User talk:Akaibu

About Special:Diff/1191673138, see Special:Diff/1191675021. Websites plagiarizing Wikipedia is very common. It is important to determine which content is older. Sincerely—Alalch E. 00:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will report you to administrators if you continue to add bogus inappropriate tags to the tops of articles. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have added over 60 tags to articles in the last 24 hours. Please stop. If you can improve an article, please do so. If you are not able to improve an article, or if you don't have time at the moment, move on. There is no point mass tagging articles. We know there are lots of pages that could be improved, but mass tagging them achieves nothing. Many of your recent edits have been reverted. You must stop to avoid sanctions. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaibu: You have been blocked for a short period to allow time for consideration of the advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse#On tagging and my talk where you have commented. Enthusiasm and a willingness to help are good, but mass editing of any kind is extremely controversial as made clear in the linked discussions. Please ask questions rather than continuing with challenged edits. This block can be appealed by following the procedures at WP:GAB and posting {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Hello, since apparently even my own best judgement is not up to the standards of the community (on account to the block you instated), I've decided to create this wikitable on my userpage, to document my opinions on perceived problems, and having another editor basically go over these and decide if they are valid. I'm hoping this is an appropriate solution/avenue to the problem my editing was causing, though I partially am pinging to ask if there's a place I can bring attention to this table that way other editors can actually be aware of it to act on my assessments. I think normally just the talk pages of each of these articles would be the normal place but given I'm still unsure why my edits were considered disruptive in the first place, except for some notion on me being...too fast?(some of the reverts I've come to actually agree with though), I don't currently feel comfortable potentially repeating the same mistake that got me blocked in the first place; plus the fact at the rate of my reviewing it again might trigger the same response, so I feel it better to bulk edit onto my user page than rapid fire on talk pages, if those are indeed the right place to put this normally. Akaibu (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been dozens of cases of people mass editing articles and nearly all of them have ended in pain. The merits could be debated but the bottom line is that other editors generally find mass editing to be highly disruptive. WP:BOT shows the approved way for mass editing to occur. Adding tags is particularly controversial because just about any article could be improved but adding a tag saying that does not help. The people at WP:Teahouse may have thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania State Constables was not underlinked. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I mean, I disagree by nature of me adding the tag, but I won't push on it. Akaibu (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Itadakimasu was not underlinked, according to User:Mason7512, and I agree with them. Same with National Longitudinal Surveys. Instead of tagging, add some links and show other editors you know what you are talking about. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Not sure what I was thinking for those either tbh, those two probably just need to be expanded in general but that's well outside my comfort zone. btw since you look to be going through some of the maintenance tags/edits I've made, if you want to preempt me, preuse that wikitable page i linked above, as something like 80+% of them have major problems due to being mostly written before 2010. Akaibu (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to police anyone's edits, and you may have noticed that when I looked at things you tagged I don't just go and revert you or whatever. But here is the thing (and then there's another): you may have a metric for length vs. number of links, but that means nothing, practically speaking. I looked at your table--now you look at List of Lizzie McGuire books and comics? You can have more links, when you write/have the articles for the individual titles, but really, "Disney Press" should only be linked once, and the same goes for "Tokyopop", so all those should be removed, and your metric would be even worse while the article is actually fine, esp. given that it's a list. WP:SEAOFBLUE is relevant also, besides WP:OVERLINK.

There is another thing. The moment you place that tag, brand-new editors swarm, invited by automated "hey try this" suggestions and start messing with the article, often without any kind of knowledge of what needs linking and what doesn't. Just look at some of the articles you tagged, like Resisting arrest, where someone swoops in and starts linking countries--a violation of WP:OVERLINK, of course. So, really--instead of tagging, improve articles. You were blocked by Johnuniq, and he actually said pretty much the same thing I said, but there's an added bonus now: you have to probe that you have a good enough grasp on our guidelines to place valid tags, and I note also that you didn't explain in edit summaries why you were tagging these articles. I hope you see where I'm coming from. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaibu: Final warning I will indefinitely block you if you continues tagging articles. Contributors must assist the encyclopedia and tagging is not helpful. You might want to be convinced about that but there is an inexhaustible supply of new users who arrive here and perform mass edits according to their personal views. Sorry, but we cannot take the time to convince every such user that they should do things another way. You can get independent opinions at WP:Teahouse but the bottom line is that a block will occur if this continues unless a widely discussed proposal to mass-tag articles gains consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I would like some clarification, is the issue that I'm just adding maintenance tags? If I were to, say, add links myself and only add the underlink tag if I've unable to find the actual pages that they link to (say for a more technical article) and still genuinely believe it's underlinked, would that be permissible? And what about pages that don't have underlinking problems but do have major problems otherwise that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself, such as Yusuf Olatunji or Work release? Is it really better to just not even point out that they have issues? Another thing is adding stub tags like my last ~5 edits permissible en mass? I saw those via Wikipedia:Database_reports and would think since this is an sanctioned report unlike mine metric, it may be more permissible?Akaibu (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please find something else to do. After say 200 constructive edits, it might be ok to add one tag per fifty constructive edits. Anything more than that is just disruptive, unless there is first a central discussion somewhere concluding that mass tagging is a great idea (that won't happen). Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq @Softlavender has just mass reverted all the tags I placed, despite them being valid, is this not vandalism? Akaibu (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert all the tags. I reverted the tagging that you have been repeatedly warned against by a number of administrators and highly experienced editors but have still persisted in doing. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Adding tags is not vandalism. By the same reasoning, removing them is not vandalism. The definition is at WP:VAND. Mass editing of any kind without consensus is disruptive and reverting is the normal reaction. Blocking occurs if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akaibu -- Thanks for trying to help out, but I've had to decline this deletion request because O What a Savior is a song, rather than a recording. Speedy deletion categories are very precisely defined, so do try to check the exact wording (WP:A9) before nominating another article for deletion.

More generally, it's not in general (though there are exceptions!) a great idea to ask for speedy deletion of an article that's been around for a while (more than say 3–6 months); the idea is that such articles have usually had a large number of eyes on them, and often many small edits, and are considered to have been assimilated, so that more than just a single call for deletion is required. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Alright, I see what you mean Espresso Addict, I guess I'll just PROD it as there's still no reliable sources I can find about it, plus I think the lyrics actually still are under copyright so unless a source could be found, removing the lyrics would make this not even a decent stub(not that it is now anyways.) Akaibu (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right about the copyright problem with the lyrics. From a quick web search, the hymn appears to have been widely published so I'd think it likely that reliable possibly offline sources will exist, and so I'd object to proposed deletion. Ah, I see you prodded while I was writing and Googling; I've just deprodded, will add what I found and take out the possiby copyrighted lyrics for now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 NSWRL Presidents Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Churchill Park. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaibu untagged Tin mesoporphyrin for AI-gen: it doesn't seem that way to me, the sources I spot-checked supported the article, and it doesn't seem to have been created overly suspiciously, and you didn't appear to give a reason for tagging it. Tag it again if you do have a good reason to. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also untagged Owiny Akullu, which appears to have been written bit by bit, and the sources all appear to be relevant; some of them appear to be links to rehosted version of other sources, which seems unlikely for AI to add, and also some copyvio, which seems unlikely for AI to generate. It would be helpful if you would put reasons in edit summaries/talk page when you tag articles. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]