User talk:Praxidicae

This is Praxidicae's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

Request for Draft:Jude Odele review

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

Jimei Bridge

W submitted Draft:Jimei Bridge, declined, and then went ahead and created Jimei Bridge as an article. Is there a proper way to get rid of the draft? David notMD (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using Template:db-self I presume. That's what I did. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAUL band page

User:Jalfano73

Your comments on 3/27: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Hi Praxidicae! Sorry to bother with this, and I realize you've reviewed multiple times already. However, i am at a loss with the latest comments. Are you saying that i just don't have enough sources and/or those provided aren't credible enough? If so, do i just need more? I can't do anything about the quality of the coverage. I am merely relaying what i have available to me. Are there any other issues?

Again, my apologies. Doing my best with the feedback in hopes that once and for all i can get this page approved. Thanks in advance for your time, energy, and support.

Joe A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfano73 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Any feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfano73 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Submission for "team workers"

Hi. Hope this is the right channel to correspond on an article review .

Earlier today you have reviewed and declined my post for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Team_workers, and I wanted to verify I understand the reason correctly and the means to rectify.

The Decline states: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarize information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

If I understand this correctly - I cannot write this article, as I am part of the initiative that came up with concept of "team workers". If I got it correctly, please help me figure out what are the possible steps to rectify. I would assume that anyone else that is part of the initiative would not be neutral. Would someone else that adopted the concept be considered neutral ? somebody that has published other articles and may rephrase it neutrally? Or perhaps the problem is with a "too personal point of view" of the article (if it is written in a too personal note, I fail to see it, but perhaps it is since I'm looking from the inside)

Thanks much for the quick response,

 Guy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybrandw (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Davangere Devanand

Hi,

I noticed that you redacted the revisions made to Dr. Devanand's page. I work with him and he has requested that I use similar information to his biography on the Columbia Psychiatry website that I wrote; I did not cut and paste it directly. It is difficult to paraphrase awards, where he went to medical school, etc. To my knowledge, I properly cited the source of where this information is coming from. Can you provide some further instruction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.1.17 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why removing text from Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani

Hello,

Can I please ask why you are removing the text from the above article? Everything that has been written has been referenced. If no other information allowed to be entered into this article then why have the page? Please could you let me know, thank you.

88.108.138.36 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Rizwan[reply]

Draft:Fotoworks XL

I know this draft has been deleted multiple times as spam, but I think the author has finally achieved a version that is not overly promotional. And I'm not sure what page you claim a copyright violation for, since you didn't list one. I'd argue that the present draft is actually OK (as a draft -- it's clearly not ready for publication and may never be). I would remove the speedy deletion tag on my own, but I wanted to consult with you first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Praxidicae. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New In Wikipedia

I am new in Wikipedia. The copyright problem is solved. Please remove the template. Smnsbd1971 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re. submission on "Fleecehold".

Dear Praxidicae.

Earlier today you declined the submission "Fleecehold", and you wrote that "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article".

I had used the Wikipedia article "Neoliberalism" as my model. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

If the Fleecehold submission reads like an essay, then the Wikipedia article on Neoliberalism reads far more like an essay, yet it has of course been published. I have used the Encyclopaedia Britannica for fifty years and it, of course, is full of extremely helpful essays.

Would you be so kind as to pass the Fleecehold submission to a number of impartial editors for close evaluation, please?

Thank you.

Ioscrivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ioscrivo, I took a quick glance at your sandbox and the article you mention. A few thoughts:

Neoliberalism is a 100+ year-old term, while fleecehold is only about three years old
That article was published in 2002, and our standards have changed wildly since then. It does read more like an essay, and probably could use a good trim.

Your draft, to be honest, just goes into way too much detail. You have huge quote blocks and paragraphs of text for relatively straight-forward concepts; it's almost half as long as the neoliberalism article! For example, you dedicate an entire section to not only the etymology of "fleecehold" but also "to fleece"; I'm not saying it shouldn't have a section, but I could probably manage to give that definition in a paragraph — something along the lines of fleecehold is a portmanteau of "to fleece" and "freehold"... followed by a quick definition or description of the two terms.

Given the relatively new emergence of this term, I can't quite say whether it's a neologism or not (i.e. whether it will actually gain traction or just be a "fad" word), but it does seem to show up in a fair number of publications. I think if you seriously trimmed down the draft (I hesitate to tell you to just start over, but it's also an option) it would stand a much better chance of being accepted. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Rachel Hart

The editor for that article appears very experienced, and came around to COIN asking about getting the UPE tag removed. I almost bought it but now realize it really does look like a duck. There are four or five related articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's actually a handful of other accounts I found but appear to have misplaced the info. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to Enterprise Architecture page

Hello Praxidicae,

On 19 July 2018, you reverted to edits to the Enterprise Architecture page made by Eddiexx77. I'm taking a look at the edits and they were made in good faith and were well referenced. Could you explain why those edits should have been reverted? Nickmalik (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Hi, Care to explain why you reverted my edits on those 3 pages ? (this and 2 others) do you always just do that without checking ? the nominator didn't even know how to nominate a page for deletion, he created One AFD for all those 4 pages without even mentioning the other 3 which was rejected, and even himself apologized for nominating them. there was no reason to keep that in the page. Mohsen1248 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's my Duty

Being a wikipedian, I should check what wrong is happening and they should get their reward!! NotTfue123 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NotTfue123 No, it's not your duty as a 6 day old account to involve yourself in sock puppetry tagging. Praxidicae (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also please explain this edit. Praxidicae (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some one mailed me that Materialscientist was responsible for Tyler Rogers hijacked article.NotTfue123 (Talk)

Please don't dominate :P, Still I am AdministratorNotTfue123 (Talk)