User talk:Praxidicae/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

I am editing properly

I am editing properly. As per wikipedia guideline.

Really so removing sources and blanking stuff is "properly"? that's news to me. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Which source I remove. ?

It say you are NOT an administrataor.

BTW: Dude, I removed a "SELF PUBLISH SOURCE". This has no meaning in the Wikipedia. So stop HARASSING and STAKLING me. You are not an Adminstrator.

Sign your edits, or they will be removed from my talk page again. You were just blanking random things, removing content. I don't need to be an administrator to tell you to stop disruptive behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

15:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not blanking "random" things. I am cleaning up the BIOGRAPHY of LIVING PERSONS to the Wikipedian standards 15:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benarasibabu (talk • contribs)

No, you're vandalizing. This isn't a self published source. Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for that 'thanks'. I've reported them since final warning has already been given.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen this. Another user has come now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics

Dear user,

I do not understand why you directly removed all my careful edits without a simple explanation. We spend more than 4 hours for the parts your removed.

Best regards

Dear User,

Hi, the problem has been solved so I have already removed the maintenance templates. As your reverted also removed many links to Professors homepage, I just reverted it also. Also please let me know how can I get back the material that you removed 1300 characters. These material are totally new and we need that.

Thanks. Best regards. Mathowenw

Dear User,

Could you have a carefully look at the page you just edit? The problem that you mention has already been dealt and I do not see any reason to keep that notice.

Also please reply my previous question. how could we get back the 1300 characters that are totally new and has no problems?

Best regards,

Mathowenw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathowenw (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editor!!

Respected editor, I really care for your time on my work. But here is a little advice "be careful for your words" My page Aryan Khan has not been declines for 6+ times. It does meet for the notable personality criteria as well, in my opinion. I will either way talk to a senior editor expert to resolve the matter. If it just the matter of poorly source references then there are hundreds of pages on wikipedia who have absolutely weak references, but they still exist. Again, i really appreciate your efforts and i will carefully look into the matter. Thanks!! ♥ (HinaBB (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

Dear Praxidicae

I've a question regarding your "restoring redirect" on the article about Olaf Koch The text is a translation from the German article about Olaf Koch (Manager). As you can see from the revision history I added 18 reliable sources to the article about Olaf Koch from independant publishers with significant coverage like Reuters, Bloomberg, Financial Times and European Supermarket Magazine, as well from NOAH conference. What else is needed to keep the article? In my POV it is not useful to redirect the article about him as a person to the article about the company he is working. Somebody added Olaf Koch to the list of other German managers > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_chief_executives Most of all people listed there are shown with an article about ther life and not redirected to an article about the company they are working, hence which rules apply to those cases? Thx in advance for your help to solve this. Kind regards MarcosFernandezMETROAG (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Notify creator when starting AfD

Hi Praxidicae! When you AfD nominated Philosophy Tube, the original page creator EthanMagnuson was notified rather than the editor who recreated it (me). I assume this is a mistake caused by using Twinkle, but in future it would be good to check that you have notified the right user, as I was not notified in this case. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

source is OK

Hello Praxidicae. I've noticed that you marked spam a reference for the content here Shilajit. It is not a science journal but they did sponsors the research and analyses we did use old Russian and Indian paper books backed by current laboratory tests made in 2017-2018. We also contribute to this article before over the last 2 years with Xupuel and keeps updating it. Please do not mark our edits/references as spam even if our accounts are new as we did check and recheck all the information carefully. Please let me know if you think we are doing something wrong in any sense? — Realseti (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

They are both refspam and have no encyclopedic value and should not be used. Praxidicae (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hi Praxidicae,

I saw you posted on my talk page. You indicated that I was "disruptive editing", but stated I created a page that I did not. if you review the history, another user created a page. I then received notification that it was set for speedy deletion, and I followed the rules on the speedy deletion and I am fixing it, but you added the notice back even though the rules say a third-party can remove it. You then stated it was not a copyright matter, when in fact it states "as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of https://knnp.tv/about-us" for KNNP-TV.

Cheers mate, JaySiers (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)JaySiers

You cannot remove copyright violation speedy deletion tags as you cannot fix the issue of copyright without admin tools. It is a direct copy from that url, which is under copyright. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Prem Pujari - stalking / harassment

Sir. I desire to intimate you that I sincerely beleive that You stalked me on this supra-mentioned edit to harass me because I am the new user to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Pujari&oldid=913201491 Have the nice day. PS You may please explain to the Wikipedia admins how the non-science fiction historical movie made in 1970 can describes Kargil war of 1999, and why you reverted my edit which was titled as "anachronism". Benarasibabu (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This edit fixed it .... ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But I was trying to learn from this user why he stalked me as a new user through the misuse of his rolling back tool to harass me for mine good edits. Benarasibabu (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Note: ​ Her username is based on Praxidike, a Greek goddess. So she certainly isn't male. Masum Reza^📞 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Benarasibabu First, it's not generally a good idea to accuse editors of stalking or harassment and second, if you want to substantiate those claims, WP:ANI is that-a-way. I'm not going to entertain your asinine threats. Praxidicae (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae; acknowledging that the newbie's attitude is considerably sub-par, and that they ought not to have assumed you're a man, and that they ought not to be making threats; might I suggest, with respect, that that was not a good use of the rollback extension? The substance of the edit was entirely correct, in fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the use of the rollback was not optimal but how was the substance of edit correct? Did the film refer to the battle as Kargil War? ∯WBG^converse 18:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There was an IP that changed the date the film came out prior to the edits in question. When that is taken into consideration, a war that started in 1999 makes no sense. So yes, Praxidicae's rollback makes sense given the article at the time, but overall the information was already incorrect. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Perhaps I should have undone instead of rolledback, sure but I fail to see how this meets the level of "stalking and harassment" claimed by the "newbie" (a title which I seriously doubt applies to the editor in question) and given the dubious claims in the existing article at the time, its just quite a clusterfuck. (edit conflict) Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Primefac - Your unfailing support of this editor, even when they themselves accept they are in error, should give you pause. KJP1 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

do we need to keep beating this horse?Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not if we've learnt. KJP1 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Primefac: (and Praxidicae) The movie may not have referred to the war as the "Kargil War" (I haven't seen it, I don't know) but I do know that it refers to the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, and therefore "Kargil war of 1965" is substantially more correct than "Kargil war". Now I don't dispute that the content was already incorrect, but what we had was rollback being used on a newbie who had tried to correct a genuine error; and so I'm suggesting that Praxidicae needs to be a little less liberal with that particular button, which shouldn't be used except for unambiguously bad edits. I don't excuse the newbie's subsequent aggression in the least, and I'm happy to have a word with them if they repeat this behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee you there is no newbie in this conversation but I think the badgering over this rollback is a little much given I already said I should have used undo. Can we please move on? Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

But have we learned? Or is your "move on/nothing to see here" handwaving an indication to the contrary? KJP1 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think my responses have made it clear. Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Clear enough for me, certainly, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Can you explain to me what was disruptive about my editing?

Flaughtin had these reasons for removing the paragraph and deleting the article:

WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME and WP:PUS

Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Not a notable person (fails WP:BASIC)

I pointed out that none of these reasons apply to said article and person, because Julie Eadeh is a public figure, the case concerns a scandal and not a crime, and the NYT is a reliable source. Therefore, I changed the article back to what it was before. Water-n-Sky (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the giant red bolded notice which plainly states: Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.? And it's not a proposed deletionPraxidicae (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for removal of pages

Hi Praxidicae,

I saw that you changed the content that I edited on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moca_Cream and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleanos. I think you did well and I will stop adding any content that may be promotional or against Wikipedia guidelines.

However, the current information of both pages is not according Wikipedia guidelines:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleanos
- moleanoslimestone.com link which goes to a commercial company promoting their products
- Moleanos Cladding by LSI Stone (no link, but again a clear promotion of a company called LSI Stone)

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleanos
- the commercial website that is currently promoted here moleanoslimestone.com has been "heavily inspired" to say the least on my own website www.moleanos.com. This content and website were originally published by me many years ago and this company did a nearly copy of my content (text, website structure, etc).

--

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moca_Cream
- mocacreamlimestone.com link which goes to a commercial company promoting their products
- Moca Cream Cladding by LSI Stone (no link, but again a clear promotion of a company called LSI Stone)

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moca_Cream
- the commercial website that is currently promoted here moleanoslimestone.com has been "heavily inspired" to say the least on my own website www.mocacream.com. This content and website were originally published by me many years ago and this company did a nearly copy of my content (text, website structure, etc).

---

I would like to ask if you could speedy delete both pages, because the people editing have clear commercial goals and are in infringement of Wikipedia rules. On my side, i will stop any type of promotion.

Thank you.

(talk page watcher) I have deleted both of these pages. Please note, Jgrenho, that you need only place one speedy deletion tag on a page; adding more just adds visual clutter but doesn't actually expedite the process. You're right, though, both of these pages were unambiguous copyright violations as they were direct reproductions of the company's own website, and so they were also blatantly promotional. I can't do anything about the company possibly using your copyrighted content, you'll have to take that up with them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ermenegildo Zegna (1955)

Hi Praxidicae, I'm writing you because I saw that you have redirected the entry concerning the Italian entrepreneur Ermenegildo Zegna (1955) to the entry related to the Ermenegildo Zegna Group. I'd like to understand better why you have decided to move the entry and since you flagged the entry as "raging promotional" I'd like to know which parts are particularly emphatic to you. Moreover, I'd like to understand why you referred to the entry as "not independently notable". According to me, Gildo Zegna is an influential personality in the luxury fashion industry, since many international newspapers & media have referred to him as a pioneer in expanding fashion industry into emerging markets (opening the first luxury store in China, 1991, and making the Group one of the first luxury brands to directly enter the Indian market, 2007). Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve the entry so that it complies to all Wikipedia policies?

Thank you in advance! :) --Erisimo (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

chiiz.com

hi Praxidicae (talk) as i had put my reason in the contest for not deleting the page, request you to revert it, as it is an informational topic for many people whom photography is a hobby Joydeep ghosh(talk) 18:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Joydeep ghosh, the issue is not the importance (or implied lack therof) of the website, but rather the tone in which the page was written; it sounded like a promotional piece for the website. Please skim through WP:NPOV and then use the Article wizard to create a new Draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission to decrease the liklihood the page will be deleted again. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

MATT

Well, there is some funny business going on here. The I suspect that Liketoy is a sock of the page creator; however I'm not entirely sure that a speedy is actually the right thing. This horribly dressed youth is, under another name (Velied) borderline notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

TheLongTone already connected those dots ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

StrongVPN article editing - September 2019

"Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at StrongVPN. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)"

From my understanding (and a direct quote from the Speedy Delete Tag Notice) "the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {advert} tag to alert others to do so.

I'm curious why I'm being warned of blocking when I did exactly as instructed by placing the {advert} tag. Futhermore, the information provided in the StrongVPN is neither biased, opinionated, or able to be skewed from a neutral perspective because the information is technical, sourced from reputable independent media articles, with only supplementary historical info coming from the official product website. Again, "the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion." The contents of the StrongVPN page are presented in the exact same viewpoint that leading VPN services (including NordVPN and ExpressVPN) also maintain on Wikipedia.

Now I'm of course willing and able to edit the content as the Speedy Delete tag requests in order to emphasize the neutral POV per Wiki standards (or to let community members adjust how they see fit via the {advert} tag as instructed). However, as the information within the article is factual, independently verifiable, and unable to be opined because it's historical and technical, it is difficult to discern what specifically need rewriting or omitting by this author.

Eager for your feedback. Stronguser (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You might be willing to edit it but it doesn't change the fact that it's a straight up advertisement and you've edit warred to remove tags and moved it to mainspace yourself despite your clear conflict of interest. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I see no advertising within the article. How is it advertising to describe a popular product in a factual, unbiased manner? There is no touting or opinionated bragging points within the content. Stronguser (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Shankar 1382

I think Enigmatic persona is an alternate account of Shankar 1382, created 4 days after block. Overlaps here and all 3 intersects at Draft:Mavanige Thakka Aliya. 137.97.127.103 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Josip Zovko

Hello, thanks for your comment that IMDd is not a reliable Source. That's why I've deleted the sources with IMDd and added links from TV, Radion and online newspapers through reputable sources. Moj Galeb (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, you write that IMDd is not a reliable source. However, I have read from other artists on the EN-Wiki page that this reference has been acknowledged as a source. This can be seen here: "Robert Budak - IMDb". m.imdb.com. Retrieved 31 January 2019. Moj Galeb (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, you write that IMDd is not a reliable source. However, I have read from other artists on the EN-Wiki pages that this reference has been acknowledged as a source. This you can for example read here: "Robert Budak - IMDb". m.imdb.com. Retrieved 31 January 2019. Moj Galeb (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Moj Galeb, IMDb is not a reliable source. The IMDb reference on Robert Budak should not have been used, and I have removed it. IMDb can be linked in the "External links" section using {{IMDb name}} but not in the body of the text.

As a minor note, I highly suggest you read through WP:REFB and fix up the references; bare URLs make finding the content much harder should the URL disappear. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hello, I have adapted the sources and translated them in English. Please check if this is okay or if something needs to be changed. Moj Galeb (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - Vamp building

Thanks for the note on my talk page! I hadn't seen prior to reverting that change. (If you had used a more explanatory update note, more than just "spam" on the original removal I wouldn't have jumped on the undo).

Anyway, thanks again for the note.

(I put in a better link on the See Also. I don't think that was available when I originally added that .org site link)

Stefan01902 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Stefan01902

Seamus Coughlin deletion

I got a message saying that the page was reviewed. I looked at the discussion and no one added anything. I thought that meant that they decided to keep it. I'm not an experienced editor. It was an honest mistake.

No per the giant notice that says not to remove the afd...Praxidicae (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		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 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm a celebrity

I don't see the point in deleting the page as the new series starts soon. it just needs more work doing to it .. L1amw90 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been around long enough to know better at this point that it does not matter if you do not see the point, the giant red bolded notice clearly states: Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Praxidicae (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've requested an admin to look at both pages. I'm not having an edit war just because I created a new page L1amw90 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Also if you read the AFD page it clearly says...

"Move to draft space until the show airs and there are sources to write an article with. There's no point in deleting it when it's going to certainly be recreated, but we do not keep articles in mainspace based on the expectation that they will be notable at some point in the future. GMGtalk 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)" L1amw90 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the rest of what WP:AFD says? It has to conclude or be withdrawn, you don't just get to move things around and create chaos. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing there to read. Both links for afd were edited over 10 days ago so where are you seeing this? Cos I certainly can't see s big red warning...

Didn't mean to post that again ^ L1amw90 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Uh no, they weren't. Both AFDs were initiated today. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, what I meant was, once you click on the AFD page, it says last edited X days ago. But I misread, anyway just leave it at that and let it go. Apologises for the rude comments on my page btw L1amw90 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Afd

No, you can't afd userpages, but since my advice to the editor was to finish his article in a sandbox before trying to get it into mainspace, my suggestion was for future applicability. As Brad decided to speedy his userpage anyway, the point is currently moot, but if the editor in question does write the article (either in a sandbox, through article creation, or directly in mainspace) the suggestion will become useful. There's limited space in the comments box for the speedy script I'm currently using. I assumed (incorrectly, as it happens) that you were bright enough to figure out what I mean. My apologies. I'll be verbose when trying to communicate with you in the future, as you tend to read everything I say as though I'm a drooling idiot who understands nothing, rather than actually putting in the five seconds of effort to try to figure out what I meant, or (heaven forfend) actually talking to me about it. Clearly, I expect too much of you. I apologize. KillerChihuahua 19:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)OK, the interactions between the two of you are conduct unbecoming for both respected editors here. I think it may be a good idea for the two of you to avoid interactions with one another for a while. There are plenty of other parts of Wikipedia that don't involve Prax or her talk page KC. Bkissin (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; however Prax is a highly productive and motivated vandal and page patroller; and I spend a lot of time at CSD and AIV; always have. This specific post is a response to her snarky edit summary when she removed the templated message that was automagically left on her talk page by the script I am currently using. I'm fed up with her treating me like a senile idiot; she's fed up with me taking umbrage at that. I'd like to think we could step back and not have issues, but avoiding interaction will be well-nigh impossible, unless I don't notify the tagging editor when I decline a speedy, which would be a failure on my part. Only Prax can speak to whether she's able to even consider AGF regarding me; so far I've seen nothing to encourage me in that hope. KillerChihuahua 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to just avoid her tags when you are working through the script? As her user page implies, Prax is known for her snark. However, she is also fully aware of policy. It can be difficult, but it may be worth ignoring her edit summaries on her talk page or not taking what she does here to heart. I can't speak for Prax on this topic, but I'm trying to find possible work-arounds here. Bkissin (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be, but (please don't take this as confrontational, this is a serious question) why should I? I'm merrily doing my job, and she's attacking me left, right, and center, and implying I have no idea what I'm doing merely because I take a softer approach to newbies than she does. I'm wondering why you're not advising her not to take my actions personally. I'm not speaking of the snark I posted above, I'm speaking of what led up to me finally posting that. KillerChihuahua 19:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua I'm quite tired of you insinuating I've attacked you. Would you like to provide diffs? Also as an administrator do you find it okay to attack an editor because you yourself felt attacked, your multiple posts here seem to imply it? Praxidicae (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As one example, in this edit you imply I'm ignorant - apparently senile or so out of date that I'm using some other meaning of the word, which I found condescending. I might not have, had you been more civil in your suggestion of my supposed ignorance - but as you didn't confirm, nor attempt to verify, that we're using the same terminology/working from the same page, it came across as an attack and an insult. Your repeated impatience with every attempt to talk to you has been unhelpful. Yes, in the post above I responded snarkily - can you honestly tell me I didn't nail how you feel towards me? KillerChihuahua 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You've acted quite inappropriately, both in your inherent lack of updated knowledge on current policy (5 years of relative inactivity) and incivility towards Praxidicae. In your few days of being active again, you've made bad calls in your administrative capacity, such as this, which unambiguously is against our policies. We can agree that, hypothetically, were you to RfA today, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that passing. It's perfectly acceptable to assume an administrator would try to be more careful when returning from a 5 year hiatus, and having editors annoyed at you declining correct reports is a foreseeable result of making administrator actions without having a full knowledge of policy about such actions. Vermont (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with me. Different administrators have differing thresholds for what they will allow, or work with. But your cheerful pile-on attack is singularly unhelpful. I hope you'll forgive me if I ignore your aspersions to my competence and comprehension. KillerChihuahua 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I take allegations of aspersions seriously. Please explain what part of my comment strikes you as such. Regards, Vermont (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like both sides here are feeling attacked and frustrated. KC, I understand where you are coming from, but Prax was also merrily doing her job (which, BTW, Wiki is not our job. We don't have to be so srs! We're all volunteers.) and tagging blatant spam and vandalism under the speedy tag. Bkissin (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and agreed. and Up for debate (re:the spam, especially if it looks like a userspace stub that might become a useful article, or a link the editor may legitimately feel adds value to the encyclopedia - those are not blatant or obvious spam) KillerChihuahua 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow. All I can say is wow. For someone making pointed edits about editor retention just...wow. You've assigned a meaning and words to an edit, where they simply do not exist and find yourself justified as an administrator no less, to make blatant and egregious personal attacks followed by continually casting aspersions against me, which you still cannot substantiate.Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have taken no administrative actions against you, so my being "justified" as an admin is nonsensical. As to the rest of your post, if I have misread you, then please do feel free to try to illuminate things - but it looks like whether you had hostile intentions to start or not, you certainly have hostility now, and don't seem terribly interested in finding common ground and burying the hatchet. Am I correct in reading this as you being fixed in your negative opinion of me, then? I'm not seeing any attempt at resolution here. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

After you more or less called me stupid and doubled down on your attacks, yes I would say that my opinion of you is negative. I'd advise you to stop with your personal attacks immediately and refrain from editing my talk page, as this is just blatantly disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I replied to Bkissin, below, before I saw this. I will cease this attempt at reconciliation, and leave your page. KillerChihuahua 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Circling back to my original idea of the two of you avoiding one another, I don't think that common ground is going to be found on this one right now. Let's all step away from this page, work through some backlogs elsewhere, and let cooler heads prevail. This is not serious business, it's just Wikipedia. Bkissin (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Having worked with Prax on WP:AFC, I can tell you that we slog through a lot of stuff that will never become a useful article and a lot of blatant and obvious spam. Also having watched Prax's talk page for a while, and seeing the kind of abuse she has put up with, whether it is someone with an axe to grind about their page being declined by a girl on the internet or an editor who won't take no for an answer and is persistent on the talk page, I can understand her impatience. I will concede that she can be bitey sometimes, but even if you look at other discussions on this page you'll see what they have to put up with. Many of these are responses to automated tags and scripts like the ones you use. Bkissin (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As a "girl on the internet" myself, trust me that I'm familiar with the issues. As an admin, I assure you I've gotten my share of bitey stuff tossed at me, too - I have great sympathy. I am not, however, the enemy, and I did tell Prax very early on that I thought she was "one of the good guys" but she just deleted my comment. So I'm really thinking she's decided PAX is not in our future, and that's sad. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

SBKSPP

Hi there. With this edit you reverted this editor, with the edit summary "sock". I didn't see any notice of an SPI being opened. The editor is starting to create articles, as well as turning redirects into articles (like they did where you reverted). Who do you think they are a sock of? Shouldn't we open an SPI? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring...

Other people are edit warring me.

No, you are edit warring. When multiple other people revert you and you keep re-adding the same thing, you are edit warring. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's for a just cause.

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and you've just violated 3rr. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Pedants... lol. That was a joke. The release itself a fact. It's been tested and verified. Every PreDB, database, etc., has the release. I gave three sources and have up to twenty more.

Yeah because insulting people will get you places. So will ignoring the several warnings you were given and explanation in edit summaries. Go to the talk page or get blocked, I don't really care either way. Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I've protected the page in question. SQL^{Query me!} 18:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

cloak

OMG, are those instructions in English? It wants me to first register a nickname using the instructions at http://freenode.net/kb/answer/registration but I can't make head nor tail of it...I was expecting something along the lines of "click here to register an account". This looks like something I would definitely manage to screw that up. I'm thinking I don't have the technical competence for that. :) Thanks for the advice! --valereee (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was the right link. You have to register your nick while logged into IRC. m:cloak should give clearer instructions? If not, I can walk you through it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

fix broken link

Hi, if i found dead link on pdf files, i search there is no backup on web archive. I search same file on google and upload it to my server to replace the dead link. Is that okay? Cause i see you undo my fix and prefer dead link instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembrat (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which is not allowed. Sounds like you're doing exactly this which is a great way to get blocked. Also if you found it on google, why not link to the source instead of trying to follow an SEO spammer? Praxidicae (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

CSD for Draft:Template:Microsoft Store

Hey Praxidicae, Can you help me with the draft Draft:Template:Microsoft Store? I tagged it for CSD for G2 and G3, but the IP keeps on removing the tags and reverting the edits. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Update lated information about VNG Corporation

Hi guy,

I am Huy, a PR Executive form VNG. I updated late information about VNG. I saw you undo my version edit. So could you explain a reason for that?

Thank you and best regards,

Huy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huypv2605 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is explained in the edit summaries, also you are required to disclose your conflict of interest. Please see WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Did, and tried to revert self only to find you'd already done it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So there's that. KillerChihuahua 15:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hrm, warning is actually still in the template: do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. so apparently no, you're not allowed to remove a speedy tag from a page you created. KillerChihuahua 17:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are you continuing this? The tag clearly gives directions which allow for anyone to remove a g13 for any reason they want. I don't know why you and two others felt the need to tag an active editor's draft three times for g13 today, it's disruptive and you're doubling down after being shown you are clearly incorrect. The template literally says: If you plan to improve this draft, simply edit this page and remove the {{Db-afc}}, {{Db-draft}}, or {{Db-g13}} code. Praxidicae (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Heck, my plan was to decline the speedy, which would have ended this. Instead, you removed the tag - and weirdly, the "undo" didn't replace a speedy tag from before, it showed me as the one who added the tag. Since then I've been looking into what happened. The template does indeed say that, and then it also says do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Complete text from template is:

This being the case, I thought I'd make sure you knew. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The template literally does not say that. And there is no prohibition on anyone removing a g13 on an draft they created themselves. You are simply wrong about this and there is no point in continuing to discuss it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

G13 doesn't, but other speedy tags do. That's what I'm saying. So there is inconsistency, which is not necessarily spelled out where it needs to be. KillerChihuahua 17:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is your point here? I never removed a valid CSD tag from my own edits, so are you warning me for something I've yet to do? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of content from: List of next-generation library catalogs

Hi! I spent a few hours adding a few links -- to existing content -- at the page cited above and I see that yu removed them and not only that you removed existing content that has been there for ages. May I know why, this seems a bit odd, specially due to the fact you seem to have removed extremely important information on faily well used ILS's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Ney de Souza (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Chris Wilson (author)

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

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Spam question

Hi,

You flagged my amendments as spam but they were referenced and added more information to the articles in question.

I was wondering why this was?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpanpan123 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Focus... Discography Deletion

Hi Praxidicae,

I saw you deleted my additions to Focus...'s discography page. All of the songs I added are songs he actually worked on, you can look at Discography to double-check, and it said they were deleted because it was advertisement, but I don't understand how that could be an advertisement if I'm updating the list, especially for songs hes produced more recently than 2016. Thank you!

SamFriske (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Tag on the James D Zirin article

Hello, User:Praxidicae. I was hoping you could revisit the tag discussion here. I never saw any follow-up at WikiProject Biography or the neutral point of view noticeboard, and no one has identified any non-neutral content or other reasons to keep the tag. I've tried in earnest to have it removed by seeking help from both involved and uninvolved editors, but the tag remains and I don't know what else I can do to resolve the issue. I've also reached out to User:Chetsford (who said, "I don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape and our ultimate objective should be to de-template articles, not use templates as a scarlet letter proving past misdeeds.") on their talk page, but I have not received a reply yet. I'm trying to be as patient as possible, and I hope my recent talk page requests demonstrate cooperation and compliance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. Please, any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. Jim Zirin (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

DJ DX

I am sorry but you are creating a deletion for DJ DX and it has many articles from the star ledger and NJ.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Vinylstarz, I see you have commented on the deletion discussion; that's really the main way to contest the nomination of a page for deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

You said you didn't put the article for deletion but clearly you did and you wrote that the person never charted which is nonsense! Did you know that the charts was basically something you paid to be on? It has nothing to do with music sales or anything it is literally a promotion tool to help an artist possibly sell more records or tour more. It doesn't do anything else at all! You literally did this for what? Now a person who has been on the front page of there state newspaper isn't a notable musician? Vinylstarz (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Vinylstarz, nowhere do I see Praxidicae saying that she didn't nominate the page, nor does it really look like she's commented at all regarding this AFD. If you disagree with the nomination, you should not blank the AFD itself, or post multiple times at the nominator's page, but make a reasoned argument at the AFD itself, supported by reliable sources that demonstrate the the article subject is notable. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I am sorry but this is her message at the top of her talk page here when you click edit source where it is states ---> Hello, you have reached Praxidicae, please leave your message after the... I'm not an administrator, I didn't delete your article and can't undelete it. I can suggest changes that might make it better though! <-----

Okay, now I ask how many sources do you need because it's three sources there that states about Frank Sinatra which he spoke about in the newspaper and another was about an album so how many sources do you need from a major publication from the state? If you can please try to help fix the article with me instead of going against me. I am trying to resolve the problem here that is all. Vinylstarz (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental, I never claimed not to nominate it for deletion. I cannot delete articles myself on this project. Any argument you have for keeping should be made at the AFD, as Primefac told you. Praxidicae (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Estonian Science fiction

Hi! I just wanted to say that when the source is in Estonian it's still a valid source. I've checked (as being a native speaker and an Sci-Fi author) all today added sources and they are valid. It only takes a little language skills to check.

Sure, estonian language sources are valid. Facebook, blogs, etc...are not. Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well. Let's see! Ulme.ee is an official website of Estonian sci-fi and fantasy association, so it should be a valid source. Shouldn't it? Then, let's go on: ulmeajakiri.ee is a sci-fi and fantasy magazine that has it's own ISSN - so it's a valid magazine, even if it's currantly only on web. I haven't seen any blogs or FB pages in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mairit (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well let's see, it's a copyright violation, promotional and a blog. See WP:RS. Praxidicae (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Metsavana: What we need to do to replace the current bad misinformation page with pange where is correct information? This is not some irrelevant company or organization, it concerns the literary movement of the whole country and we want that fans and writers in other countryes get correct information. Is that not what the wiki is designed for? Right now the current Estonian Science fiction pange is created by guy who even not know estonian language and this is quite wrong.

English Wikipedia has specific sourcing requirements and notability requirements. Being new doesn't mean we allow for inappropriate sourcing, blogs or copyright violations. Or socking. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please take time and see http://ulme.ee with your own eyes. This is not blog and it is official nonprofit organization ESFA web page. Wordpress can also be used to create web pages not blogs. In addition if you follow the rules so strictly then why the current info can be up?

Yes it literally is a blog about a non-notable organization and it doesn't matter because the content added was a copyright violation. There's no debating that part. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:41:01, 1 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Lawzilla

• Lawzilla (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David T. Maloof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Praxidicae!

My article submission was rejected for not being in a neutral point of view (NPOV) and not having reliable sources.

I reviewed the verifiability and notability Wikipedia pages and am requesting more feedback as to which of the sources are causing the rejection of the submission. I have the following questions:

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it

For example, are the Wikpedia and prabook references considered circular citations by Wikipedia?

'Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves/Self published Sources

Also, the inclusion of the maloof & browne website, along with articles/books written or co-written by the subject appear to fit within the parameters of Wikipedia Verifiability Page's self-published source requirement: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.'

Do these citations cause issue because the subject of the article is living? Will all self-published citations need to be removed before we re-submit? Wikipedia claims self-published sources are LARGELY not acceptable, but not always unacceptable. What can I do to improve my citations before re-submission, especially if they are the sole source of the information being cited - which is non-exceptional nor promotional?

Do our news article citations need to be sent in to be verified?

Lastly, to obtain a NPOV, are we able to list awards the subject has received or is this considered promotional?

Any and all feedback would be helpful as I continue to edit.

Thank you so much for your help!!

Lawzilla (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawzilla (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawzilla First things first, who is the "our" you repeatedly refer to?

As far as primary sources go, yes they are acceptable to establish basic facts. They are not acceptable to determine or establish notability. Your question about promotional sources are irrelevant as far as this draft is concerned because independent reliable sources by default are not going to be promotional, which is precisely what you need to provide. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Praxidicae,

The "our" I am referring to is the law firm as a whole. I understand from your response that the reliability of the source is evaluated on the source itself and the information it is referencing. Would you please tell me if there are any sources from my submission that would need to be removed based on the notability requirements of primary sources? Lawzilla (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawzilla, in that case please read WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Our" articles as in the ones found on the maloof and browne website.

I will assume that any link to that website is considered self-published and promotional?

Lawzilla Have you read the link I gave above? Praxidicae (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Panicker page

Please see the page history before reverting my edits Kalangot (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

take it to the talk page unless you end up blocked.Praxidicae (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

COI notice

Hi Praxidicae, I see you put a COI notice on Instana. Can you explain your reasoning for doing this? I was not paid for creating that page and I think you can understand that I am concerned to see this notice put there. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

DaVinci Resolve list of films

A few films listed are clearly referenced by their use in the Fusion software once developed by eyeon Software, which has since been acquired by Blackmagic Design (the owners of DaVinci Resolve). As mentioned, the two programs have been combined into one video editing software called Davinci Resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googleuser (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Moveing a atrlie

TonyBallioni Moved Whatzis Page i was working on. I was About to Move it to DINGBATS (game) as that happens to be the same game. I don't know how to do that, however. I asked him and he said to talk to you.Meow! Off to wikiLink! (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Data Recovery Companies revisions

Hi Praxidicae,

I've tried on several occasions to add my company to list of Data Recovery Companies listed here on Wikipedia.

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

Please advise on what I'm doing wrong so that I may include my company on this list. Thanks in advance.

BonafideDR (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)BonafideDR

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of links. If the article on the subject doesn't exist, it doesn't get included. Also you may not use Wikipedia to promote anything, so I suggest you read WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Everyone needs a goat sometimes!

CodeLyoko^buzz 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Beesfund

Please leave the technical corrections. It's perfectly fine for me to edit the article during the AfD discussion. Should you have any doubts, don't hesitate to drop me a line before rollbacking again. Thank you and best regards. — Kochas (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

LTA (maybe)?

By chance, do simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Chedi Amir, c:Category:Chedi Amir, or the users behind them happen to ring a bell to you? Hiàn (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

regarding Alexis Kennedy

Hello. I just saw that you removed the changes I made in the Alexis Kennedy Article. I would like to know the reason for that.

See WP:NPOV and WP:V. Praxidicae (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright: Regarding Neutral Point of View: The current wikipedia article uses terms like "predatory behaviour" and "abusive". These terms could elicit a false negative image of Alexis Kennedy. Also the term "crossed professional boundaries" is not clearly defined - the reader does not really know what happened. What I did was to clarify the allegations as "angry, cursing and not behaving according to common expectations of professionality. He is also accused of lying." and clarifying that "predatory/abusive" does not mean criminal nor sexually abusive (no forced sex). Here is the source for that: https://medium.com/@wastebooks/alexis-kennedy-71044efc0ecf

I do not see how the current article can be seen in any way as impartial/neutral on him. By the standarts you linked me ("Neutral point of view") the allegation part would need to be rewritten and can not stay the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:A66:3A0:346A:4003:F860:191A (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC) I'm awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:A66:3A0:346A:4003:F860:191A (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Which links are SPAM and which aren't?

About your spam warning regarding my edits on the Ball (association football) article, all I did was cite an article that thoroughly depicts the history of the soccer ball and, more specifically, explains very well why soccer balls began to have the hexagon panels design. The cited article has no advertising and no promotional links of any sort. If that's spam, that's your opinion, with which I politely disagree. Furthermore, my Wikipedia account was created more than 12 years ago -- I doubt I was planning to do it with the aim to spam over a decade later. Honestly, can you explain me how to tell spammy links from those which aren't? Redhotmustang (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding The Content written about the personality

Hi Praxidicae, Prince this side.I had not published any page in wiki.Generally done some edits or added some sections in wiki to make them update. But I came to know about a personality that had got an recognized in UK Parliament. Thus, I had written some content about him. I need your help to review the content and guidelines it need to meet of Wikipedia. I am sharing my link google link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gq2V3AIqnC8Rrk3svYpu9kCUdtxJiInV/view?usp=sharing Reference link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wj6wCj6Eacik2rXZHwBWGfmjiN47x-ze/view?usp=sharing Please help to review the content and guidelines it need to meet of Wikipedia, So I can publish it on Wikipedia. With Thanks And Regards Prince Princehr999 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please just respond to my question on your talk page, Princehr999 and without google drive links as I will not review those. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Spam link????

I have received a notification attached to you accusing me of inserting spam links. You have then proceeded to delete any edits I have made. No links were spam links, there was no advertising involved - merely links to articles which backed up edits made to introduce deeper (and previously absent) information to the topics. Please clarify why you have decided they are spam links? Or is this disagreement with the edits made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayischong (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Got the same notification yesterday, was accused of doing the same thing and got the same treatment (deleted edits). I did not insert any spam links either (absolutely no adversiting or promotion was involved). Like you, I just wanted to add my contribution and include references to improve the page I was editing. Did not get any explanation as to why the referenced 3,000+ word article I listed as a citation was considered spam. What I find confusing is the criteria used to tell spam links from non-spam links as I've seen references linking out to ecommerce websites. Came back here today looking for an answer to I had written above yesterday; since there's no one giving us an answer, one can only assume this is some kind of automation triggered whenever someone inserts any kind of link. It would be good to have a third person helping us out and "cleaning" our record. Redhotmustang (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

LG-Gunther and MRY

With all due respect, but was it just me or does LG-G need a little sermon of some sort when dealing with My Royal Young? There is no use tagging sock templates on MRY sock accounts as it only serves to glorify and feed the troll, yet he still keeps on doing so. Not to mention that his somewhat incoherent command of English makes it a tad of a pain in the rear to communicate with. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: yes, what happens like as User:My Royal Young sock are using Bully Troll Message and Personal attacks user talkpage on User:Areaseven, User:LG-Gunther and User:Iggy the Swan are getting like worst than vandalism and Personal attacks but User:My Royal Young sock is the Enemy User. LG-Gunther :  Talk  09:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not a clerk and I am not an admin or CU but it is my firm belief that LTAs like MRY deserve less attention than they are being given. There is no point in tagging, I'd question if there is even a point in having an LTA page for them since they're a garden variety, super disruptive troll who never edits for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'd say let an SPI clerk, or better yet, a CU deal with what should and shouldn't be on that page. Praxidicae (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) speaking personally, unless it is a sock that attempts to be constructive (i.e. the vandal fighter LTAs), I don’t tag for these reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw this discussion here and wanted to add to it. :-) When I identify and block accounts that are obvious LTA sock puppets, I only use the words "sock puppetry" as the reason in the block summary, and nothing more. No names, no explanation of the damage caused, no links to discussions or LTA pages, etc, - no details at all. I do it this way so that I don't give anybody any level of credit or satisfaction at all. Instead, I generalize it to hell, and make it sound as boring and uninteresting as possible to users who pass by. There have even been times in the past where I've rev del'd revisions and edit summaries where they've made a huge mess of things, just cited "WP:DENY" as the reason, and did so in order to anonymize and generalize it even more, and make it as uninteresting as possible... though I don't do it anymore unless it's really necessary (I guess you could call it an IAR use of rev del). It's one of the many things I do that absolutely rob them completely of any kind of achievement or fulfillment that they look for and would otherwise receive. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Level 4im warnings – please do not bite the newcomers

I support the removal of spam links from Wikipedia, but not your failure to respond when other editors question you about these removals, or your placing {{Uw-spam4im}} warnings on their user pages.

I refer to the following:

• Panpanpan123, question on your talk page, Uw-spam4im notice
• Jayischong, question on your talk page, Uw-spam4im notice
• Redhotmustang, question on your talk page, comment on your talk page, Uw-spam4im notice, message to you on user's talk page

In all these cases you have made no reply to reasonable questions from the editors. You have jumped immediately to the highest level {{Uw-spam4im}} warning, when a lower level warning seems appropriate, see WP:UWLEVELS. These are new editors, please read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Responding to new editors in this way is likely to deter new editors from contributing. With appropriate help and guidance they might become valuable contributors.

You have also immediately jumped to top-level warnings for other users in cases that appear inappropriate, including for Asimkumar Bairagya and Sgp357. We have multi-level templates for good reasons. While it is not always necessary to escalate through all the levels, it is rarely appropriate to jump to the highest level. Level 4 and Level 4im warnings assume bad faith, and in none of these cases do I see a reason to assume this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Verbcatcher, Praxidicae hasn't edited in a few days and I'm not sure you can expect a response. But we really don't have the volunteer resources to hold spammers' hands and teach them how to edit Wikipedia productively, nor would that even be a worthwhile effort. If someone's sole intent here is to spam their own website, they should be blocked, full stop. – bradv🍁 21:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this pass across my watchlist, thought I'd chime in; gotta say, it's a touch weird to be chastising Praxidicae for this; Link/blog refspam is a pretty big problem and wasting our time explaining to spammers why exactly they can't link to their blogpost on a site that's almost all reviews of products with affiliate links is just that, a waste of our time. None of Pradidicae's warnings here seem particularly inappropriate to me. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I too would've given them an only warning - If their only intention here is to spam their website across the site then it really is a waste of time telling them why they shouldn't, Skipping the bullshit saves everyone a lot of time and patience, I endorse Praxis actions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Verbcatcher, Looking at the contribs from the mentioned editors - in 2 of the 3 cases, it looks like the editor's sole purpose is to add links to a specific website. In the other case, there were productive edits as well as many edits that appear to me as... spammy, promoting 2 specific websites. In at least two of these cases, a sharp warning is completely warranted. SQL^{Query me!} 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) FWIW I wouldn't give blatant spammers like the three linked to, users who do nothing but post linkspam/refspam to the same website(s) on multiple articles, any warning at all, just report them as spam-only accounts, after that I would check if the same websites had been spammed multiple times by multiple users or IPs (there are tools for that), and if so request that the sites be blacklisted. The spammers are in 99.99% of all cases not new users, BTW, but repeat spammers using throw-away accounts, and in many cases "professional spammers" who spam Wikipedia for a living... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@SQL and Thomas.W:, I disagree.

• Panpanpan123 added several links to a London property agent's website. I accept that this is not a reliable source and there is a risk that this is spamming, but these may be bone-fide attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. When I find what I think is a useful source I sometimes add citations of it in several articles. This may be what this user is done.
• The main problem with Jayischong's edits is a probable conflict of interest (Jason Chong is named in the linked site). These appear to be well-intentioned attempts to improve these articles.
• Redhotmustang has made a relatively small number of edits over several years, and I see no reason to suspect that the edit in question was intended to introduce spam. This is clearly not a 'blatent spammer'.

We should not assume that new users adding external links are spamming. We should respond to editors' questions, if only with a curt link such as 'Please see WP:SPAM'. I see no reason to assume bad faith in these cases, so reverting and warning with {{Uw-spam2}} would be appropriate. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That all sounds nice, but we would need 10 times as many volunteers to do things that way, and the place would be overrun with spam. If you see merit to any of these added links, feel free to add them back in or start a discussion on the talk page. But since you don't seem to be involved with any of these articles, I'm not sure what your agenda is here. – bradv🍁 22:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Aye, we'll lay out the red carpet for people who take advantage of our volunteers' time, what could possibly go wrong? This is silly, honestly. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I became involved because I was watching Tavistock Square. My agenda is to encourage new editors by responding to their questions constructively and by assuming good faith. I am simply asking Praxidicae to reply to user talk page questions and to follow the warning notices guidelines. Why would that require 10 times as many volunteers? An appropriate warning is less likely to frighten off a potentially useful editor, and a professional spammer will ignore all warnings. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would maybe take this a little more seriously if Verbcatcher was particularly involved in fighting linkspam, but it doesn't seem that they are. This is continues to be a perplexing and weird request to make of someone, especially someone who is, by and large, pretty good at what she does. I'm glad someone cares so much about the feelings of blatant blogspammers, though, since I certainly don't. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, are you concerned about this editor? All their edits are straightforward search engine optimization links designed to increase traffic to their blog. We don't give escalating warnings to editors like that - they are here for only one reason. – bradv🍁 22:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I am concerned about any editor who seems to have been treated badly, and there appeared to be a pattern here. I support the reversion of these edits with a user warning, but I am not convinced that is was clear that they were made in bad faith. I am not focussed on linkspam, but I revert it when I find it, and have done so several times in Auto transport broker and Covenant University. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, I'm glad you are concerned about the mistreatment of editors. If you think that any of these editors deserve some sort of encouragement feel free to talk to them - no one will stop you. Praxidicae has considerable experience fighting spam, particularly cross-wiki linkspam, and I suspect she has learned, like most of us, that coddling spammers simply isn't worth our time, nor is it productive long term. Your help in these efforts is much appreciated, but please don't be overly critical of others' hard work in defending the wiki from spam. – bradv🍁 23:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would sincerely like to thank those who have spent their time and energy coming here to defend users like me who have only tried to add their small but honest contribution to Wikipedia. And, also, those who are fighting against true spammers.

My account -- I can't even remember the exact date anymore -- is, at least, 12 years old (according to my talk page). I'm mostly a user/reader of Wikipedia. My editor contributions -- which are small, I know -- are mostly to fix typos and/or rewrite sentences because I honestly dislike seeing typos and grammatical mistakes when I'm looking through an encyclopedia (out of all places online, that can't happen on Wikipedia). Not to brag or anything, but every year I donate some money to help this project. I just feel like I should, since I come here often to search and learn.

That said, and to add to my case: like I said before, the linked article I added as a reference has no kind of advertising, no promotional links, nor redirects, no pop-ups, nothing weird or scammy-looking things, just thousands of words of great and well written content completely relevant to the Wikipedia page in question. I found it on the first page of Google, at the very top. (It ranks #1 where I'm based.) I doubt it needs help getting more traffic. I doubt any referenced link in a random Wikipedia page will even see a considerable boost in traffic.

Honestly, do you really see me as a "blatant spammer"? Would I even bother coming here to ask Praxidicae why I got such an unpleasant warning and try to state my case? Wouldn't it be much easier for me just to create another account and continue spamming? Why would I waste my time trying to find why I did wrong? Does my profile reveal I've been actively inserting links everywhere on a consistent basis? Wikipedia articles have reference links, all of them, don't them? Are they all spam links? Why does the Wikipedia page I edited have a link to an e-commerce store and that link is not considered a spam link?

I understand and respect all of your arguments. But try helping a project you enjoy and receive such a type of accusation in return. Thank you for reading this and for your time contributing to Wikipedia.Redhotmustang (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Redhotmustang So, looking at both domains that you added frequently, they both look very very very similar (they use the same template, just with different colors). They were both registered with the same registar, around the same time, albeit hosted in different locations (not uncommon, I have machines at several companies myself). Then there's the website for the article you tried to start that was deleted. It sits on the same IP as one of those sites as well - and shares a registar with the others, and you may find the admin's name familiar. I'll ask the question outright, do you have a connection to these sites? SQL^{Query me!} 03:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have not been posting spam! I added more references and all information was sourced. All the information added was aimed at improving the Wikipedia page with new information. If the aim was spamming then I would not be commenting on this. I would appreciate some clarification on what constitutes "spam" as all referenced articles were researched and added to the existing page. Panpanpan123 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone trying to forcibly delete an artice

Hi, I consulted you earlier regarding creating a Wiki page for a personality I know. The subject's name is Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji. I created the page and it was edited and reviewed and finally accepted by a Wikipedia administrator. But soon after page got published, a user called ::Harshil169 is creating unnecessary problems. He changed the article title, and removed some content, and requested it to get deleted. I am trying to discuss with him the reason behind it, but he is not ready to discuss. He is engaging me in a war of words and complaining my behavior to other admins. I don't understand his problem. On the article talk page, his response clearly hints at some personal grievance he is having with the subject of the article. I am new at article creation. This is my first article which has been created with much research. I don't want someone to make spam edits or accuse me of a conflict of interest and get it deleted. Please help me to know what can be done to improve the protection level of the article page. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Praxidicae,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Miss ya

Looks like you've been away for a bit. Hope you're alright!

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help and/or suggestions to reinstate a page that was deleted last Dec.

Hello Praxideicae,

I had a page in my sandbox last year. The page was deleted for the reasons of self-promotion. I have my disclaimer listed on my profile.

As of this September, there is a new situation. The page that was deleted was about a document called the M1 Voucher. The M1 Voucher was released by an organization, Swissindo World Trust International Orbit. The organization itself never had a Wiki page and I couldn't create the organization page for the same reason as the one that was deleted - self promotion.

Since last year, someone unrelated to the organization created the page for the organization. It was published in September.

Now that the organization has a page, can related pages be created and linked to it? And can those related pages be created by someone affiliated with the organization?

To recap: My page that was deleted last year is the "M1 Voucher". The image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons still remains. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M1_Voucher_provides_a_monthly_lifetime_basic_income_guaranteed_by_Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit.jpg

The organization that now has a page in Wikipedia is "Swissindo World Trust International Orbit". They have linked to the M1 Voucher image on Wiki Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit

The M1 Voucher was created by Swissindo World Trust International Orbit. It is one of the main documents for which the organization is widely known. The M1 Voucher page is what I would like to reestablish now that there is a context for it.

Thank you for any help.

Penichette (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of my edits to: List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data

The history says you rolled back my edits as "original research", but after checking the WP:OR page and comparing my edits to the existing entries on the "List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data" page I can't see what the issue is. In particular, it seems that if the two entries I added aren't referenced enough to avoid a tag of "original research" then neither are at least half the entries on the page, so I have no idea what I need to add for them to stand. MikeStickles (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Let's not annoy everybody else by talking with each other on their pages. My concern is that admins should always leave a message when they block somebody. The exception are throw away and sock farms, maybe, where the effort to make the account is so small and the account is very likely to be abandoned. It is drilled into us admins that we have to explain blocks. (1) This helps observers understand what and why. (2) It helps the blocked understand specifically what they did wrong and how to avoid being blocked in the future. (3) It avoids controversies like the one we both just suffered. I hope we can better understand each other going forward. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)