User talk:OXYLYPSE

Hello, can we be friends

thank you🤗for your help. Starex Night (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Starex Night: Hey! Welcome to Wikipedia, I'll continue our chat over on your page :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Jim Gamble

Following on from recent discussion re: Jim Gamble...

It seems to me that there must be something wrong somewhere when a user can return to the scene of their edit warring 6 weeks later, revert a user and then be immediately warned to stop edit warring upon pain of possible blocking, and then reverts again, refuses to engage at the article talk page in a meaningful fashion (while hypocritically asking me to do so, which I had been doing throughout, while they had not) and then disappears again having reinstated 'their' favoured version of the article.

I'm obviously reluctant to make any further edits there myself, as per your advice at the time, but the present situation seems entirely unequitable when I've made all of running in trying to get some kind of resolution.

As I've said elsewhere, my concern is more with the other user's conduct than with the rather lame edit war - but for that conduct to be rewarded by allowing their favoured version to remain in place seems wrong to me.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Axad12 I can appreciate how frustrating it is.

In terms of content, it looks like the section on the labour party has been in the article at least a year, so arguably the onus is on you to prove it needs to go. You don't have to agree with Marty on this, you just need consensus at the talk page.

I don't disagree their communication sucks, but you don't have to stoop to their level. I really wouldn't let it get to you, there's more to life than Wikipedia.

If it helps, if you made a discussion over at AfD, I'd vote to delete the whole article as WP:MILL.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in two minds on the AfD front.

The article has historically been the subject of much promo/COI editing (by either the subject or his close associates). This has included some fairly desperate/pathetic activity such as adding photos of the subject standing in shot when more famous individuals were being photographed. (Those photos have also been spammed to the articles of the other personalities.)

If the article was to be deleted it's fairly obvious that it would be re-created and used once again for promo purposes, so I suspect it may be better to allow the current article to continue to exist, where user:MartyTheArty is at least apparently keeping an eye on the contents.

Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Cornchips287 COI template

Just an observation- but in my personal experience, I'd say anybody editing from the username "Cornchips287" and copy-pasting a bunch of material to a high school page is far more likely to be a bored teenager from the school than somebody with an actual COI. I could be wrong, of course, but I think in this case I'd have gone for a different warning. YMMV, of course. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @GreenLipstickLesbian Honestly I hadn't even noticed the blatant copy paste. I just noticed the external links and weird tone, but you're probably right. Either way it felt off and tagging for cleanup got it the attention it needed, so I guess it was a win in the end! :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)