Talk:Axel Braun

COI tag

The connection between User:Mikefitzsimmons and the article subject was reported in a 3RRN discussion by the quite reliable User:Tabercil, to whom the editor voluntarily disclosed his identity. There are legitimate questions about whether the article, as it stands, really meets BLP/NPOV requirements; while the article may now accurately reflect the status of the subject within his industry, there is a reasonable case to be made that he is more widely covered in general media and in tech-centered media for the lawsuit mentioned in the article, which came under sharp criticism by the EFF, which seems to have labeled him a "copyright troll." I really couldn't tell you what, if any, other criticisms have been made toward the subject or his work, but when the primary author of the text is closely connected to the subject, and when the article is dominated by favorable commentary/content, I believe a COI tag is appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

sincerely i can't understand why i found a page about pedophilia man..it's a not sense so i live in los angeles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.15.174.53 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This User has not edited the article in over a year, can the issue be considered closed now? The template is more clutter than a practical warning plus the article seems to have been cleaned of any obvious POV or posturing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK HW, "put up or shut up". What are your "facts" regarding the current validity of the COI tag? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The facts are that the basic structure of the article was established by a COI editor, that very few of the sources are genuinely independent and reliable, that the article continues to lack balanced assessment of the subject's work, and that an editor like you, with a significant history of poorly disclosed/undisclosed COI editing in other areas, is in a particularly poor position to evaluate the the appropriateness of COI tagging. Cleaning an article of "obvious" COI problems is hardly a sufficient claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The structure is identical to nearly every other porn performer article on WP and the rest of your assertions are baseless opinions with no specificity. Your "finger waving" while humorous, is just that and without merit. Worse yet, you seem to refrain from specific example based claims because it will reveal your anti-porn POV and agenda. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

See also section

For those that care to read or try to understand WP Guidelines, the "See also" section is for "internal links related to Wikipedia articles". Anyone can read it here.

The section recently added to this article includes exactly that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you can't, or won't, read it, since that is not what the linked page says. Altering quotes like that is a signal of bad faith editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at it right now and I don't see anything that prohibits the use of a Category link. Maybe there's a language barrier issue. In fact, upon further review there are instructions for how to use a Category here in the See Also section. Thank you HW... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)