User talk:Axad12

For your Mohseen Moosa work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your consistent and helpful work at WP:COIN. C F A 💬 03:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12, thank you for your excellent work figuring out the socking, and the longer history. I noticed that you left a blank comment to my question re: UPE or garden variety COI. I'd very much like to know your thoughts on this. After I started investigating some of the shenanigans from the older SPI from years ago, I am wondering if it's not persistent UPE. Netherzone (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your excellent work at COIN and for working with others to clean up promotional content to keep the encyclopedia promo and spam free. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my contribution? It satisfies all the guide-lines... this is unfair, there is no reason to remove it AlgebraIsLife (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have previously made the reasons for this clear in my edit summaries and on the talk page. The material in question has now also been recently removed by an administrator and had previously also been removed by another user, MrOllie. The WP:CONSENSUS is therefore against you.

MrOllie issued you with a warning earlier today and the administrator issued you with a final warning about half an hour ago. If you add the material to the article again it appears that you will be blocked from Wikipedia altogether. I would suggest that you give up this campaign before it ends badly for you. Axad12 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? A threat? Shame on all of you! Don't worry, I'll delete my account, because this community doesn't deserve such a contribution. AlgebraIsLife (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad- thanks for your messsage, I removed topics from over a decade back. I note you mentioned that I deleted the talk page comments, if I may ask what is the best way to archive them? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure as I've never felt the need to do so. I don't see any problem in allowing old talk page discussions to remain in place. Deleting them seems to demonstrate a lack of respect for other users. Please note that while users can delete material from their own talk pages, they are not allowed to do so from article talk pages. Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More important to focus on the fact that this user has only made 50 edits (and only 23 in mainspace), than that they registered 14 years ago. They're a newcomer. If we take it in good faith that they didn't see the talk page warnings I gave them a few days ago, I don't think there's anything to complain about right now. Ignorance of the law is an excuse, and they haven't attempted to add back the references I removed.

(If Einstein did return from the dead and naively attempted to add some of his papers as footnotes and create a sandbox draft about his concept album, not realising that he wasn't allowed to do that, I really hope that we'd put him right on that and hope to keep him on board, rather than drive him - and anyone he talks to about his experience with Wikipedia - away.) Belbury (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I do take your point.

To be honest, though, I felt that the user's intervention only demonstrated his strong tendency for self-promotion. This user has apparently written over 100 works, but if no non-conflicted member of the human race has had the inclination to add them to the encyclopaedia then it cannot really be being hurt by their omission.

And how can he not have seen the talk page warnings if he made a COI edit request the day after receiving your note suggesting (amongst other things) that he do just that? Axad12 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. They posted Why are you reverting my minor edit on my talk page after I'd already posted four warnings on theirs, so may have missed or misunderstood the notifications.

I also get where you're coming from and do very much agree that from their edit history they're probably just here to add content about themselves. But the WP:AGF approach is to let it play out, that despite the self-promotion the community might decide - fully bearing the COI in mind - that they have a point about this one article benefitting from this one reference. (I know nothing about the subject myself, it just ended up on my watchlist for some reason.)

If their request is politely rejected and shown to be unnecessary, they'd hopefully accept that and stop. But if they feel like the rejection is (even just partly) because Wikipedia has unfairly classed them as some terrible thing that they're not, they might decide they can ignore the ruling and escalate it to some other tactic or noticeboard. WP:AGF and WP:BITE is as much about protecting ourselves from needless kickback, as well as to other editors downstream. Belbury (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the user has always been devoted solely to self-promotion. I really don't think it would serve any purpose to encourage them in that regard.

I believe that I've tried to explain the relevant points of policy throughout the thread (primarily for the user's benefit although he was essentially absent until recently). Unfortunately he seems to have viewed that discussion as a mildly amusing waste of his time, on the basis that he is an eminent academic and should be allowed to do whatever he pleases and other Wikipedians should just do whatever he wants.

I have to say that I strongly disagree with his estimation of the situation and I believe his intervention (in the form that he made it) was exceptionally ill-advised.

I can see that there is an argument at this point that it would be better if a decline decision was to be relayed by you rather than me, is that something that you would be prepared to take on? Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I know nothing about the subject! I couldn't tell you whether this was the crowbarring of a laughably minor paper, or something of genuine use and relevance. The article just fell onto my watchlist somehow.

I'd just leave it for someone else to resolve, however long that might take. Might be worth putting a {{Collapse top}} around our side conversation about edit requests so that whoever closes the request can navigate the discussion more easily, if you felt like doing that. Belbury (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current impression is that the user's most recent contribution has left no option but for the request to be declined. Axad12 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belbury, just a note to say that I've now suggested (at the relevant talk page) a compromise solution which will hopefully satisfy all parties. Thank you for your contributions here, which have had a significant impact on my thoughts on the general situation.

Following our rather brief previous interaction (on the situation in relation to Noor Stores) you are someone whose opinions I have held in very high regard and your contributions here and elsewhere are much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Noor was actually a case that had some of that needless kickback - they quickly saw me as an enemy and went as far as mildly doxxing a long-standing editor that they'd decided I was a sockpuppet of. In retrospect I should have leaned back a bit and waited for a wider pool of other editors to respond, rather than replying quickly to their points. Belbury (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right. The best piece of free advice that I ever received on WP (from a very kind-hearted soul) was that it's best not to engage with thread subjects directly and instead to refer to them only in the 3rd person (to avoid over-personalisation and back and forth quickfire argument). This also results in (hopefully) a greater pool of respondents.

Unfortunately that all fell out of the other ear some while ago, but your words above have reminded me that it should be somewhere near the top of my personal checklist while operating here.

At the very least I should have something like [I take a different view, but I'll wait to hear what other contributors have to say] as an available cut and paste option at all times.

Grateful if you could pitch in briefly on the compromise suggestion as I'm hoping to get that all resolved sooner rather than later.

Thank you again, Axad12 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for "compromise" here, to be honest! Either it's a useful footnote or further reading link that people agree improves the article, or it's not.

If your position is that you think it's actually okay as a reference but you don't want to be seen to be giving Michael.greenacre the green light to add their papers to other articles, I don't think that needs to be framed as a "compromise". Just accept the request and emphasise that they are still required to follow WP:COI and make edit requests in future. That the acceptance is of that one edit to that one article, rather than an approval of the paper for all future purposes.

It's also not really clear to me whether if any future similar requests are made they will be assessed solely against the contents of the relevant Wikipedia policies is you saying that those requests would each be viewed neutrally on their own merits, or dismissed out of hand under WP:SELFCITE. So presumably even less clear as guidance to Michael.greenacre! Belbury (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my intention (in the 2nd part of the suggestion) was that he needed to diversify his activity somewhat to allay any further suggestions of SELFCITE/CITESPAM etc, in which case policy objections to further inclusions would no longer exist. That was, to my mind, the best outcome that could arise.

Apologies if that was not clear. Axad12 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12 – I hope you are well!

Thank you for taking a look at the A. Gary Klesch article and stripping out much of the unsourced information. I wanted to ask if you would be happy to look at some recommended updates I have made at Talk: A. Gary Klesch aimed at improving the second half of the article and updating it with the latest figures and a more neutral tone.

Any feedback you are able to share and improvements you can make would be appreciated.

Thank you Rosalyn15 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12,

Would you please take review the following suggested edits for Dafna Lemish: T

Thank you! TheBlueHeronofHopewell

• In the second paragraph, replace: "She serves as the Dean of the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts, at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale." and "Lemish is Associate Dean for Programs at Rutgers University in New Jersey." with the accurate statement: "She is the Interim Dean and Distinguished Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at the Rutgers School of Communication and Information in New Brunswick, New Jersey."[1]
• References
  1. ^ Lemish, Dafna. "Dafna Lemish to Lead the School of Communication and Information as Interim Dean". Rutgers School of Communication and Information. Retrieved July 30, 2024.

TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now hopefully resolved at the relevant article talk page. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Edit requests, a project with the aim of reforming the process of edit requests and assisting in the process of making edit requests, as well as responding to them. Simply click here to accept! Encoded  Talk 💬 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encoded  Talk 💬 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your collapse and clutter[1], it's not a clean way to edit wikipedia and its becoming a disruptive time sink for your fellow editors (how many discussions are there now about it? Two? Three?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had discussed [2] with the user who reverted me, and they said they weren't troubled one way or the other if I re-collapsed the material. I had support in that regard from another user (user:GreenLipstickLesbian), so I went ahead and re-collapsed.

I'm not really sure how that can be described as a disruptive time sink. As far as I can see I've behaved here in an entirely appropriate manner.

However, I'm sure that you and I are on the same side re: our thoughts on the COI situation and both want to see it resolved appropriately.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future don't recollapse until you actually have consensus to do so (which means opening a discussion on the article talk page, not on a user talk page), Graywalls wasn't going to keep arguing with you but they weren't agreeing with you, thats key. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axad12, I came here to ask you to please stop collapsing sections of the COIN report, but I see a thread has already been added. I think the entire discussion needs to be present, in order and visible, in the event that an admin will actually eventually read it and take action. To my way of thinking about community here, I believe that All the voices and comments are relevant. Without all this content, nuance is lost, and it shows that the collapsing editor is giving more weight to certain parts of the argument, even if they stray somewhat.

Unfortunately, it seems like there are not any admins yet who find the thread compelling enough to take action, or perhaps there is hesitation because there was previously an ArbCom re: Smatprt (on a Shakespeare issue) not on the current issue. I have never had good luck at COIN, and as an admin once said, the COIN noticeboard "has no teeth", and advised to use ANI instead for long-term COI Promo or UPE. I am asking that you undo all the collapsed sections, please. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I shall do so shortly. Axad12 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, just a note re: "COIN has no teeth"...

The basic problem, as I'm sure you know, is that admins do not regularly patrol COIN. Over 50% of the blocks that have been dispensed at COIN over the last 2 months were obtained because I approached admins directly and asked them to take action (which, on the great majority of occasions, they did). I started doing this after discussing the "COIN has no teeth" comment with the admin who made the comment, who then encouraged me to adopt this approach.

The obvious off-wiki evidence re: Smatprt is way above the threshold that I've found that an admin will dispense a block if requested to take a look at a thread. I've been trying to approach an admin to request action re: Smatprt over the last few days but have never found any admins that I know who happen to be online at the same time as me.

That is basically the way to circumvent the "COIN has no teeth" problem. Since you live in a timezone which is probably more conducive to locating admins who will assist, I'd encourage you to adopt a similar approach when hoping to get an admin to take action (re: Smatprt or any similar blatant case). Simply hoping that a passing admin will block a user tends to result in discussions where there is clear evidence of UPE/COI ending up being archived without action being taken - which is frustrating for all of us.

So, that is just my personal take on this matter - but it is an approach which has resulted in a number of very obvious COI/UPE users being blocked where otherwise that may not have occurred. Axad12 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]