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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 29Auto-archiving period: 14 days

I see this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Izzat_Dajani how I can fix this draft to be accepted!

"NO" is a perfectly valid reason for editors like you. You can't continue to revert editors without a valid reason or you might be blocked. ภץאคгöร 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic coming from someone who has been engaging in a slow burning edit war on a highly controversial article for 3 days. Feel free to report me if you think I've edit warred. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also based on your block log and comments in edit summaries and here, you should rethink your approach before you wind up indefinitely blocked for chronic incivility and your strange battleground behavior. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility? I definitely presented a more formal writing and a valid reason than your edit summary. Where did that "incivility" come from? Are you going to prolong your false accusations by telling me about a block from 2 years ago? Everyone is free to report anything, you know. Stay within your limits. It looks like I've more knowledge on the topic unlike you as I can understand the language and I've read the source. You shouldn't disrupt the article without even reading it first. And "no", it was on 6 June only, and was a different topic. Your comments make you look suspicious in addition to your incivil edit summary. I'm not the one who brushed somebody off, and that's why I'm not going to contact you again. ภץאคгöร 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any further accusations about my behavior should be backed up with a diff at WP:ANI. Otherwise, goodbye. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think people like this (not this one specific case; this approach is not rare) honestly believe they are clearly 100% in the right, and you are clearly 100% in the wrong? And that any dispassionate observer would immediately agree? Or are they generally just playing a "best defense is an over-the-top offense" game, and figure it's worth a shot? The way they're playing it, even if they'd been right, they'd have been wrong, if you know what I mean. Puzzling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He who shouts the loudest gets heard? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe they've seen aggressive approaches work, and think that's how it's done? —valereee (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

) Love the new signature! Bkissin (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same :) Looks good Praxidicae. doktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them coming! Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —valereee (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+ another 1. Your creativity reminds me of a page-a-day calendar - or in your case page-a-week :-) I look forward to the next one and enjoy being able to flip back to previous delights. Thanks Praxidicae. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Praxidicae! By chance I came across very good reviews about you and about your work on Wikipedia. I am a fairly experienced user of the Russian-language Wikipedia, I have the status of "auto-confirmed participants, loading, rolling back, patrolling" participants. I really want to develop in the English-language Wikipedia, to be useful, to implement interesting and necessary articles from Kazakhstan here. I am at a studio for learning English, so creating articles, and most importantly, challenging the verdicts of administrators is very difficult for me. I would really like to find an English-speaking friend and mentor. I am a very diligent and responsible student. I am ready to help with articles, search for the blind, learn, correct my mistakes. Now I need help to improve the articles of two Kazakhstanis that the country is proud of. They have put Kazakhstan on the world's innovation card. Perhaps you could take your time and share some tips and tricks. The administrator who transferred my articles to Draft, unfortunately, did not respond to my message. Thanks in advance! And I apologize for the disturbance. Deviloper (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what aspect of the Mrs Hinch page you perceive as "clearly promotional"? To me it simply reads as a summary of the available facts, and I've meticulously referenced everything listed on the page. I found a draft and made it live, adding to it, because I looked for information about her on Wikipedia and was shocked that such a major figure had no article. The idea that I'm somehow interested in promoting her is quite bizarre to me because the whole thing arose simply because I knew nothing about her and was surprised I could find no information on Wikipedia.

To be honest I think this reeks of the elitist attitude of many Wikipedia editors and their belief that some subjects are inherently more valid than others. You seem to think a page about a social media influencer is too low brow to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, despite her being a major public figure and author of bestselling books. I'm not sure why you think this is not a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not going to address this or provide any explanation for your edits? They seem to me to border on Wikipedia vandalism. They are certainly intensely America centric. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of vandalism is a personal attack. I explained clearly in my edit summaries which you've reverted while logged out and in violation of the giant notice that says you may not remove the tag. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of editing while logged out is also a personal attack, as well as being false. You provided absolutely no explanation of how the page could be considered purely promotional, and obviously you couldn't provide such an explanation, because it wasn't. I don't even understand how you could have reached that utterly bizarre conclusion in the first place. Fortunately someone else with some sense has now confirmed that you were wrong. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say, a big Thank YOU for dealing with (yet another) "psycho-warrior" on 1st June trying to change my bio.

I have already had to endure changes from the likes of Moist Towlett, NomedA etc whom are part of the UK security services and have long deleted the major parts of my career.

These people now make up stories of a very nasty nature pure and simple because I support in a quiet way better dialogue between UK/Russia and US/Russia.

Thank you again for stopping further serious defamation. MGB 2A00:23A8:983:6D01:7909:63A8:F375:7FCF (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time can you look into the editing of Special:Contributions/Kendalandrew? Something about it worries me. What I can make out is that the account's focus seems to be to write extensive prose, often via original research and dubious sources, on Russian involvement in British politics, including their page creations (see first revisions of them before my/others' removals, example). That alone is concerning but since it's BLP territory I think it needs a closer look from someone experienced. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this thread at ANI that you have been involved in. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For your works against spam and being a source of inspiration to me. Thanks Praxi. It’s an honor to watch you edit. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]