User talk:Axad12

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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Hey, I just wanted to say that I think you've handled yourself these last few days in a way that I think is really mature and commendable. I realize I got a little heated while writing my comments, and could've written what I wrote with more graciousness and understanding. Anyways, I hope you know that I have no ill feelings towards you, and that I think really well of how you've acted over these last couple of days. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Axad12: Thank you for opening up the discussion again regarding the description of Trompe-l'œil to describe Alexa Meade’s work. I’m wondering what happens if no one else participates in this conversation? In 2011, a PBS Newshour reporter used this term to describe the opposite of how she viewed Alexa’s art. From there, others picked up the term. Considering one reporter said it was the opposite of Trompe-l'œil 14 years ago, it seems even less relevant to describe the artwork. I’m wondering if you have further thoughts on the edit request, or if there is a way to actively generate further input? Thank you, as always, for your time. Kerrytiareeree (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting in touch.

The answer to your question is, I suppose, that the only way to attract further attention may be by opening another COI edit request on a different matter - which I see you have already done.

Strictly speaking I'm no longer dealing with COI edit requests. In the case in point I did ask for further feedback from the other editor who had agreed with my original stance (a stance which I later of course reversed). That was now a month and a half ago, and since we have no response I think I will make the relevant removal (of the tromp-l'oeil comment) while noting that if anyone disagrees strongly they should revert me. I would suggest that you open a further separate request with regard to the unresolved (Ariane Grande) part of your first request.

Hopefully these notes are of assistance.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

…do hope to see around when you feel like it. Goodluck on your endeavours! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]