administration could be reunited either that administration or subsequent ones, so a subsection of "separation" could possibly link to several administrations "reunification" articles. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that your "stub" draft is misleading and I pointed out specifically why. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned, sans parenthesis:

"I think it's misleading as your source here does not state or imply that families were forcefully separated just that a travel restriction/ban prevented return access"

The tentative title is not Clinton administration forceful family separation policy so I'm not sure why "force" comes into it. But pursuing your thought on that...

The 2005 HRW article "Torn Apart" and says "policies and regulations that serve to separate families"
the 2007 HRW "Forced Apart" says "separated from their parent, husband, or wife because of these deportations".

HRW appears to judge deportation with verbs like tearing/forcing. If someone refuses to be deported (per 1996) and resists, force would be used to make them. If someone refuses to stay in the country and sneaks back to family in Cuba (per 1999) force would be used to bring them back, no? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in getting into a debate with you about this. There is a clear NPOV issue here and if you feel my review was wrong, resubmit it and let another reviewer look. Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Albert Dadas

Hi! Why do you think he doesn't deserve an article?Contains Sulfites (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, it's covered in the target and is not independently notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you deleted ALL my edits of Dromomania, including, for example, that dromomania was introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2000. Do you even read what you revert? Contains Sulfites (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at this: fr:Albert Dadas The French clearly believe he's notable. I saw the French page only when I was finishing my own, so I didn't include its references. It seems that, aside from the novel I mentioned on my page, he inspired another novel, a comic book, and an exhibition. If I added that, would it be enough to warrant a page? Contains Sulfites (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with your edits, particularly the DSM as the source you used is not reliable and it's not listed anywhere in the DSM Dromomania itself is hardly even notable and lacking in actual reliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the DSM table of contents. You're right, dromomania isn't listed. I apologize for doubting your thoroughness. I'll resubmit the Dadas article once I've added more artistic references. It would be a shame for such an inspiring person not to have an article, dromomania or no dromomania. Contains Sulfites (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you again, but I feel I should share this with you. When I Googled the books talking about Dadas, I had the idea of sorting them by date instead of relevance. It turns out that before 1998 (when Ian Hacking published the lectures that would become Mad Travelers, the book I've read), there is absolutely no mention of Dadas for more than a century. Hacking pulled him out of total oblivion. The subsequent articles and novels were inspired by Hacking, not Dadas himself. I fell for it too and wasted an afternoon, then got mad at you. What can I say? Sorry, and I'll definitely vote for the deletion of dromomania. Contains Sulfites (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]