Praxidicae

Hi Praxidicae, I am a Belarusian journalist. I have no financial interest in editing Wikipedia. I am not paid, and I do not expect payment. I am the editor of several independent publications in Belarus and work with information in accordance with laws and journalistic ethics. I am not an employee. My interest is the creation of Wikipedia articles that will help to talk about the existence of IT companies in Belarus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikolaichuk (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Anikolaichuk, So it's just a coincidence that someone with your username has a #artezio instagram post? Also, if you are not affiliated with the company, then how can you claim this image as your own work? Sulfurboy (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again. I am the chief editor of Digital.report (https://digital.report/blogs/alex-nikolaychuk/). I write reports from conferences and speeches of various speakers. Instagram links are part of the overall work. This is not evidence of insider trading. As for the photo, it was uploaded by me for the Russian page of the company. I do not pretend to be its authorship and am not an author. I repeat, I have no personal interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikolaichuk (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, on my talk page you stated Nor have I ever interacted with this user. That is a lie, as clearly in [1] you had interacted with me, left a message that stated please stop abusing the help me template, when I wasn't even doing it to be disruptive (that is a big problem with people who oppose me), and you were clearly assuming bad faith on my part, and that doesn't start off very promsing.

Related to that, you then decide not to read my talkpage policies, and then regarding me as a "disruptive troll", which I am clearly against. I stated specifically in my talkpage policies for people not to assume bad faith towards me and regard my edits as disruptive (which has happened a lot with me in the past), and then two editors come over to my talk page and start spamming at their keyboards and type in bad faith messages which suggest I am a disruptive editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia, which is clearly prohibited and certainly not true according to all my contributions.

Now, please believe me, I am actually a very good person who does not have deny recognition, and I try to always make nice comments towards other editors. Also, I am very sensitive as to how people regard my personality, so if people regard me as a "disruptive troll who is only here to disrupt Wikipedia and threaten other uses", I take it very seriously and feel deeply threatened and develop WikiStress. And I am also still learning and getting used to Wikipedia's policies and I also feel very stressed when people just lash out on me, not knowing my actual personality, such as here when I didn't know you needed consent from a user to remove even your own comments from their talkpage. And yet they took as disruptive behaviour and then lashed out on me, and I felt very sad!

Now please don't take this message as personal or disruptive, but please adhere to it and don't repeat your mistake. So make sure you don't lash out and make comments about disruptive people who are actually good people! Once again, I am actually a good person with a very good personality and I try to always edit Wikipedia constructively, so please forgive me for my mistakes and I won't repeat them, but also learn from this message and don't assume bad faith towards, unless it is very obvious that I am making those contributions to disrupt Wikipedia (which is very unlikely because I'm a good guy!). Sent from C2A06 (About | Talk | Edits) 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really don't need a novel, do not ping me in your edits which have nothing to do with me. I don't know how to be more clear. If you don't want people to assume you're a troll, don't act like one. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not a troll, nor have I ever tried to act like one apart from in this little incident. I already stated this on my talkpage, but I will do it again here: I will never be disruptive and tag my edits with other editors. I promise not to repeat my mistake, and I feel very sorry for it. Thanks for accepting my reply and I hope you now forgive me! I am a good person, trust me! C2A06 (About | Talk | Edits) 14:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really don't need a novel? A "novel" is very important so you change your impression of me!!!! C2A06 (About | Talk | Edits)

C2A06, you're making matters worse at this point. I think the best course of action at this point is to avoid contact with Praxidicae and find a new project to work on. Bkissin (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@C2A06: I happen to come across this conversation you have, being called disruptive troll is definitely not the most pleasing things in the world. In fact I have seen many. The WP:BITE is a reflection on things like this, when a good faith new comer experience misunderstandings or sometimes strong judgement from veteran editors. Many of us have been there. Please absolutely don't feel sad. One editor, regardless of how experience they are, how good faith they are, might misunderstand you, might overreact to mistakes(even if it's a mistake) of you that lead to their misperception of your intention, and sometimes they just have a bad day in their life or wikiland, that they don't have additional patience for a newcomer, just like when you watch team sports.

My suggestion to you, is don't feel too bad about one person's judgement. Have confidence in your own intention, but do look for suggestions on what potential mistakes you have made or miscommunication in the process. If you have checked them all and still believe nothing have went wrong on your side, then don't worry about it. Let it go. Checkout WP:FOC. You are not the first one.

And, at the end of day, I believe both you, @C2A06:, and @Praxidicae: are here to contribute to Wikipedia with good faith. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm on Wikipedia to fight spam, please unblock me.

I was just tagging this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Sokowicz

Please i mistakenly remove it, help me put the picture back without removing the deletion check i don't know how to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izueke chijioke (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you want to re-add the image to Paceloti, you just need to add the code that was removed (in this case, [[File:Rich paceloti.jpg|thumb|paceloti coming out of show in january 2020]]). When you do that, you should not remove the other text on the page. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply

@Izueke chijioke, cease and desist from bothering Praxidicae, take all your arguments here or bother me instead, I nominated the article for deletion. The editor who owns this page attends to more demanding issues.Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Celestina007, your rebuke is rather unnecessary; Izueke asked a reasonable question; they seem to be a new editor and probably didn't even realize they had removed the AFD template. This is the only post they have made here, so I don't know why it would be considered "bothering". Primefac (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Primefac, I’m sorry about that Primefac. Apologies @Izueke chijioke, please feel free to ask me anything if or when you need directions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Celestina007, ok dear but please delete the nomination for article deletion and tell me what to do so that it wont be nominated again please am begging you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izueke chijioke (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wyatt Kahn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  08:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ravi Nitesh Srivastava, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's enough to indiciate notability sufficient to require an AfD discussion, and it's not overtly spammy. Thank you. GedUK  09:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm not sure why you nominated the Bray Ketchum page for speedy deletion? The criteria state "When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time". The original page was deleted because it failed to provide any independent significant coverage, but I had added articles from 5-7 different sources specifically to address that problem.

Cheers

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felice_Cappa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafferugly (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Praxidicae, I have noticed that you placed a speedy deletion tag on the above named article, and I believe that the issues raised with the original content have been addressed. There are several in depth mentions of the firm in several notable Nigerian publications and the subject meets WP:GNG / WP:NCORP and has WP:CORPDEPTH. At least 20 strong references were cited in the article including these ones from the Guardian Newspaper here, and their work on the takeover of a Nigerian firm by Coca-Cola was also documented in another leading Newspaper, ThisDay here. Moreso, the article is written in an unbiased manner from an objective POV. If there are issues with some of the terms used, I would appreciate if those items were flagged for corrections to be made, however, I do believe that it was written in the same manner as other law firms, which can be found on wikipedia and the references cited are strong.Ponlegbile (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aelex Partners, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's a lot more sources than the last version of the article, which might indicate notability. I don't think it's especially spammy. Needs to go back to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  19:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Irrfan Khan died just few hours back, and the news of his death is leading the page Irrfan Khan vandalized at a crazy rate, kindly add the protection to the page so that they can't vandalize this Thanks 2402:3A80:901:E333:A846:E00A:2AF1:FACB (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Praxidicae is not an administrator and can't protect pages, however looks like this was already done by an administrator. Next time you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. – Majavah ^(t/c) 10:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae,
I saw you once deleted a page on igwiki so hopefully you can help me as I need to find an admin there and could not locate a list on the wiki.
The issue I have is for the same case that @Bédévore: brought up in a previous message to you: I have seen through Wikidata that an article from the same sockpuppet she pointed out has been created (Ahlem Fekih) which has been deleted as not meeting criteria on multiple WPs including here. Your guidance to address this is much appreciated. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it on IG wiki, i will do some more cleanup :) Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, by the way a patroller named AntonierCH says the primary account told him on Twitter he is some kind of digital manager for clients in Tunisia. Which is pretty much... was we (RC patrol) thought he was when we first investigated in August 2019. Kind regards, -- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 16:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, unfortunately I can't go into more detail because of WP:OUTING but you're pretty much spot on. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Praxidicae,

Regarding your move of Article (publishing), in the future, when you move a page, can you leave a redirect? There were lots of redirects to that article that were broken because there was no redirect from the old location to the new one. If you leave a redirect after a move, then one of our helpful bots can change the redirects to the new page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind if I copy your userbox to decorate my userpage? Ninjaediator (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you tagged the page Jazzfeezy for speedy deletion with the reason "G4 repost of deleted content". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article is not a substantial copy of the previously deleted article. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, proposing the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or taking the page to WP:AFD for discussion on the merits. Thanks! Template:Z5 Stifle (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stifle, the G4 tag was appropriate because Praxidicae needed an admin to see if it was the same content. You're right that it's not the same - it's substantially worse. But it is created by the same author, has no new reasons why it should be considered notable, and does not address the concerns of the previous AfD. It does seem like a waste of the community's time to run it through AfD again. – bradv🍁 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that it was a bad tag, but explaining here why I haven't deleted it. The replacement article contains more references and more releases, so I can't see G4 applying here I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stifle For my own edification, which of these sources are "new" (and reliable) that did not exist at the prior AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The previous deletion was in July 2017, so anything since then. The new article has 74 references and the deleted one had 20. I am not in a position to assess each and every one of them individually for reliability.

Again, the test for G4 speedy deletion is that the reposted article must not be "substantially identical" - it is a high bar, as are all CSDs, because of the express process. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Almost 20 of them are YouTube links. If you're going to decline it for a specific reason, will you please provide me (a lowly non-admin) with a few specific examples of what sources are new and improved, Stifle? Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was just gearing up to do it the slow way via AfD, but Primefac seems to have zapped it. There really were no sources there at all aside from self promotion, UGC fan sites and passing mentions... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Indeed (re: GS). "Substantially different", sure, but the issues that led to it being deleted twice at AFD are still valid - there is no demonstration of WP:MUSICBIO and the reference list is just silly (a quick glance will show 90% of them are useless). I'm happy to kick it to Draft if someone wants to take ownership. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply

did you work in wikipedia for money in protection some pages i hear it's a legal way ?--FCBlinder (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

FCBlinder I don't know what you're asking but I assume it's something about being paid, take a look at my edits and figure it out for yourself.the answer is no Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

okay but is it legal ?--FCBlinder (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

FCBlinder If you're going to ask asinine questions could you at least do me the courtesy of doing so in a legible way? Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

i'm sorry but i'm not perfect in English, sir i just ask some questions to know some information !--FCBlinder (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

FCBlinder I'm not sure what sort of answer you expect from a question that no one can understand. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• @FCBlinder: please ask your question in your native language. Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• @FCBlinder: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, accepting payment must be disclosed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Riya Sokół, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  10:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Xavi Simons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G3 clearly doesn't apply. G4 doesn't either as it's considerably different than last time with many more sources, which are definitely enough to pass A7. Needs to go back to AfD . Thank you. GedUK  11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You were right. I cut-and-pasted wrongly. Can you please direct me towards an easy-guide to AFD? I'm busy with other things and need quick-clear directions. Cencen really needs an AFD, and she's apparently recruiting friends to re-post her personal information to justify what's really a non-notable BLP. Thanks so much. BlueSapphires (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Install Twinkle or follow WP:AFDHOWTO. I suggest waiting until you're not busy.Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Will do (on the wait). Cheers, BlueSapphires (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Why did you roll back my change on the brazilian jiu jitsu article? I put my reasons for the change both on the talk page and on the edit. I'm interested to see how you think the line adds anything to the article. v/r BasicsOnly (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

1.) I didn't roll it back, I undid it. 2.) as I said, it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Wholesale removing content is unacceptable without a very concise reasoning. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• It's very well known in the BJJ community that that's not an actual controversy. It's simply incorrect information. Do one or two people probably believe it? Sure. Out of tens of thousands of practitioners. It's not even a substantial minority opinion. The brazilian jiu jitsu talk page seems pretty dead and nobody responded there when I asked about changing it. I'm trying to get this to GA status instead of the C status it's at now. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

So discuss it on the talk page and get consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

If I don't get a response on the talk page in 24 hours I will remove the line again. Nobody has been active on the talk page since 2017 and Martial Arts is my subject of expertise. I am not going to wait around when I have pages to clean up and articles to improve. If you have any good solid reason to object to the change please feel free to add it to the brazilian jiu jitsu talk page in the next 24 hours. Thank you. V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is not how consensus works. A day, or even two, is not sufficient time to let people weigh in. I don't care about the topic and won't be commenting but you should wait for someone else to comment. You've not presented a compelling reason to remove the content. Praxidicae (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not correct information. It's that simple. It also adds nothing to the article. It's as if someone commented in an article on daniel craig under early life that "his parents named him Daniel. Some other people argue that name is not a good fit and he should be named Adam instead." It's an artificial controversy, it's inaccurate, and it's not even an interesting or value adding part of the article. It's just pointless word count fluffing. BasicsOnly (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Praxidicae, I made changes to the article in the headline and removed the COI tag you placed there. I would appreciate your feedback. Best, Pratat (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

And I've restored the tag as I'm wary of a brand new user swooping in to remove it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

That seems like extremely biased reasoning, could you please elaborate on whats left to clean up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratat (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Surely you would be skeptical of a brand new user joining and every single major edit they've made to mainspace is removing COI/UPE tags. Why don't you clean it up and then let another editor determine whether the tag should remain or not. Also sign your talk page edits. Praxidicae (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would look at the actual changes made and decide on merit and not based on the user. And if I though something else I would have called for reduction of rights to non-admin users so that they cannot remove tags at all, and if not - I would have worked withing the framework of Wikipedia's policies. Secondly, if I spend time on clearing complicated backlogs, I find it extremely unpleasant and uncivil to receive such comments from you. As for the matter on hand, I expect you to tell me what problem with the page merited restoring the PE tag so I could rectify it, or are you insisting on saying that merely the fact that it was me who removed it makes it illegitimate>? Pratat (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm suggesting that given the fact that you've been editing for barely 3 weeks, you lack the adequate understanding of policy and guidelines as they pertain to making such decisions. Not coddling you or giving you the answer you want doesn't it make it uncivil, but similarly, I find your tirade here tiresome, so if you'd see yourself out, that'd be great. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can’t remember when I was as belittled as I was by you, and with no justification whatsoever. Will stop my “tirade” here Pratat (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Praxidicae,

I just added Mailfence to this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address under subadressing. However, you have taken it down because of spam. I would like to know the reason behind it. I made sure that I cited correctly and hyperlinked the contribution correctly and nothing I included should be considered as spam. Looking forward to hear from you soon.

Kind Regards, Jawaad

My apologies, I realize now that it's not really spam but you really shouldn't be linking to individual developers blogs. Praxidicae (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dearest Praxie <3, Tonyßaloney, and Drmiez,

I wish my friends and their family excellent health, prosperity and good wishes. --ㅣㅇ8 2五2 ㅣ37 219 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I hope you're staying safe and healthy as well!<3 Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48 Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Someone made this page for me many years ago when I was competing at international level. Lately some sad bitter person called BlueSapphires has decided to attack it regularly. Is there a way to just delete it before I lose it? I don’t want to waste too much time making an account just so someone doesn’t write random untruths about me on a very public page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronika_Cencen Ronicencen (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)Ronicencen, You can't request a deletion of your own article. However, I've nominated the page for deletion as you're not notable under Wikipedia's standards. Also, your comment in which you call a fellow editor "some sad bitter person" can broadly be construed as a personal attack and is not welcome here, see WP:PA Sulfurboy (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sulfurboy, for the record the subject of an article can request deletion of the article. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply

Primefac, I assume this means they can request it, but that request wouldn't guarantee deletion if it passes verifiability/notability concerns? I probably could have phrased what I meant better. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Correct. I suppose the addendum to your exact wording is "...own article and expect it will automatically be deleted". Primefac (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to check their history of what they’ve called me, I’ve had my fair share of personal attacks Ronicencen (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some of the edit history they’ve made verges on libel and had plenty of false information as well. If they really are an editor I suggest you keep an eye on them Ronicencen (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sharon Green Middleton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Green Middleton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beritagsier (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't usually write here on Wikipedia, I am a moderator and active writer on the [mask and respirator wiki], but after I saw that article I was really surprised at how incomplete, inaccurate and especially anglo-centric it was. I have original booklets, manuals and a bunch of original pieces. I'm trying to lend a helping hand, you reverted all my edits even though you only saw a mistake in the last one. Please, avoid doing that in the future unless there is a real mistake JeromeZP (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:NOR. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The books I base most of my information on are secondary sources (even though old). I'll try to at least remove the worst stuff JeromeZP (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

His history is in the "ALMANACH DE GOTHA" published in 2013 Volume I, with ISBN 978-0-9575198-2-4. Please put his list of decendents back in.23:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Callelinea (talk)