Come on Prax!
Headbomb - for all I respect his editing generally - is talking out of his ass here. His interpretation of policy is flat-out wrong, you are in the right here - no need to retire! E-mail me if you wanna blow off steam. Girth聽Summit (blether) 18:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deliberate and willful misinterpretation of policy that is allowed to stand isn't okay and there's no point in editing if we don't have some standards. Between this silly debacle forcing yet another worthless deletion discussion that should've just been speedied and the daily doxing and harassment, I'm done. Editors time isn't valued and the pendulum has swung too far to the side of bureaucracy for the sake of it that nothing can be accomplished on this project anymore. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Girth Summit. Headbomb is incorrect about this specific matter and you are correct. Please reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've emailed you Prax. Again: Headbomb isn't an admin, he's allowed to be wrong about this stuff, we do have standards. I for one value your time and talents, particularly in the spam/SPI areas - we would be much weaker without you. Girth聽Summit (blether) 18:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even if I was an admin, I'd also be allowed to be wrong (not that I think I am here). Again, it's a minor disagreement about a shitty draft that's not going to be accepted anytime soon. Headbomb {t 路 c 路 p 路 b} 18:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- yes, nothing like telling a woman she's overreacting or being unreasonable to make this place more hospitable, especially after your already unhelpful comments have been removed.h PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about your gender, and didn't know you were a woman until you just told me. Headbomb {t 路 c 路 p 路 b} 18:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your inability to read the room is truly remarkable, Headbomb. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Telling anyone that they're overreacting when you have offended them is unlikely to help. As a man myself, I would be particularly careful not to speak like that to a woman, but that's just me. I've got a script installed that tells me the gender of an editor (if they have disclosed it) to help me use their preferred pronouns. If you're interested, I can poke around in my scripts and work out what it's called. Girth聽Summit (blether) 18:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about your gender, and didn't know you were a woman until you just told me. Headbomb {t 路 c 路 p 路 b} 18:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- No offense intended (seriously), but you are completely wrong on this one, both in terms of the letter of the policy, and in terms of the practice of how it is administered. You are correct that admins are allowed to be wrong, but only to a point - there are policies like WP:ADMINCOND which hold us to a higher standard than regular editors with regard to the adherence to policy, that's what I was getting at with my comment. Girth聽Summit (blether) 18:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- yes, nothing like telling a woman she's overreacting or being unreasonable to make this place more hospitable, especially after your already unhelpful comments have been removed.h PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even if I was an admin, I'd also be allowed to be wrong (not that I think I am here). Again, it's a minor disagreement about a shitty draft that's not going to be accepted anytime soon. Headbomb {t 路 c 路 p 路 b} 18:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Prax - tell me to piss off if this isn't welcome, but we continued talking about a few things at Headbomb's talk, he has accepted he was in the wrong about this area of policy. Just FYI really - do what you need to do, but I'll sure as hell miss you (and your seasonal sigs) if you go. Best wishes Girth聽Summit (blether) 19:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll read through it shortly. I want to note that regardless of my feelings about this, the intent of the creator of this draft needs to be examined, especially in light of the fact that aside from the single Beall's list source, their claim that the JSTOR citations support any single statement regarding the nature of the publication is an outright lie. I found evidence off-wiki that this is a revenge campaign but no evidence of the claims (and in fact found the opposite) and while my area of expertise is definitely not in academia of any sort, including journals, this reeks of someone scorned by this publication, especially in light of the fact that they clearly publish their ethics and editorial standards and apparently do not, in fact, take money for publication. While Beall's list is fairly trustworthy, I don't see any evidence they detailed why this appears nor can I find anything, anywhere about the supposed predatory nature of this journal outside of the screed written by one single person who appears to be taking their campaign across any websites that allow public submissions. Though interestingly enough, I found a bit about the conference potentially being a boondoggle but nothing that we could even remotely consider using on Wikipedia.
- You know I take a very hard line stance against spam/promo but I take an even harder line against blatant fabrications. Whether this journal is notable or not is irrelevant at this point since there's nothing in the current draft/article to save, nor do I know if it's legitimate and frankly, I don't care, but the reality is that there aren't sources supporting any of the statements in the draft except that it appears, and only just appears with no context on Beall's list. And after my two year long experience with dubious hoaxes which resulted in continued and ongoing legal battles, among other real life consequences for myself and others, I take an even harder stance against using kid gloves on exaggerated Wikipedia articles, whether they show the subject in good or bad light.
- Of course this doesn't address everything that lead to this or my frustration but might give you an idea of why this wasn't an overreaction and why I think Wikipedia(ns) needs a wake up call. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't want to re-open old wounds Praxidicae however I believe your off-wiki evidence that this is some sort of revenge campaign was just confirmed by the editor who made that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it even needed to be said, it was obvious from the start. Though that editors bad behavior in particular is not what caused this situation, but I'm not gonna open up old wounds. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't want to re-open old wounds Praxidicae however I believe your off-wiki evidence that this is some sort of revenge campaign was just confirmed by the editor who made that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For toughing it out, once again. Girth聽Summit (blether) 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
Tyler Brooker, Lisa Schettner, Ed Sadler
I think there may be a bigger issue than just an over-eager editor on Ed Sadler. Looking through Ryzen2014 edits lead me to the other two pages which seems include SPAs/SP and an editor purporting to be Tyler Brooker who questioned Ryzen2014 on why credit for a song was removed which Ryzen2014 immediately wiped from his page. Anyway, if you get a chance take a look at the three because not sure if this is SPI, COIN, ANI or BLP territory... or just seeing things that can be left alone. Slywriter (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Revert of Anthonie Palamedesz page
WTF Mimentalist (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
About the recent socks
Hey! I've noticed your page has recieved a sudden influx of attention from some socks. Is there anywhere I could report these accounts for quick action? For example, they just moved the Praxidice article page for the second time. Would WP:AIV be enough or is there somewhere else I should report these? Aidan9382 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye out - I'd prefer if they're left alone til an admin/oser can get to them so there's less logs. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with this application of DENY is that it prevents crowd-sourcing counter-vandalism at your talk page. In a perfect world, W?F would use some of that $35M annual profit to investigate and sue those responsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with this is a little beansy but I'll just leave it at less logs the better because it then requires OSers to oversight AIV and CSD logs聽:/ PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with this application of DENY is that it prevents crowd-sourcing counter-vandalism at your talk page. In a perfect world, W?F would use some of that $35M annual profit to investigate and sue those responsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Praxidicae,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP 鈥� New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
>NPP backlog: 13175 as of 19:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues with the Operation of ANI and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Question on your opinion on how good I do on making contributions?
On a scale from 1 to 10, (1 being the least good and 10 being the most good) how good do you believe I do on making contributions?
AmericanEditor350 (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Changes on Naa Gbewaa Article
You keep removing edits which are valid and authentic on the Naa Gbewaa page. Ghanaian books uses Naa Gbewaa not Na Gbewa. As named after the Naa Gbewaa interchange in the city of Tamale.
Similarly, Gbewaa birthed numerous children: Yennega, Shitobu, Tohagu, Zirile, Gmantambo, etc which are removed by you. These are mentioned on several sources including Tufts University pages on the Dagomba.
You should revert the changes. Ihikky (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't be doing that. We require verifiable, reliable sources. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Some serious stuff
Why you remove my whole draft without any warning? I need good reason because it not seems good to me. Is it legal?
Link: [1] L盲ngeBreitoben (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I explained clearly in my edit summary, why don't you read it? PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I read then I came here L盲ngeBreitoben (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is unclear about it? Also you said multiple times this is your second account, what is your first? PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, read your own talk page what people are staying about you. L盲ngeBreitoben (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- They all say I'm wonderful and a treasure, thank you for noticing. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You are doing this to everyone on Wikipedia. L盲ngeBreitoben (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is my second account. L盲ngeBreitoben (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @L盲ngeBreitoben - you say this is your "second account". Does this mean that you are operating two accounts simultaneously? firefly ( t 路 c ) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi Praxidicae! I was wondering if you could elaborate more on why you feel The Phillips Academy Poll violates A7 and G11. Though I'm not sure why User:Vergilreader keeps moving the page unilaterally, I also don't quite agree with your assessment that the page ought to be deleted. Can't wait to hear back! Randyshawn (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you were actually curious about the reasoning, you would've asked me before inappropriately removing the tags placed on a page created by a sock and also on an article you have a vested interest in. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly mean no disrespect, as you seem well versed in Wikipedia an all. However, I wonder why you assume I am a sock? WP:AFG. All that being said, I am genuinely curious about your reasoning. Randyshawn (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- How is it that you came across this page, as a brand new editor? PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are implying several things:
- That I am a sock of the user who keeps moving the page.
- That I have a conflict of interest.
- That the page violates A7 and G11.
- With regards to (1) it is just not so鈥攂ut then, I'm not sure what I can say that will convince you otherwise.
- With regards to (2) I am someone with an interest it, among other things, politics and polling. This struck my interest. As I am not a sock of the other account, I did not intend to push this into the mainspace without going through AFC.
- With regards to (3), which is the actual question up for debate here, I would love to hear your side.
- All that aside, you clearly have some valid concerns, that I just wish to clear up. I have no reason to be angry with you, and I hope we can continue in a civil manner. Randyshawn (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've outlined my side at the relevant AFD and filing. And yes, I do believe you're a sock. Whether you are the previous user that is blocked or WP:MEAT, I don't know, or care. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are implying several things:
- How is it that you came across this page, as a brand new editor? PRAXIDICAE馃寛 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly mean no disrespect, as you seem well versed in Wikipedia an all. However, I wonder why you assume I am a sock? WP:AFG. All that being said, I am genuinely curious about your reasoning. Randyshawn (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for Vandalizing wikipedia
I Promise I'll never do it again TheHsl2.0 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- somehow, I very much doubt that to be true. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 22:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Vanadlism by User:BetaWizard6742
Hi @Praxidicae:. Kindly look at the activities of user BetaWizard6742. They are vandalising several pages, with this, this, this and many others without having rights of page movers, reviewer. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Improving the draft
Hi @Praxidicae: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback on my draft. Link [2]. Can you please help me and give me more details on which lines of the draft are not neutral and which sources are unreliable? Thanks a lot. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Vkk27 (talk 鈥� contribs) 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Alon Shtruzman
I think there's some misunderstanding about latest changes to the page which were reverted. As far as concerns about promotional content among changes, those could have been singled out instead of removing rest of the information, which is accurate. GooseChase1 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yoga and Consciousness
Hi Praxidicae. Nice to meet you. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for reviewing this article and giving your suggestions. However, the references given were notable,independent,reliable,neutral with substantial coverage of topic. Could you please share your observations. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are none of these things - you are attributing medical and scientific opinions from unreliable sources in a completely non-neutral way. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 12:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response and observations. However if you point them I will remove them. I didnt edit anything from my side. Gardenkur (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you didn't edit the article yourself? Because that's concerning. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 13:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I edited myself. I meant I didnt add anything extra. If you show me the area of concerns I will remove them and will take care in future. Gardenkur (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Also with your good experience can I get help on one more article titled "Yogic Psychology" once I finish drafting. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend you read the warning I gave you about psuedo science. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 13:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks again for this suggestion. Will surely do. Have a nice day.Gardenkur (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Request restoration of page on Kamla Nath Sharma
Hi @Praxidicae, Thank you for your reply. I have contested the nomination for deletion of page on Kamla Nath Sharma on the following ground - After pruning and redrafting of several paras, only the material which is substantiated by published evidence has been retained, when compared with the original text of the page existing since more than a decade. The published work or the awards won, and organizations served have to be mentioned, which cannot or should not be considered 'promotion' category. This was earlier brought for 'speedy deletion' and on my request put as a draft for re-editing. The article has been written to mention a person, over 75 years old, who has worked as an engineer, as a writer in Hindi Literature and a researcher and writer from Sanskrit vedic texts - all three different fields. It has been reviewed several times earlier also, with no suggestion to delete. For an engineer references from third sources are difficult, may not be so for a scientist. It was agreed. The wise editors could help me in just deleting the material, which they still think appears as promotional. The other explanations I had given previously also regarding any violations etc. If still the editors are not convinced and insist on deleting it, I think that would be kind of injustice to the old man under reference. Regards. 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae, I had contested the deletion of the article on Kamla Nath Sharma and gave explanation of why the page on this gentleman who has done substantial work in three different fields in last 50 years or so, demonstrated by published work, should not be deleted. Hope, the review is under your kind consideration. Regards. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration request declined
The recent request for Arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined, as the Committee felt it was premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t 路 c ) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Double standards
I see you have nominated List of victims of the September 11 attacks for deletion. How ironic that you think it is unacceptable to have a list of names of those killed in 9/11, while proudly listing the names of those killed in police brutality in your userpage. This is yet another example of double standards being applied to the coverage of right and left wing violence in Wikipedia. 2409:4071:E91:B82C:0:0:4388:C708 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear IP, I invite you to fuck right off. PRAXIDICAE馃寛 17:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)