This is an archive of past discussions with User:MrOllie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You failed to suppress information on Private Servers.
You attempted to suppress information regarding Private Servers and failed. Please, if you're going to attempt in enforcing site guidelines then you should actually go over the guidelines you're enforcing.
You could've also help presented additional information regarding Gravity & their relationship against Ragnarok Online private servers but instead, you acted hasteful to disprove despite the info being there with light research.
Based off other Users Talk history with you, and your own claims; you are extremely reliant on citations/sources at an upmost selective level. If you feel that every bit of info needs a reliable source then please, actually act on that and don't be selective about it. Again, lots of information on both the Gravity page & Ragnarok Online page that include(s) 0 to no source yet you didn't have that same energy for those lines of text as you did for mine regarding Private Servers. Your selective biases was at a peak flare. I hope some sort of moderator reads this and can review our revision clash on said pages. Anywho, goodluck wiki editing! 4ReeZy (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep it on the article talk page where it belongs, and consult the policies yourself, including WP:NPA. You should not be coming to my user talk page to make personal attacks. You've still got a bunch of editorializing supported by unreliable sources. No amount of unreliable sources adds up to a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep what on the article talk page? My statement? Once again, you're doing that selective thing. You want me to keep it on the article talk page, yet you literally come to my user talk regarding wiki rules based/because of my Ragnarok Online page edits. It's heavily implied. You also indulged in a revision war enough to claim "stop warring", before coming to my page. Are you going to lie your way out and say your comment on my page wasn't Ragnarok Online related? Are you going to use 0 mention of it as a scapegoat? It'd be a terrible one. I'm fine with unreliable sources, as there's plenty of credible wiki pages that use them. Once again, unreliable doesn't mean fully mean untrustworthy. Your statement is moot. 4ReeZy (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm just respecting the rules on edit warring. Other editors are picking up on the problems with your edits and will revert them in due course, I am sure. And that is warning #2 about personal attacks. If you can't maintain basic civility you are not welcome on my user talk page. I'm fine with unreliable sources - WP:V and WP:RS are core content policies on Wikipedia. If you have noticed other pages with problems, that is not a reason to make problems worse by adding more badly sourced content. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
(by talk reader)@4ReeZy: You received a warning on your user talk page regarding your editing. You, however, are trying to bully another editor on their user talk page, rather than discussing the content issue on the article's talk page. Your efforts to use unreliable/ primary sources to push a POV is problematic. I suggest you calmly discuss on the article's talk page. Do not argue content here, Chris Troutman (talk)21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Chris_troutman I'm not trying to bully another editor whatsoever. Look at how this user MrOllie talks to other wiki users, especially the more recent interactions. Need I start citing his unprovoked responses to others to use as an example of what I mean? I simply wanted to remind him the same way he reminded me. He's good at seeming formal, but quickly does that collapse with each reply.
He literally did the same thing to me on my page yet he was issued 0 warning. Is it because I didn't state that he should take it to the article talk page and humored him?
Woah, now you're going as far to even say gameaca is unreliable? That's not even on the list of reliable nor unreliable, but yet has undoubtedly tons off reliable information. Why are ya'll so quick to discredit this information? It's a Korean blog that existed for decades. Pushing a POV is also an insane claim. Nothing of what I wrote comes from my 'POV' if that's what you're implying.
Also @MrOllie warning #2? When did I receive #1? That was literally my first warning... This is my example of what I meant somewhat. You're good at being the real the provoker and playing innocent. Despite your interaction with a few others saying otherwise...
@Chris_troutman This will be the last thing I write here as it was to reply to both you and him. I wont be interacting with MrOllie anymore after this incident. So please, if there's anything else I should know, let's take it to my page I suppose. 4ReeZy (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I have cited every line of text in the article and you still remove it for no sources over political bias? Donpohk (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
cited every line of text in the article - now that is clearly not true. But if you consider removing unsourced opinions (and antisemitic aspersions) to be 'political bias', sure. MrOllie (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to try PC-1 any articles that get more than one hit (easily monitored pool, whereas SEMI would likely force them to new articles we aren't as easily catching). So far I did yarn, textile, polyester, fast fashion. Feel free to ping me if you find more. DMacks (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
On Supply on Demand Content Restoration
I've found several standard references on the content you've removed few minutes ago. I was about to add those. Aren't those enough?
Examples of positive feedback is that popular products tend to become even more popular:
I'm not the only person who removed this. Once you have made an edit and others have disagreed, you must go to the article's associated talk pages and get agreement from others before proceeding. See WP:BRD and WP:CON for details. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I am not the only person involved. You must go to the article talk pages (not this, my user talk page) so others will see the discussion and weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry you are right. I did a few similar edits so I could not recall that it was a revert. When I checked the history I checked the wrong page here Economic model, which you also reverted. Then why did you revert this one? Bradelykooper (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I finally saw the deleted comments and, compared to the nonsense I've already dealt with in the last week, it's honestly kind of amusing. They want to "report" me... somewhere... for saying WP:DUCK. LOL I wish them luck. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
My favorite ones are the ones who follow up with asking the person they want to report where they should make the report. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What makes this all the more funny is that I just had a (quite civil) discussion with another long-term Wikipedian earlier today on differing perspectives on what constituted "neutrality" as they were very much in the school of dispassionate reason and stoicism being a path to neutrality compared to my materialist perspective that embeds neutrality in material conditions. So, like, I have been thinking about personal bias and neutrality quite a bit. Then this person comes in with "you have a bias" and I'm like, "OK time to back up to the 101 version." Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I often think that one of the ways Wikipedia misleads newbies is with the title of WP:NPOV, which really does not match up with 'neutral' as many would define it. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Frankly the concept of neutrality is one of the ones that is probably hardest to define; certainly everybody on Wikipedia is aware that Wikipedia has implicit biases. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Mainstream science, WP:CHOPSY opinions, and generally anything that English speaking computer literate people know about, at the expense of topics relating to the developing world. Oh, and our stats on biographies about Men vs biographies about Women are way out of proportion. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Well the anglosphere for one. Generally Wikipedia is pants-on-head bad at anything to do with contemporary politics outside of "the West". Wikipedia also has an implicit bias derived from its philosophical underpinnings regarding the nature of knowledge and verifiability. This certainly creates a *skew* to Wikipedia such as how little attention is paid to power relations in ascertainment of neutrality. We can see the impact of that such as in the discussion of Howard Zinn right now at WP:RS/N and the way it discusses Marxist historicism. Many of these biases don't arise out of any bad-faith attempt to put a finger on the scale so much as a value mis-match regarding the nature of neutrality in itself.
It's manageable at the moment. Maybe another ANI thread or two will be needed if autoconfirmed accounts insist on disrupting the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mr.Ollie!
Ahh, I'm new to editing! Thanks! Could you add the link to an external links section, please? I do not know how and I'm slightly busy right now. Thank you. Manik Sharma 2012 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@MrOllie, Hello, a question according to the article Queen of Psalm 45 in which places does it need to be supported because as far as I know, is the sources supported or is there some place that is not? I wait your answer. Thank you. English Mary (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Coolmath Games mention from Ruffle article
Hello, could you explain your rationale for removing the mention of Coolmath Games from the Ruffle (software) article while leaving similar mentions of Armor Games and Neopets? I don't see how one is more promotional than the others. Iltjp (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to know why did you removed my edit, nothing was wrong, I just added some external links for more information, then too you removed it for no reason
Your comment that a second source is required for the addition to the Wiki page. I thought we were the second source, because we found the verifiable public record at the Massachusetts Superior Court. Are you say it has be in local news article to be a second source. Its easy to find the information in the court system and its fact. Would you prefer that the paragraph is reworded? I saw an article out on TMCNet that point us to the court case.
I said a secondary source, which is not the same thing as a second source. Wikipedia does not use court documents as sources like that. Wikipedia would need something like a proper news source, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and so on. Something like TMCNET which is routinely just reposting press releases generally does not qualify. We need these sources to establish than an event is of sufficient importance to the history of the company to be covered. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have spent the past 3 years extensively studying the history of diamond cutting. I greatly expanded on the history of Lodewyk van Bercken and included a lot of detailed, well researched information that is not included in the wiki. I added significant value and do not understand why you flagged it as spam.
The edits I added to the Diamond Cutting page add signifincant value and include a lot of useful information that is not included in the current article.
Just because I am referencing a link does not make it spam. I thought we were supposed to support everything we add with sources... Verginasun (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot use blogs or other self-published websites as sources. Repetitively adding your business website to Wikipedia is in fact spamming as it is defined here. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
TCP edit
Hi,
You delete not only my contribution but also the contribution that was years old. One of the diagrams you deleted was present on that page for years.
And I do not understand why you are deleting those diagrams. They are in SVG format and you can scale them as you like. Could you, please, add them back? What needs to be published?
Wikipedia doesn't need illegible pictures of text, nor does it need embedded external links. We cannot 'scale them' because they have to fit in the article, where we correctly give most of the space to the actual article. MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
But One of the images was on that page for at least 10 years. Just take a look. It wasn't added by me. And it was very useful for a lot of technical people.
I am aware of how long the older image was there. That an unhelpful image has been on an article for a while does not mean it can never be removed. I am also aware of the format of the newer image. It still did not improve the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
In my professional opinion as Linux Administrator with over 25 years experience both of them are very helpful. I would like to understand how did you decided that is unhelpful? What are the criteria? Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean unhelpful? Sorry I genuinely do not understand. First image you can see it even in RFC9293.How do you determine that is unhelpful? Please explain. How can I make it better? Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
No inappropriate external links were added by me in the additions to retrocomputing wikipage. I linked to a series of podcasts which are very much on point and cover dozens of interviews with people of great significance in the home computing revolution of the 1980s. Eg. this includes interviews with one of the sons of Jack Tramiel, who also participated in the development of the 8-bit Atari operating systems.
My second link is to a popular and afaik only serial port device within the Atari community that provides internet connectivity to such 8-bit systems.
Did you remove both links? Why would you deem these to be inappropriate??
Also, going over the one change of yours that I've linked above, you furthermore removed my addition to the Logo lang in the Education section, which is precisely a language designed for educating youth in computer programming, geometry, and logic.
Wikipedia is not a link directory, we don't host links to people's podcasts, nor do we recommend particular products. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! You do great work reverting spam! Can you do me a favour and let me know about any throwaway accounts adding spam links you see, or report them somewhere like Wikiproject Spam? I don't need a lot of information and feel free to save them up. I'm seeing a lot of attempted SEO coming from Pakistan (strangely often spamming for companies in the UAE) but checkuser on spam accounts very often leads to more spam accounts. In case you're wondering, this is the edit that prompted the request—I'm about to block several spam accounts that are obviously connected. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Pornography discussion
Can you explain if the websites, casetext.com, jolt.law.harvard.edu, cornell.edu, and justice.gov are not reliable sources, original research, or not verifiable? Especially when they are websites...some of them .edus and .govs...and the particular cases specifically...explicitly...state the words porn, pornography, and/or pornography dealers referring to them being relevant to the topic?
My next edit request is going to include those and an explanation of how they violate wp:or and wp:v if they do is desired. From the previous discussion it was implied that those sources are not reliable when they are referencing a court verdict. I have not read that i cannot use a website that speaks of a court verdict no matter how many times i read it. Which section of wp:or or wp:v if any that it falls under when citing text from the websites or quotes from the websites? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Closing the talk pages discussion is not an invitation for you to keep making the same repetitive arguments on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oooh...okay...Wp:notforum was listed: "You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles."
So that's why I did...Hope you can have a nice day. Edit: "Even if they were, that does not support what you're trying to add to the article" Thank you very much for this specific reply, it gives incite to the main problem had.173.80.7.142 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional content?
Hi, I recently attempted to update the Wikipedia page for Kentico, focusing on providing accurate and up-to-date information about our company's history, product evolution, and current leadership.
I understand that my edits were not accepted due to concerns regarding promotional content. I would like to assure you that my intention was solely to correct outdated and incorrectly placed information. As a representative of Kentico, I recognize the importance of neutrality and factual accuracy in Wikipedia content, and I strived to adhere to these principles in my edits.
The information I provided is crucial for an accurate representation of Kentico in the public domain, especially considering the rapid changes in our industry and our company. I believe these updates will significantly benefit readers seeking current and unbiased information about Kentico.
I respectfully request that you reconsider the edits. I am open to suggestions and would be happy to work with you to ensure that the content meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. If it is more appropriate, I would also welcome any assistance or guidance from experienced Wikipedia contributors in making these necessary updates. JonathanKentico (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
(by talk reader)@JonathanKentico: Wikipedia is a private entity and we have no obligation to keep articles current, let alone accurate. Wikipedia makes tens of millions of dollars annually in donations so we do not share your assessment of what our readers want. Because you have a conflict of interest you may request edits by posting to the article's talk page but we do not welcome you editing the article itself. Further problem edits will be reverted and you might end up blocked if you do not abide our conditions. Chris Troutman (talk)15:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I respect your perspective on the editorial process and understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Given our differing views on the significance of keeping publicly available information accurate, I must reconsider my reliance on Wikipedia as a primary information source. I believe that incorrect or outdated information can be more harmful than no information. Therefore, if updates to our page are not feasible, I would like to request the removal of the page and any other content related to Kentico to prevent the dissemination of potentially misleading data. 84.42.217.230 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't your company's social media profile - you don't get to control it, and there is no process available to delete it because you are unhappy with it. Also: have a read of WP:PAID, which will explain most of the problems you and your coworkers have been having here. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, Hope you are doing well. i just want to know that how Wikipedia consider reliability of sources as many of my edits were deleted because of this. even though information was accurate. Kindly inform me about this.
I am sorry, but it seems that you are following my contributions and removing them on incorrect grounds. I would like a proper explanation of why legitimate references are being removed. Circus Bazaar Magazine is a pet Wiki project for me that I have been trying to get approved over a period of several years now. It is a well-established printed and globally distributed magazine based in Norway and Australia, yet for no apparent reason, you will not allow it to be referenced alongside its very well-established contributor base. Monsieur Loya (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I actually do not think that I have any hope here. Circus Bazaar Magazine is a printed publication available in stores all over the Nordics, with a wealth of international contributors. Yes, I tried to produce a Wikipedia page for this, and to my great surprise (and after a lot of research), it came under complete attack and was taken down. I have made various contributions to many articles, but the creation of this page seems to be prohibited based on the assumption that I am somehow involved with the publication. Isn't it a mechanism of credibility, and with the hope to one day gain acceptance on this, that its authors reference it in their pages—as they do with other publications? I do not understand the moral landscape here. It seems unduly hostile. Monsieur Loya (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Long time editors have been on Wikipedia long enough to have seen patterns of editing. And when an editor writes a promotional article (which gets deleted) and also adds external links to the subject of that promotional article it almost always points to a conflict of interest. But whether you are being paid by them or not matters less than the pattern of promotional editing that is happening here.
If you were here help us build an encyclopedia (and not here to promote Circus Bazaar Magazine) I suggest you move on to something else, since repetitively adding links to their website is going to be viewed as linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
When one sees a clear gap in something that needs to be filled, one then takes on the task to fill it. Such is clearly the case here, trying to establish a perfectly notable publication as part of the Wiki project. Regarding things that matter less, I would have thought that both your points here would actually matter less than factual accounts of an author’s recent publishing history.
Such is the case with Michael Soussan’s recent article in Circus Bazaar Magazine on the Ukraine war.
Promotional language would suggest selling something, using exaggerated language, or genuine spamming. None of these definitions hold weight here, as the addition of utterly legitimate publishing history is none of these.
It is, in fact, nothing more than a true and legitimate statement of fact that adds to the richness of this platform and the depth of true bibliographic detail. Monsieur Loya (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey do you mind keeping an eye on the article (and by extension the talk page) in case someone makes poorly or unsourced edits that violates BLP? Trade (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for also keeping track of all those attempted COI edits on the "Polyvagal Theory" page. It's nice not to have to do it alone... Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Correction: I know there have also been others keeping an eye on this, this is not to undervalue their contributions. Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability of my books
Please read this... if you can understand what it says...
You broke the article's section headings, and you pasted in a link to 'theasguard.com', which appears to be a small insurance company. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about the asguard link. I changed it to something else but the system seems to default and revert back to that when I submit the changes. I didn't realize it was reverting. It's not intentional. I'm not sure if it's a bug in the editor or something I'm not doing right. I just put in a new citation LesMezei (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really use dictionaries as cites much, either. And you definitely should not be filling in your own name as the author of the dictionary. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The system said I needed a citation after claiming that Goulash had a secondary meaning in English. How else can that be cited accept via a dictionary? Sorry about my name as author. I thought it was to name the author of the citation. Can that be left blank. I'm still learning the system.
Theasguard link may be coming from the autofill function in my RoboForm password manager (it's my business email and website). I remove it when I see it but something in the editor seems to be re-triggering the autofill when I change screens or check a help link. I'll have to double check all the fields before I submit anything. LesMezei (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines related to Talk pages
Hi Mr Ollie. At WP:TPO there is the following advice regarding acceptable practices on Talk pages:
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.
In this edit by you, you deleted a post on the page Talk:Centrifugal force. It is likely you were in breach of the “basic rule” described above.
Your edit summary said nothing more than “Restored revision 1195063052 by Cewbot”. If you believe you had a legitimate reason for deleting the post, you did not disclose it in your edit summary, at Talk:Centrifugal force, or on a Talk page accessible from the IP from which the post was made.
If you believe WP:TPO is missing something important that would allow Users to delete other User’s posts from Talk pages, please make a submission to the relevant project page proposing that your ideas should be incorporated. Until your submission is accepted by the Wikipedia community, please respect Wikipedia’s guideline that says “do not delete other’s posts without their permission.” Dolphin(t)14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk page postings are regularly deleted across Wikipedia when they are violations of WP:NOTFORUM - this is covered by the exceptions outlined below mentioned in the quote you have pasted here. That was an unsigned posting where someone was apparently pasting in a homework question. I don't believe there was anything wrong with deleting such a thing, with or without a specific edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed you focus primarily on editing articles. Please I would appreciate it, if you could help me look over one of my recent articles on an African film Draft:Obara'M.
about the changes in Hierarchical clustering: Revision history
Dear MrOllie,
Thanks for your efforts to make Wiki better and better. Honestly speaking, I really do not know much about the Wiki edit, as I do not have the time to make contribution to the Wiki community. In the page Hierarchical clustering, I saw that there have been seventeen hierarchical clustering criteria listed in the table. I have not made any contributions to this table, but, I noticed that there are only six items with further details in Wiki. Thus, I decided to add something about the item. I may not be good at editing at Wiki environment. As a Wiki editor, you of course have the right to delete my changes if you think it is not in according with Wiki practice. But, the question is that you have further deleted the works of other independent persons that have been contributing to this table. It is really not a small effort to gather information of a total of 17 criteria in this table. If you do not like my change, you can just restore it to the version before April 26, 2024 yourself. This is a version that have been available with the efforts of many people, even though I am not one of those contributors before April 26, 2024. It is definitely not something about self-citation, as I have not done nothing with the version before April 26, 2024.
Thanks and looking forward to your understanding that I am really very new to the Wiki editing. I am deeply sorry if you think that I am doing it for self-citation. 223.16.242.216 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding a removal of list item entry without article
Question: Is that because it lacks notoriety? Is it because there's no Wikipedia article on Pijul?
Other cases that might be similar
I searched for a similar removal in your history to see if I could find some reasoning for that type of edit. I found a few that I think may apply, but I'm not sure:
Extra Background Context: I noticed the change because, if I remember correctly I read about or found out about Pijul on wikipedia. But neither the article comparing version control software or the one listing had the entry. So I searched the history and saw that the entry used to exist.
Is it because there's no Wikipedia article on Pijul?
Yes. That is a list of software which has a preexisting Wikipedia article. That is also what I said in the edit summary of that change. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
title of "Gulf war" article
@ناشناس879 and MrOllie: I suggest that the title of the article named "Gulf War" at the time I'm writing this be changed to "Gulf war" or "Gulf war (1990-91)" or "Persian Gulf war (1990-91)" or "Gulf war (1990-1991)" or "Persian Gulf war (1990-1991)" but NOT with "War" capitalized, per MOS:AT.
I'm posting this comment here, because the new article "Gulf War" did not have a talk page a minute ago when I tried update my previous post there about this question.
The article is about the war, not the gulf. (by the way, 'gulf' and 'bay' are not interchangeable) Please don't move articles again until you have a full understanding of how articles are titled on Wikipedia. You can read about that at Wikipedia:Article titles. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you don't care about the name, but it's very important for a nation that the original names are lost. Wikipedia is the place of logical and historical articles, and nothing else. ناشناس879 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Apache AGE removed from list of notable graph databases
Hello MrOllie, hope you are well. I see that FalkorDB is added to the list of notable graph databases, in Graph database, even though it doesn't have an approved Wikipedia article, nor has an independent source. What is truly necessary to do in order to confirm my addition? Marksoulz (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. FalkorDB was added a few days ago and it looks like nobody noticed. I removed it. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Trademarks are complicated - they are defined in particular industries rather than for all uses and are often unenforceable for various reasons. For that reason, they should only be written about based on secondary sources, not primary sources such as a trademark office search. - MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Fortran
Why do you keep removing the reference to the Fortran book? Is it because of your claim that it contains a 'bookstore reference'? If so, please note that:
a) it is not necessary to remove the whole citation;
b) it is, anyway, not a 'bookstore' reference but a direct link to the book on the website of one of the world's leading academic publishers. This is a convenience to any potential reader, who then doesn't need to undertake further searches. Mr.Fortran (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
We had the citation without link, and you added the improper link to it multiple times. I also have to ask - are you related to this book or any of its authors in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
Did you get my ping? Just checking because I know that the notification system is not 100% reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Wait, this wasn't a templated warning from a new user inserting spam links?! I saw you replying to a Month Year section on your talk page and just assumed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, would you be so kind to have a look at the contributions of the following users: Ezzeddini (talk·contribs) and Pasteur immunology (talk·contribs). As far as I can tell this looks like a typical case of citespam, but since this is far from my professional sector, a more expert evaluation seems appropriate. Thanks a lot in advance, DoebLoggs (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearly refspam. I'd actually independently reverted a number of edits from Ezzeddini before you posted here. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement about an unspecified "predatory publisher"
Hello,
I would like to politely ask you to clarify me what specific "publisher" you were referring to when you stated "depends on sourcing from predatory publisher" as the comment to justify the removal of the constructive proof of the existence of (Euclidean) knight's tours on k-dimensional 2x2x...x2 grids for each k >= 6 (19:39, 17 April 2024, "Knight's tour" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight%27s_tour).
I am asking for this clarification since the only referred sources were the FIDE (International Chess Federation) website, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (an academic peer-reviewed journal, listed on Web of Science), and a short note providing a valid closed Euclidean knight's tour on the 2x2x2x2x2x2 chessboard.
Anyway, we could state the complete result by just linking the arXiv version of the aforementioned published article, which covers also the only remaining case (i.e., k = 6) allowing us to state the general result as a necessary and sufficient condition on k... Is it worth restoring the subsection if edited as above?
Can a published paper (with constructive proof of a stated original result) on NNTDM or its arXiv version be considered a non-predatory source at the end (since they are a 100% free-of-charge open-access academic resource/repository)?
Thanks in advance for your time, Marcokrt (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
nntdm.net - they're a predatory publisher. Plenty of predatory journals have gotten listed on Web of Science, that means nothing. Also, you should have a read of WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM - you should not be filling Wikipedia with citations to yourself - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's rules against conflict of interest. Using an arxiv version (itself an unreliable self publishing venue) would not be better. MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Nope, I have not read that a proper source couldn't have been added in order to fill a knowledge gap on a stated problem, my bad. Now, could you please provide me a proper source about your claim about the assumption that NNTDM is a predtory publisher (I am asking this because I really need to know this since I sent them my best research papers).
Furthermore, I asked if also arXiv can be considered a predatory publisher (given the fact that the same results are also there). Anyway, I will not edit anything in order to be sure to avoid any conflict (I am an Independent Researched doing research for free, spending my time only for the sake of solving open problems in NT and CO).
I'm sorry you got taken in by a bad journal, but I do not plan to debate the issue here with you on my talk page. Arxiv is not 'predatory', but they are still unusable for Wikipedia since they allow anyone to publish anything with no quality controls. They are occasionally used as a convenience link when a paper has also been published through a reputable publisher. The bigger issue is that you should not be adding citations to yourself or writing about your own work here. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I see and that's not a problem for me, I am only a bit sad because of those information cannot be shared with the readers interested in knowing it (they are still proven and online with a DOI and I am happy anyway).
Now, I consider arXiv as a valid source since I often have seen it listed as a reference here (also on the same pages) and unfortunately, I do have not enough knowledge and experience here to make valuable edits to others' results on technical topics here, so I cannot help more on this side.
My only (big) concern at the moment is that I need to know why NNTDM is considered a predatory journal and a claim needs a proper source (IMHO)... I spent many years on those results and I didn't find any evidence to confirm your statement, moreover I haven't every paid anything to publish there and, on average, I received also (for free) very good reviews after 1 year from sending the manuscripts.
I hope you can understand the feeling from somebody who made all of this just to solve open problems and share knowledge.
Bring it up with the reliable sources noticeboard. IMO the bigger issue with the removed content was the way it was phrased - did not really adhere to Wikipedia's MOS like "it is crucial to preliminarily agree on the knight move rule definition." additionally, yeah refresh on WP:COI. Sorry for hopping into your talk page Mr. Ollie, was just roaming around like a knight piece and thought I'd give my two cents re: this issue. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Revert or my edits
Hi! You reverted my changes (within 2 minutes? Confirm your are not a robot, please=) to the infobox about brackets, but your "undo" comment presents reasoning that, as I see it, does not have factual ground. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bracket&action=history)
Please, revert your reversion or elaborate.
Also, my change improved structure and readability, which you also reverted.
Gregory108 (talk)
Your edit summary claimed to be removing 'SEO' citations but what you actually did was remove citations to a book by Routledge, a respected academic press, and added a link to 'editorsmanual.com', something which is plainly not a WP:RS. You should not have done either of those things, thus I reverted. Your change deleted information without improving 'structure and readability'. I'm not sure what you think you did to the article, but your description here does not match the changes that were actually made. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if you perceived "robot" question as rude. I have never seen 2-minute reaction to edit on Wikipedia - hence, the question. Did not intend to do offend. There was a smile for the human=)
1) "what you actually did was remove citations to a book by Routledge" -- I did not removed citation from the article, only from the Infobox. I did that because:
1.a) 3 citations in the infobox are cluttering (and looks like refsmap/SEO by someone interested)
1.c) Though Routledge looks reputable indeed, the cited content is behind paywall(s) and not verifiable in the human sense (!= verifiability in the terms of Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Wikipedia asks for "verifiability of reliability"; I was looking for verifiability of information). Hence ->
2) -> without removing reference to Routledge I added another source that looked reputable and clearly elaborated on the topic. But, yes, its reliability might be debatable, though its information does not contradict what is claimed to be said in Routledge.
So, I hope, I proved that your perception of my edit as "Your change deleted information" is not correct.
3) "without improving 'structure and readability'" -- my change to structure&readability of the infobox was easy to miss in rushed <2-min revert
Your description of the reasons to revert (quote, "Rv edi that seems to be carrying out the opposite of the edit summary") is still not well-understood. Besides, summary!=edit essence is not a reason to revert an improving edit. I hope I can show the value or the edit again. Reliability argument is understandable.
I suggest I will do the edit to the infobox again:
Sorry if you perceived A classic example of a Non-apology apology. You have misunderstood the guidelines on using citations in info boxes. If you feel strongly about it, you should try to gather support for your changes - on the article talk page, not here on my user talk. And no, you absolutely did delete information. You should not do the edit to the infobox again without agreement from other editors - which might be found on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Bro, you called me a paid poster multiple times without even knowing who I was or that I changed two completely Different articles. That was pretty rude. No apologies from you.
And you also violated that don’t bite the newcomers rules. So I think you’re hardly the person chastised him for not giving you apology you wanted.
You were so unfriendly and unhelpful I decided not to participate on this website anymore.
Again, hardly the person to give others crap about being rude.
When several people come to such a conclusion, most people might consider whether others are the problem or they themselves are. If I might make an observation, you will find it easier to not to participate on this website anymore by not scanning my talk page for reasons to take offense, as you have apparently been doing in the 4 months since you quit. You should not post on this talk page again. Thanks in advance! MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted tool within minutes of adding it
I just added the tool N2A. Six minutes later it was deleted for lacking a Wikipedia page. Perhaps you would consider instead allowing some time for me to compose an appropriate page for it. Frothga (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not really how things work here - the page needs to be there first, and I do not think it is likely that the topic would meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements (given at Wikipedia:Notability) in any event. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Neal Barnard BLP NPOV
Can I try a revised edit that makes a better case for why it is important to note that Dr. Barnard has conducted federally funded diabetes research that has been influential in the medical community and will be of interest to readers. Details like this are important so that the page adheres to Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, particularly the neutral point of view. NewzNerd (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You must gather support for your proposed changes on the article's associated talk page at this point. Repeating the same edit (even in slightly different variations) is edit warring. The way Wikipedians decide what is 'important' is by following independent, secondary sources that meet WP:RS. You're not citing a source at all. MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Personal attacks on Yasuke page
"You are just bias" - 2003:DF:A72F:9F00:C11B:2E24:1152:C660 (and several other from this user, a day-one account who is misquoting wikipedia policies)
"but you Resetera chuds are trying to paint a reality where he likely was a Samurai" - 178.24.248.195
"you fucking rats" - 103.6.150.184
"The Crowd had their hands on it, and The Message must be protected at all costs." - MWFwiki
"Repeating a lie won't make it reality." - 2A02:2788:1094:8D:E80E:3BD1:F77E:67F6
"So, no, you ARE indeed trying to rewrite history." - 2A0C:5A80:3C04:F400:4001:D069:D6A:8C0F
Hi. Thanks for your message. Could you please remove the external link to the outdated Reuters site if you don't approve of my replacement. Or should it be there forever? Would https://news.un.org/en/news/topic/humanitarian-aid be an appropriate replacement? Why did you remove my other edit on the GHO 2024? I don't get it. I am new, but I was trying to start improving an article that is not very good and out of date. DanKost (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong, but I can not shake off the feeling that mr. Liu is a re-incarnation of the many former BiglyBT-promotors. And possibly has a COI and a hearing problem (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT). The Bannertalk16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea one way or the other. They are not a single purpose editor, though, so unless they disclose it themselves for some reason I don't see how it would make much practical difference. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
MrOllie's mistakes
MrOllie, you have deleted my scientific and academic contributions with verified bibliographic references in the links. This is a serious error, because this academic contributions are very important in this scientific discipline. You are not an expert on these topics, but I am. Because of beings like you, Wikipedia is a very bad encyclopedia. I'm going to revert your changes because all the scientific information is correct. There is no cite spam, it's completely fake. Bibliographic links are proof of the veracity of citations. MrOllie, maybe you have to be eliminated from Wikipedia because you are obsolete. Be genuine and apologetic for your mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma'at36 (talk • contribs)
Reverting your self promotion is not a 'mistake'. You should respect Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest and self promotion, which have been linked for you on your own talk page. Empty threats about eliminating me from Wikipedia will not help the situation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
uninvolved opinion I think you are confusing wikipedia, that requires WP:SECONDARY referecences, with a scientific publication that allows original-author publication. It does not matter at all how important, numerous, or "verifified" (whatever that means) a publication of a new idea is, it's still WP:PRIMARY research. I agree with MrOllie that your main edit pattern is to cite your own work, name-drop yourself, and edit-war about it. No, that's simply not acceptable here. I've dropped a level-3 warning. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but self-promotion was not my intention, I apologize. However, please I need my contributions to be reversed so I can reduce my citations that are reference handbooks and be able to add citations from other authors.
As I said, WP:SECONDARY is the key, not just "other authors". I do not know enough about the topic at this time to decide whether it is WP:DUE to include it at all, but in given the closeness of your association witht the topic, I would generally advise to make sure any ideas are at at least somewhat mainstream or established in the field rather than cutting-edge or controversial. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Sargent movie
Exactly what aspects of this do you consider advertising? I'd like to put back mention of the movie in a manner that you don't consider advertising.
In 2024, Exhibition on Screen produced a documentary ''John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger'', filmed at the [[Museum of Fine Arts, Boston]] and the [[Tate Britain]], London.<ref>{{Cite web |title=John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger - Exhibition On Screen % |url=https://seventh-art.com/product/john-singer-sargent/ |access-date=2024-05-21 |website=Exhibition On Screen |language=en-US}}</ref> It was based on the Sargent and fashion exhibits at those two museums, linked to below in "External links".<ref>''The Guardian'' review: [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/15/john-singer-sargent-fashion-swagger-review-exhibition-on-screen "John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger review – exploring the artist’s work in style"]</ref> Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
It is promotion for a nonnotable film. It was added by the filmmaker, and it links to the filmmaker's website, where one can pay to stream the filmmaker's review. The Guardian review spends more time talking about Sargent and the physical exhibition than it does about the film it is ostensibly reviewing. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have reposted the above with a link only to the Guardian review, since you consider the filmmaker's website an ad. I don't know what you mean by "it was added by the filmmaker," as I have no connection with the filmmaker. I also don't know your criteria for notability. I have seen this film and quite a few others produced by Exhibition on Screen, found them all of high quality, and think that they would be of interest to Wikipedia readers who are interested in the artists whose work they are about. I also think that the Guardian review devotes sufficient space to the film, but I don't see the relevance of either your or my opinion of the review. I see no problem with my original post, but I've compromised by editing it in a way that I hope addresses your objections to it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding spammed domains on user talk pages
Hi!
First of all thank you for your work fighting spam!
While fighting spam myself and using spamcheck I saw that you seem to include links to the spammed domain when adding warnings on user talk pages, e.g. here. This is problematic because tools such as spamcheck find those links and display them as unremoved (blue in spamcheck), making it harder to see what links still need removing when doing a systematic purge. I would suggest using {{LinkSummary|spammed.domain.com}} instead if you feel that adding the domain to the warning is necessary. Count Count (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Count Count: The purpose of those links is to track which users have been warned for adding a particular domain - a list can later be generated using Special:Linksearch. The LinkSummary template would not fulfill that purpose. MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
You can find the users who have added a domain using spamcheck. That list is much more complete as it records all additions for a domain and thus shows you all users who have added a link to that domain. Count Count (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm a creature of habit myself MrOllie, but I just tried out the spamcheck tool and I'm liking it, especially because it records additions that others may have reverted without adding a link to the spam domain to the user's page as you I and frequently do. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like the spamcheck link now included in the link summary should give us the same or better picture of a link's spam history. I'm not going to object if you continue tagging spammers with a domain; you do more anti-spam work than anyone else I know, so the last thing I'd want to do is step on your feet. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
National Gallery movies
OK, what is it this time? (And how do you keep such close track of my edits?) I used the imdb links with you in mind, because they are not ads. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The article in question was on my watchlist. I don't view the imdb link as an improvement - such links are user generated content and very often curated by the people involved. And Wikipedia is not a link directory - we should not be in the business of enabling promotion of a filmmaker's works via any sort of link. I understand from your last message that you like these movies, but that is not a reason to link to them or otherwise mention them on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned that I found Exhibition on Screen films of high quality only because you'd called the Sargent film "nonnotable." That I find them of high quality is certainly not the reason that I want to mention them on Wikipedia. I want to mention them on Wikipedia because I think that they will interest readers. Wikipedia always lists "Further reading" for that purpose, and there is no reason not to list movies as well as books. I suppose that you would find it acceptable to link to solely a movie review, because you did not revert my Sargent edit after I eliminated links other than to a movie review. I will therefore look for reviews of the two National Gallery movies to link to. If you would find acceptable any other method by which to mention a movie, please let me know. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I would not find a link to movie review acceptable either, and I still do not believe that the mention should be on the Sargent article either, I am waiting to see if anyone else cares to weigh in there. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
You did not tell me whether what method you would find acceptable by which to mention a movie. Since you reject links to movie producers' websites and you reject reviews, does that mean that you reject any mention of a movie? But that wouldn't make sense, because, as I said, to mention a documentary movie serves the same purpose as mentioning a book under "Further reading." Or do you object to the "Further reading" sections in Wikipedia? I am not being sarcastic; I am trying to figure out your reasoning, which you make little effort to explain.
I don't consider a movie producer's (or a book publisher's) website to constitute an ad for purposes of Wikipedia, because I would cite them for the information they contain, not for their promotion of the movie or the book. But I recognize that reasonable people might differ on that point. I cannot, however, see any argument against citing a movie review or a book review as a source for a statement in the text of Wikipedia that such a movie or book exists. But, now that I think about it, when a book is listed under "Further reading," no footnote is provided, presumably because a reader can go to Google Books or the Library of Congress catalog to confirm the existence of the book. So why not list documentary movies with no footnote, because a reader can go to imdb, or can simply google, to confirm the existence of the movie? The problem with that is that the movie would have to be listed in a section other than "External links."
Please articulate your position on how to list documentary movies. In the alternative, put back my listing of the two National Gallery documentary movies. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
My position is: They should not be listed at all. If the films had won major awards or were themselves notable (having multiple independent sources), perhaps. But I do not believe such sourcing exists in this case. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for stating your position, but you don't make an attempt to justify it. How is a movie's having won major awards relevant to whether readers of Wikipedia will be interested in it? In "Further reading," we don't list only books that have won major awards. If anything, it might be less justifiable to list a movie that has won major awards, because it is more likely that Wikipedia readers will be aware of it. But I am not suggesting that we not list movies that have won major awards.
I'm paraphrasing Wikipedia's definition of Notability, which is our criteria for writing an article about a subject. see WP:N. MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks since my last "MrOllie already reverted that garbage" edit conflict notice. Hope all is well in your world, and that you're just on a well-deserved vacation in Fiji. Sam Kuru(talk)00:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I recently made an addition to the Palika Bazaar article, where I added a reference on the timings and how to get to the place that I was told about. The citation was to my resource Noida Wale - which provides visitors with some of the practical and up-to-date information they need. However, the citation was removed!
I believe my website is a useful resource for the following reasons:
It gives current and accurate details about the place that is not available in the other, and up to date (one of the refrence is 17 years old, all the rest are not specified).
The site is always kept up-to-date with any updates on the hours of visit and the available ways to get to locations, so that the information remains as relevant as possible for those who are reading it.
The information I provided adds valuable context for readers looking to visit the place.
I would appreciate it if we could discuss this further and reconsider the inclusion of my citation.
You're adding blatant linkspam. 'Your resource' is not a usable citation for Wikipedia - kindly stop attempting to add it. You received final warnings about this on your previous account, if you keep this up your sites will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm looking for someone to aid me to write a new wikipedia page,
I heard you talk on the Solana wiki page.
I wanted to ask you to write a new page about a web3 project.
I add only new reference please don't try to change again 😇 have you read mahakapi jataka buddha past life story buddha was monkey king and Chinese novel inspired by Chinese treval the Chinese treval come India and study nalnda mahavihara and the also mention there book buddhist temple stupa jatak university many reference please don't try to change 😇 Ketanwasnik 098 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced code samples - your addition was simply off topic for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOR and WP:V for details. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Why are you removing my own signature???
Could you stop removing my own signature from a post? I stayed signed in with the account that was created solely for Srebrenica Massacre that I created not to confuse people with too many IPs, as I posted too much and the IP changes frequently. Could you please stop reverting my signature? 78.1.202.178 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Talk pages aren't the accurate record. I'm allowed to change my own signature. But ok, I don't have time to discuss this with you for the next several hours. Goodbye. 78.1.202.178 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Why are you removing all (heavily cited) paragraphs on psychological impact and support paths around various forms of alopecia and orgs? If you have a problem with links, just remove the links, no need to deprive people of knowledge, validation and support. These casual deletions have big impacts in articles like this, and people's lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkipedia (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As already explained on your own talk page, Wikipedia is not a place to embed external links or advertise web forums. Your Pubmed citations do not meet the minimum requirements given in WP:MEDRS. Sourcing requirements for medical content on Wikipedia are very stringent, please read and follow them. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of code samples. We should not have multiple samples for different programming languages. Thanks for pointing out the other redundant samples, I cleaned those out as well. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do you remove Python code but leave C++ code? There's pseudocode there too. C++ and Python implementations are a bit different than pseudocode, however. The ones in Python were particularly elegant, they caught my attention and thanks to them I understood the issue better. 148.81.172.134 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"thanks, but we should avoid promoting or mentioning particular UIs here" SD
Do you mean "here" as in in that section or "here" as in the SD page at all? If the latter, we should remove the ComfyUI section as well. The hack mentioned in ComfyUI has nothing to do with SD as it is caused by it's gpt-4 API implementation. I happen to agree that we shouldn't pollute the SD page with too much info on GUIs, especially since there are so many, which would cause WP:UNDUE issues if we don't mention all of them. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Why are you removing my images? I've been trying to add an image of the dalmatian platy as there are no shown images of the Dalmatian platies on the platy Wikipedia page, and it keeps getting removed. I see the other photos on the page and they're not the best quality. I'm trying to add a good quality example of a different species of fish to the wikipedia change. I don't understand why this is disruptive. Ireallylovefish (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Ireallylovefish
How are others supposed to learn then? I thought I was only supposed to put photos I have taken to avoid copyright? How are my photos and different from the ones already there. I'm sorry if I sound stupid, but I really don't understand the issue here. There deserves to be more platy diversity and representation out in the world. Ireallylovefish (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a gallery of people's personal photos. It isn't a place to put of photos of yourself, your pets, etc. What you're trying to do is just off-topic for an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Man, I just really love fish and wanted to share the beautiful (high quality image) with the world. I don't understand your problem with adding more insightful and variant images of species with much diversity. Ireallylovefish (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Sharing your photos with the world is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I would recommend that you start a blog or a social media page of some sort. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know how to properly add the requested information of the recent peer reviewed manuscript pertaining to this topic. I ask the editors to add this new documented evidence of the discovery of predetermined nonlocal variables that Bell predicted would negate his theorem. 2600:100E:B082:73EB:6C9D:3E86:AFEC:39F4 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
No, we're not going to promote nonsensical 'evidence' in predatory journals. You know this, you were told the last few times you tried to add this. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The other IP was asking why they can't add citations to fringe physics content on Wikipedia. The author of those citations has tried to add them several times from various accounts and IP addresses, and despite efforts to evade the blocks they have received they never fool anyone here. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I am confused. Are you stating that the author’s empirical evidence of nonlocal hidden variables is false and that the publisher, Frontiers, is facilitating false information? Can you support your allegations? 2600:1014:B109:187B:F0BB:F5D8:4350:140D (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Frontiers is well known as a predatory publisher. I'm not going to debate this with a block evader, though. We're not going to list your stuff, kindly stop spamming us with it. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, just to confirm you do not have administrator privileges correct? You simply have Rollback and pending changes? Pasteleditor (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not relevant to your edit warring - and removing warnings from your own talk page does not mean they weren't made. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I replied to your numerous warnings on my talk page but you didn't get back to me. So, to be on the safe side, I'll reply here too:
1. Please stop spamming me aggressively with warnings as if you were an administrator (which you are not).
2. Please stop twisting facts: I did not "add commentary, your [i.e. my] own point of view, or your [i.e. my] own personal analysis" but I clearly cited Wiki policies and rational reasons as to why I reverted those edits by this particular user.
3. Please stop making false accusations: you accused me of edit warring when it was clearly you who started to revert my edits WITHOUT a clear explanation. See article's edit history...
4. Please think and research a bit: you stated that what I explained in my edit summary was not already discussed on the article's talk page. Then look into the talk page's archives... and don't accuse me of lying. Thank you.
What is in the talk page (including the archives) does not support the changes you are attempting to make. I have not accused you of lying, but you are clearly mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Vedic heliocentrism
@MrOllie I am having few concerns on the Heliocentrism article regarding the claim of Vedic heliocentrism since it states that
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres"
Since the two reference given below isn't any peer reviewed source and it technically claims that the Vedas knew about heliocentrism before greek astronomer Aristachus of Samos gave me a bit skeptic. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, MrOllie. I saw you reverted my edits to Qnet earlier this month. As my edits across Wikipedia are specifically to deal with citation issues and templates (as it seems to be a spiraling issue), I would like to get more feedback, as I don't want to be doing anything improperly, and believe my edits were valid.
My criteria on all pages is to remove citations (and where applicable, page contents) based on templated pages, limiting my removals to:
- complete dead links (aka no current active link, and nothing archived)
- archived links that lead to 404s, home pages, or completely different articles
- press releases or promotional citations
I don't believe any of my edits to QNET were out of order - none of the other pages I've made similar edits to recently have been reverted, so I'm not sure where I went astray of editing policies, but wanted to discuss before restoring in case I did make a major error. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Removing dead links is generally unhelpful - because someone might be able to fix the link, if they know a fix is needed. Removing the dead link forecloses that possibility.
Press releases are sometimes usable for noncontroversial information and should not be blanket removed.
QNET specifically has had a lot of talk page discussions about sourcing, and I do not believe that BOLD edits are a good idea on that particular article. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Ollie - I'm sorry for the delayed response, I have been reading more than editing as I try to understand the citation policies a little more clearly. Just a few additional questions about QNET so I can ensure I don't repeat my mistakes:
I am not aware of a mechanism or tool allowing for the restoration of a dead link, where there was no tangible archived link (for example, where every archived version leads to a home page or to 404s, thus making them essentially unrecoverable). How can those dead links be fixed? (also, could you review this edit so I can make sure I am archiving citations correctly?)
The policy around press releases are still a little unclear to me, so if there are additional guidelines or essays to share that would be useful, please share any links you can. My understanding was press releases were promotional (whether promoting positive or negative news), and thus were not allowed in almost all situations, regardless of whether the content was generally considered controversial or not.
I have been reading through the many Talk page discussions, including those both resolved and unresolved, from the employee account "QNetLars". If BOLD edits are not encouraged, how do you recommend I work to resolve the template on the page - and also improve the section's readability, as the language is unwieldy and inconsistently written (both in terms of tense and tone)? CiKing101 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no automated mechanism or tool - but that does not mean that someone will not be able to find an updated URL nonetheless. I'm not interested in reviewing your other edits or answering general questions on sourcing on my user talk page. I suggest you ask such questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. If you're asking these kinds of basic questions about use of self published sources, I would recommend that you not attempt to resolve that template at all. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You Reverted Neutral text
Dear MrOllie, You reverted my edits on World Film Communities Network. I have tried to make the text neutral but you reverted my all edits explaining that it is a promotion. Can you please clarify which sentence or word is promotional added or edited by me? Adding a logo is promotion? Adding references is promotion? Sufikoin (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You added blatant advertising to the article. I cannot provide a specific word - your edits have been promotional from top to bottom. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree with you. I have not added any promotional text. If you think so, please specify which text is promotional. I have added a logo and few citations. Now please let me know what is promotional in this? Sufikoin (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
All of the text you added was blatant promotion. Since we are duplicating comments here and on your own user talk page, I will not respond here again. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I am so curious to know the following things done by me in the page and you reverted these too:
1. Adding Logo is promotional?
2. Adding citations is promotion?
3. Replacing Short description from "WFCN is a digital platform for film festival submission, professional networking within the film industry, and self-distribution of films. The platform acts as an online marketplace for film, media, and entertainment industry." to "Film Festival Submission Platform"? Is this also promotion? Sufikoin (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear MrOllie, Please answer my above queries, It is important to me as a Learner to judge whether these are promotional activities on Wikipedia or not. It will not take your so much time, you have to write only Yes or No. Sufikoin (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Reverted editing
Hi MrOllie
I saw you reverted my edits on multiple pages, and I do see my edits on some of them weren't adding any new helpful information. However, I do believe my edits these three pages were helpful, and added new information through visuals: WedgieEmbarrassmentSchool bullyingMarcussilio (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree nor understand that, as I said, in some of the pages it made sense, but in the three pages linked above, it does add perspectives visually. An example would be in the Wedgie under the different variations, it makes more sense to include a photo of one of the other variants instead of the photo of a regular, that's currently displayed. Marcussilio (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Don't you agree with the fact that the photo is more fitting than the current one under variations in the Wedgie page? It would make more sense to use a photo that actually describe one of the other variants mentioned instead of another photo of a regular wedgie. Marcussilio (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And how come you don't agree? I understand the other pages, but your opinion on the Wedgie page simply doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that you insist on being right on that one more than providing meaningful information and visuals on Wikipedia. And I wouldn't consider it spamming if I only did it once. Marcussilio (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree because you're adding a redundant, low quality image as part of a spamming campaign. You didn't do it once, you did it across many articles, including a cross-wiki campaign of spamming it on other language editions. MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I added it places i found it to be fitting, not to spam it or get it across the internet as fast as possible. I still think it deserves a spot in the Wedgie page. Would you delete it if I added it under variations on that page? Marcussilio (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't get why, it offers more insight, more visuals and more information than the current photo which is of same quality. Marcussilio (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me? I can prove that it's the same person who uploaded it. Both on imgur and deviantart? You really have nothing better to do than taking down photos that shouldn't be? Marcussilio (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope you are doing well! My intention is clearly not what you think, as war with a bot, you should consider taking a simple 5 seconds to read my comment, if you are not happy about it I'm more than fine, however, please consider my edit, and maybe we can workout something together instead of playing back and forth. I'm not interest in this kind of non-positive actions, so please, either suggest a positive outcome to move forward, or undo your bot edit, and remove your auto-correction, as I will lock the page if there is more unwanted modifications. I understand the rights as well, and as I said, well work in that direction.
You literally did revert a bot, as I already explained at your own user talk page. Reverting the bot will not help, you have to fix the defect the bot is designed to cure - or the bot will just come along and do the same thing again. To be clear: This is not my bot. If I revert the bot, that would also not help. Also, you cannot 'lock the page', so don't threaten to do so. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, my name is Ivana Aleksovska and I would like to follow up on the suggestion of User:Snowmanonahoe to submit a revision of the page sensitivity analysis. I tried to rewrite the page in its entirety (see my sandbox) as the page is now rather poorly organized and full of spam - quite some cleaning was needed in my view. I tried this but all my changes have been quickly reverted with motivation 'Same citespam new account'. Please note that I am not a new account, see my profile page User:IvanaAlexML. As per spam in my new version I have de-cluttered the page from lots of accumulated spam; please point me to what part of my revision still contains spam and I will remove it, if this helps to move forward and improve the page. The new page is - I hope - more clean and encyclopedic - no ongoing research, attentive to the possible needs of new readers falling on this page for the first time and trying to understand what sensitivity analysis is about.
Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions on how to improve the current version. I welcome any ideas you may have on how to improve the existing page, and I'd be happy to follow them up and make my modest contribution to the subject.
There's been a bit of a history on that page (see its associated talk page) of people trying to add mentions of themselves to the article. When they were stymied in that, they recruited colleagues to register new accounts to add the same citations back. Your additions added some of those same citations. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right, I did take a closer look at the talk page, and there are many exchanges about revisions. I was not aware of the complete history in detail when I made the first edits. Surely, I've added a few of the state of the art articles/books, but I don't know if there's one in particular that's causing the problem, given that the usernames are anonymous. To be honest, I would have added a few more references, but these are French books (as I'm a French speaker and read a lot of them when I was learning about SA), but I wanted to keep only the English literature. I don't know if you've looked at my changes in detail, but I've mainly reorganized the article (put the various sections in pedagogical order), keeping most of the existing parts, and I've also added two really important approaches that I think are essential, namely "moment-independent methods" and "chaos polynomials", with corresponding references to the scientific papers that proposed these methods originally.
Could you please point to me which references are causing the issues, so that we can work on them? I'd really appreciate your help and suggestions.
In fact, I've also been inspired by the French version of SA on wiki, it's pedagogical and not overwhelming, especially for readers unfamiliar with SA, trying to enrich their general culture on sensitivity analysis. This is so important for a fluid and synthetic overview of the subject, when trying to assimilate even the most basic notation. In the spirit of this desired improvement, how do we move forward?
If you agree, you can help me with the editing, and once we have a version that seems convenient for you, I can send the draft for revision. What do you think ? IvanaAlexML (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I did not perform the merge and have not reviewed the sources in depth, so I cannot answer your question. If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing policies, I recommend that you ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
FYI regarding Bryant & Stratton College
Just so you know, your account was mentioned as a "problematic editor" in an email sent to several Bryant & Stratton College addresses and CC'd to Wikimedia Legal as well as to two "problematic" talk page editors who could be individually identified, myself included. It was sent by someone who identified themselves as an editor on that talk page. If you would like more information, I am not hard to contact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I don't need the details, but you might consider forwarding that to Arbcom so they're aware of it. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @MrOllie I received your message in a response to a link that I added in a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_limited_company). I am not the owner of the site nor I want to made links to this site. I just read the information and found the content is helpful to others especially for learners so I though it would be best learning platform for others as I learned a lot things from here as a Business graduate student.
I just search for "Types of Companies in Poland" in Google and found https://zalewskiconsulting.pl/why-poland/business-entities-in-poland/ it is very related to the Wikipedia page so that's why I linked to that page.
I would request you to double check the page and as per my knowledge, the page has a variety of information so it should linked on Wikipedia for educational pages.
Thank you! Nomanraja (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't add links to self-published business websites or other types of marketing. The link that you added was plainly promotional and should not appear on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello @MrOllie I understood why you deleted my article on Sewbo. But I noticed there is not even a single article on wekipedia about the Automation or robotivs in Textile Industry. I am a student of textile engineering so I am very concerned about that. So I wanted to create an article related to this. I think I have to create an article on Automation or Robotivs in Textile Industry. So which is the most effective way to do this in that case Zkabirkhan (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, MrOllie. You should know that one of the contributors to LabPlot has written what I can only describe as a wildly uninformed screed on the official LabPlot blog. The post is completely unhinged, capped off with a link to a tweet that compares you by name to the Gestapo. In light of how disproportionately deranged this post is, I'm going to keep an eye on the LabPlot article and recommend that it be semi-protected if sockpuppeting gets out of hand again (or if meatpuppeting starts happening). You're completely, entirely in the right here, and I'm really grateful you took the time to clean up this mess. TheTechnician27(Talk page)17:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I need you to restore an edit that was deleted by Bot even though it was fine. An assessment was made on the Jewish Kitchen page a few minutes ago from the moment I write these lines היודע והאינו נודע (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Section
Hi I just received your message in a response of a content that I have added for Green Tara. Actually the whole Green Tara heading section is gone. I believe Green Tara is an important part of Tara (Deity of compassion and wisdom) and should consist enough and dedicated content. I wish that was an unintentional move which is why reverting it is important. Coming back to my edit I had just added a link that takes user to a gallery of thangka paintings so that everyone could know about traditional thangka of Green Tara and as well learn more in depth about the Buddhist Deity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DF6:2380:5DB1:845A:12B1:EDB5:680C (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If I did, it was inadvertent. The proper procedure would be for you to restore the comment but keep mine removed. (unless there's a cite I'm not aware of, hence my question) Not just lazily revert. Now can I please remove my comments? Just10A (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
No. After has someone has replied to your comment you should not delete it. The 'proper procedure' here was to revert the inappropriate deletion - that's why I did it. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
See WP:TPG. It may be technically allowed to delete the final comment, but I would give you the advice that it is nonetheless a very bad idea to do things like that on noticeboard discussions about your behavior. Folks take note of these things. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I was just looking at that users contributions and they appear to be spamming Psychiatry magazine. I wasn't sure if there was a COI or just a spammer? Knitsey (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure Snowmanonahoe did not suggest you start a Draft, because that is clearly the wrong process. My specific suggestion is this: stop trying to replace the whole article at once, start with smaller edits. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Silent Disco Origins
Hi, how is it not possible to add this source about the origins of silent disco? - is it because is German?
Cisco Sa’s earlier concept in the 80s involved Walkman street parties, which were the first instances of using headphones for collective dancing in public spaces. This concept is distinct from the later events where attendees simply listened to music at a concert. Cisco’s version emphasized the idea of a party—dancing, engaging, and connecting—through shared music delivered individually via headphones.[1]
The History and origins of silent disco are not correct as they are presently at the wikipedia page.
1st - the eco activists in the 90s were not making parties with headphones, they were making a festival and listening to concerts, live bands. They were not dancing or partying or having a disco. Listening to a concert has nothing to do with dancing.
2nd - Having a party with Walkmans is exactly the same concept as a silent disco. Its a usage of headphones in a group for partying.
3rd - From that concept of dancing with headphones, the article explains that Cisco then shared his headphone disco concept with Nico Okkerse. Which then commercialized the concept without Cisco.
Is there a way to educate the users about the facts and history of this silent disco concept`? How, if it wikipedia does not let update the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibronix2 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
By deleting my edit and labeling it spam, you are latterly saying that part of my life history is spam. Silent disco and its creation is part of my life history. And im just trying to correct the record.
Im the one that was doing the walkman street parties in Portugal and the same one that brought the concept to the Netherlands 20 years later.
Nico Okkerse labeled it silent disco and commercialize it. But it was not his brainchild like he claimed to the whole World, Because that was my brainchild from my teenager times.
So are you going to deny the truth, and lie to your users by 1st change the story about the eco activists having parties, when they were listening to a life concert? 2nd, are ou going to spread the false narrative that seeing a football game and listen through headphones is a headphone party? BUT part of my life story , which describes the creation of the silent disco, is spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibronix2 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Self published sources such as company websites, blogs, etc. are not a reliable sources. For an explanation of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. Also you should not be writing about yourself or your 'life history' on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR and WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok if i dont do it or cant do it, then who will correct the record? Who will show the silent disco wikipedia users the truth? Wikipedia history has been adopted all over the internet. Everyone parrot the Eco activists story as the earliest event in silent disco, even when that is completely false.
Why is the truth of the silent disco history is being denied when i show you my pages?
So you going to keep denying the readers the facts, now that you know them? Just because is my life history? Great!
Correcting the record is not the role of Wikipedia, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You will have to get 'the truth of the silent disco history' published in some reliable outlet first - see if you can get a book publisher or a newspaper interested. Wikipedia would only change after new reliable sources become available. We can't take your word for it or use your page - someone else could show up tomorrow with a different story and their own self published page. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Request for Reconsideration: Enhancing the Value of the NVIDIA CUDA Article with Relevant External Links
Thank you for your feedback, MrOllie. I added the blog link because it provides relevant and supplementary data, specifically highlighting how NVIDIA CUDA is used in data centers and complements the other sources cited. My intent was not to promote the blog but to provide an additional verifiable source that would enrich the submission. I understand the guidelines on external links and will discuss further changes on the talk page if needed. That said, I kindly request reconsideration of re-adding the links, as they contribute valuable information and context to the topic. Thank you for your guidance! Oluwatobi Adeboye (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Please move to talk page and do not engage in an edit war. The previous language was not even correct english. This is a BLP violation. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
It is obviously not a BLP violation. And instead of coming to my user talk page to tell me to go to talk, just go to talk yourself - and have a read of WP:BRD while you're at it. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
On this topic, I think it would be best to wait for RS to catch up. I suspect that in a few months there will be plenty of sources identifying Elizondo as a conspiracy theorist...assuming of course that any serious outlets even bother to report on his book. WP:NORUSH and all that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The Trajectory is a national plan that aims to achieve zero energy and carbon-ready commercial and residential buildings in Australia. It is a key initiative to address Australia’s 40% energy productivity improvement target by 2030 under the National Energy Productivity Plan. On 7 July 2023, the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council agreed to update the Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings by the end of 2024.
The updates to the Trajectory will:
support the delivery of a low energy, net zero emissions residential and commercial building sector by 2050
consider the success of the existing program
help develop the policy pathway for the building sector to achieve net zero by 2050.
Why are you being such a baby reverting "influencers" to "extremists." "Extremist" is partisan and biased. It violates Wiki's view neutrality: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias"92.36.145.169 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
If you have anything else to say on this topic, direct it to the article's associated talk page. My user talk is the wrong venue. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the last feedback, pointing out the rule that wikipeda is not a link directory. I just thought that, as a young researcher, when I'll be reading something new, I'd be happy to find links that take me to software that I can easily access and do my first experiments with. I wonder if I can quote a reference that contains a list of available softwares (I found an article with a very useful list) ? This would mean that the reader would still have to read the article to find out, rather than simply accessing the most appropriate software via a provided link. Or perhaps, I can create a brand new Wiki page dedicated solely to links to useful tools and software (which I can cite in the original page on sensitivity analysis)?
No, lists of 'useful' but nonnotable software or external links are simply off topic here. Quoting such a list is not better, nor is moving it onto another page - this isn't some kind of rigid law that can be worked around with a technicality, that's a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's processes work. A list of recommended local plumbers would probably be useful to people who end up on our articles on Plumbing, but such a list is nonetheless off mission for an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the explicitation. Indeed, the list contained all the software available to my knowledge (I also drew inspiration from the French Wikipedia, where such a list exists and which I found useful). On the other hand, you're right, this was a links directory, and it may have been a bit too long. So I only added the article/book, that I was mentioning, that could provide a better lead (among the other references in the bibliography) while avoiding listing links.
Will be looking further to do improvements towards the MOS style.
The French Wikipedia has different policies than the English one, you will find many things done there that would not be allowed here (and vice versa). You should also be alert for text which has been translated from English to French and subsequently deleted from the English article for various reasons - you would not want to put back a double translated version from the English->French->back to English MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Good to know about the policies, thanks. Sure, that was not my intention. I am happy with the current version, a product from our constructive exchanges. The next modifications in my next spare time, I can try to make improvements and pay attention to “MOS” that you suggested. Have a nice evening! Best, IvanaAlexML (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
can you please tell me why you felt the need to revert the intro paragraph to "magic (supernatural)" page so far back? i understand if i maybe made too many changes in my last round of edits, but the ones i made before lasted about 2 years, which indicates consensus. meanwhile you reverted it back to something from even before then ... reasoning please? 2601:249:8200:9580:E097:B04B:51C1:AE1F (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The version I restored to was the last one that appropriately reflected the sources and which was written in clear and understandable English. Something lasting a while (even a long while) does not mean it necessarily has consensus. MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. Fully appreciate why you bounced off of the conversation, but it'd be good to get your feedback on the image choice at Talk:Sole (foot)#Infobox image, as one of the few named editors in that thread, so that we can get a basic biology article out of the misunderstood dead end that it's been pointlessly stuck in since July.
I'm assuming that your cited diffs were just vandalism reverts with no strong view on the image that was previously in place, but wouldn't want to second-guess you when closing the discussion. Belbury (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Because what u do Imposible. Removed reasonable requests, No explainstion, remove even question about reason for removal and accuse of making onther Account when this my First Account of Wikipedia and only. DaKocamasra1 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Horribly wrong initial sentence
You put this sentence at the beginning of the article titled Exponential growth.
Exponential growth is a process that increases quantity over time at an ever-increasing rate.
That is gross malpractice. See my comment on the article's talk page. Obviously there are many things that grow at an ever-increasing rate that do not grow exponentially, and it is widespread false belief among the mathematically illiterate that exponential growth means growth at an ever-increasing rate or means very fast growth. The main concern of the opening sentence needs to be to dispell that misunderstanding. 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Your reversion restored the offensive sentence. Also, the two opening sentences were not redundant. The initial sentences should be as non-technical as possible. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Desi Factfinderrr (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
No more deleting my edits
If you feel as though you have a contribution to make to an article, go to the talk page and bring it up there. No more deleting my edits because you are actively deteriorating the quality of the website and the info it provides. Seriously, it's time to stop, you aren't funny. JerrySlimefeld (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and have questions about your revisions of my edits regarding water ionizers. Specifically, how the product of water ionizers (alkaline water) effects the body. I have found a few research papers that conflict with statements made in the "water ionizer" wiki article. But perhaps I'm contributing to the wrong wiki article? Though I can't find any articles that are specific to "alkaline water" and its consumption. If my edits of "water ionizer" is off topic because they aren't regarding the machine's form or function, then why are there any statements in the article about the health effects of consuming its product? Your guidance is appreciated. Sketchbuild (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
You're adding a citation about water that has bicarbonate additives. While the resulting solution is alkaline, that is not the same thing as the 'alkaline water' produced by a water ionizer - a water ionizer performs electrolysis on the water and separates out some of the hydrogen ions to produce streams of acid and alkaline water - that alkaline water contains no bicarbonate. Well, that's what they claim to do, in practice most of them mix the two streams back together and accomplish no actual change in Ph to the output at all.
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the "Alkaline Diet" wiki page. That is definitely a more appropriate location to cite the 2008 study on mineralized alkaline water. I also misunderstood that the researchers were simply adding minerals to produce an alkaline solution, rather than using the minerals as an electrolyte during electrolysis to produce alkaline water.
However, there are problems with some of the existing statements and their citations in the article about "Water Ionizer".
1) "Extensive scientific evidence has completely debunked these claims [citation #4- Amount and type of protein influences bone health]" This source discussed the correlation between dietary protein and calcium metabolism as it relates to bone health. This source is unrelated to "Water Ionizer", and needs to be removed.
2) "Extensive scientific evidence has completely debunked these claims [citation #5- Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer]" This source is a 2016 survey of available scientific literature relating to dietary acid load, alkaline water, and cancer. It concludes, "Despite the promotion of the alkaline diet and alkaline water by the media and salespeople, there is almost no actual research to either support or disprove them." The correlation between alkaline water and health is inconclusive, NOT "debunked" as the current wiki page states.
My edit will remove the text: "Such claims violate basic principles of chemistry and physiology. There is no medical evidence for any health benefits of alkaline water. Extensive scientific evidence has completely debunked these claims [4,5], leaving such claims in the pseudoscientific realm."
Replacing it with: "However, a 2016 survey of scientific literature found no evidence to support or disprove these claims [citation- Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer]." Sketchbuild (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Watering down the text as you are doing here has the effect of promoting fringe altmed claims. It is not helpful. Someone else has warned you about edit warring - I urge you to desist from making this edit over and over. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Dude, there is a cited source that has NOTHING to do with the topic of water ionizers (dietary protein and calcium metabolism). It's a simple oversight.
There is a difference between DEBUNKED and INCONCLUSIVE. If anything, the existing statement "Such claims violate basic principles of chemistry and physiology. There is no medical evidence for any health benefits of alkaline water. Extensive scientific evidence has completely debunked these claims [4,5], leaving such claims in the pseudoscientific realm..." is misrepresenting the research findings. Sketchbuild (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Citing an opinion piece (even one written by a respected academic) does not justify claims made here. This isn't about how many citations you can tack on to a wiki page. It's about how information is presented. Sketchbuild (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
You're being reverted and warned by multiple other users, not just me. Shouting at me on my personal talk page is not going to accomplish anything. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello . Regarding the removal of source texts that I had added to the accounting article about the analytical part of accounting. I request you to state the reason because what you have stated in the explanation of the reason for these actions seemed to be an incomprehensible and unrelated phrase: redundancies. Please state the reason. Wikinegarr (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The words that you are adding are redundant, as I mentioned in my edit summary. We don't need repetitive terms that mean the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I added the word of analyzing, other words are processing,measures and recording. The meaning of analyzing is not same as these words. So get my word back to th article. Wikinegarr (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree - it is redundant and clutters up the opening, which must be clear and concise. Your change is not an improvement, thus I reverted it. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I also disagree. You can't even find a dictionary that considers the meaning of these words to be the same. According to the dispute resolution rules in Wikipedia, I request that our problem be sent to other users to resolve the dispute so that they can judge the matter. Wikinegarr (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
DIKW - misleading to call him the originator of digital twin
Your claim is totally false. There simply is no support for that claim. There are academic citations after citations that confirm that he did originate the concept of the digital twin. Simply use Google Scholar to verify that. Please put the added material back. NASAprobes88 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
No. There was work along that line earlier from others, notably David Gelernter. The term itself was coined later by someone else. The material does not belong in the article you added it - and the claim would indeed be misleading (some would simply say 'false'). MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Clearly you haven't done your research. There are thousands of academic citations that support the claim of Dr. Grieves producing the first Digital Twin Model in 2002. The claim is also supported by industry. Gelenter's book was just a vague generalization as was other science fiction books going back a long way. What academic credentials do you have to make such pompous and completely erroneous pronouncements? We're not done here. Govern yourself accordingly. NASAprobes88 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Govern yourself accordingly LOL. I don't respond to empty threats and personal attacks. Kindly do not post on my talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I've warned the other editor for personal attacks and edit warring, and undone to the status quo, but you are also edit warring. You know better. Wait for responses to your talk page discussion, and don't revert the other editor again. Meters (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm writing regarding the recent reverts of my edits to this article and the addition of the "Undisclosed paid" tag. I want to clarify a few points and open a discussion about how we can improve this article.
Clarification on my status
First, I want to state clearly that I am not a paid editor. I am an independent Wikipedia contributor who has been editing for about two years, usually once or twice a month. My edits to this article were made in good faith, with the intention of improving its content. If necessary, I am willing to provide evidence of my independent status.
About my recent edits
On August 15 and 24, 2024, I added information about five books written by Arindam Bhattacharya (Politician). This information was sourced from various online resources, including details about the publishers and ISBN numbers. My intention was to add value to the article by including this verifiable information.
Request for discussion
I understand that my edits were reverted due to concerns about promotional content. I'd like to discuss how we can incorporate this information in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Specifically:
Are the books relevant to the subject's notability?
How can we present this information in a neutral, non-promotional manner?
What additional sources or verification would be needed to include this content?
Moving forward
I'm open to feedback and suggestions on how to improve these additions. If the community feels that some or all of this information should be included, I'm happy to work collaboratively to integrate it properly.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to a constructive discussion on how we can enhance this article. Francisca.news24 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Curious why the shorter addition to the management consulting page is not allowed. It is not name dropping companies any different than the big four and big three (MBB) sections do. The "Tier 2" category is as defined as those two, with plenty of sources. Can you explain why this is different? 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable sources do not help, see WP:RS. And at any rate, this is still inappropriate name dropping of particular companies. Wikipedia isn't a business directory or otherwise a place to list or promote particular companies. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
How is Big 4 or Big 3 not name dropping? Confused about this. Tier 2 is a very common category in the management consulting industry and there are select few firms considered within this bucket. It is not different than the big 3 or big 4, or even ivy league schools. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Literally in the big 3 section OC&C is name dropped...for what reason? It says they are generally considered a top firm. This is no different but is even more defined as "Tier 2" is an official category of firms. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I am not, but I was just curious and thought that the category should be added since it is widely considered an official grouping. If you just google it, you will find plenty of reliable sources (at least considered reliable in the consulting/mba community like Management Consulted, Prep Lounge, Vault, Hacking the Case Interview) that consider this to be true. I will stop making the edits, but I still do not see a difference. Especially with the fact that OC&C is named drop as continuing to be prestigious within the big 3 category. This is no different than listing a college as a "top fifty" school because 3 rankings / 5 consider them a top fifty. Just like colleges, these companies are ranked based on multiple factors including revenue, compensation, WLB, prestige, size, etc. It is less so promotional and more so biased to pick and choose professional categories to feature on the Wikipedia page. I will not editing, but I wholeheartedly disagree and you have not provided a decent argument as to why this is invalid. It is not a personal opinion, but one held by the ENTIRE industry. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the typos, but you get the sentiment. My point was it is biased to allow certain categories and groupings of firms and not others when they are all considered to be true by the industry, which you are likely not in yourself. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, reliable sources are what is defined at WP:RS. Blogs and selfpublished career websites do not qualify. OC&C is discussed because a chunk of their business was acquired by one of the big 4. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
" OC&C Strategy Consultants still independently operates 14 offices in over 10 countries, and is commonly referenced as a top consulting firm" and it cites the same sources I cited. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, you're just wrong. Vault is the US News for the industry. It was cited for OC&C "is referenced as a top consulting firm" and that wasn't taken down. You are being biased and it shows. 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Dear Mr Ollie i dont know the Actual reason why you reverted my Addition. i am the Publisher and i am doing addition with spending too much in it and you just came and revert the addition by considering it the spammy or promoting your own website. hence after studying i found that multiple high profile website just like espncricinfo and gsm areana are doing the same thing adding the product and refer it to their own site so why there addition is not consider as spam but my addition is. nor i am doing too much i just add max of two a day, if you look you will find the things i added is missing in the context and added additional and accurate value.I know that wikipedia is a user generated platform not a promoting platform. its provided the accurate and actual information
why did you revert my contribution? No original research was involved, just going off citations listed on the wiki page's note. (the one near the result "Inconclusive") KiddKrazy (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
For the reasons already listed on your own talk page. You should wait for consensus support for your changes on the article talk page (and provide new sourcing), my user talk is the wrong venue for that, also see WP:RESULTMrOllie (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, the content is AI-generated blather, and the site was being systematically spammed by sockpuppet accounts (which have subsequently been blocked as part of a spam farm). MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Final Request for Revision – Resolving the Contradiction in the Accounting Definition
hello.
I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to you once again, with a final request regarding the initial sentence in the "Accounting" article on Wikipedia. After reflecting on our previous conversations and reexamining the article, I believe there is a significant contradiction in how the definition of accounting is currently presented, which I’d like to discuss in more detail.
The article, as it stands, introduces "accounting" in its most general sense without any mention of "analysis" in the opening definition. This omission is particularly concerning because later in the same article, when discussing management accounting, it explicitly mentions that management accounting involves analysis. This creates an inherent contradiction: how can one specialized branch of accounting (i.e., management accounting) include analysis while the broader field of accounting, which encompasses all subfields, does not?
This suggests that accounting as a whole is merely about recording transactions, which is a gross oversimplification of the profession. The field of accounting, in reality, is much broader. Accounting not only involves recording financial information but also interpreting, analyzing, and presenting it in ways that assist decision-making for businesses, individuals, and governments alike. To exclude any mention of analysis in the opening definition of the entire field is misleading and diminishes the full scope of what accounting truly entails.
What is even more contradictory is that analysis plays a critical role in all aspects of accounting, not just in management accounting. Financial accounting, for example, requires rigorous analysis to prepare accurate financial statements, interpret company performance, and ensure compliance with standards. Similarly, audit and tax accounting are also grounded in analytical processes that go far beyond simple bookkeeping. In fact, without analysis, accounting information would be of little use to stakeholders, as raw data alone does not inform strategic decisions.
Given that the article later discusses analysis in the context of management accounting, I believe it is essential to reflect this in the broader definition of accounting as well. Not only would this resolve the contradiction, but it would also provide readers with a more accurate and complete understanding of the field from the outset.
I propose a slight but meaningful revision to the opening sentence, which could say something like: "Accounting is the process of recording, analyzing, and reporting financial information." This small addition acknowledges that accounting is not limited to recording transactions but also involves the critical step of analyzing financial data to provide meaningful insights.
I genuinely believe this revision will enhance the accuracy and clarity of the article, and I kindly ask you to reconsider my suggestion. Thank you for your dedication to ensuring that Wikipedia provides high-quality and informative content, and I hope we can collaborate to resolve this issue for the benefit of all readers.
Wikinegarr. Keep discussion on the article talk page where it belongs. And do not post AI-generated stuff again, you must write in your own words. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for stepping in. Can you help me understand what was wrong with the peer reviewed article that I found to support the addition I made? It was the only paper referencing restorative justice in the victims directive that was from a credible source. I am not sure why it was deleted. Thanks in advance. Cleverboy inn (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
"Online Dating" revision 1249117165
HI MrOllie! Thanks for contributing to the "Online dating" Wikipedia article. Many of the claims and citations on that article are from over a decade ago, I noticed. So the article definitely needs some work. I tried adding contemporary citations for the claims I could verify, but they were reverted with the summary "selfpub links".
I think it's going to be very difficult to substantiate this section because it speaks about "niche" dating apps, yet citations for dating apps which are very small are likely to be regarded as link spam by Wikipedia's contributors. Small dating apps are also less likely to be discussed by independent sources. As an alternative to citing small apps directly, I considered using SimilarWeb because many would consider it an authoritative source (despite being secondary) and it can show the estimated gender distribution. Unfortunately, it told me "No Data to Display" even for the websites of niche dating apps with 100k+ downloads on Google Play, like Hiki. Presumably (and ironically) this is because the apps we're trying to get data on are too niche or gender-skewed.
Another alternative to attempting to cite this section would be to avoid discussion of smaller apps entirely.
My thoughts are that difficultly in meeting the sourcing guidelines is not really an argument for setting aside sourcing guidelines, and there is definitely no need to add unreliable or primary sources (or in this case, both) to content which already has citations. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
> setting aside sourcing guidelines
What in the sourcing guidelines says they're bad sources?
> there is definitely no need to add [these] sources
I just explained the need. What are the alternatives?
I understand why my citation was reverted in regards to the United States - Short Term Health Insurance section on the Health Insurance page. I do have a question for you regarding the best approach to adding new information.... The duration of Short Term Health Insurance plans was recently changed to a maximum of 3 months (4 month total renewal duration), instead of a maximum of 364 days (36 month total renewal duration). (https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/finalized-federal-rule-reduces-total-duration-of-short-term-health-plans-to-4-months/) Should this information be added as a new paragraph? Or does the whole first paragraph of the Short Term Health Insurance section need to be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.254.122 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The most important thing to take on board is that you should not be using unreliable sales sites like 'healthinsurance.org' as citations. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the feedback. I'll search for an alternative source for the information. The author of the healthinsurance.org article, per her bio, has been writing about health insurance since 2006 so your concern must be with the site as a whole. 50.217.254.122 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
See WP:RS. Wikipedia does not use self published sites, sales sites, blogs, etc. Stick to newspapers, books from reputable publishers, peer-reviewed journals and so on. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Shame on me for not quoting the entire page! Does the part I quoted contradict your claim though? :)
Sarcasm aside, while I'm sympathetic about how fatiguing it can be to deal with link spammers, I think it's pretty bold to refer to a website cited by Forbes, Yahoo Finance, and big media outlets as "unreliable". By that logic, perhaps it'd be acceptable to cite the secondary sources that cite healthinsurance.org, but not healthinsurance.org itself! Christian Nassif-Haynes (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
It is better to avoid rarely used technicalities when discussing with new users who should be using actually reliable sources. Your Forbes link is itself an unreliable source (see WP:FORBESCON), and your 'Yahoo Finance' link is just a posting of a press release submitted by the unreliable source under discussion. You should consider gaining more experience with Wikipedia before coming into a discussion unrelated to you on a user talk page to correct someone. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
> It is better to avoid rarely used technicalities when discussing with new users
[citation needed].
I think it's nice to make newcomers feel welcome. *I* appreciate your contributions, 50.217.254.122 ! (Even though the majority of them are to change citations to healthinsurance.org...)
>Your Forbes link is itself an unreliable source (see WP:FORBESCON), and your 'Yahoo Finance' link is just a posting of a press release submitted by the unreliable source under discussion.
Well, ya got me there.
> You should consider gaining more experience with Wikipedia before coming into a discussion unrelated to you on a user talk page to correct someone.
It is disruptive but not obvious vandalism, so I don't know that AIV would do anything. But I'm loath to spend time on ANI for this. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedCalc you commented on the references "I read a couple of them and they were both trivial mentions. The sources must include substantial content specifically about MedCalc, not a mere mention of the name of the program."
But there are actually 2 independently published books, entirely dedicated to the program. These do not seem to be trivial mentions.
Frank1848 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Colleague, I disagree with you. You can see the rank of these film festivals. They are both Annual. First in Mumbai Bollywood, the second in Girona, one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world. https://www.gironafilmfestival.com/d
At any rate, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service or IMDB, this site is not here to host lists of film festival awards. When he wins an Oscar or something we'd list that. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear colleague, the Oscars are not the only high-ranking film festival. There is a BAFTA, a Festival in Cannes, Venice, Berlin, San Sebastian, Girona, these are all high-ranking film festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:B01:7120:0:0:0:1 (talk • contribs)
The Oscars aren't a film festival. At any rate, we do not make lists of film festival awards here, high-ranking or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Also, since you did not answer, I repeat my question: Are you associated with that person somehow? - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear MrOllie. Considering my arguments and my competence, which are easy to verify, I ask you, as an experienced Wikipedia participant, to return the text you deleted to its place. I am grateful in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:B01:7120:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no means to verify the 'competence' of an anonymous IP. I will not return the text, it does not belong on Wikipedia. You never should have added it in the first place. Kindly do not post on my talk page again unless you have an answer for my question. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View
Please be advised that I have started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard as yourself and the other editors did not participate in Dispute Resolution.
Trying to add my detailed color list to the sharpie page, for some strange reason it had said you reverted it. Relevant and important information to the sharpie brand that is needed and honestly necessary. Unsure why this happened? Thegoldengen (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information - a list of sharpie colors is unencyclopedic trivia that doesn't belong on the article. It is not 'honestly necessary', it is off-mission for this website. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Many people disagree as you can see in the talk section of the sharpie page. A color list, the RGB code for the accurate color swatch, where to find which color in what set and in what sort of point is what color available in are not just lists they are ALL valuable pieces of information of the brand itself. How is what the brand makes and discontinues not "on mission" for the page? Thegoldengen (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Many people would like Wikipedia to host all manner of things that don't belong here, but we still don't do it. The community has decided that this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list of anything people want to post on the internet. The Wikipedia community has specifically decided that this site is not for product lists, catalogs or similar listings. 'Valuable' is not the criterion for inclusion. A list of links to local plumbers would be valuable to someone who is looking to fix a leaky pipe, but it is off-mission for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Dear sir,
I am writing in the hope that we can resolve our ongoing disagreement regarding the living authors page. You have reverted my work once again without constructive feedback or indeed reason. In order to identify a consensual way forward, I have asked help from two other users. This help is pending but in the meantime you were were quick to delete my work. I spent a considerable amount of time and followed a template from another similar page that has no tags. I did not remove the tag and awaited for feedback.
I also take the opportunity to remind you of the rules as they appear in the dispute resolution page including Assume good faith
Use etiquette
Be civil
Be open to compromise
Discuss on talk pages
Failure to discuss and adopting these rules will leave you in fault. Kindly engage in a constructive dialogue and be ready to compromise, treat me with respect and assume good faith.
Please do not revert my work and allow others to feedback. Otherwise I will be forced to open a conflict resolution case with respect. Cleverboy inn (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I explained my reason on the article's associated talk page. What you're doing is edit warring to try to force promotional content into the article - just the same as the last single purpose editors that arrived on that article. I warned you about falling into that same pattern early on, but here you are doing the same things. Please do not revert my work and allow others to feedback. <--- That is not how Wikipedia works. You do not get to force your version of the article to wait for feedback. Others can view your edits in the history of the article. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry that you insist on your original position and that you are not willing to allow other editors to take a view and help improve the page. Your interventions have been targeted, personal and disrespectful. You have failed to show how this article is promotional. The tag is still standing and you should allow other editors to contribute. I am sorry but I believe the matter requires attention from wikipedia. I can also see that this is not the first time that a dispute resolution was raised in relation to your work. Cleverboy inn (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Ollie I noticed you as an account that reverses many contributions without further discussion. Note that every article has a Talk section. So before you just revert contributions, please comment there BEFORE you revert.
Please keep in mind that we, the Wikipedia community, need more active contributors. Every contributor starts bit by bit, by e.g. adding info to his favorite band then adding references and so on. By reverting without discussion you discourage people. Most contributors invested their spare time and it is a no-go to jut revert their work.
I also notice that you claim that you interpret Wikipedia's rules always correct, thus can act as you do. But you are just one single user (not a contributor that extends articles, as far as I can see). Also, you edit so much that you cannot be a single person.
In real life we have courts to interpret the rules. Nothing is just decided ad-hoc as a single other persons things it is right. So you are not a judge with super powers. Before a decision can be made, we need to listen to each other.
Thus please stop reverting things without explanation in the article's talk pages in advance and also after getting feedback from the contributor. We need more active users who extend articles and it is important to speak with them. If they make a mistake, OK. I mean, you teachers also spoke to you once you made a mistake. They explained what was wrong, what can be done better et.c. And this is how you and we all learn. So no positive feedback, no learning. No learning, no better contributions. No communication, no contributors who will invest their spare time.
thanks and regards
--Muso (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker. Is this a no? No to what?
I what way do you encourage new contributors to become better contributors when you just revert and not communicate with them? Also, instead of reverting, you can edit pages to improve them, e.g. to cut unrelevant info but keep other info from the contribution. Muso (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
No to everything you suggest. I reject the premise of your loaded question. I do communicate. With respect, don't come onto my talk page, call me a bot, and then tell me what to do. MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
> No to everything you suggest.
Ehm, so you will continue to
1. revert contributions of others before communicatimng with them in the Talk page of the article?
2. Not to extend articles on your own but only judging about the contributins others made?
3. you will not help the Wikipedia o get a more active contributor community by communicating with them BEFORE you revert their woork they have done in their spare time Muso (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Why not? Why can I not criticize someone and make proposals?
When I am criticized, I also have to deal with it. And criticism is sometimes true. If I don't listen to it, how should I become better? Muso (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Muso You are making repeated demands, You have been given your answer, and you make the demands again. You have been on Wikipedia long enough to know how it works here. I am not about to enter into a discussion over this. Please just stop it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
> I am not about to enter into a discussion over this.
Sorry, did I say anything about you? I made my point and this is the user page of Mr. Ollie and he can speak on his own.
You can join our discussion, but then please discuss, meaning take one of my arguments and comment on it, prove it false or wrong. Muso (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You have reverted me here changing "The concept of race classification in physical anthropology lost credibility" to "The concept of race classification in American physical anthropology lost credibility".[3] Every one of the sources is a survey of Americans. You say this is "not supported by sources". Rather brazen. I suggest you revert back, it will be reported. Raffelate (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Do I spot a pattern here? A willingness to threaten to go to the noticeboards but an unwillingness to actually do so? I guess it doesn't matter. Sooner or later somebody is going to report this if the disruption continues and the result will be the same either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
For undoing my accidental rollback. I was riding on a bus (very uncomfortably) and apparently fell asleep while my watchlist was open, else I would have noticed it at the time. —Alalch E.11:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS thoroughly, it has already been linked in your own talk page. None the sources you used met that standard. Requirements for medical sources are very high, even sources in peer reviewed medical journals will often not meet them. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I did read, it's a complicated set of rules, but it's hard to believe not even one source was valid. It's understandable the requirements for medical sources are very high, but articles written by doctors or by colleges are up to meet the standards, they have both acceptance by the community and the academy. How would one know if sources in peer reviewed medical journals don't meet them? Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
but it's hard to believe not even one source was valid. And yet that was the case. but articles written by doctors or by colleges are up to meet the standards, the standard is higher than that. How would one know if sources in peer reviewed medical journals don't meet them? By reading WP:MEDRS throughly, which clearly states that reviews are used and other types of medical sources such as single studies are not. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't distinguish between valid and unvalid sources, even after reading MEDRS. My sources were of all kinds and neither kind was valid, how? How can Harvard not be accepted as valid? Why are studies dismissed simply because there aren't any reviews? Some of my sources were based on a medical general opinion, which matches a review. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) PUBMED is not accepted as a source according to Wikipedia despite what MEDRS states. If a study uses the scientific method then how are the results subject to confirmation and review? Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
If you have read MEDRS and are unable to understand the sourcing requirements, I would suggest that you edit on non-medical topics only. WP:MEDRS specifically says that many things on Pubmed do not meet the guideline. My user talk page really is not the place to debate the requirements of MEDRS. If you have further questions about how Wikipedia works, I recommend that you ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Three magi
How exactly are these "unreliable sources"? The one travel website had a photo of the tomb's plaque declaring the tradition of Balthazar. You don't have to agree with it, but when there's a plaque at a historical site declaring this tradition, that's a pretty good source in my book.
Edit: I am FUMING. You removed information that was ALREADY on the Bazen article BEFORE I EVEN EDITED IT. That information was already on there previously, I just added to it!! People like you are why I hate editing wikipedia now. You can't add information, or even add TO information without someone looking up ALL your previous edits and undoing them!!!! The information on the Bazen article dates back to AT LEAST January. But now that I'VE added to it, what is it not good enough? Isn't an encyclopedia that anyone can edit supposed to share information? Nope, can't do it because of all the clowns gatekeeping on here. I am SO sick of this crap, and I want an explanation as to why you systematically removed information on all those pages.(Burmiester (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC))
Whatever. It's a PHOTO OF A PLAQUE AT THE LOCATION!!!!!!! But I'll let you win because I don't have the energy to fight losing battles. People like you are why this isn't fun for me anymore. Thanks for nothing.(Burmiester (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC))
You're welcome! PS: Amleth has two graves, both with very nice plaques and attendant tourism materials. Obviously both cannot be correct. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
COOL, too bad Bazen only had one and that has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for the sanctimonious and condescending attitude btw. Definitely shows that you're clearly in this for factual information and not just a power trip.(Burmiester (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC))
I'd just like to close this little interaction by saying that pedantic, petty tyrants like yourself make editing this site a nightmare for regular people. It is the opposite of what this is supposed to be: a neutral encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Are you expecting a peer reviewed source for a LOCAL TRADITION? Your demands are unreasonable and spiteful. If you think Jimmy Akin would have an issue with my edits, you need your head examined.(Burmiester (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC))
Hey, check it out! A STAMP from Ethiopia with Bazen identified as Balthazar on it! Gee that SURELY is a reliable enough source for his magesty, Mr. Ollie, right? Right? Still not good enough? Okay!
You should really consider reading WP:RS rather than bringing everything that turns up on a Google search to my talk page! This has been fun, but it is time for you to stop posting on my talk page now. Goodbye! - MrOllie (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Borrowing Ideas
Hello my friend! Do you mind if I use your box for my talk pages? I'm not gonna steal your idea, I'm just borrowing it just to make some pizazz! Hebdge134 (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Not an Inappropriate External Link
I have added the appropriate external link, that blog was about "Job opportunities for international students in the USA" and i have given the appropriate citation to Job. Is this the Wikipedia criteria works right? Giving a reference link to the appropriate articles. 122.170.72.48 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hiya, very confused as to why the book is not suited for the 'further reading' list as it discusses the topic in great detail, and is published by a respectable publisher. Also should the list be more inclusive which this list should be but isn't? What link should I provide if it isn't the publishers? Kind regards.LeeCollinsworth (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience and diligence throughout a generally difficult series of interactions, and your maintenance of civility in the face of so many accusations of bad faith. It helped me immensely as I tried to do the same. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Sir, Can you please guide me with the right way about how can I get backlinks from Wikipedia. The part I added as an addition to the article, previously, was a small portion of a high quality content from my website. Also, I added the link the link to the same article. Can you please guide because I'm new to this field. Muneeb2332 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You can't. There is no way to get backlinks from Wikipedia, and all outgoing links are tagged nofollow and would not help with SEO anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Wikipedia doesn't have a 'Bias' policy. Stop deleting chunks of the article. If you have some kind of point to make, make it on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
List of office suites, removed entry
I did not know, that one may only link, that already have a wikipedia article. Is this really a rule??? I checked the notability of course, CryptPad is a long existing project, mentioned in the media and it got public money from funds of EU and is part of open source projects from france and germany. I can try to create a wikipedia article but isn't this usally much harder since new wikipedia articles get removed often? To my understanding wikipedia is about incrementally build knowledge, so this a a catch 22:
no link without article
no article without fully complete text with hundereds of references (sorry for the exaggeration), so that no wikipeda admin delte it within seconds
no chance to incremenentally build something, because it has to be perfect or it gets deleted
Adding something new to wikipedia got hard these days, only extending existing pages is easy. Again sorry for my complaint. Please clarify or link the rule "no link without wikipedia page", this is really new to me and I'm willing to learn. Of course this will not automatically lead to doing so, as my exaggerated explanation above shows how hard this would be IMHO. Thanks. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not know, that one may only link, that already have a wikipedia article. Is this really a rule???
That (and the template you also changed) are lists of suites that have a preexisting Wikipedia article, yes. We need to have some inclusion criteria for the list, and that is the one we use. If you want to incrementally build a new article without concern of deletion, we have a draft space for that. Details are at WP:AFC. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
You did not prove your argument. You repeated it, but you did not prove it. To my understanding from the wikipedia rules you are right that for every single item of list the wikipedia rules of notability apply - which I complied to. You are also right that an existing wikipedia page (usally) is a prove of notability, this is self explaining. But you are not right that any list item without a wikipedia page is automatically not notabale. This is stated nowhere to my understanding and you did not provide a link or prove. Of course there may exist lvalid ist items without a wikipedia article. This is seldom, so I see your poitn here, but not impossible.
If I would have added Albert Einstein to a list of noble prize winners, including a reference, but Albert Eisntein woudl have no wikipedia article, then this list item would of course be notable and right and because of the public awareness you would not delete the list item. So again, please explain to me, why or where an existing wikipedia page is requirement. It is a (strong) evidence, one evidence, but not the only one.
Regarding WP:AFC this is no protection of getting deleted in the public wikipedia, it's only a safe space to do a lot of work and then get delted or not upon publishing.
If you show me the prove, ok. But if there is no prove you are actign against your own interests: Extending wikipedia with relevant knowledge. I can image that you have to clear up wikipedia all the times, especially because of lackign notability. But you shpudl also consider if there are edge cases any you are acting, because it does not look good to have a list full of items with wikipedia articles and one without or because you spend so much time and are right almost always.
We can discuss the notability of the case and I can try to prove it. But at the moment the rule of no list items without wikipedia article seems to be a simplification made from you, so this would not be fair - and against the wikipedia rules. Of course, I don't have your wikipedia knowledge, so I apologize if I'm false or if I have hurt you, that's why I asked for link (aka prove) in my initial statement. Thanks again. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm telling you what the inclusion criteria is for the particular list you modified. The points you are making about other lists or about creating new articles are irrelevant to that. My user talk page is not a place to try to 'prove' irrelevancies. If you have further questions along those lines, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
You stated: "I'm telling you what the inclusion criteria is for the particular list you modified."
This is not your original statment, this is a new arguement.
Orignally you argued on my user page by the notability guideline - which I complied to.
Now you are arguing by "inclusion criteria for the particular list". So where can I please find them?
You messaged me on my discussion page. You also state in general, that you only answer on your discussion page. And the discussion page is for discussions. So this is the right place.
You edited one of my edits. You linked an explanation (WP:notability) which does not apply. So I asked you for the correct rules, which you don't provide.
At the moment this would be an action from you based on rules from you, not from wikipedia. I asked you and ask you politely and civilized for clarfication of this potential misunderstanding. Instead you block the conservation, so that I have to live with your personal decision about my edit.
Rules are applying to all. If one does not apply to a rule, one has to explain which rule it was. A set of transparent rules is the base of democracy. I asked you politely to make the rule transparent, since you initially linked rules that do not apply. In response you justify this with other rules ("inclusion criteria for the particular list") which you don't link or publish.
The message you got on your own user talk page is the standard template text everyone gets when they add something to a list that doesn't meet inclusion criteria. It was a form letter. You seem to have developed an impression that Wikipedia operates on an inflexible system of laws or rules, applied mechanistically across the whole project. But that is not how Wikipedia works at all (see WP:WIKILAWYER).
List article inclusion criteria vary from list to list. You will not find some 'rule' that says every list everywhere follows such and such criteria. One easy way to know that you weren't following the list criteria would be to note that every existing entry on the list linked to a Wikipedia article. Once again, if you have general questions about 'rules' on Wikipedia, take them to WP:TEAHOUSE. You wrote that A set of transparent rules is the base of democracy. - You should have a read of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBURO. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for you reply. I would like to point you to some bad behaviour you have made:
1. If you post a standard template text as a justification foru your edit you have to expect that users take your posted standard template for granted and ask questions if it is not applicable.
2. Your explanation of an otherwise infexible system of laws and rules and according linking of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBURO is comprehensible but indistinguishable from rules you may have imagined yourself or rules that apply, because you have a stronger wikipedia position or more possibilities than me.
3. Your stating of "easy way to know" I was not following the rules is impolite, because as we see it is not that easy. Without the word "eays" it would be neutral and I suppose this was emotionally.
4. I don't have general questions about rules on wikipedia, I had questions about your rules on wikipedia, which you finally explained now. Thanks. So please csonider, if you are false when you try to end a discussion on your talk page, although the talk pages are made for this.
So summing up:
You may be right, you may be wrong, according to your explanations one can not know this. Please consider this for your future talking to users.
As explained it is difficult to fulfill "the" rule of creating a wikipedia page first. So regarding the motiviation to extend wikipedia it's enough for me for now. This may be be something you wanted, if you suppose WP:COI regarding me, if so tell it to me at first contact, if not you may reconsider your behaviour. If you think you are helping by blocking or acting as guardian for users then the reality is you are and you are not at once.
I'm thanking you for your engagment in wikipedia, but considering me and today you were impolite and of little help. You coudl have reacted much better to my first posting on your talk page.
I noticed you recently reverted my edits to the Modern Monetary Theory page. That's reasonable, I was on the talk page just writing a section about my edits, and I'm about to go post to a notice board about it.
I'm not asking you to change anything back, or re-instate my edits. Better if you don't, as I'm reporting the page as having suffered long term vandalism. It's full of things that would factually absurd to anyone who knows about the crux of Modern Monetary Theory, for instance the line that involves "...needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires".... modern monetary theorists don't actually believe taxes pay for things - as per this video (it's very short): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0R9Ye2ovM&list=PLMUzeMKhbl10X-XzH-6q4iU0Ysul7cC4c&index=2
So for Wikipedia to be positing in the first sentence that MMT says money is needed for taxes! Puts forward a false impression about the theory. There are many slip ups in the article, that suggest someone whose against MMT is subtly sabotaging the article. Likewise the involve of "savings desires".... where MMT theorists believe that constructive labor creates economic growth and value... so their aim is not to satisfy "savings desires" whatever that alludes to. Just letting you know, there's massive and systemic issues with the pages representation of the theory. You don't have to trust me, there's plenty of resources for learning about it. 101.115.129.232 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows independent sourcing from reliable publishers. There's nothing we can do with YouTube videos posted by proponents. It is not that someone 'against' MMT is sabotaging the article, it is that MMT is a heterodox theory and Wikipedia follows mainstream thinking. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You're trying to keep one of the people who developed the theory off the page as a source? Don't do that, you should be here to WP:BUILD an encyclopedia, not get in the way or prevent other users from WP:BUILDING an encyclopedia.
From The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College [6]:
L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and the 2022-2023 Teppola Distinguished Visiting Professor at Willamette University, Oregon. He is one of the developers of Modern Money Theory and his newest book on the topic is Making Money Work for Us (Polity, November 2022).[emphasis added]
I merely posted one of his videos to the talk page, so people like you would stop reverting attempts at fixing the page. You should learn the theory if you want to take a position on it. If you don't know what's accurate, you shouldn't be blocking other editors who do. Particularly when they're correcting unsourced content that's been maliciously included on the page as vandalism. 117.102.133.36 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
That someone wrote something you (or the developers of MMT) disagree with does not make it 'vandalism'. Please direct any follow up comments to the talk page of the article, where discussion like this belongs. MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
If you have any objections to my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Johnson_solids#External_links then can you please put them in the talk page under the section I created? I don't think there needs to be a consensus for such a small edit so if you have a problem with the edit please address it directly. Also the way you have left the page has no external link to any visualisations which is decidedly worse than where it was before you or I edited it. HappyWrap (talk) 1:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
You've tried to add that link and been reverted several times. You absolutely need there to be a consensus for that or any other disputed edit, no matter how small. If there is no consensus for any particular link, then there shouldn't be any links on the page. - MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The instructions at WP:ANI are pretty clear. After notifying the other editor by putting "{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~" on their talk page, you can just repost your account of the problem at WP:ANI, and administrators will take it from there. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Sourcehut
Hi MrOllie, I noticed you removed an already discussed item in the talk section I added called sourcehut. Apologies, I was not aware that it is needed an independent page to be in those tables. Technically, it has more features than many others, as shown in the tables, while others like Phabricator has already ceased its activities.AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a catalog or a link directory, we're not attempting to list every possible service, only the ones which have demonstrated notability in the form of a standalone article. You could proceed by writing a standalone article, if the available sources meet the requirements of WP:N.
Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I was editing it while you wrote me, so I did not read your message before my edit. Apologies. It was too long, and too tecnhical. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Apologies. I am not yet an expert. You wrote me in my page so I replied you there, but you did not replied me, and other editors request to write in their pages, so I wrote here. Obviously I commented in talk section of the page we are talking about, as it is a logical place to contact with other editors about it. As I was not the only one considering that the table might not be complete. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. I have to note that there are tons of tables where entries doesn't have an specific wikipedia page, and others where the entry is pointing to a wrong page of wikipedia. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Digital Twin
Hi MrOllie. Just saw your latest removal. Not sure I understand. This comes from an Academic journal as source. If for whatever reason you do not like the fact that Michael Grieves is associated with the concept and known for it, I suggest you also remove the illustration on the page which bears his name (and I did not contribute this). That way the page would be consistent albeit not reflecting the history of the concept. In any case, I will no longer add to this page. Boltor (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Picture Frame
Recent proposed addition of reference to aluminium picture frames. There was no selling services it is a link to a blog from an authoritative company in the framing industry specifically referencing aluminium picture frames and how they are using in the industry - there are no links in the blog to sell any products or services. Please explain the irrelevancy? 82.44.247.176 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
It's blatant advertising for a web store. Wikipedia doesn't use advertising as citations. We don't use self published blogs in general, in fact. But especially not blogs that were set up to drive traffic to a web store. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really, every site sells something whether it be indirectly through ads or a service. The issue is wikipedia don't want links to directly sell something i.e. links directly to promote a product or service otherwise almost every link should be taken down - a blog post merely describing a relevant part of a wikipedia article simply compliments the content.
For example these three which must also be "blatantly selling" - now explain further?
Citation 1 Jones, Ralph (August 20, 2024). "Why Is Custom Framing So Expensive? One Man Investigates". The New York Times. Framers say they aren't getting rich protecting some of your most precious memories and art, but they know you have sticker shock.
I know very well what the issue is. The NY Times is not in the same ballpark as a spam blog hosted on a web store for picture frames. MrOllie (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Spam blog? Who do you think you are believing that all paid sponsored posts on NY Times is acceptable as links? Any idiot can buy a post on NY Times 82.44.247.176 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Where was I equating a webstore blog to a major newspaper? Never once said this, all I said was why accept a paid sponsored post with links to a product and service which in my opinion is the exact definition of breaking the rules but a "webstore blog" that has no links in it only content. You are essentially saying because it has ny times on it then it is instantly acceptable no matter the content. Upon drawing this conclusion you don't read the linked content and only go by the domain that it is linked from. I don't see this as a prerequisite in the Wikipedia rules.
You shoot off a low blow by saying spam blog, the rules state you are supposed to talk in a civil manor - you have not done so. Don't be rude it gets you nowhere 82.44.247.176 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The rules don't say that I can't call an obvious spam blog a spam blog. They do say (see WP:RS) that the NY times is a fine source. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I suggest you read that link carefully and use only reliable sources from now on (and yes, that includes the NY times). MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
At least I find some solace in your situation @82.44.247.176 . I thought that MrOllie is just rude to me, but nice to know that instead of having a decent conversation, where the objective is to inform and build consensus and collaborate, it is their habit that they just resort to rudeness indiscriminately.
Something similar happened to me, they deleted an edit - a link I posted which I believed enriched the article as well as followed the wikipedia guidelines on external links - and then I requested more information on which part of the policy have I violated. Instead of a decent conversation, where they simply put down the violations, they started beating about the bush and then downright resorted to threatening to blacklist the website. Personfromthepast (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
MrOllie is 100% correct here. Telling a spammer to stop spamming is not rude. It is both entirely correct and necessary. All forms of promotional editing are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, without exception. Cullen328 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Dear Cullen 328, I could not agree more that telling a spammer not to spam is just a fact and something that is needed to be done, but if done so in the right way.
As an editor it is the responsibility of the all editors here, to justify their decision in open and transparent fashion -that is why the talk function is there- quoting the policy of wikipedia and how the said edit violates the policy and what are the nuances and edge cases etc. Now I think we can agree that if that is the question being asked about the policy, and the person responds with a threats or beats about the bush or refuses to responds to the question and goes on tangents, it is insulting and rude.
Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that MrOllie dedicates their time to Wikipedia to keep it running. The only issue that I have is their refusal to answer the questions for the sake of transparency and resorting to threats instead of simply answering the questions. I would have wanted them to transparently explain the reasoning behind their decision, and if as per my understanding that is not the case, discuss it further.
I know it could get stressful and if they have been doing it for long, some stuff could be plain and obvious to them which may not be clear to other people with less experience. And sometimes the situation aligns so that through their experience they can simply tell intuitively what is which crosses that fine line and what not. But that still is not a replacement for due process. Personfromthepast (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Personfromthepast, MrOllie has explained their actions clearly, directly and accurately. No editor is obigated to respond ad nauseum to spammmers who refuse to get the message. You are now straying into the territory of tendentious editing, and I encourage you to refrain from that behaviour and go improve an encyclopedia article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I think improving the encyclopedia is as important as what its editors are doing! So the time that I am spending here, to argue my point is as important as anything else at wikipedia. As the quotation goes The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so in our case wikipedia is only as authentic as the transparency and openness of its editors.
Here, for your ease let me give you what a polite, transparent and open answer could have looked like (chatgpt helps!)...
Hello. I understand you'd like to add a link, but I've removed it as it seems to be promotional in nature. Wikipedia has strict guidelines about external links and what we consider reliable sources.
Specifically, Wikipedia:External links discourages links that are primarily intended to sell products or services, stating that they "should be avoided when they are: 1. Commercial in nature."
Additionally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally advises against using self-published sources like blogs, especially those with a conflict of interest, noting that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
This blog appears to be affiliated with a web store selling picture frames, which raises concerns about its objectivity and if you can point to a third party published source which establishes the authenticity of authority that can establish the person who wrote it as an expert, then we can have further conversation.
While the blog post itself may contain some relevant information, its connection to a web store makes it unsuitable as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
Could you perhaps provide other sources that discuss the use of aluminum picture frames in the industry? We want to ensure that the information we include is neutral and comes from reliable, independent sources. Personfromthepast (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
My edition of robots
Hello MrOllie, I hope I made a message correctly. You reverted my edition and left the article is the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_robot
Here.
It is not correct and not correct written. Material handling / or workpiece handling if it goes to manufacture is most percentage of robots use. So manufacturing intself process (like welding) is much less.
You can take process of palletizing. There is no manufacturing as well. Or packing of furniture in IKEA factories.
I believe the revertion you made is wrong. D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The opening sentence should be as short as possible, and your change created redundancy. 'Manufacturing' is understood to include many activities including such handling, and the opening sentence should not be bogged down by such a list. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but it is not a true.
According to wiki: Manufacturing is the creation or production of goods with the help of equipment, labor, machines, tools, and chemical or biological processing or formulation.
Packing of already created goods is not a manufacturing. In the nature of manufacturing is the piece transformation.
Typical applications of robots include welding, painting, assembly, disassembly,[2] pick and place for printed circuit boards, packaging and labeling, palletizing, product inspection... D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, the text you quoted does not support your argument. It does not say any of those things are or are not manufacturing. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
So I need to prove to you that handling could be not a manufacturing process? And that handling process is more used for robots that the real manufacturing? I mean what is the contrary argument? To leave as it is because already written? D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The contrary argument is that the article should follow MOS:LEADSENTENCE and not get bogged down in making lists of things in what is supposed to be a short and simple sentence - doing so is bad writing. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The onus is on you to get consensus support for you changes, which have been reverted by several editors last time you tried to edit war this in on your last IP MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
You changed "Mrs. Randall" to "Helen" with the note "fix a bit of lingering vandalism", but it looks like you were actually the one who swapped the names in the first place? This is the diff of the change. The character is referred to as Mrs. Randall on Silent Night, Deadly Night, but I personally don't have much preference which one we go with - just that it would be cleaner if the two pages matched. Cheers! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
