User talk:Donald j axel

Marts 22nd. 2020: From messages sent to me as edits on this page I can see that something or someone has posted in my name, which may be dangerous of course. How can I prevent this or how can I report?

[Written in 2004:] I am astonished - so much well written information available. First time I got help from wikipedia was when looking for Bernoulli and other physics history, this time an article about the horrifying "Caligula" film not by Gore Vidal helped me a lot (though not enough!)

I would very much like to contribute to a site of knowledge like this but I need to know much more about how it works and who is writing/editing etc. As far as I could see there was several bad additions to the article about "Caligula", the film, additions which were not included. These stupid remarks could have replaced or damaged the currently presented article! The article is good as it is. I wouldn't call it censorship but simply good editorship and hope that the staff (whoever they are) keep up the spirits.

For now I am not in a position to contribute economically but that may change.

My full name is Donald Jan Axel, and I am living en Denmark, Vejby, which is in the northern part of Europe, southern Scandinavia. I work as teacher, lecturer, programmer, music-writer (long time since, though).

Thanks to all editors[edit]

Thank you to all honestly writing people.

I am amazed how much solid knowledge I can get from this.

I do not know how much spam there is coming in here but I can see that e.g. RFID companies and conferences want to advertize by adding their names to the RFID article. Also it seems that some people enjoy writing a stupid remark here and there.

What kinds of spam-filtering and writer expulsions are there here? It seems to be too easy to get to write here.

Aren't there protected articles?

I know it is relatively easy to revert to a "non-spam" article, for an "associated editor" if such exists, and I ask: Is that the only form for spam-fighting there is?

Regards/Donald Axel

Elmer Talmage Clark[edit]

Hello! I reviewed your article about Elmer Talmage Clark as a New Pages Patroller. I have to tell you, it has some serious problems. The biggest one was the fact that the biographical information was copied verbatim from the SMU website. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPYVIO, and could have been a cause for speedy-deletion of the article. But instead I deleted the two paragraphs except for a one sentence summary. I suggest you reconstruct the information, but use your own words (not a copy and not a "close paraphrase").

The other problem is that the opening sentences - the "lead" - need to indicate why he is notable enough to have an article here. For information about how Wikipedia views notability, see WP:NOTABILITY and especially WP:BIO. Ask me if you have questions. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply regarding Elmer Talmage Clark[edit]

Thanks for the feed-back. I am not sure at all that Elmer T. Clark needs to be in a 20 volume encyclopedia, but I thought Wikipedia was different - more like a 1000 volume dictionary.

I will go through the recommendations as soon as I get time to night. For now I will just add that I had changed some details (not much, I know) in the over-all bio of this person in order to get the language more coherent.

Wikipedia is far more inclusive than a paper encyclopedia can be, but even Wikipedia has to have standards - if it is maintain its credibility as an encyclopedia. My hunch is that Clark will be found to meet those standards. I base that mainly on the fact that a university thought he was important enough to maintain an archive of his papers.
The best way to prove his notability is to find things written ABOUT him - not by him. Normally the best place to look for writing about someone like him would be Google Books, but that is hard in his case because he was such a prolific writer himself. Examples of the kind of thing that might help: [1], [2]. If he won any kind of awards those would be helpful to put in. Above all the article needs more biographical detail: when and where he was born and died, for example. His education you can get from the SMU article. BTW the SMU article is called something about "Ten Texas Bishops" but it isn't clear how that relates to Clark. Good luck with this article! I will put it on my watchlist. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again! I definitely agree on standards/level of interest and style. I am working on improvements. I found another google-book source with more detail, but then again, it may be very much biased like so much Methodist-religious literature. The reason I find that the person could have some interest and notability is that he seems to have taken an interest in exposing fraud. I found his titles quite interesting (and hope they are not just sales-arguments for promoting literature). He seems mostly to have had a preaching style; but maybe he also was searching for a broader, more philosophical way to use his religious background to improve society in a general sense.

[3] Unfortunately GoogleBooks cuts at the end of article! Next page not part of preview, it says. Here is a convenient copy | NC-Dict.biography (is this link a copyright violation?)

d-axel (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sharon Burch[edit]

The article Sharon Burch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not satisfied this meets WP:GNG and failed to find any significant coverage in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attack users based on their username[edit]

On Talk:Sharon Burch, you said some slightly mean things about User:OohBunnies!: suggesting that she's "not a serious person" and hinted that she might have proposed the article for deletion maliciously, and that you would be "going into details about [her] identity later". On Wikipedia, users are asked to assume good faith: obviously, it's not very nice to have someone suggest that an article ought to be deleted, but to presume that OohBunnies! is operating from a position of malicious intent is failing to assume good faith towards her. Please could you consider removing the last paragraph of your statement on Talk:Sharon Burch because it comes off as being an attack. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am not attacking anyone but that I just show openly that I consider the article important, that I am aware that there are malicious editors even if I assume good faith, and that I do not approve on anonymous or funny usernames.

As stated earlier an article of mine has been subject to non-serious criticism from a criminal element who sneaked into Wikipedia staff and was later expelled from Wikipedia trusted staff. I am not attacking anyone, just seeking verification. The earlier article which revealed a malicious editor was on an Iranian cultivar called "domsiah"; the person (I don't remember the name, it may have been Neil Larson) categorized it as "Food stub" instead of "agricultural stub", which is not only wrong but an openly stupid thing to do when the article quotes Indian Rice Institute research report and funghi problems in the cultivation - and amount of harvest etc.

I also explained that the reason why I consider the prop.del to be result of search for an "easy target of criticism" - this is a typical action of someone who wants to gain credibility and in that process bad judgement may spoil more than it mends.

I became suspicious about the corrections made by the user identified as User:OohBunnies! because I consider it extremely bad practice to use a pseudonym. I skimmed the first lines of User:OohBunnies! and found it rather annoying that he/she praises the free editing of articles which has by now proven to be more of a problem than a benefit. I also stated that I can see reasons for not enough notability in the case of Sharon Burch, but on the other hand that may turn out to be envy or bad judgement because the person in question has many references. I think what really hampered the article was that I was in a hurry and in the initial article just gave a bio from the publisher (with biased information) and a link to 2 or 3 instances on diverse sites (including Washington Post mentioning Sharon Burch in connection with Smithsonian institute). Therefore I considered the attack from Bunnies to be ill-willed and not written by someone who had a serious interest in improving Wikipedia, but rather had an interest in improving the image of Bunnies. I think the name "Bunnies" even may be a jocular reference to magicians pulling rabbits up from a "magic hat".

Now this reply has taken more time than I like to admit, but I did write it because I knew the original article was sloppy writing, and in the hope that Tom Morris isn't just another person trying to cover up illegitimite purposes with Wikipedia.

By the way the history of editing shows that I am not the only person who wishes Wikipedia well; there were some kind additions to the article before I did a bit of revision today.

I think there are ample reasons to improve articles on the heritage of native Americans - not to delete them.

--d-axel (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"this is a typical action of someone who wants to gain credibility". At Wikipedia, we assume good faith until it is shown otherwise. OohBunnies! is a sensible and extremely helpful editor, and that's really quite a mean thing to say about her. Stop reading so much into other people's usernames and user pages and focus on what they actually have to say. If someone proposes something for deletion, it might because they are an evil, vicious bigoted person... or it might be because they have concerns with the sourcing and quality of the article.

Proposing an article for deletion isn't an "attack" but saying some of the stuff you've said about OohBunnies! gets damn close to one.

And that's before you go on to suggest that I'm "just another person trying to cover up illegitimite purposes with Wikipedia".

You say you aren't attacking, but you've basically just hinted that I'm corrupt and that the reason OohBunnies! proposed deletion of the article is because she's on some kind of power grab. If you persist in attacking editors, you'll rapidly find yourself blocked. Which would be a shame, as I've got no reason to think that if you can lay off personal attacks, you have useful things to contribute to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

... basically hinted ...

Please! Read this assuming that I have good intentions:

I have read a little more on the OohBunnies! userpage, and I still feel a little worried mainly because it is anonymous.

I have more trust in your arguments and fully agree: Editing/talk must be based on an assumed good faith until otherwise showed. That is why I give my arguments for scepticism. I have argued reasons for the article in question falls under GNG, and I think I have refuted reasons to delete article in question. I am actually quite at ease doing so - I have no personal interest in the subject in question, and I like the way Wikipedia improves.

What I did not like was that the propdel was very hastily written and using wrong arguments, because as the history showed there was ample references - I had just hoped that other more interested readers would follow up. I was actually shocked that nobody had written about a productive native American artist.

This is a general part of the discussion:

Who is going to find out [good faith] "until shown otherwise"? I forwarded arguments for keeping the article and some scepticism about the editors validity based on my experience with editors and good writing practice. I did not assume ill will or not so good faith, I did not attack, I gave some points information: Why it was important to keep the article *and* that the propdel seemed hastily, non-informed. However, I agree that it may sound harsh that I would look into the identity - that sentence reflects scepticism about anonymous accounts.

Your arguments for OohBunnies! being a nice and helpful editor are unsubstantiated or non-informative - in my case she was not helpful or nice and that was a first contact.

If you continue talking about attack, then think reversely: Aren't you threatening me with blocking?

Let me explain why it is so important to be sceptic without being unkind: I was called (phone) by a nice sounding woman with a tad of indian accent: "Your Microsoft user license show that there are some security issues on your computer, etc." That is a scam which many naive users can't see through. I am a professional and I do not have a Microsoft system, so I kindly told the lady that she was executing a scam and that she should not do so etc. hoping that she had an awakening conscience. When she continued I told her I did not have a Microsoft computer, then she understood and hastily hang up. I am afraid that she continues her "job" and get many more naive users to deliver information that enables theft. So let me repeat: It is acceptable to express concern and explain WHY I was concerned about what was going on here.

This entry is too long, I know, but I hope to get more friendly contact by explaining things. Assume good faith. Thanks.

Okay, well, if you have a problem with anonymous users, Wikipedia might not be the best place for you. The vast majority of users you encounter will not be using their real names. And with good reason: not everyone wants to link their real life to their Wikipedia account. I know people who have edited articles on controversial topics and then been harassed in real life about their edits. And harassment is really the best case scenario: some people want to edit on, say, LGBT-related topics without revealing their sexuality to their family because they might be in a community where revelation of that information might get them discriminated against or physically attacked or killed. Some people might be living in countries where editing about political topics might get them executed.

My arguments for OohBunnies! being a nice and helpful editor are based on having interacted with her for months and months and seeing how she handles issues: maturely and helpfully. Proposing an article for deletion is not a malicious act of a bad faith user, it's something that happens on Wikipedia every day by lots and lots of different users. The whole point about PROD is that it's something you use if you really aren't sure about deletion: it's a proposal which can be objected to by anybody. Users are encouraged to use PROD exactly if they are unsure about the sourcing of the article. You cannot expect everyone to read an article to know what sources there are and how to find them.

I'm not threatening you with blocking, I'm saying that the behaviour you've exhibited towards OohBunnies! is the sort of behaviour that, if you were to continue it, is blockable under Wikipedia rules forbidding no personal attacks. As the NPA page says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". —Tom Morris (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor". That is what I had hoped for. I very well understand concerns over LGBT issues, I have same considerations, but in this case, here on this topic? Aren't you mixing two subject areas, Native Americans and LGBT?

And then: Propdel without reading? I take your experienced word for it because I read (sic!) your userpage, please understand, reading does a difference.

On resignation at Citizendium, link from your userpage, You wrote: I reject the claims of some Wikipedians that we cannot have real names and the like in wiki projects. If developers in open source can do it, those trying to build encyclopedias and open culture/open knowledge should be able to do it too. The only justification given for not having it seems to be the "I don't want my [boss or evil government overlord] to know I'm writing about [controversial topic here]". This doesn't seem to be enough of a justification for the cost of anonymity (and, well, you can make the odd exception). The communities I work in tend to favour this and achieve it without requiring it: open source communities, standards bodies and so on. http://blog.tommorris.org/post/1629958884/citizendium-editorial-council-resignation-statement -- Me (Donald Axel) again: I can make the odd exception. In this case: I take your word for "Bunnies". Tell me about the attitude towards Native Americans, and how we can do more. --d-axel (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I used to think that about anonymous editing... back in 2010 when I wrote it. I don't think that any more. Why? Because (a) the benefits of the real name policy at Citizendium never really showed (people still managed to be exceptionally horrible to one another even without anonymity) and (b) seeing some of the harassment and stalking that has gone on against Wikipedians, directed primarily against women and against some openly gay editors shows the immense vulnerability people can often have to stalking. I don't think real names don't give us any significant benefit, and come at significant cost.

Again, you don't seem to get it. OohBunnies! PRODded the article, but that doesn't mean she has a negative "attitude towards Native Americans". This is what you don't seem able to get: she prodded the article because she didn't think it was notable by Wikipedia's standards, that is, there weren't adequate sources in the article or easily findable on the web to demonstrate notability.

A while back I prodded an article on the Kuwaiti Handball Association. Doesn't mean I've got anything against Kuwaitis, handball players or indeed Kuwaiti handball players. I just couldn't find any sources. I've PRODed some minor iPhone apps: doesn't mean I think they are bad apps, just means I can't find any sources that talk about them. This is what I mean by assuming good faith: until you have strong evidence to the contrary, you ought to assume that even someone who wants to delete an article is doing it in good faith and according to policy. They may be wrong, they may not have access to the same sources you do, but that's no reason to go around casting aspersions on their character or motives.

If you want to increase the coverage of Native American topics on Wikipedia, consider getting involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Have a look at Category:Stub-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles, which contains about 1,800 articles on topics related to Native American people and culture that need expansion. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to answer and elaborate. Your message is still unsubstantiated and not to the point. Your messages are plainly wrong. I earlier picked up the challenge and made improvements to the admittedly terribly poor article and I told so, to "the Bunny" and to you. I noted that other writers had added to the discography and therefore consider the subject to have some interest. I can, and will if nobody else does, work more on improvements, even if I am not at all knowledgeable on Native Americans. --

Regarding anonymity you can of course change views in 2 years or 2 seconds, it is OK, of course. Yet, how should I know. You refer to stalking (which is unsubstantiated) with which I myself would have a bad time. An editor of some controversial observations could consider being anonymous on controversial topics and not on other topics (I would); I would prefer, though, that the stalking was taken hand of in other ways.

What I really don't get is how Wikipedia can reach the standards of e.g. Groves Music Dictionary with anonymous editing; historic articles, for instance, will always have an element of interpretation and opinions, but that does not mean they are without value if you know who wrote them.

This writing dialogue is terribly long and I really thank you for showing interest in Wikipedia. Have a good night :)

This message can not be answered and will self-destroy in 1 year. --d-axel (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I Googled //Articles in Groves Dictionary are signed by author// and found out that the style of Grove's Dictionary (and Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart) is not the normal style of a dictionary. A university (unknown to me, though) called Depauw University writes in their library guidelines: [...] Grove calls itself a dictionary, but functions like an encyclopedia, yet features signed articles by experts in their respective fields. The citation format provided here [in library guidelines for Depauw Uni.] is a hybrid of the journal article style and the signed article encyclopedia style. (End quote). I do not assume anything about Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia or not, I am just interested in styles of encyclopedias. --d-axel (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Donald j axel/World Tribune[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Donald j axel/World Tribune requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586203. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete it! I did NOT post anything w.World_Tribune or content from such[edit]

As I never did post anything copyrighted and not anything from a source called "World_Tribune" nor content from any private owned publication, or from a publication with a name containing "World" or "Tribune" I totally would delete such a page called User:Donald j axel/World Tribune if it existed - however, it seems to be gone by now so that makes me a bit more at ease.

Then again! I can see the message above to me has some kind of unfinished air over it, it is a template wherein the sender should fill out a short explanation but it still says "say it in your own words". So maybe this message is in itself a kind of hacker-attack.

Actually this hacking, using my name terrifies me and I consider changing password. So said Sun Oct 27 10:56:57 CET 2019 by Donald Axel, user since long ago. d-axel (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Written-out-early-page1.png[edit]

The file File:Written-out-early-page1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Search This Blog

Anh Duc Wiki 5