Jump to content

User talk:Praxidicae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ADP85xzVcQD (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 18 June 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Request for Draft:Jude Odele review

Hello, Kindly help me look through my new page adjustments to this page, Draft:Jude Odele

Resubmission

My subject of article is different from Artemisia absinthium, which is only simple description not specific part on uses, so why I cannot resubmit it？ Thank you

UNE Works SA article

Hi, you marked my article as promotion/advertisment. I recently got my-self a UNE watch, I think its a very unique idea to manufacture ultra thin watch faces from rocks and unfortunately there is only little information about it in the web. So I decided to create this article. I went through many articles of other watch manufacturing companies. I dont see how the article about this watch manufacturer is different from all the other 250 watch manufacturer atricles. Please communicate whatexactly violates the rules of a brand article. thank you in advance


Deletion review for N2WS (Veeam)

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)[reply]

Latest page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Undisclosed Paid tag

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)[reply]

Information Radiator deleted? why?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Envy Me

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)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Page KK Modi University

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)[reply]

Ian Foote Wikipedia page

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)[reply]

Patricia Magtanong

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)[reply]

Accidental Undos

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)[reply]

Just what the template says. Actually, you have two of 'em.

Hello, Praxidicae. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

I'm still working on the article

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I'm literally about to add sources...Lefcentreright (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I have added sources now...Lefcentreright (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data lakes edits

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]

Government Railway Police revert war?

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)[reply]

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

A beer for you!

Since we *might* be the same person, would you mind paying my mortgage this month? 😛 Marquardtika (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marquardtika Only if I can pay in M&Ms and witty banter. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deal! Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Solomon b taiwo

Solomon b Taiwo is a notable character and its not paid advisement. The page has not broken any rules according to Wikipedia policies.

Awards article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Need help

Hello @Praxidicae: sir, could you guide me, how can I contribute to Wikipedia. Yes sir Im aware of that I

dont have a single edits on the afd or tag any article to csd. Neither I have been associated with prod. So sir, could you help me. It would be nice of you to encourage yours fellow on Wikipedia. AR.Dmg (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Praxidicae: sir, I have not canvassed anyone. I just requested for permission. If I would be eligible admin would grant me. If not I would gain experience and come back soon. AR.Dmg (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sir, so please refrain from calling me sir. Second, please respond on your own talk page. Third, that is a blatant fabrication considering the number of times you have asked almost a dozen admins outside of WP:PERM. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Goldsmith edits

Hi, I was just trying to make the page look more normal and add the TEDx talk. Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert all of my edits? I am pretty familiar with the guidelines and didn't think I did anything objectionable but do let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refpointassoc (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refpointassoc You're adding a photo which is clearly not own work and in violation of copyright, as well as promotional material. What is your affiliation to Goldsmith? Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all the TEDx stuff was creative commons approved but maybe I was misinformed (agreed, I didn't take it). I have no connection to her. Am just a fan who has been bummed that this page looked a little lackluster for awhile and was trying to help clean it up. I really didn't add any promotional material - I just gave it some headers and moved stuff around to try and make it look more normal (i.e., like other pages). And I added academic citations, so I don't understand how that would be promotional, I was trying to provide more unbiased references, which was requested on the header of the page. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just legitimately don't understand how citing academic articles on an academic's page is a problem. I am not obsessed with this and am happy to relent, but I really did see my changes as strictly stylistic and attempting to better format the page per the suggested guidelines Refpointassoc (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)RPA[reply]

Mail

Hello, Praxidicae. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

N.J.A. | talk 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Presuming the above is related to the protection, I've unprotected it per your request. If it gets to be disruptive for others beyond just Prax, though, protection should probably come on back. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one might not be notable either

Research Symbiont Award... At first I thought it was the same as the Parasite one but it's not. All these awards! Shearonink (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink I'm guessing it's not either and I'm actually tempted to bundle it...Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am assuming that there's also some measure of COI going on. If the awards/events are not-notable then how does one find out about them...
What is somewhat upsetting - because I actually do hate for good content to be thrown away - is that the subject itself seems notable. I would think the contributing editor could write up a well-sourced article about the subject and if the awards show up in reliable sources then mention them there. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Prax - I have changed my opinion to Neutral. I think it is possible that these awards - taken together - might indeed be notable as there seems to be reliable-sourced coverage that the contributing editor has mentioned. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Why is the page found promotional? May I know what it is so I can make the proper edits?A956 22:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo956 (talk • contribs)

Yotsuba Project

I didn't think it a G11, because it was easy to remove the promotional wording. Notability is another matter, but that will need PROD or AFD. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me if you get rid of the promo. I am generally not great at assessing notability for software stuff, which is why I didn’t afd it but also I couldn’t de promo it because there was nothing neutral to write about it. Praxidicae (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Flixbus

Hi there. Just a quick reminder, when you revert someone's additions that are not clearly vandalism, please remember that it is good practice to explain why you did it, so that others (like me) can understand it. Regards SoWhy 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revert of edits

Ack...Sorry about adding to archive. I didn't notice the archive until later; I had been looking at recent issues. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam" reverts

Re the PDF links by 145.107.83.167: I think the one you re-reverted at Kagu might actually be the only one that is problematic (overlooked that one), and is probably the result of a good faith error. Everything else seems to be bona fide addition of the WM link to the required PDFs. A peculiar case is Jamaican red macaw, where the original link DID refer to what looks like a spam squatter, and the Wm link produces the correct article PDF. - Overall, I don't see a cause for wholesale reverts here? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, this was my mistake, sorry. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open closed afd discussion

Did you just re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language)? Based on the edits, it was closed as keep. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7 It was closed by an SPA and likely sock fo the creator, who has no business closing an AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit War???? I did not revert three times as you claim!"

You hope this is merely a mistake on your part. I contacted the editor that they were incorrect, that there was a secondary citation to a scientific journal with a DOI. They proceeded to delete my comment from their talk page using revert, which is their perrogative. They merely said, "We're done!" in the comment field for the "undo" and provided no justification for why the journal Nature Genetics is not a reliable secondary source. This is world-read, premier science journal with an impact factor of 27. Saying it is not reliable is utterly absurd. But despite that, and the editor's unwillingness to do more than say "We're done", I then proceeded to put the text on the "talk" page of the web page, not revert, and I did that almost a half day before you "intervened". So really, your warning is misdirected and should be given to the other editor.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Praxidicae&oldid=902407383"