User talk:MrOllie/Archive 14
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Problem regarding Multiple-criteria decision analysis
Dear Mr Ollie,
I hope you are doing well. I have a question regarding [decision analysis]. Recently, you told me that you will add those MCDM methods which are used widely by the scholars. Do you think the current list is correct based on this strategy? For example, do you think the Base-criterion method (BCM) method is used by the scholars widely? Do you think it is a new method (Model is the same with the BWM and it was published in a very low-quality journal)!? I'm looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Blue.2020 (talk • contribs)
- I haven't reviewed the whole list, so I really wouldn't know. I'll put it on the to-do list. PS: You should never, ever edit someone else's talk page comment, as you did here, especially not to add a link to your own website. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Blue.2020 (talk • contribs)
- Please remember to sign your posts with four tilde characters (~). If you don't, and someone else adds an unsigned template, don't remove those. That is how we know who wrote what. See Wikipedia:Signatures if you're having trouble. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Job Description
Dear Mr. Ollie,
I see that you rejected my edits to the article citing disruptive editing. I still believe that it should be noted that job descriptions and job postings are not the same. Often, people use the terms interchangeably. If you don't like the citation, then please find another of your liking. And please remove "Halogen Job description Builder" if you are wanting to remove references to providers.
Thank you, Asharobinson (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop trolling my edits
Hi Mr. Ollie, I have made legitimate contributions to Wikipedia and yet you continue to bully me, especially on the DevOps page. The sources and contributions I have made are legitimate. Is your behavior directed at me because I am a Woman? --Devopsreviewer (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not 'bullying' you, I am cleaning up your repeated insertions of inappropriate sources and trying to get you to stop doing that in the future. Your sources are not 'legitimate' under Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. I had no idea what your gender was. Are you the Grace Madlinger that you have been repeatedly citing? If so see WP:COI and WP:PAID, you should not be doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not Grace Madlinger. Madlinger works for GitHub[1] (a known authority in the DevOps space) and a legitimate author. What is this you have against Female contributors? I have made many edits to pages, especially the DevOps page, that have been extremely valuable contributions. I would appreciate if you would assist in Wikipedia edits in a more helpful and constructive manner so as not to appear to be bullying. --Devopsreviewer (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- I have nothing against female contributors, but I do have something against people repetitively inserting inappropriate sources like blogs and corporate marketing materials. Cleaning up after that is helpful and constructive to the encyclopedia as a whole, even if you personally do not like having your additions reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Breathalyzer page section Breathalyzer sensors and Invisibility page section Practical efforts
Hi, you have deleted my edits and reference in the Breathalyzer sensors section. Thank you for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia a great encyclopedia. You are right and I'm sorry, I didn't follow protocol. However, you also removed an old edit from the Invisibility page, section Practical efforts. For this edit, I followed ThatMontrealIP (who first removed my edit) instructions and Wikipedia protocol. There was a discussion on the article talk page, please see the page history. The edit was accepted until now. By removing old edits because of errors in new edits, this highly discourages Wikipedia contributors. Thank you. Jllheureux (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jllheureux, No, you re added it to the article yourself, that was not 'Wikipedia protocol'. You made a comment and no one agreed with it - that isn't a discussion demonstrating any sort of consenseus for inclusion. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply and the precisions. I'll try to do better next time. Ouf! There are so many rules to follow haha! About your suggestion to cite review articles (on my talk page): are well known media websites such as CNET and EurekAlert! adequate to cite? or it is better to cite scientific reviews published in peer reviewed journals? Sometime it can be very long before a new discovery is included in a scientific review article. Thank you! Jllheureux (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jllheureux, Scientific reviews is what is meant there, not the popular news. We consider the long delay to be a feature, not a bug - Wikipedia generally covers boring, settled stuff with very wide acceptance, cutting edge stuff is left out by design. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppets IPs of Dnywish
Hi, User:MrOllie, could you report the following additional IPs as sockpuppets of Dnywish because I am absolutely fed up of dealing with him.
- 72.85.24.48
- 2601:140:50D:5F25:2D1A:6BD5:5E13:CE46 Joshua Shah (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joshuarshah, Reporting stale IPs won't accomplish much - he's already moved on to other IPs. Just revert them on sight and mention that they're being used for block evasion in your edit summary. If edit warring resumes we can just ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that will keep him from editing the target pages from any IP. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok np. Thanks for the advice. Joshua Shah (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joshuarshah, Reporting stale IPs won't accomplish much - he's already moved on to other IPs. Just revert them on sight and mention that they're being used for block evasion in your edit summary. If edit warring resumes we can just ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that will keep him from editing the target pages from any IP. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Water Ionizers
Dear Mr Ollie, you reverted my modification to 'claim to raise ph' stating that a lot of 'them' don't, sadly enough the 'them's' you'd be talking about should not be called water ionizers, if the machine performs electrolysis I assure you that it raises the ph of the designated flow ... how is the wikipedia structure in this regard, that is, what gives you the right to overrule my judgement? T3glossary (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
self citation
Hi Mr. Ollie - I added an academic article which I wrote with a colleague that you subsequently removed citing apparent conflict of interest/self promo. I looked at the wikipedia pages on this and feel that I am correctly following the rules here. Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) says " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This is the case with my addition - there is no financial incentive; only making academic research available to the broader public. As you will see, the journal is a well regarded one. Please reconsider. 2003:F9:C706:4F29:A190:8DA9:7305:69B4 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, you didn't mention which article this was, so I have no frame of reference to comment. I will say that COI extends beyond financial motives, some academics do add their own papers in various places just to 'get the word out', and we do consider that to be improper on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. It is the Demilitarisation one that was added & deleted yesterday. Why should it be improper for academics to share their work with the broader community? The piece is of direct relevance to the wiki page, is published by a recognized institution, & clearly contributes to the debate. Have a read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f9:c724:a495:21ea:fac:a296:4be9 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. 'Relevance' isn't sufficient for inclusion. My local plumber is relevant to our article on plumbing, but we don't list his website there. If your motivation for contributing here is to share your work I would suggest starting a blog or a facebook profile. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's been doing it for some time.
- You were just the first to catch him. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The reference is not my own plumbing shop, neither a social media post. It is a research article published by an international journal. I am not hiding anything, otherwise I would not start this talk page ("you were the first the catch him?!). My motivation - which is why I wrote the article - is to advance the understanding of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. That is also why a link to it on this page is reasonable, and of interest to readers. If suddenly the article is not allowed a link on wikipedia, and other academic articles are, then you need to include what your criteria for inclusion are. Having published several articles on AQIM (which I have not linked on this page), I think I can can judge whether your criteria & calls are good. I can maybe even suggest other literature for the page. 2003:F9:C724:A495:21EA:FAC:A296:4BE9 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- 2003:F9:C724:A495:21EA:FAC:A296:4BE9, No, linking your own work like this is not reasonable. You have a conflict of interest and are too close to the issue to evaluate what is happening here objectively. Wikipedia is not for self promotion, and we're not going to submit our policies and/or decision making process for approval by you. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
So you are now going to keep deleting a link that was made four years ago. How childish. You could have said: "hey, nice that you have linked to your own work on Al Qaeda. If you (think you) know so much about this topic because you have published on it, why don't you maybe also link to some other authors who have published on this topic? Other academics have surely also written works that are worthy of inclusion on this page?" Then I would have been stumped - and of course added several other pieces of work that are much better than mine. After all, this is what is called a literature review in academia, and it quite objective. But no - it is a conflict of interest, and I am not objective. I never said that I want to approve anything on this page, and if you think you are the sole person who can legitimately and objectively judge what should be on it (and therefore remove links that are not to your liking) - then there is not much I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f9:c724:a495:655e:53a8:7dc9:ab95 (talk • contribs)
- I often do make that argument when a new editor does this sort of thing, but this has been going on over a span of years - you have had plenty of time to engage with Wikipedia more broadly and evidently have decided not to. In any case, what we would be looking for is not 'also link to some other others' - good edits are not some kind of currency you can pay to also self promote. But if you're here to write an encyclopedia and not just to find another place to see your name in print, feel free to prove me wrong. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reformulate 'this has been going on for some years' to 'you tried to add a link yesterday, after having added another piece several years back'. I am not particularly keen to see my name in print - otherwise I would have been a journalist. I prefer engagement & dialogue, and would be willing to contribute to the page in a meaningful fashion, but it takes two to tango.
A final note to wrap up this little discussion on self-citation, for reflection for the moderating community (and anyone else who comes across it). While I appreciate that you are probably removing entries on a daily basis by people who want to (re-) write (their own) history, the moderators' reaction here shows that you are missing the trees for the forest. As a researcher I added academic, peer-reviewed works that I wrote under the header ‘further reading’ – twice in around four years. I would not call this spamming, and the Wiki guidelines do not rule this out – although they advise prudence. You attribute my actions to a desire to see my name in print, rather than to make works accessible to a broader readership interested in AQIM. Unless you have done a literature survey of AQIM (which I doubt – otherwise the page would look better), your assertion that I cannot be objective and that you are - displays a worrying lack of understanding how knowledge management and research works. This is unfortunate for a group that manages the greatest encyclopedia in the world. As I do not have the time (or possibly inclination) to update Wikipedia in a detailed and regular fashion, and you guys do invest your time in it, engagement would serve all. As discussed, I understand your removal of the recent piece. But the fact that you also decided to remove a link to academic article under ‘Further Reading’ that has been a relevant part of the page for several years now – just because I added the link at that time - shows that you play the man and not the ball. Apparently the goal is not to provide a page that informs the reader on the topic, but to exert your power to exclude those contributors whose motives you distrust. And that is a pity.
Updates on Dual Fluid Reactor
Hello MrOllie, since January 21, our reactor is no longer driven by the Institute for Solid State Nuclear Physics (IFK), but by the company Dual Fluid Energy Inc. which we founded for this purpose. As far as the fuel is concerned, we have moved away from the salt variant in favor of the metal variant for the first realization. We no longer use the abbreviation "DFR" for our reactor because of the risk of confusion with the [Fast Reactor] (also "DFR"). These are all facts - we would find it appropriate if the Wikipedia article contained these facts.Dual Fluid Reaktor (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Reference
Dear MrOllie,
I hope you are having a great time and thank you so much for your work on Wikipedia. I have a question regarding the reliable references on Wikipedia. Which type of Reference can be accepted as reliable reference? I can see many low quality references and I do not know that they should be removed or no? Thanks --Mr.Blue.2020 (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can read about what makes for a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Mr.Blue.2020 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Sharing Economy Article
Hey, you reverted my additions to the 'Sharing Economy' Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy) 5 days ago and I would like to understand why. I added some fashion companies that are doing the Shared economy on the fashion industry (one of the highest polluting industries in the world)- rent clothes, don't buy it. I think it is essential to give this information out there in case someone else wants to research this companies and maybe by a more conscious consumer. I don't work for any of these companies or have any other kind of 'Conflict of Interest'. You can't accuse me of bias because I added the companies that are in the business quite some time, from different countries, and that are trusted by their users. Also you can't accuse me of advertising companies on a Wikipedia page when in the same article it is mentioned other examples and companies like: Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, Upwork, and many other. Is this a matter that you need to be a big and international Brand in order to be mentioned on a Wikipedia Page? It seems quite unfair when some companies are doing an amazing job. LuisaGoncalves2021 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)User:LuisaGoncalves2021
Not to speak for MrOllie, but you appear to have added a list of company names that have no articles to a section that is already noted for having an excessive amount of companies listed. If anymore names were to be considered for the list, they should at least have their own Wikipedia articles to link to and not be red links. NJZombie (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Page moves by a new editor
Hello, I noticed that User talk:SunnyG81 moved Via (electronics) to PCB Via and Flexible electronics to Flexible circuit board while repurposing both articles to a more specific subject, all without discussion, consensus, or cleanup. I presume these are good faith edits by a new editor. I have requested that the editor undo these changes, but I am not sure if the editor knows how, and I am unsure if I know how. You reverted the moves on Printed circuit board. Perhaps you have an interest in this. Constant314 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Constant314, I saw those but didn't revert them because some time had passed, and I thought that the silence possibly indicated that there was a silent consensus in favor. It is easy enough to revert if you disagree (see Help:How to move a page for details). MrOllie (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see tha tyou must delete the redirects before you move. That is what is not obvious to me. Constant314 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- If the redirects don't have any history (that is the case for these pages) that will be done automatically by the software when you do the move. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Constant314 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- If the redirects don't have any history (that is the case for these pages) that will be done automatically by the software when you do the move. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see tha tyou must delete the redirects before you move. That is what is not obvious to me. Constant314 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Secondary source for content added to MRI page
Hello MrOllie,
I added some good content to the Magnetic resonance imaging page about hyperpolarizing, xenon-129 and lung function. You removed it with a note that said it would need a secondary source. There are other similar items on the page that do not have multiple sources. Why does this particular content need to have a secondary source? It is strongly covered in the article referenced. Also, please let me know what type of secondary source would be acceptable? This is an important development that will have a significant affect on imaging and should be included here. Thank you for any additional guidance. MAfarmlivid (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- MAfarmlivid, Wikipedia is not a place to notify people about ongoing research, we primarily present widely accepted, settled science, based on secondary sources. See WP:MEDRS for details. If there is other content on the page that is relying on primary sources, that is a reason to fix that, not to add more policy noncompliant material. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
As for our discussion just now
Dear MrOllie, Sorry I wasn't planning to ignore or to be rude.. but to respond privately, it is my own creation and it took over a month to prepare. Regardless, please do check my contribs, honestly only good intentions. And cross my heart any and all facts in the article rigorously checked and are made freely for public with good intentions. If you can be so kind to alter your public question as to no embarrass me any more than already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyG81 (talk • contribs)
- You absolutely should not be linking your own website or starting discussions about it without disclosing that you're the author, see WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Entry for Stakeholder Capitalism
Hi, For some reason you or someone removed the entire article with no explanation or notification. There are no references to my organization or me in any of the links. The only people qualified to talk about the field of Stakeholder Capitalism are in the field, but I am not paid nor make any money based on this page.
Also someone removed a second definition that had been in Forbes magazine so there is a reference two definitions but then the second is moved.
In fact, I am not even mentioned in it nor are their any links to my materials, even though I am an early founder of the field.
Also, while the article is gone, there is no indication that it was deleted or why....It has simply disappeared.
A reply and explanation would be much appreciated. Thanks. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Ollie, I have noted that it was you who deleted the entry because you have conflated it with Stakeholder Theory.
If you would simply do a simple Google search for Stakeholder Capitalism you will see that the field is currently a matter of international discussion and debate and there is no mention of Stakeholder Theory in any of those discussions. Stakeholder Capitalism has been the subject of countless articles over the last year and is referred to by major organizations. Are you saying that your understanding of Stakeholder Capitalism is greater than that of the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Law School, Fortune magazine, Forbes magazine, etc.
See the search results below and please explain how this is simply a duplicate of Stakeholder Theory.
It would have been polite for you to notify me of your unilateral action. Thanks for your consideration.
Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bolgerb1953, It is clearly about the same topic as Stakeholder theory, you even said so yourself, here. We don't keep two articles on the same topic. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
<r. Ollie, I see that you are editing articles on topics such as magnetic resonance theory. I hope the dispute committee reviews the background of editors making unilateral decisions about the removal of content when they appear to have literally no experience on the matter. I have no objection to people making comments, suggestions, or even raising questions about conflicts of interest, but giving a single individual with no known expertise in the field the authority to outright remove an article is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolgerb1953 (talk • contribs)
- Personal attacks are a great substitute for an argument, aren't they? - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The double-talk you are using goes far beyond a personal attack.
1. You have accused me of using bad sources with no substantiation. 2. The only reason you have given is clearly misinformed--the use of Stakeholder Capitalism long predates theory, which is the postulation of a single individual. Your argument is the equivalent of attributing the entire field of Physics to Einstein. 3. You have accused me of conflict of interest. 4. You summarily played God by removing hours of work after first editing out critical information--ignoring that others of your colleagues approved the article. You refuse to explain to me how to revert the article, which is my right, relying on the confusing format of Wikipedia to thwart my effort.
I am sure anyone reviewing this string might understand how what you have done is unfounded, arbitrary, and imperious, and also how such behavior might cause someone to become upset.
I would never have the nerve to go in an summarily omit anyone's work without a thorough discussion with that person and colleagues.
Bolgerb1953 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bolgerb1953, This bears little resemblance to our actual conversation or the things I've said. If you're not aware, you should know that Wikipedia maintains a history of everything that has been entered indefinitely, so anyone may check this. I think we're done here, kindly do not post on my talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello MrOllie; Just wanted to thank you for all the good work you do. Nil Carborundum, OK? E/C sorry for the edit conflict that appears to have deleted your post -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
OGSM image
OGSM is a canvas and it definitely adds value to show what this canvas looks like. I see why I should not have included logo's in the image but I can't find the rules around what is allowed in an image. Can I include any attribution within an image? Say "AgileOGSM" in the bottom right hand corner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardvdk (talk • contribs)
- No, we don't use images that contain any sort of advertising. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Watermarks,_credits,_titles,_and_distortions. - MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Accountant in Milton Keynes in page Bookkeeping
Hello, MrOllie. I have a question. Why you didn't remove the link Milton Keynes Accountant(https://sataxaccountants.co.uk/) on page Bookkeeping remove it - cos it is an advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleosmind (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the suggestion, that has been dealt with. Please note that the presence of one advertisement does not mean you should add more. - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Disclosure of financial stake
Hi Mr.Ollie, I'm responding to your message regarding the edits I made to the article about Toloka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toloka). In 2017-2018 I used to work for the company that owns this service, and my former coworkers asked me to help them make minor edits to this page, since I had a validated Wikipedia account. I'm not sure if this is considered conflict of interest, since our financial relationship happened in the past, before these edits. In any way, I apologize for not disclosing this relationship; previously, I only wrote and contributed to articles related to psychological science that did not involve any commercial company or product, so I did not know about the disclosure requirement. Knowing about them now, I will not provide any further edits to this article, or any other article that relates to commercial services. However, I'd like to ask to return the edits I had made, as I was making sure all of them state objective facts and refer to publications in independent media sources, so do not violate the policy of objectivity. Thank you! Elenabrandt (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your edits added clearly promotional text and they should not be restored. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for revert.
What where the Reasons on the revert on the cosmopolitan page? Rouxstir (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rouxstir, Wikipedia is not for advertising people's books or websites. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Redistricting Data Hub
Hi, I work for Redistricting Data Hub and now understand that paid edits are not encouraged. The changes that I was making were in regard to the 2020 Census data. It is currently out now but requires processing which Redistricting Data Hub has done. We have the data publicly available for free and wanted to update wiki to reflect the changes. We are not making any money off of it. Since I am being paid I understand why I should not be making edits but would it be possible to have volunteers make the edits and link to the processed data from Redistricting Data Hub? DaveRedistrictingDataHub (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- If they are editing at your direction or because your organization asked them to that is still a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Even if we are not making any money as an organization? We are a non-partisan non-profit organization that hosts redistricting data free for all users. DaveRedistrictingDataHub (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If not we completely understand. Thank you for what you do and I appreciate you taking the time to explain the situation. DaveRedistrictingDataHub (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
UFO Pentagon videos DR
There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Question about content on MRI
Hello. We had a discussion that is now archived so I am continuing it here. I added information to the Magnetic resonance imaging page and you removed it saying that it needed a secondary source and that ongoing research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There was just one line about the ongoing research. If I remove that line and include the link to the research study that discusses those theories as well as this source would that be correct? I also have other information about these processes that I am investigating to add to other parts of this page. Is it better to go ahead and post it if I feel I have met the criteria or should I run it past you here? Thanks! MAfarmlivid (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- MAfarmlivid, You should discuss potential improvements on the article's associated talk page, not on my user talk. Please review WP:MEDRS, though. Medical topics have special sourcing requirements on Wikipedia and many sources (even many peer reviewed medical journal articles) do not qualify. Also see our policy on original research - you can't stitch together multiple sources to make a point that none of them make individually and specifically. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicode chart Lycian Fonty
Template:Unicode chart Lycian Fonty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of edits on Singularity section in Industrial Robot entry
Hi, the current section on singularities is technically inaccurate. Why did you reject my improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilianbonev (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia does not use vendor sites or blog posts as sources. Also, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI - you should not adding be links to your company website. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply To From ALEX57709
Hi MrOllie, I'm very sorry about that, it was a mistake I made on Chad Smith's page.
Thank you,
ALEX57709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEX57709 (talk • contribs)
Cosmopolitan cocktail page
MrOllie, thank you for your guidance. I really do not want to cause issues. To be clear, if I wanted my book added as a reference, which contains documentation on the subject matter, can someone else other than me add the reference? Also, I added updated references that I was not a part of and they have been deleted. Most of the references on this page are 15-20 years old, so I wanted to refresh it with current references. I appreciate any time you have to answer.Cherylcharming (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Cherylcharming, Sure, some established editor could independently decide to add your book as a source. This is why we encourage editors with a conflict of interest to use article talk pages to make suggestions which some neutral editor may then decide to implement. But you should never add your own name to articles as you did. Of course, if we see brand new accounts show up to add it at this point that won't help matters, since we do have rules about recruiting friends or other associates to edit on one's behalf. - MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for tagging that. I knew I had seen "Queen Elizabeth II: A Glorious Saga" mentioned before my a blocked self-promoter but I couldn't place who it was. The "references" on that article are fake too. He uploaded photoshopped images to the internet archive and used those. If you go to the websites of the actual periodicals and search "Brij Kishore Sharma" nothing comes up. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I first noticed when he was edit warring to list himself on List of poets. There have been lots of socks since, I think a number have been blocked without being tagged. - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes! I think that article is where I first saw him. Somehow HARSH BRIJ managed to evade being blocked. Is there a sock report? Notfrompedro (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Superdeterminism reverts by you on Dr. Hansson article
The article by Dr. Hansson is in a reliable physics journal cited by Wiki and noted by Wiki to be a reliable source. You have no factual basis for reverting my changes, because Dr. Hansson's article appearing in a reliable scientific journal cannot be a fringe position. I am warning you to stop reverting my changes under the three revert rule, or I'll report you to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbannan (talk • contribs)
- I'm still waiting for the report you promised, repetitive threats are boring. - MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Salvation Army Edits
MrOllie,
You keep taking down Salvation Army Edits that are credible. It's not commentary. Meanwhile the use of language in many articles are indeed commentary and made to make organizations, businesses, individuals look certain ways. Please reinsert my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.savage511 (talk • contribs)
- No. We follow the sources, and the sources call it a 'church', not a 'cult'. We're not a vehicle to host your personal opinions of this group. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
British cuisine editor
Hi MrOllie, the editor is repeatedly deleting large chunks of British cuisine. I've done 2 reverts today and issued 2 templated warnings, but the editor has resumed after your reversion. I think they need to be reverted again with a final warning, from you or someone new... (it's all they 've done since joining Wikipedia yesterday, not a great start really). All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, They're editing on mobile, there's a decent chance they aren't even seeing the talk page warnings. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pings seem to work well enough on my mobile, but you're right to be cautious. Still, all their edits have been to the one article, they have consisted almost entirely of deletions with a few bytes of addition, and they have repeatedly ignored reverts. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Eben Alexander (author) page
MrOllie,
There is no reliable reference to claim that a "medically-induced coma" is factual. The provided peer-reviewed medical journal reference (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease) clearly states it was not a medically-induced coma. This is highly misleading to Wikipedia users, who are expecting unbiased facts.
There is no reference to any assertions from myself claiming "brain death," there are plenty of references of my assertions of severe incapacitation of the neocortex.
Following is a correct version of facts:
"Eben Alexander III (born December 11, 1953) is an American neurosurgeon and author. His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 during a coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis. "His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug- induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued". [1] He asserts that the coma resulted in severe incapacitation of his neocortex, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife. Alexander has also authored follow-up books."
With reference to [1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/09/Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf
Please return the article to factual information only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs)
- You may take it up on the article talk page, but given your conflict of interest you should not be editing the biography yourself. I don't want to host another repetitive chapter of this debate on my user talk page - this has been explained to you (three times now!) on threads you have started on the BLP noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Edited Article/Removed Article
I responded to you on my talk page about what you edited of mine. A1avidreader (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)A1avidreaderA1avidreader (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Added article by Hansson
Why did you delete my change? DH39 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Banned users may not continue editing on a new account. If you want to edit Wikipedia, go back and try to get your original account unblocked. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stop pasting the same question in over and over. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
How does wikipedia avoid misleading readers for a fraudulent protocol in deep learning?
I am the author who proposed the first deep learning in 3D world. I know deep learning well. As you can see, my name was cited by others on the same page.
However, deep learning has misled many people, as discussed in my IJCNN 2021 paper and ICDL 2021 paper, whose journal version is available at arXiv titled "Post-Selections in AI and How to Avoid Them". What wikipedia can do to correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuyangWeng (talk • contribs)
- As far as I can tell the only instances of your name on that page were added by yourself. Wikipedia follows the most common interpretations in the sources, so we will follow the common (mis)understanding. Also, we do not use arXiv preprints as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
psychological safety
Hi, I appreciate your edits on the psych safety page, this isn't a criticism :) The section on the history of it was written in conjunction with Dr Amy Edmondson (canon in psych safety realms) and contained valid, reliable links. If there's a problem with anything you see, please highlight it on the talk page for discussion. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgeraghty (talk • contribs)
- No, blog posts and articles about software or business aren't reliable sources for an article about psychology. Also, if you wrote it 'in conjunction with Dr Amy Edmondson' basing whole paragraphs on her work isn't great. See WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Such a shame you let your ego get in the way of providing a great resource to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgeraghty (talk • contribs)
- I'm not the one edit warring to keep in links to my own website or calling my writing 'crucial' and 'essential'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- "my writing" XD Tomgeraghty (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie. Just FYI, we're seeing similar issues at Digital transformation. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
European Audiovisual Observatory Page
Please don't destroy my work. We're a European institution and part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. No promotion as i have nothing to sell. I'm just trying to update our page as it's out of date. PLease support me OK? How do I upload our new logo? Any advice? Thanks EurAvObservatory — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurAVObservatory (talk • contribs)
- You should read and comply with the guidelines on paid editing and conflict of interest editors that have already been posted to your user talk page. Right now you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. You should not be updating these pages yourself, you should be making suggestions on article talk pages only. You can find all this in the links on your talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Well from my exchanges today with you and other editors it would seem that I have to declare my status as communications manager of the Observatory. I'm going to do that right now. Then I'll be able to update our pages and sub pages. Because for the moment they are just not correct. Advice apreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurAVObservatory (talk • contribs)
- Again, please read the links on your talk page thoroughly. Even after making the declaration, you will not be able to do whatever you want with those pages. You should be suggesting improvements on talk pages only, neutral editors will review and then implement them (or not). - MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Teratornis
May I ask why you reverted my edit to the Teratornis article? --198.84.219.101 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because it's a fringe position. Mainstream thinking is that Teratornis and humans didn't coexist. - MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- But the very same article says that T. woodburnensis was found "in a stratum containing the remains of megafauna such as mammoth, mastodon, and ground sloths, as well as evidence of early human occupancy at the site." --2607:F2C0:EB6E:47:FC2A:C689:88B5:92EE (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- You have reverted me again. The article already says that T. woodburnensis was found in a stratum that also contained evidence of human occupancy, and that the genus became extinct as a result of prey scarcity exacerbated by human hunting. So clearly its coexistence with humans is not a "fringe position". --198.84.219.101 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is a fringe author you're citing, who claims people have been in the Americas for 130,000+ years. We would need secondary sourcing to verify anything she claims. Also, the section you're quoting on reasons for extinction was completely unsourced. I have removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- She's not a "fringe author", she's a Canada Research Chair. --Abstractgrant (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's an emerging researcher grant given out by the government. It isn't an award or a distinguished chair anything like that - It doesn't indicate any special acceptance of a person's work. At any rate, this belongs on the article's talk page, not my user talk. Other editors will no doubt wish to weigh in and they will not find a discussion here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Moving this discussion there. --Abstractgrant (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Blog link
Hi MrOllie, Can I add my resource in reference because I think that might be good for the community and help many people to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taruntogglehead (talk • contribs)
- Selg published blogs can't be used as citations on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Consumer Finance + Thor Björgólfsson Edits
Hey MrOllie, not sure if this is the best way to reach you but I had a few questions about contributions I made that you had reverted.
I read through the links you sent about citation spamming and when to put down citations. In light of this, some (but not all) of the reversions make sense. I can see how adding educational content from a for-profit company could be bad, but why would you also remove the ones from government agencies like consumerfinance.gov and cfpb blogs? If I add those back in will you remove them again? Just wondering because many of these pages include multiple paragraphs without any citation or evidence.
Also wanted to check what the rationale behind the Thor Björgólfsson (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfur_Thor_Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfsson&oldid=1046428770) edits were. I understand that I could probably have gotten away with fewer citations, but why remove the entire section instead of just the extra citations? Saw you had also marked them as unreliable sources, but they were coming from CNBC, BusinessWire, and HousingWire. If I add this section back in with only these 3 citations and remove the last sentence in the Aurora Capital section will you remove them again?
Apologies for any mistakes I make as I haven't edited pages since high school and am not used to all of this new UI and procedures. Thanks!
asantorelladoyle1 Asantorelladoyle1 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- So far all your edits have added or been related to better.com. Can you explain why that is? - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I've recently been looking into refinancing my mortgage and spending a lot of time reading educational content on Better.com, Bankrate.com, Nerdwallet.com, Investopedia.com, and ConsumerFinance.gov. A lot of these pages are currently very academically focused (mortgage calculator, refinance, loan origination) and don't do a good job of explaining how these things work in plain english. There are many paragraphs that have outdated or incomplete information about DTI thresholds, what is displayed in a mortgage calculator, etc. that is misleading from a personal finance perspective. None of this 'conventional wisdom' contains citations, so I figured I'd add some for people who are legitimately interested in the topic. I can do less from Better and more from other sources, but some of this information is just outdated and misleading in the age of digital mortgage lending and the current FHA/Fannie/Freddie guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:Asantorelladoyle1 (talk • contribs)
- Academically focused but still accessible right? The content of the page mortgage calcuator contains more information about reducing a polynomial equation than it does about mortgage. Do people not also have the right to understand the inputs to said equation? The Uses tab is the only one that attempts to explain what the inputs to said equation are and the bounds that one might expect in the current environment. That being said it does so with 0 citations and relying on archaic conventional wisdom. Vendor sites sure, but what's so wrong with blog posts written by academic/policy professionals at the CFPB? Sounds like gate keeping from where I am standing. Asantorelladoyle1 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Also where do we stand on the Thor Björgólfsson information? None of those citations were related to any vendor sites, the information was relatively new/recent, etc. Can I just go about resubmitting but with only 1-2 citations? You must trust CNBC as a reliable source, correct? Asantorelladoyle1 (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- What about my earlier comment about accessibility, jargon, and overly pretentious articles? Also re: the CNBC press release, would it be preferable to just use the SEC filings included in said article? SEC Links: https://sec.report/CIK/0001835856 and https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835856/000110465921064244/tm2115798d1_ex99-1.htm. Not sure I'm understanding why it doesn't belong in his biography if it is bigger both in investment size and market capitalization than the other startups listed on his page (Play, Rebag, Zwift). The rise of SPACs in 2020-21 is a very timely phenomenon that will surely have it's own article eventually, it seems like it would be important to note Bjoggi's contributions/involvement in that as Chairman of Aurora. Asantorelladoyle1 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it would be preferable to not mention better.com or related issues in any fashion, as Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet. If you are here to build en enyclopedia please demonstrate that by broadening your interests a bit, right now you are still behaving like a classic example of a paid promoter. - MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay moving the Aurora thing to the Bjoggi talk page to get other users opinions on it as I think you are misunderstanding my stance. I am not a corporate shill but rather trying to promote financial literacy on one of my favorite forums for learning about traditionally inaccessible topics. Do you have any recommendations on what else I can branch out on? Everything that wikipedia recommends me is correcting grammar on articles about provincial areas in Indian/Balkan regions which I don't particularly have a background in. Most of the things I am passionate about I actually learned about on Wikipedia in the first place, so I am unsure what more there is to add to the Lionel Messi page or various TV series pages. Asantorelladoyle1 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you have general questions WP:TEAHOUSE is a better place to ask them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Social Anxiety and Social Anxiety Disorder Edits
Dear Mr Ollie,
Could you please advise why my recent additions to social anxiety articles were reverted?
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicOne2021 (talk • contribs)
- Because Wikipedia has rigorous sourcing standards for health related content, which you can find at WP:MEDRS (the sources you have been adding do not meet this standard), and also because Wikipedia should not be used to promote particular papers or apps. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mr Ollie,
The source provided is an academic peer reviewed journal article. There’s nothing more rigorous than that. It complies with health publishing standards. Is the issue mentioning the specific name of an app?
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicOne2021 (talk • contribs)
- Given your username, I'm sure you know all peer reviewed journals are not the same. You should read WP:MEDRS. Also, are you connected to the authors or this app in any way? - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ollie,
- Thanks for your replies to my comments. I really appreciate the information you've provided. For a new user, Wikipedia is very challenging to navigate and there are so many policies to keep up with.
- I can confirm that I'm not connected with the authors of the article or the Challenger app in anyway. I'm interested in mental health and would like to contribute to the Wikipedia community.
- Therefore, given there's no conflict of interest here, from what I can tell from reading the sources provided, the only issue is that the information I have cited relates to a primary source. If the information I include relates to a secondary source would my edits be acceptable? Are there any other issues I should be aware of? Clearly, there needs to be more information regarding mobile health interventions in the social anxiety pages. Many thanks, AcademicOne2021 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Management Consulting
What is your management consulting expertise in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptybore (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't need to be a consultant to recognize a spam link when I see one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
got it! So the text was adding a further description and the link was to a source, not sure how that is spam. But I guess when you have all day to exert your privilege on the world, it's easy to make those decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptybore (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:RS. We do not use marketing materials as sources on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Everything is a potential marketing source. The source was valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptybore (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do your research
Please do your research well before deleting other's edits. You deleted the entries of notable people repeatedly despite of them having a wikipedia page of their own... Truewiki1 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Re: Botox editions
the editions that I had major national media as citations. What do you mean by saying that it's promotional? Promoting ABC News or Forbes? I politely disagree. Please explain the promotional relevance. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautydepot (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The wording you're using is promotional, Wikipedia should be written neutrally. As for forbes, see WP:FORBESCON. These days the majority of content on forbes.com is not written by journalists working for forbes, it is user generated content with no editorial or fact checking. Also, since you're editing on medical topics, see WP:MEDRS. Medical topics have special sourcing requirements that are quite stringent, and a lot of the citations you've been using don't meet that standard. - MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will modify the wording then, that's not a problem at all. I would like to politely disagree with my citations. Forbes and other major high authority media outlets routinely employ freelance journalists because they are not able to maintain staff on payroll. Your claim that Forbes article I cited is user generated is unwarranted, and if it is warranted I would like to see a proof that any person can post on Forbes anything they want as user generated content (UGC) means just that. A prime example of UGC is Reddit where any person can post anything at any point without restrictions. To post on Forbes, ABC News, etc you have to be a vetted journalist, and must be part of their journalistic pool. I will make my wording more neutral then. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautydepot (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Forbes contributors are not freelance journalists, they are completely independent bloggers. Forbes does not edit or manage their content in any meaningful sense, so Wikipedia does not consider them to be reliable sources. Again, see WP:FORBESCON. - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
OK thank you for your response. I was not aware of that Forbes classification, thank you for pointing it out & I will refer to that list for future references too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautydepot (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Serious and Unverified Allegations
A very serious and fabricated allegation is made of folks being paid to promote articles. Now, as the law will tell you, the burden of proof is on the accuser. He will be required to prove that such payments are being made; and, in the event that they are not, charges of Defamation might be brought against the accuser.
Those familiar with both the law and the cyber law know better than to indulge in this manner of false allegation, because, even in the social media space of anything goes, the law applies. You only need to see how social media giants are being reined in by the law of the land in various democracies.
It's advisable to cease and desist from making false and serious charges. One can hide behind a curtain of anonymity for only that long.
Nobody is being paid anything here; you will need to prove that. And swiftly. Hillary1900 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting here the poster of this comment was blocked for issuing legal threats. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Book links
Dear Mr Ollie, you removed edits on Complex System, although the added Further Reading is in line with the existing book references to Cambridge UP and Oxford UP. Please, could you restore the edit I made? Kind regards, SciTechMedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciTechMedia (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you I removed the link. SciTechMedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciTechMedia (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Editing Disruptive context
Good day,
Curious to understand how my edits are considered disruptive when I am updating dates to reflect a predominantly format. 2468O1357A (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:BCE. You should not be unilaterally changing era notation. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Parental Alienation
These are relevent updates on Parental Alienation especially the ECHR ruling so why not admit them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polandersondonegal (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- This has been explained to you several times at the article talk page, we cannot accept these changes with the sources you have been using. You've got to make some effort to comply with Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality policies. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is the ECHR website not neutral? is it not a good source? Is this ECHR case not factual evidence? Is East Coast Radio recording of an Irish Justice minister talking on future changes regarding parental alienation the same? The Irish text is outdated and is not factual and I amended it to reflect that. Malta has nothing about PA yet it is being legislated on ... other areas of the PA Article are outdated and do not reflect reality. Can I get a neutral mediator to sort this out please? Polandersondonegal (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY Not Applied Correctly?
I recently stumbled on page SNMP_simulator and noticed one software vendor listed in a "External Links" section. I thought that was suspicious. Looking at the history, I see there used to be a full list of vendors. I thought those could be useful. I see that you removed that whole list, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY as the reason. So I read that definition. I do not think it really applies to the removed list. There were no sales pitches or pricing or commodity products, etc. Please reconsider the definition and what the list was doing. It was inherently limited... There are only so many developers of such a niche product. I'd compare it to Operating_system which clearly lists vendors, in great detail. Or if you insist the list doesn't belong, maybe redefine WP:NOTDIRECTORY to more clearly match the offending usage? I'm not invested in this page, so not looking for a discussion... I'll defer to your judgement. I hope this is helpful. Thanks! Cmjanicki (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Gene Ontology
Hi, I made some edits at Gene Ontology page and you reverted them. Could you please tell why? LusiKress (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, we generally do not list third party tools based on primary sources, since this project is to build an encyclopedia and not a directory. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
1) In which way my edits inside of "Tools" section differed from the text that is already there (in this section you can find mentions about similar methods - primary sources according to your definition, but over 10 years old). I just mention few other tools that are newer (thus more accurate, state of the art).
2) In which way my edit in "See also" is even remotely related to secondary sources? I mentioned CAFA. This is highly beneficial to the readers of this page to know about it.
To conclude, it is easy for you to just click 'redo', but in my opinion, you did not do any good by this in this case. I am going to revert your reversion, and if this does not suit you, let other editors decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LusiKress (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the article? The tools that are already listed are the two that are developed and maintained by the GO Consortium. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- You, MrOllie, could do that multiple times in last hour as you knew what was the problem from the beginning and you could avoid wasting time of other people. You really only dissuade people from making edits in Wikipedia by your actions. Have a nice day. LusiKress (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Unsourced additions and honorifics
Hi MrOllie, I am Madhav Das Soni, you can call me just Madhav. I saw one of your last edit on Wikipedia Page https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokulotsavji_Maharaj . You reversed my whole edit. You said that I provided unsourced additions but i made citations and links to each and ever paragraph of article. Also you said that I added honorifics which you don't want on Wikipedia. I must say here that these are the words which are always used in the Indian Classical World, in addition as a title or prefix to legendary artists names. They are must for ensuring the quality of the article. Also, you reversed an edit in which I provided the other names which are used for the subject person. These names are taken from various magazines, newspapers, music albums and books. These name were used on his music albums. So these other names are noteworthy and must be included.
Please understand my point and get my edit back. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadhavDasSoni (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
You said that I provided unsourced additions but i made citations and links to each and ever paragraph of article
. There is the references section before your edit. There is the references section as a result of your edit. You added one additional reference, and that wasn't even a reference anyway since it's a self-published fansite on Google Sites which is explicitly forbidden by WP:BLPSPS. I suggest you stop disrupting the article. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your comment here displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I would suggest you begin by reading WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS thoroughly. Wikipedia articles are not going to be full of honorifics, even if they are commonly used in India. We're also not going to base article content on your unsourced beliefs, nor are we going to base it on self published websites. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
edgegreg
I am certainly not being paid to write. I have been in this area of technology for 20 years and note the articles I am (trying to update ) are now out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgegreg (talk • contribs)
- I'm sure you can see why someone might think that someone with 'edge' in their name that has repeatedly inserted references to 'Edgenexus' products would come across that way. Regardless of your motivations, please stop adding nonnotable product listings. - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. Edge computing is an area of computing that i have a lot of experience in [1]. But unless you know the market well and are able to make a valid contribution then please leave others to make contributions. Currently the list shows a few vendors (some no longer even exist) - Please update it it show all or none as oppose to pick and choosing as this is not objective or accurate. I am happy to add some others or please add them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgegreg (talk • contribs) 08:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I know Wikipedia well enough to know that listing products that don't meet our notability criteria is not done here. We're more interested in vendors that were historically notable and are now defunct than we are in current companies that have made no impact in reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Question on Paolo Petrocelli
Dear MrOlli, I have just been working on creating a seperate page for Paolo Petrocelli, as in the english wikipedia it always kept redirecting it to EMMA for peace, which is an association he is deeply connected with. But I tried to make a seperate page for him because he has done and is doing much more than just the work for EMMA, and I have been guided by his italian wikipedia page, to make it so that both pages align in their main content. It has been reported now, that the page redirect was reverted back to EMMA and I just wanted to ask if there are specific reasons and if I have done something wrong that I could change or watch out for, when trying to create the page from the redirect. Any guidance would be appreciated. Verity Grant (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Italian Wikipedia has different standards than the English wikipedia, we're not necessarily going to have an article just because they do. We've already held a community discussion and determined that this person is not notable enough to have an article here, and the new version you just tried to set up was very weakly sourced as it relied on writings by people associated with Petrocelli. I doubt this will be a very fruitful course for you, but if you insist on trying to restart this article I suggest you set it up as a draft and go through the WP:AFC process. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
152.170.101.27
152.170.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is very likely Maximiliano Korstanje, a tireless self-promoter here whose endless self-citation included an autobiography at Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs)
Gokulotsavji Maharaj
Hi Mr Ollie, can you please tell why you reverted my edit on Gokulotsavji Maharaj Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gokulotsavji_Maharaj&oldid=1049215333 . I had provided all citations, links from reliable sources which range from prestigious newspapers, biography books and meny more. Can you please tell why You did that?? Your such acts are preventing the article to get enritch in quality. Please answer this question on my Talk Page. MadhavDasSoni (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC) User:MadhavDasSoni
- You added back honorifics, promotional text and introduced grammatical errors. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Promotional Edits
Hello MrOllie, Can you please clarify why long-standing mentions of InstaLOD have been erased? InstaLOD is one of the leading solutions in the space and the insertions in Wikipedia were neutral. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.144.241 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Missed to login. The previous comment was authored by me. ItWasAlfred (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The InstaLOD mention was on this page since 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_CAx_companies&oldid=875561735. I think there were more, but I'd need to dig in further. I also wonder about the removal of InstaLOD from the Level_of_detail_(computer_graphics) page seeing that it's one of the two leading solutions (InstaLOD and Simplygon). While I do understand that it's all done by one user, those edits were — from what I can see, not promotional. In regards to the game page edits, where it's a bit diffuse, I believe the usage of middleware/technology as part of a game development is of interest to the community, and quite common to do on other pages and technology. The edits cited YT videos that were produced by the game developers themselves as it's not possible to cite those contributions otherwise. Those edits were done by one member of our community, that we've approved under the condition that it's done according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards. If those edits were not correct, please outline the correct procedure! Thanks ItWasAlfred (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- JacobMorgan1's edits were clearly promotional spamming. I see that elsewhere you state that the two of you work for this company. That makes JacobMorgan1's edits violations of Wikipedia's terms of use. In fact, that you came on my talk page to defend these edits without properly disclosing your conflict of interest is also a violation of the terms of use, see WP:PAID. For future reference, no one but an employee trying to sell something will ever refer to something like this as a leading solution. The proper procedure here would be: do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that I've clearly stated on the mentor's page that I am affiliated and there was no intent to conceal that. It is part of my original question on the mentors page. I cannot follow your rational as to how a difference in terminology makes me an "employee who's trying to sell something". In any case, we will follow the procedures you've put on my talk and on WP:PAID. ItWasAlfred (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Some writers are so used to writing like a salesman or marketer that they truly don't understand how their writing sounds to others. They think that they're writing neutrally, but is is apparent to everyone else that they are using promotional language. This is one of the reasons why we have the conflict of interest guidelines - people who are too close to the subject will find it almost impossible to evaluate their edits objectively. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did you removed the best online source?
I added reliable sources (from a free website) and you removed all of them. What is wrong with a source that can people use and read "a course of pure mathematics" by Hardy online? They are HTML pages and very easy to read on tablets and cellphones. Which other source provides such a facility?
Also for "Calculus made easy," you left this source "calculusmadeeasy.org/", which is not even secure and removed the link that I added. What is the difference between that source and the source that I added? That source did not modernize the notations, which makes the source very difficult to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs)
- On Wikipedia we do not consider self published web sites to be reliable sources on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. We also don't add links to them in most circumstances, see WP:EL. If you would like to add what we consider to be reliable sources, you should look for things like peer reviewed papers and books put out by major academic publishers. - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Those are just online versions of the well-known books by (a course of pure mathematics by G.I. Hardy and Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus Thompson). In my opinion those are the best online versions of those books because they can be read on your cellphone. By the way, you did not answer my question, why you removed my link to online version (with slightly modernized notations) of Calculus Made Easy and left the unsecured (not HTTPS) source "calculusmadeeasy.org/" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are "avidemia.com/calculus-made-easy/" or "avidemia.com/pure-mathematics/" not faithful scans of the books??? Can you tell me the difference between "calculusmadeeasy.org/" and "avidemia.com/calculus-made-easy/" (except the former is not secured and used old notations)? Why is the former acceptable but not the latter? If you answer this question that I asked several times and you did not answer, I'll leave this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- One is a focused site about a single book quite faithful to the original, and one is an altered work ('modernized notations' as you mention above), part of a site which is being inappropriately added to multiple articles across Wikipedia by a single purpose editor - MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Which article of Wikipedia says a reference has to be about a single book? (2) The link of "a Course of Pure Mathematics" is completely faithful to the text. Why did you remove that? (3) About "Calculus Made Easy," clearly you don't know what you are talking about. For example, the book uses epsilon for Euler's number "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)". Nowadays nobody uses that notation, and it will be completely confusing for the readers if some book uses epsilon. On avidemia.com, epsilon was changed to "e" and it is explained that in the original book, the notation was epsilon (see "https://avidemia.com/calculus-made-easy/ch14/#dfref-footnote-1"). My Wikipedia account was created in 2011. You interpret things for yourself and try to bully me. If I don't receive reasonable answers to the three questions that I asked from you, I have no option except to report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Removal of Reliable External Links. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 06:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Enjoy your WP:BOOMERANG. - MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
MRI & Xenon
Hello! You again removed content I added to the Magnetic resonance imaging page about Xenon 129 and MRIs saying that it is "not really settled science". The reference materials used are all peer reviewed scientific studies showing that it is settled science. As per our previous discussion, I have reviewed the guidelines and do not understand what better reference material there would be to support these findings? These are studies that have been completed and reviewed, not ongoing research. Please advise. Thank you!MAfarmlivid (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I said last time you asked about this: 'Wikipedia is not a place to notify people about ongoing research, we primarily present widely accepted, settled science, based on secondary sources. See WP:MEDRS for details.'. Anything related to medical technology or human health must meet WP:MEDRS standards, and the primary sources you are using do not meet that standard. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. It sounds like I may just be misinterpreting the guidelines. Is there a place you would recommend where I can post questions about interpreting specific guidelines? I want to respect your time so if there is another avenue where I can get some help, I'd appreciate any recommendations you may have. Thank you! MAfarmlivid (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
hi
I see you remove my all links also remove the link from CCleaner. it's not an advertisement. it's for review. because links on these pages same as my links. can you add my links again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassansameed12 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I see you remove my all links also remove the link from CCleaner. it's not an advertisement. it's for review. because links on these pages same as my links. can you add my links again
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassansameed12 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, this is obviously linkspam. You've got to stop adding spam links, and you've got to stop using multiple accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
if you say we are spam on it when you see like same other link on CCleaner page. what say about it those also are spamer then remove those also. second CCLeaner page add link time ago not these day , then why you remove our link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassansameed12 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- I removed yours because you have been spamming it. If you continue to add it, it will be placed on Wikipedia's blacklist, which will prevent it from being added again, and could negatively impact your search engine standings. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
You removed abusive my resource url
I've contributed to the percentage page with a percentage calculator website, what so spammy on this ? It's very related and helpful for any user. Also i know the link it's nofollow. Please teach me how can i add the website there without to be spammy in your eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdusnr (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
|
thank you |
| thank you for pointing out my mistake. I'll make sure not to do it again. ILikeToEditlol (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC) |
Dream11 page name
Dear User:MrOllie, This is with wrt changes you made to Dream11 page, Dream11 is an online fantasy sport platform whereas the article Dream 11 you are referring to is entertainment and fighting martial art page,
Kindly refer to the attached links for Dream11 page: https://www.dreamsports.group/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zee088 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, but why do you think one article should not link to the other? What you're removing is a link for users that have ended up on one page when they're trying to find the other one. MrOllie (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I already created Category:Animal cruelty incidents in film already
I ve already created Category:Animal cruelty incidents in film already, User:MrOllie. I'm seriously not a bad person i'm a good person just trying to do edits and creating Categories, User:MrOllie, i'm trying to be like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gng1999 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- 'In film' implies that it is a movie that depicts animal cruelty. That article mentions allegations of animal cruelty while producing the film. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
but User:MrOllie i written during filming on my category User:MrOllie i m not kidding i already written it i m not a bad person i promise i m trying to be a serious new member. Please don't edit A Dog Purpose i m begging you i'm just trying to help i m a good person i m not kidding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gng1999 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't revert people who correct your mistakes and you'll be fine. Everyone messes up once in a while, it is no big deal, but it is important not to double down when you make an error. - MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
COI and website ownership
Hi MrOllie, thank you for your attention here. I own the website that I linked to, in part because it's one of the only places that the behavior of this branch predictor is documented. Is that considered a COI (I make no money from ads)? How should I document?
Regarding the specific edit, I would like to keep it in place, since it's an excellent modern example of an overriding predictor where the 1st level and second level are quite different. Would it be appropriate to leave the text in place without a citation?
Thanks TheKanter (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a COI - you should not add links to a site you own in article space, though you can propose its use as a source in article talk pages if it meets the requirements in WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification! If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that I could make the textual edit again (adding the example of Silvermont's overriding predictor) without citing my article. Then in the explanation/talk I could suggest the article as a source if it deemed to be both necessary and acceptable?
For context, my site is widely cited within Wikipedia.
Thanks for helping me navigate here!
TheKanter (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, you should propose the whole thing in the talk page. If your site is really the only possible source for this information, consider that it may not be noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia - Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the suggestion. My site is the ultimate source of this information. There are probably ~4 other sources of this information, but I believe they all cite back to me. Anyway, we can take this discussion to the talk page.
TheKanter (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Mass spam of mathvault.ca
I just circled back and noticed there is still a lot of Mathvault spam in articles.[2] I started removing some more but it is going to take time. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've done a few batches as time permits, but I've been a bit busier than usual lately. Thanks for chipping in! MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I knocked out a few more. He seems to have done a spree in August 2020 so I wish it had been caught a year ago to make things easier. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Reply on my edits
Dear MrOllie,
I made some edits to the NuVinci Continuously Variable Transmission page some weeks ago, which were redacted. You redacted them and then posted a notice on my profile. I understood the reasons for the redaction and wrote my reply on my talk page. I am also new to Wikipedia editing or editing suggestion, and so I am not always sure what is the right (and Wikipedia's cultural) way to proceed. Because I didn't get a reply from you yet, I am following up on your own talk page.
Indeed, your impression is correct. I am employed at enviolo (successor of NuVinci). This is also my first time actively editing Wikipedia and learning the standards of the foundation. My regrets for my mistake and thank you for notifying me. In order to not break the Terms of Use any further, I've added a disclosure immediately after your notification and will refrain from making further changes to any pages.
I have a more complete reply on my talk page - and you can check my (longer) response there.
To summarize, much of the information on the NuVinci page is outdated or no longer correct, and I would now like to work out how it can be acceptable to update information in the future. I understand Wikipedia's need for neutrality - I hope you also understand from our point of view that we also appreciate that the information in Wikipedia correctly educates users and internauts about our products, technologies, and their history. I am a Digital Coordinator, and at some point, someone else in PR or Communications might take the lead on communicating suggestions through Talk pages and interacting with the Wikipedia community. In the meantime, it would be useful to prepare ahead for that.
There's a lot I don't know. So again, thank you, I really appreciate that you pointed out some of the most important rules of Wikipedia.
Please feel free to respond here or on my profile.
Sincerely,
Ricardodnpereira (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have anything else to add. As mentioned before, read the COI guidelines thoroughly and use talk pages instead of writing about your company in article space yourself. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, we will try like that. We hope that our feedback can be heard and considered when we do so deliver through the Talk pages and that it results in a more positive way to work. Ricardodnpereira (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sentiment Analysis edits
Hello Mr Olie!
I recently made some edits to the Sentiment Analysis wikipage which you've since removed. May I know what are the reasons for doing so?
Thank you! Turq6ise (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Fintech - my changes
I have seen that my changes to Fintech have not been accepted. I of course want to follow the guidelines but as I am new with Wikipedia, would you please explain what must be changed in my edition. For all the content I ushttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&action=edit§ion=newed, the sources are given - also the page numbers. Even double blind peer reviews exist on the topic from the same author and same content. Thank you for your help and feedback.
BanksandFintechs (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the edit summary, your additions were misplaced in the article (part of it was added above the lead section), and generally had a essay-style tone - they were written informally, and were making arguments and expressing the author's point of view in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BETTER for details. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Anti-spam barnstar
|
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | |
| Thank you for diligently removing spam! Anita5192 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
Bees
Hello MrOllie, I added a new reference to the Bees Algorithm article but I think you subsequently removed that reference. The reference is relevant to the article. I would appreciate it if you would reinstate it. Many thanks --Bees Algorithm (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- The new citation supports no new content in the article - it is redundant. - MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Text Messaging Historical Addition
Why did you dismiss a the three cited sources as not relevant to adding history to the Text Messaging entry? What would you constitute as a "secondary source" as legitimate as World Cat, the Smithsonian Institution and the thesis reference itself?
Please provide guidance as to what else supports the historical addition so that this information can be reflected accurately.
https://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=TK6553.V33+1970a
https://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:siris_sil_195657
Thank you.
BruceKing36 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a secondary source as::
"A book review that contains the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion, and a secondary source for the contents of the book.[16][17] A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source
The Google Books review at::
Specifically states::
"User Review - The subject of this book is ‘Text Messaging’ conceived in 1964 and completed in 1970."
How is that not considered relevant as a secondary source as defined by Wikipedia itself as a 'summary book review"?
Please clarify.
Thank you,
BruceKing36 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, that is user generated content. We need sources that are vetted by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking. The history of text messaging has been written about extensively. For an addition like yours something like a book from an academic publisher or a history article in a major tech magazine would be the standard level of sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
So you're saying that the the Illinois Institute of Technology, the academic publisher of the thesis from 1970 referenced in the entry , is not an "academic publisher"? Or do you dismiss them only as a "primary source"? What do you need, a .PDF scan of the thesis?
BruceKing36 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- In this context a masters thesis (not the university) is a primary source, yes. We need some evidence that someone other than Vasilatos has written about this. A university publishing a masters thesis is not a academic publisher producing a book in the way that Wikipedia's policies envision. You have read WP:RS by now, correct? To quote: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." - MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Has clearly not been written about extensively, as it is missing this foundational thesis I added to the entry, as published by the Illinois Institute of Technology. I've read the thesis. This was exactly the purpose of adding the information- to accurately reflect the record.
You removing the historical revision without having read the thesis is actually a disservice to reflecting the historical record accurately and your dismissal of the secondary source summary at the Google Books link is also a dismissal of what Wikipedia defines as a secondary source as the summary came from the Smithsonian, which is an accredited institution as is IIT, the publisher.
BruceKing36 (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring to the many books and articles which are available offline. I would suggest you take a trip your local library to see what they have to find secondary sources for this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we have to meet certain minimum sourcing standards. A user review left on Google looks is plainly not a usable secondary source, nor is a simple card catalog entry at the Smithsonian library. Feel free to ask questions about what makes for a reliable source at WP:RSN, which is the venue for such things. Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, I will also provide a link to WP:TEAHOUSE, where you may ask general questions about editing the encyclopedia. Where did you run across mention of this thesis originally? Perhaps wherever you first read about it would be a usable secondary source. - MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I "ran across it" in my own research on text messaging when I found reference of the thesis through a Google search on text messaging, which led me to the entries at Google Books, the Smithsonian, and World Cat which identified a copy at the IIT library. Living in Chicago, I made the "trip" myself to the IIT Library, where the thesis is a part of the institution's academic collection. So I guess that would make me a "secondary source", reporting on it as an important part of text messaging history but it sounds like since I'm just some guy who read the thesis and thought it noteworthy to add to the Wikipedia history because of its relevance, I'm not as important enough as a source compared to someone who hasn't read it editing other people's entries here.
24.148.19.110 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Since you haven't been fact-checked or run through an editorial process, no, you personally are not a 'secondary source'. I'm sorry that you find Wikipedia's sourcing policies onerous, but I assure you we do have them for a reason. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Reversion in Genetic Erosion
Would you be willing to explain why you reverted recent changes to [[3]Genetic Erosion]?
I read the proposed text, and it seemed to me to be authoritative and to add much-needed breadth to the article. I'm especially not sure why you regard it as being problematic for COI or citespam, given that the citation was to a recent thorough meta-analysis of the topic published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I would agree that the positioning of the citation is probably not appropriate. It would be better attached only to the revised section of line 19, on the extent of losses. And a more approachable definition would probably be a good idea.
I am happy to enter into a discussion of what you think is wrong with the contributions and to amend appropriately. It may be that crop genetic erosion needs to be split off to separate it from wildlife aspects that seem to be the current focus of the article.
JeremyCherfas (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, your reversions of Agricultural biodiversity
Again, I don't fully understand how having an author of peer-reviewed scientific papers contribute material from those papers is considered citespam or represents a conflict of interest. I would welcome further details.
If I make similar edits to the page and cite the same sources, would I also be guilty of citespam?
Thanks for your consideration.
JeremyCherfas (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion of this is at User talk:CKChaneca, including an explanation of the relevant policies and guidelines. But in a nutshell, if you were operating an account that added citations to the same author on 20 or so occasions with little variation, the Wikipedia community will identify that as citation spamming, yes. Spamming here is a behaviour, and is not really a judgment on what is being promoted. It is the how and the why and not so much the what. - MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Luigi Moretti Contributions to Parametric design
Dear MrOllie, thanks for your time, I'm not very used to Wikipedia, so hope I'm not doing anything wrong. I understand you did that edit to preserve Wikipedia from wrong uses, My will too is to contribute towards a better Wikipedia in those fields in which I have competence. Luigi Moretti's contributions to parametric architecture are clear and recognized by the scientific community
This is a paper by John Frazer, on a 2016 paper where he talks about the history of parametric explains how Moretti invented Parametric Architecture, the paper is published inside Architectural Design https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ad.2019 The laws of parametric architecture are an important turning point for parametric design, explaining why and how the research should focus on the parameter and not on shapes or other topics as example, Greg Lynn, cited in the page, which is undoubtedly one of the greatest protagonists of digital architecture, has never talked about parameters, on the contrary, he speaks mainly of shapes, but parametric design is not a formal question, it is related to the process.
The text say "One of the first architects and theorists that used computers to generate architecture was Greg Lynn" but parametric design is not about using a computer, sure now we use computers with this approach, but when Moretti started he did his calculation and drawings by hand, as Otto and Gaudì
Frank Ghery, cited under the Catia section, was the first architect to use splines for the Peix d`Or project in Barcelona, he used Catia, but not with a parametric approach, a spline is a way to describe a curve, he is recognized as one of the greatest masters of Deconstructivist architecture, but he never talked about parametric architecture
About software in the same page, that list is basically advertising, the new rise of parametric design starts with grasshopper 3d, a software now integrated inside Rhinoceros and created by David Rutten in 2007, that defined the new advent of parametric design as a process, Now almost any design software allows a kind of parametric design, even BIM methods are based on a parametric logic which follows the logics of object oriented programming, so which is the sense of that list?
Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignDigital (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, sorry for bothering you, do you have any suggestions on what I can do? thanks in advance --DesignDigital (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- About what? You've quoted a bunch of stuff but I don't see that you've articulated any issues that I can help with. At any rate, discussion about the article should be on the article talk page where other editors might see it. I'm also not sure that your facts are correct. You identify 'grasshopper 3d' as the new rise of parametric design, but that fairly recent, from 2007. PTC (which stood for 'Parametric Technology Corporation') put out Pro/ENGINEER in 1988. I think perhaps your personal definition of 'Parametric design' is not the same one the article is using. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I understand, I also wrote on that pages about its many issues, I'll check to see if there is any update on that. regards DesignDigital (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, MrOllie. See User talk:Itspavankumarhere. Bishonen | tålk 14:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
- Ah, I see. I thought it was strange that the user's talk page couldn't be created due to title blacklisting, but I wasn't sure that the edits (spam as they probably were) were related to the sock case. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Marra Mountains etc.
Dear MrOllie, thank you for your time. According to Wikipedia's guildines on external links, it is allowed to cite "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." I have in each edit used neutral and accurate material from documentaries. Could you explain to me where the problem lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Schreibt (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The problem lies under 'Links normally to be avoided', 'Links mainly intended to promote a website' and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. What you're doing is promoting these documentaries, and Wikipedia is not for that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- As set out in the Wikipedia guidelines, I have changed my talk/user page accordingly, in order to inform the Wikipedia community of my affiliation with Arte. As far as I have understood, the Wikipedia community prohibits organizations to: 1) write articles about ourselves (i.e. the Wikipedia page of ARTE), 2) to advertise on Wikipedia and to 3) put links to products and businesses (i.e. “Please do not try to promote your product or business..." Wikipedia allows to contribute “substantial coverage”, this means information derived from: news articles, scholarly articles, documentary film, encyclopedia entry, reports by a consumer watchdog organization and extensive how-to guides. As ARTE is free of charge, we are not trying to promote any particular product. Instead, we try to enhance the quality of Wikipedia's articles through the neutral information derived from our documentaries. For instance, ARTE's documentary on the on black tea informs about organic agriculture in Georgia, hence allowing to enhance several of Wikipedia's pages, which discuss for example the topic of Georgian minimal wage, organic agriculture as well as the history of black tea around the world. - LauraSchreibt (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2021 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Schreibt (talk • contribs)
- You have a conflict of interest and you've been promoting ARTE on Wikipedia. That is absolutely what our policies and guidelines are designed to prevent. You may use talk pages to suggest additions, but you should not be adding links to arte, using it as a citation, or promoting these documentaries yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Vertical farming
Dear MrOllie, thanks for your time and your work on wikipedia. As you can see, all of this is kind of new to me and I would like to understand what happened with my contribution to the article "vertical farming" as you said it was "name dropping". I thought adding content about the projects being undertaken in this industry would be interesting to any reader, there is no point reading about the theory without having they key projects that put this into practice all around the world. Could you tell me what was wrong and how could I fix that? Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guikko (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should not be laundry lists of routine activities by companies working in the industry, we're not a press release service or a trade magazine. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Those are not "routine activities" as there is no routine in a field that is being created by a handful of startups. This "laundry list" highlights the innovations being carrious out and becoming more mainstream as well as the main companies working on it. For exemple, the partnership between the second largest food retailer in California and this startup means the industry as a whole made a huge step forward. I find it interesting to see how projects evolve as the years go by. Well, I guess I won't convince you :). Then could you tell me what kind of content related to the projects being carried out would be interesting? By country? By technology? By size? Nothing at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guikko (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest writing about academic projects or the industry as a whole based on neutral sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals rather than business news. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that Guikko (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Re: adding content MrOllie
Hello MrOllie,
Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for the past year. Some content on here is incorrect and needs more information.
I will ensure my next edit has more content and is of higher quality.
Thanks 92.19.69.108 (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Responding to your query
MrOllie -
Apologies for the late reply to your query regarding disclosing any paid (direct or indirect) relationship in relation to my content. I do not have any paid relationship associated with this Vendor (or any other for that matter). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrenolion (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given your singular focus and your repetitive attempts to insert inappropriate promotional material, I frankly find that a bit difficult to believe. At any rate, please stop trying to turn that article into an advertisement. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is not my intent. I'll strive to do a better job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrenolion (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
A new science spammer
What you found is just one of a bunch of single-use IPs (Airtel broadband) adding links to:
- livemcqs.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
If it happens again, off to blacklist it'll go... DMacks (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
User Re ruhsyeteeieie yo ei?
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted user Re ruhsyeteeieie yo ei's edits to my talk page, and am just wondering what that user's story is. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jinnifer. They mostly add nonsense to articles about comic books and horror movies. Since most of their target articles are protected, they've moved on to trying to get editors to make proxy edits for them. It's been going for a little over a year now. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay--thank you. ^_^ --DocWatson42 (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
storyofmathematics.com - Whoa there
I ran across this edit of yours, in which you removed a reference. I took a look at the page your edit summary referenced, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Mass_spam_of_mathvault.ca, and see that you and others were working on the actions of an editor, Muaumee, who you all had come to believe was link spamming via references. I don't have know about that, but anyway it looks like someone included storyofmathematics.com as being in the same group as the main two sites Muaumee was flogging. I'm not sure how warranted that inclusion was. I'm not familiar with any of the sites, but maybe storyofmathematics isn't really in Muaumee's group (although I must say when viewed without ad blockers it looks terrible).
Anyway, the reference your edit above removed was added by User:Sphilbrick in the middle of a sequence of edits that added a number of references (here}. User:Sphilbrick's edits seem at least good faith, and Sphilbrick is an admin. So apparently you've been removing all cites of storyofmathematics.com regardless of who made them. It's not at all clear to me that's the right thing to do. I haven't investigated, but I presume storyofmathematics.com hasn't been put on a blacklist or been nominated to be blacklisted or similar. Without that, it seems sketchy to be removing all references mentioning the site. Is this SOP for Project Spam? (And do you think it should be?) --R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a self published source, which lists Wikipedia among its own source materials - per WP:CIRCULAR, it should never have been added as a source, by anyone. I'm comfortable with my decision to remove the reference. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Concern about Sentiment Analysis edits
Hi MrOllie!
I noticed you removed the edit i made on Sentiment Analysis regarding the Intensity Ranking function.
May I ask what did I do wrong or what could be improved about it?
Thanks! Turq6ise (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I said last time you asked me about this, contributions to Wikipedia must not promote individual companies or services such as SenticNet. Sourcing should come from independent secondary sources, preferably review articles in this space. MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Revert of removal quicksort statement
Hi MrOllie,
I made a edit a few days ago to remove a statement that is untrue and didn't had any references, however, you've reverted that change. Can I ask why? As this statement implies that a common-use case of using quicksort is to sort an already sorted array, which first of all doesn't really make any sense and also doesn't have any sources for that statement.
MrsGusted (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Resorting already sorted (or mostly sorted) arrays is a very common use case. In circumstances like this, you may add a citation needed tag if that is your issue, but you should not claim statements are 'untrue' and delete when you are simply not familiar with the topic. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: MrOllie, please stop deleting wiki posts on purpose
Dear MrOllie,
Recently, we found you intentionally deleted many posts which are reasonable justified. Please stop messing up the wiki contents. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnbulldavid (talk • contribs)
- Yes, I revert lots of people who are using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Please stop doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie,
Sorry but if you keep messing other people's post, we would have to report your account. We have been working for wiki for last 11 years and believe all the editing are based on expertise. Please learn to respect others, especially researchers in the technical field! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnbulldavid (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- New posts go at the bottom of talk pages, please read the directions. It is surprising that you have been editing the wiki for 11 years and you haven't noticed that yet. Report me if you must, I am not the one repetitively adding citations to the same authors. Wikipedia is not a venue for academic promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
If the work was pioneered by certain groups, then we have to cite their papers -- no matter who they are. I am NOT promoting anyone's research. As one having worked in a technical field for 30 years, I'd like you to respect our editing based on technical expertise. Thank you & please stop deleting the posts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnbulldavid (talk • contribs)
- A WP:SECONDARY ref, as standard under wikipedia's guidelines, will help non-expert readers recognize both that a certain group is credited with some idea and that that group/idea is recognized by others who are experts. Wikipedia is not like a literature-review, where WP:PRIMARY research is directly collected and enumerated. DMacks (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is obviously not what you're doing. What you're doing is inserting references to the same people everywhere you can find a thin excuse to do so, often without adding any new content to the article. And you're not the only account (Andymsci) that is doing this. - MrOllie (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted another citation for nanoscale thermodynamics. Changlin Tien has the pioneered the field here so citing his paper is very appropriate. Why did you keep deleting others' post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnbulldavid (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why did you exchange the existing secondary source for that one? That did not improve the article. MrOllie (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it does. The existing references are very specific study on nanowires or graphene, but the book presents the whole field. Note that, most following references in the wiki were published from academic offsprings of Tien. Tien created the field, and the book is a great citation to give people a general review! Please stop messing up. Really thank you!
I have added a citation to Interfacial thermal resistance, which I believe is a good review for that topic. Please do not delete again because of your arguing with me. For all the citations, I suggested them just because these groups are really the pioneers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnbulldavid (talk • contribs)
- That is not how the encyclopedia is written (WP:SECONDARY). Writing and citing a Wikipedia article is not the same as writing and citing an academic paper. Please make some effort to learn and respect Wikipedia's norms and practicies, which are not the same as what you're used to in academia. - MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I have blocked the user as not here to help create an encyclopedia Bishonen | tålk 04:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC).
Why r u so active on wikipedia
It’s cool but you removed my links. Is this your job? Runrumrungun (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay. What are the comp and benefits and where can I sign up? Runrumrungun (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like to get contact for application please. Can you send that Runrumrungun (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok well I have look at the application and I think I can only work at the foundation. Can you give reference? Runrumrungun (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Is it personal attack or you just too "vigilant"?
Reverting changes for perfectly just content. For example addition of search engine TATDig (Nigez.com) on "Search Engine. So, what was (is) wrong in your personal opinion? P.S. I see you are quite busy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatdig (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your website, see WP:SPAM, WP:PROMO. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
What self promotion you are talking about, elaborate? In that case why Petal search are not removed by you? Did they pay or what? That need to be clear, otherwise it will cast big shadow to whole Wikipedia operation. Tatdig (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Petal, we're talking about your attempts to add your own website to Wikipedia, which is spamming. Please stop damaging the encyclopedia in this fashion. - MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spam Which part is applied here? Did you add Petal Search? Did they pay or what? That need to be clear, otherwise it will cast big shadow to whole Wikipedia operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatdig (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SPAM, which I linked for you above. I'm done responding here, feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. Now another question, which part is applied here as "self promotion". Question remains: How all other "search engines" has been added to that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatdig (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
On the editing of Robert Hare (chemist) page
Considering Wikipedia's core content policies of "neutral point of view", it is only right that either both sides of a debate are included, or neither. To only include content that serves to discredit the conclusions drawn by a scientist is wrong, which is why I deleted them and will continue to delete them. Feel free to add a section in support of his findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:62E1:2000:1491:3FFD:8067:CDA9 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should read WP:NPOV, (particularly WP:FALSEBALANCE) because that is not at all what it means. MrOllie (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I will continue this forever. Stay mad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:62E1:2000:1491:3FFD:8067:CDA9 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
On deleting an external link on Mode_(music)
You removed a link to an interactive tool I've made, useful to demonstrate modes construction: <<link redacted>> but leaved another one: <<link redacted>> Please me explain the difference, do you prefer piano over guitar? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs)
- I prefer that Wikipedia editors not promote their websites, see WP:ELNO. I haven't reviewed every link, just the one that has been recently added to several articles. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, but still I don't understand why many other external links are allowed to stay here. I've added the links because I thought they would add value to the page, it's all free and interactive stuff. But you've already partially answered to my questions, "I haven't reviewed every link", this explains everything. It seems you're very active in deleting new content but close an eye or two on already existing links. I wonder if Wikipedia is really neutral or whatever. I think I will not waste my time here trying to add value.
- Edit: It seems you're pretty famous in the websphere<<link removed>> Now everything is clear; congrats on your edits quota. That's not the Wikipedia I thought Gianca1976
- Yes, because I still can't explain myself your criteria for considering link spam or not, given the fact that you left online plenty of links similar to mine. And because I considered Wikipedia a super-partes project but now I'm not so sure, and I want to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I should assume that I've been unlucky enough to happen on your radar. But I'm not a spammer, I gave a lot to the web community, you don't know me
Articles on Indo-Nepal stuffs.
Dear Sir. I am history and BBS graduate. Can we collaborate on improving articles common to India and Nepal. All such articles are either lying toward Nepal or towards India in an Uni (Singular) directions and thats causing massive blunder edits. Waiting for your quick reply. Donotreplystation (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're pasting the same text into the article, causing everything to appear twice. Please stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay ! The main article was vague. Can we talk on above matter Donotreplystation (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should discuss articles at the talk pages associated with those articles. MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Removing/Reverting Edits
Hi MrOllie! I see that you keep reverting my edits for 'self promotion.' While I agree that someone independently promoting oneself falls in this parameter, what you keep changing is not. New York Fashion Week is an event which takes place at a handful of venues in tandem. Almost all were listed, but one I noticed was missing and I made it complete. In past edits on this wiki page users did add to the list gradually year by year to keep it up to date. My addition was to make it more complete. I am not affiliated with anyone listed, so it is not self-promo. I am studying in this field and joined Wikipedia to start adding to some knowledge to some fashion related posts. Students like myself depend on wikipedia for our studies and work, so removing this information is very unhelpful. While I agree with your removal of famous models (not useful info), the rest IS useful to students studying this field. I am kindly asking you to please stop undoing my small edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylud (talk • contribs)
- I didn't say 'self promotion', I said the article contained promotional namedropping, which it did. That article has a long history of promotional editing from many editors, focuses around getting a mention of their favorite venue or company in a prominent place. Wikipedia is not a business listing or directory site, so this needs to end. Adding to the list 'gradually year by year' has taken the article farther and father from a well written encyclopedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Edits & Links
Hey Mr. Ollie. I request that you please keep the edits I have made to the Windows Live Messenger page. I am unaffiliated with the developers, and I simply thought that the inclusion of a patched solution to the deprecated software would be relevant on this page. I can remove links if necessary or add them in the sources page. Thank you for your patience. Usingh0663 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, that would still be advertising. If this gets written about in a reliable source like a major newspaper we can add it then. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre page edits
Hello Mr Ollie. You have removed some edits I made yesterday. I have reinstated the Criticism part but left out the orangutan attack part, which used two Tripadvisor entries. I am curious about the reason you've given: "we cannot use self published materials or social media sites as sources".
a) I acknowledge that anyone can write and publish a book, website, journal, etc, and claim that they are experts in a certain field. However, I disagree that the first source I had cited (D. Rijksen, Herman; Meijaard, Erik (January 1999)) is unacceptable as a reliable source. Both authors are expert conservationists (I believe their work can be found online) and the source was made available on ResearchGate (which, as you may know, is not a predatory journal). That source is also cited in the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Best Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Tourism. The IUCN's Wikipedia entry indicates that this is an expert body.
b) You removed the second para, the one in which an animal rights group describe tourism at Sepilok as not abiding by the IUCN Guidelines stated above. While I agree that any rights group can make claims online, the part in the group's article about this is referred from the Guidelines, which source you have also deleted. Are IUCN publications not considered reliable sources? If not, could you explain please?
c) You deleted a January 2021 edit because "criticism section that was overwhelmingly sourced to a single advocacy organization's self published criticisms". I checked and it appears that you also deleted the D. Rijksen, Herman; Meijaard, Erik; January 1999, and the same article by the same rights group I added yesterday (you also removed a research article by some experts: Russon, Anne; Smith, Joshua; Adams, Laura (1 May 2016)). However, the reason you gave for removal (of these two sources) then appears to vary from your reason yesterday: "we cannot use self published materials". Could you explain, please?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKassim (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has minimum sourcing standards, which you can find at WP:RS. Your explanations are there. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I read the sourcing standards before writing to you. Please point specifically to which standards the edits I made aren't acceptable before deleting my edits again. I have reinstated what you removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKassim (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You read the sourcing standards, yet you continue to add self published citations such as 'Friends of the Orangutans Malaysia'. We cannot use self published sources from pressure groups. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Show me what Wikipedia says about self-published citations then. Are expert publications not acceptable on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKassim (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You are referring to Friends of the Orangutans Malaysia. Take a look at b) above. I have explained to you that content in that article refers to the IUCN's Guidelines. Please respond to what I've asked. Thank you.JKassim (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:SELFPUB. On Wikipedia, the subject expert exception to that rule is for people like Eugene Volokh, who is a professor and is regularly published in peer reviewed journals, but also has a well-regarded blog. Are you associated with Friends of the Orangutans Malaysia in some way? MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You are asking for me to reveal my identity? Why does that matter? So, anyone or any entity whose work refers to/cites expert publications are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? JKassim (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:COI and WP:PAID. You may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I am NOT part of that organisation, so explain how I may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. And explain the other matters I've asked you. JKassim (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have answered all your relevant questions. If you have more general questions about how Wikipedia works, I recommend asking at WP:TEAHOUSE. If you are not associated (not the same as 'part of'), that's fine, you aren't in violation. But it still is not a reliable source and cannot be used in the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thanks for cleaning up the spam on articles on various US states! Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
no conflict of interest
Hello, I received your message about potential COI but I want to clarify that I have no conflict of interests concerning the added contributions (I just thought they were important missing elements to insert in a proper wikipedia article in order to provide a better context to crucial topics in AI). A couple of the messages were just repeated because they referred to 2 related topics (Strong AI and Artificial General Intelligence...). I don't know why everything was cancelled.130.192.156.246 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, because every one of your contributions for the past few years has served to promote the work of one person. Please try branching out a bit. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, it is just because in the last years I am focusing on a particular field of study and have encountered many relevant references about AI and cognitive science missing (the last references all concern a book that I have read in the past months and that covers many related topics). As I mentioned, for this reason I just copied the same text in different pages...In the past (it's more than 10 years that I collaborate on Wikipedia) I have covered completely unrelated topics. I'll try to distribute my effort again on other topics but it is a pity to see all the work done on a specific area of study cancelled for a non existing COI...Even if at the end there were very few lines added, it costed me a lot of work to correctly polish the writing, to contextualize it within the overall literature and to individuate the right point of entry where it was relevant...(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Physics
Your did a good job most especially on the history. 105.112.208.115 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Removed Edits
Hello MrOllie you removed some edits I made. Please feel free to remove much more from the article(s) because they are highly outdated and misleading to uninformed readers which was stated in my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meschinda (talk • contribs)
- You should not add your personal commentary to articles. That is what the associated article talk pages are for. - MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Edits to Web Application Frameworks and Single Page Applications Page
I am not sure why you removed my edits. You removed edits I made several days ago and edits I had made 4 years ago? Something that has been there for 4 years is suddenly spam because it is related to a newer edit? I have been working in Web Application Development profession for 20 years and I know which frameworks are up and coming. Any framework that is open source in Github, has a well established following, and a solid web presence, should be eligible to have an inclusion. Make a major and minor frameworks section if you want to have a popularity contest then, but completely excluding anything that is not pushed by Google or Facebook, or was entered 15 years ago, is highly suspect. Has wikipedia become some kind of elite club or is it a genuine source of unbiased information? I'm sure back in 2010 this kind of censorship was not practiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelKepler (talk • contribs) 18:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- It only took a few seconds on google to find that you have an obvious conflict of interest here. Because we are not building a link directory, Wikipedia (especially on software topics), generally only lists notable things. On wikipedia this means that the topic qualifies for a standalone article, which in turn means that at least three reliable sources (such as major newspapers, books from academic publishers, etc.) exist. That is not the case for your framework. Also, 'censorship' is something governments do. You have no particular right to see a mention of your work on someone else's website, even a publicly edited one such as Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
U.S. News & World Report updates
Thank you for advising me on the disclosures. I've updated my profile to include them. My edits were not promotional, however I wanted to ensure the correct leadership and location information.
Sincerely, Kate O'Donnell Katemodonnell (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, you haven't updated your user page. You should do so, it is required. Also, this edit was clearly promotional. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Far left
MrOllie, your editing is biased in the far-left politics page. Look at the far-right politics page, in it are groups mentioned by name in US politics. Even Trumpism, etc. The far left page is scant with no groups, elaboration or US information added. Stop information censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfigwald (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Just stop adding your unsourced personal opinions to articles, that isn't how Wikipedia is written. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie, BLM and Antifa far left entities in the United States, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Yet you delete them where they belong on the page. That is not intellectually sound with all the right wing entities stated on the reciprocal far-right politics page, laid out by name. Will you continue to censor this information even after facts are provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfigwald (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, facts are sourced. Take it up on the article talk page and see if you can convince anyone else, but don't edit war, and don't try to engage in political debate on my user talk page, I'm not interested. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
External Link
Hello, may I have your opinion about this external link: https://www.jazzguitar.be/blog/melodic-minor-modes/ on this page? Minor scale ? Thank you Gianca1976 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't really take suggestions on what to do with my limited time as a volunteer. - MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok no problem, now I know there's something personal Gianca1976 (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOlline, I dont know why you removed the external link on this page?
If you write where I made a mistake, I will try to fix it. Because this page has a lot of links like mine. I'll be glad, if you help me. thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkonomiUzmanı (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Home staging
Hi MrOllie I hope you can see this. You removed my edit to the history of home staging and called it self promotion spam. This is not he case! I added it because it is the history of home staging and to honor the creator of the industry. (Not me). Why do you not want to have the history known? Swissstager (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- It was unsourced. People (mostly representatives of her company) have tried to add this before, and there aren't really any independent sources for this claim, so we can't include it. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What would you classify as a source? I am not part of her company. She hasn't really got a company any longer.
Swissstager (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean if you look at the entry for Wikipedia, it starts with "wikipedia was founded by... " without a source but naming the founders. Why not Home Staging? Swissstager (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
How to add external links ?
May i know what i am doing wrong that my external links are removed ? please guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.160.145 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Learning Factory
Would you please help me to find out why my contribution to Learning Factory was reverted? Thanks for your time Sahe574 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Sahe574: First, please confine your use of the {{help}} templates to your own talk pages. Using them elsewhere causes either confusion or unnecessary waste of volunteers' time.
- I can see two reasons why your addition might have been reverted. First, it contained an external link. Second, you placed it first in the section, which placement makes it look like your intention may have been promotional. You can correct these problems or discuss the addition on the talk page. And MrOllie may have had other reasons in mind. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Digital Twin
I have tried to contribute to the Digital Twin page by providing valuable information with a highly cited journal paper as a reference. However, this contribution was reverted. I would appreciate your comment to address any issue since I'm a newcomer Sahe574 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Sahe574: repeating the above admonition about {{help}} templates.
- You added your sourced addition to the intro of the article. Normally, the intro summarizes information presented, with sources, in the body of the article lower down. Again, this action may have been interpreted as promotional. You can perhaps discuss where best to add this information on the talk page. MrOllie may have other reasons in mind here, too. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Removal of Links
Hi, You have removed 3 links i have posted. We have disclosed the mentions as requested. I'd appreciate it if you could reinstate the links as they are making references of courses offered by different institutions including Sydney International School of Technology and Commerce. Although, we have not been paid for those specific links, we are happy to include the disclosure as required.
Please advise if any further actions is required from our end.
Fassa.Digital — Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it was still inappropriate promotion, even if you have now disclosed. The links should not be replaced. MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, MrOllie,
You're a very experienced editor but I wanted to remind you that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator so they can understand what has happened and why. I see you used Twinkle, which is great, so please check your Twinkle Preferences so that "Notify page creator" is checked. Also, sometimes Twinkle's default setting is to only have some CSD criteria boxes checked, like A7 and G11, when they all need to be checked. Finally, if Twinkle doesn't post a notification, please write your own message to the page creator noting that their page might be violating some Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for all of the work you do! Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Adding in a new variation of Sign that exists in the world of Virtual Reality.
I've never edited a wikipedia page before, and it seems a waste not to include something that is fundamentally new. Would you be able to give me any pointers or suggestions on how best to submit this information in a way that can be beneficial to those who otherwise would never know of its existance? Stephanie Valentine (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on secondary sources (with limited exceptions that do not apply here). You should find reliable sources, such as articles in peer reviewed journals or major newspapers, and use those to write the content. We cannot use primary sources or social media such as discord groups or youtubers. We also cannot stitch together multiple sources to make a point that none of them have explicitly made, that is called original research here and is not allowed. Sometimes with very new phenomena no reliable sources exist yet - that means you should wait for good sources to emerge, not that you should try to proceed with primary sources. Wikipedia lags behind the 'cutting edge' by design. MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Rollback to addition of SPA framework
Hi,
I can see you rolled back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-page_application&diff=1054911865&oldid=1054911272 which was to add Angular in SPA framework, I can understand the confusion here, Angular is not same as AngularJS and they are totally different framework, adding wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_(web_framework) for your info, I hope you can put the content back.
103.136.64.68 (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Santosh
Whiplash
Hello, I saw your edits. I do apologies, as I can see how they may have looked like an advertisement. That was not my intention.
The Whiplash Medicine page as some good content, however it is very outdated.
The injury mechanism is now known and has been known since 1997.
Grauer, Jonathan N. MD*; Panjabi, Manohar M. PhD*; Cholewicki, Jacek PhD*; Nibu, Kimio MD†; Dvorak, Jiri MD‡* Whiplash Produces an S-Shaped Curvature of the Neck With Hyperextension at Lower Levels, Spine: November 1, 1997 - Volume 22 - Issue 21 - p 2489-2494
This statement is not true: While there is broad consensus that acute whiplash is not uncommon, the topic of chronic whiplash is controversial, with studies in at least three countries showing zero to low prevalence, and some academics positing a linkage to financial issues.
Research: Conclusion Whiplash injury patients have long-term residual symptoms; mainly pins and needles sensation in their limbs, headache, and dizziness. Increasing age and low back pain are bad prognostic factors. (40.7%) were still symptomatic 10 years after injury Article Information Volume: 17 issue: 2, page(s): 77-81 Article first published online: December 1, 2013; Issue published: December 1, 2013 El-Sallakh Sameh, El-Rosasy Mahmoud, Mohamed M.M. Mohamed, P. Mifsud Rooney a Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tanta, Tanta University Hospital, Tanta, Egypt b Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley DY1 2HQ, UK There are about 80 such articles I can provide.
In fact a 15 year study by Squires shows over 70% with chronic pain, and a 30 year study shows over 50%
Diagnosis:
Under diagnosis the Quebec Task Force is listed. This is very outdated. It was published in the journal of Spine in 1995, after review of literature from 1991-1993. This was 4 years before the injury mechanism was discovered at Yale Medical School. The publication was approved by one medical reviewer that allowed publication in the journal that was endorsed by a handful of spinal associations, no universities or schools.
My Whiplash Guidelines, attached, however, are based on up to date research and have been approved through peer review of several medical and chiropractic universities continuing education boards. Since my guidelines have only been published in post graduate continuing education (which makes them part of the medical literature), I would like to ask what evidence you require so that they can be published on this site.
If you go to my website, TorontoPainDoctor.com, you can click on 3 of the 4 current academic institutions links to see my program has been approved and accredited. In addition, at the bottom right you will see a button that states, Whiplash Related Injury Guide, which will show a PDF of my published guidelines.
I would really like to update your page to be consistent with the current literature, but would appreciate some direction as to not upload something that will just be taken down.
Thank you for your time and consideration. --WhiplashDr (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has specific guidelines for medical content, which you can read at WP:MEDRS. We need systematic reviews for this sort of change, and we cannot use your personal website. - MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Basigin - Role in SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Hi, MrOllie, you have removed a valid contribution and proper scientific resource from the section. Can you please provide your arguments about it? What was the issue with this post? Thanks.
Text removed:
New research suggest SARS-CoV-2 spike protein might be causing dysfunction of the cardiac pericytes via CD147 receptor mediated signaling and potentially contributing to microvascular injury.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radoi4yk (talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS. Medical statements such as that one have minimum sourcing requirements on Wikipedia that require the use of secondary sources such as systematic review articles. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Elisa Avolio, Michele Carrabba, Rachel Milligan, Maia Kavanagh Williamson, Antonio Beltrami, Kapil Gupta, Karen T Elvers, Monica Gamez, Rebecca Foster, Kathleen Gillespie, Fergus Hamilton, David Arnold, Imre Berger, Andrew Davidson, Darryl J. Hill, Massimo Caputo, Paolo Madeddu; The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147-receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease. Clin Sci (Lond) 2021; CS20210735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20210735
Hi MrOllie,
I'm kindly requesting to re-asses your position. Based on the provided guideline all information quoted from primary sources should be removed and as far as I can see this is not the case in this article. This includes all contributions to the topic of connection of CD147 to SARS-CoV-2. Since the interaction between CD147 and the spike protein is being currently investigated and in order to assure scientific neutrality, primary sources providing broader picture of the current state of research should be included as also evident from the presence of primary sources 18,19 and 20. I suggest to include the research I referred to, as it has significant contribution in explaining the mechanism of interaction. It is also directly related to sources 18, 19 and 20, which are primary sources as well (it quotes paper 18 too). Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radoi4yk (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The medical sourcing guidelines enjoy very wide agreement across the Wikipedia community, I couldn't overrule them single handedly even if I wanted to - and I do not feel that would be warranted in this case. MrOllie (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Head louse infestations website by Kosta Y. Mumcuoglu
Dear Mr./Ms. MrOllie, Yeas ago I completely revised the pages on the three human lice: head, body and pubic in Wikipedia. Several months ago I added a link to a website on Head Louse Infestations (https://head-louse.net/) which was immediately rejected by Mr. Ahmedtii and perhaps also by you. As I wrote to Mr. Ahmedtii, I am working for the last 40 years or so with subjects related to human lice, published over 60 scientific papers on the subject, I was the president of the International Society on Phthiraptera, and I wrote together with other world specialists on: Mumcuoglu KY, Pollack RJ, Reed DL, Barker SC, Gordon S, Toloza AC, Picollo MI, Taylan-Ozkan A, Chosidow O, Habedank B, Ibarra J, Meinking TL, Vander Stichele RH. International recommendations for an effective control of head louse infestations. Int J Dermatol. 2021 Mar;60(3):272-280. doi: 10.1111/ijd.15096. Based on my experience (I examined with my group over 15,000 children for head lice and I have for the last 40 years a body louse in my laboratory (Parasitology Unit, Dept. of Microbiology, The Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel). My website is written in English and Hebrew and soon will be also translated to Turkish. I think that many people could profit from my page as how to better find a solution for a head louse infestation in the family. I request from you to leave the link in the "External Links" of the the page on head lice. Best Regards Prof. Kosta Y. Mumcuoglu, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by KostaMumcuoglu (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have left a collection of policy links on your user talk page. Please read them - in general you should never link to your own website on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
REVERTING CHANGES WHERE CITATIONS WERE NEEDED
Hi MrOllie, I changed a few links which were not accessible and also added a few links as a reference where citations were needed. The links added were from official sources of YouTube Music Award. Did you check the links before reverting the changes and considering them as spam? Thanks User_talk:Khurshid.sherani — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blogs, vendor sites, and other self published sources are not usable references, see WP:RS. Please use only good references, such as academic journals or major news sites from now on. MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
My edit on Coin catalog was reverted.
Hello MrOllie, I saw you reverted a small edit on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coin_catalog One was a grammar mistake, "which" instead of "that". What was the reason to revert this? The other one was a reference that is a commercial website. If this reference is not acceptable, shouldn't the other external reference to a commercial website be deleted as well? Best Regards, Strato 129.132.204.212 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you are aware of other improper links, they should be removed, yes. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I was refering to the other external ref on the same page. I've removed it now, hope it's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratocaster47 (talk • contribs)
Yo No one is paying me haha I'm just making stuff better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.221.1 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Edits to Enterprise Architecture page
Hello Mr. Ollie
I see that you are a very active Wikipedia editor and let me start by thanking you for your contribution to our favorite online information resource. It is because of the volunteer efforts of people like you that Wikipedia is one of the most valuable and trusted information sources on the web.
My name is Nick Malik. I'm an internationally known expert in Enterprise Architecture. I used to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, especially on the pages related to Enterprise Architecture, Business Process Management, and Enterprise IT systems design but largely stopped in the 2015 timeframe when I started a company (Vanguard EA). I felt that my role as CEO would be too much of a conflict of interest and backed away.
Well that was many years ago and the company is long defunct. I was asked by a friend to come take a look at the Enterprise Architecture page and saw that it has fallen into some disrepair in the past few years. The citations are to less useful or self serving sources, and some of the information is out of date (especially references to the now defunct Federal Enterprise Architecture efforts).
Most specifically for this message, the Enterprise Architecture page as a tag stating that more citations are needed. Some folks have tried to fill in that need with citation spam and you have removed those links. However, other citations are actually useful and I'd like to be able to use one or two of them, so that we can ultimately remove that citation tag from the article. I'd also like to work on the style and formatting of the article to allow us to remove the style tag for too many lists.
I'm dropping you this note to make sure that you see my efforts, not as a spammer but as a former Wikipedia contributor who'd like to provide some improvement to a small set of pages for which I have expertise. Let me know if you have any concerns. Nickmalik (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good! In a topic like that one, there's really no reason to rely on vendor sources rather than academic journals. Stick to the best sources and I'm sure you'll have no problems. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Braille
FYI, Natalina Martiniello is a new editor so it would be nice if you would leave a note on their talk page to explain your deletion of their edit that is maybe a bit less terse than "see WP:NOTHOWTO"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hikvision request for updated company information assistance
Hello – this is Mike with Hikvision. Thank you for helping with the dead links on the Hikvision page. I have requested another edit to update company information on the page and it would be great if you could assist again or point me in the right direction to the best way these changes can be made. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesdsu (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- See the help at {{requestedit}} - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WinRAR
Please correct the website address. Correct: www.rarlabs.com Incorrect inside the page: easy4soft.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangelous (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Streaming Television
Hi MrOllie,
I noticed you reverted my fairly extensive changes to update the contents of the Streaming Television page as it was missing quite a few Australian sources and still contained outdated information or defunct services.
I appreciate that the table broke but I would appreciate your assistance in reverting the information (which is accurate) while ensuring the integrity of the table.
Cheers,
James 167.179.183.156 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Edit:
Never mind, I have registered an account and will amend it more carefully to avoid it breaking.
Syvergy (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Augmentative and alternative communication
Hello MrOllie. I have seen that you have reverted a (large) modification of mine: I had blanked a section of the page on AAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmentative_and_alternative_communication), which simply incorporates the criticisms contained in two pages about two controversial methods that someone would claim as belonging to the AAC techniques. I think that the paragraph contained in the page header, which accounts for these two criticisms, is enough for the economy of the AAC voice, for two reasons: there is no need for a whole section on "what is not AAC ", and it is also contrary to the hypertextual nature of Wikipedia to incorporate and crystallize two pages that could change over time. Best regards 2001:B07:A15:8F40:C07:1B43:C4F6:393D (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- The lead section of an article is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Duplication between the lead and the rest of the article is not just expected, it is required. Also: I have just noticed that edits from your IP range cite an M. Lazzari quite a lot. Are you associated with this person in some fashion? If so, please read WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Changing Display Title on Business Page
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback as I attempt to edit my company's page. Please note that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. My name is Christine Destefano, and I am the Manager of Corporate Communications at Barnes. We recently changed our company name from "Barnes Group Inc." to "Barnes" (press release located here), and our executives have asked me to edit some fields on the Barnes Group Inc. page to reflect our newest leaders, boilerplate, etc.
If I cannot add our boilerplate to the top of the page, can I at least change the names of our leadership team and ideally, the display name of the page from "Barnes Group" to "Barnes"?
Thank you, Chrissyd0425 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Chrissyd0425
- If you are an employee of Barnes, editing at the direction of your executives you are absolutely being compensated and the requirements apply to you. You must make the proper disclosures as laid out at your talk page and you must stop editing the article directly. MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding External Links
Hello,
I have been flagged for "spamming". I am attempting to add external links to 120 of the 300+ wikipedia pages that contain information about Native American treaties signed between the US government and the respective Native American tribe. These treaties have been collected and recorded from the US National Archives and I am attempting to add a link to a database where there are photocopies of these original treaties. This work is purely academic and believed to add significant importance to the history of the settlement of the United States.
I have already added around 100 external links to these treaties. Is there any way they can be re-established without me having to go back one by one?
Thank you,
Christina87111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina87111 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- You and your coworkers have been adding quite a lot of these. Mass additions of websites you are associated with is "spamming" as Wikipedia defines it (see WP:SPAM). Please stop these mass additions, Wikipedia should not be used as an external link directory. - MrOllie (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove my external links
Hello MrOllie,
I noticed you removed my external links from the page "Agroecology." Can I ask why? I undid your edits simply because I believe the sources were important and not spamming since there are only a few. I need to have links as editing a Wikipedia page is apart of one of my projects in University.
Mebhatia (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Mebhatia
- Please have a look at WP:EL, we do not embed external links into the article body like that on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but If your professor(s) are requiring additions that are contrary to Wikipedia's policies they're not going to stick - you should let your professor(s) know that it would be unfair to grade you on that basis, and they should look at Wikipedia:School and university projects which lays out how academic coursework that involves Wikipedia editing should be managed. MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie
Hello MrOllie, This is Shakeel, I have checked recently you have flagged my external link due to inappropriate. I have read the guidelines and will not do this again, as I want to become a Wikipedian/Volunteer here. Shakeelahmedseo (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I am happy to hear from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeelahmedseo (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Inconsistent rules in Digital signage
Hello MrOllie, I know about the nofollow attribute in WP, which makes it useless for SEO. I just tried to replace a broken link in Digital Signage with another article. There was no alternative with wayback engine like another link I replaced minutes before. You reverted it, because it came from a commercial site. That is ok, but: This so-called -seemed to be inappropriate- rules are confusing. Numerous cites in Digital Signage article reference to a company website, which includes also clear promotional elements. So, from my perspective (without want to be disrespectful), it is ridiculous to remove the one links and left the other. And of all places blame authors which only wants to help but not understand this inconsistent interpretation of rules. Maybe you should clean up this mess of article, first. Since nearly 10 years, nothing had changed substantially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechtor (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited. If there are other citations that violate the rules, that is a reason to fix them, not to add more inappropriate links and that require even more volunteer time to fix. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you delete "Express Stave"
From Music notation / Chromatic notations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Keller (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. The only source available is a self published wiki page, which does not meet sourcing requirements. Also, please review the messages which have been left on your user talk page. You have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be editing about a notation that you have originated. MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- My notation is listed on the Music Notation Project website, which is not my private page. I noticed that other systems had links so i tried to add one for me. But if it is not allowed to do this, there is no reason to delete the whole reference to my system. It is just mean. I am struggling to understand Wikipedia. Please put back the reference and i wont try to edit it any more. I am 73. Express Stave is my whole life's work. I have had cancer and chemo and may not live long. Please have a look at my notation. Is it any less deserving for a mention than the other systems such as Clairnote? John Keller (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was your private page - I said it was a self published page on a wiki, which it is. I'm sorry to hear about your health troubles, but this mention never should have been added in the first place, and I cannot restore it as that would not agree with Wikipedia's content policies. - MrOllie (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- My notation is listed on the Music Notation Project website, which is not my private page. I noticed that other systems had links so i tried to add one for me. But if it is not allowed to do this, there is no reason to delete the whole reference to my system. It is just mean. I am struggling to understand Wikipedia. Please put back the reference and i wont try to edit it any more. I am 73. Express Stave is my whole life's work. I have had cancer and chemo and may not live long. Please have a look at my notation. Is it any less deserving for a mention than the other systems such as Clairnote? John Keller (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- When you say "it was a self published page on a wiki", were you referring to the whole of the Music Notation Project Website? I don't understand why you would delete this reference. What kind of websites are allowed as references? And I asked you 2 more questions on my own talk page which i would like your opinion on. I am not "editing about a notation that (I) have originated", as you say. I am editing about the topic of alternative chromatic music notation proposals in general, which are methodically itemised on the website citation which you deleted. Gardner Read's book on this topic contains many of these proposed notations, just obviously not the newer ones like my own. As a general principle, Wikipedia should allow examples for interested readers. By deleting these references, you are making the interested reader none the wiser! What is the point of that?John Keller (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was specifically referring to the wiki hosted as part of that site, though it looks like the rest of the site is self published as well. You can find Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines at WP:RS. Allowing the wiki to fill up with a collection of obscure examples submitted by people with conflicts of interest does not serve the readers. Also: With respect, I'm not on Wikipedia as a question and answer service for you. You may use the WP:TEAHOUSE from now on, but I don't plan on responding to general inquiries from you any further. - MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Why not Minecraft: Story Mode 'is a discontinued'
I think it's possibly still available in retail, but why not 'is a discontinued'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianlewis21 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is no different than any other game which is out of print. We're not going to go around to every game for the Atari 2600 and add 'discontinued' to the opening sentence. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
New subsection for Discrimination page
Hello MrOllie, please see my new talk section under the Discrimination page. I'd like to add a new sub section but see you had reversed my original edit. Can we discuss your concerns and if possible can you check the references I list and comment? I think this is an important edit and would like to put it back with your review.
Apologies also new to editing wiki so just getting the hang of things. Any advice appreciated.
Thank you, Jbkjames (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Frank Gaskill
Hi. I do not get any revenue from the links I posted. Am using the page to help explain psychology and Autism. Drfrankgaskill (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC) drfrankgaskillDrfrankgaskill (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Writing about yourself is always a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
well done
you did it to my "List of people that defended discriminating content on Wikipedia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lionel_Aschka) and i won't excuse for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Aschka (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Your personal feelings aren't a good reason to delete properly sourced content. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protection for Talk:Race and intelligence
I should have followed your lead, or at least looked up the most recent IP range before engaging. Turns out the 2800:484... IP is located in the same Colombian town as 191.106.144.142, the IP who said this. I'd say that's a clear sign that it's now time to ask for at least semi-protection for the talk page. As someone who's suggested it in the past, I wonder if you have advice on where to inquire. WP:AE again? I'll ping Hemiauchenia and John Maynard Friedman as well, hoping you don't mind, since they've raised the issue recently as well. Thanks for your diligence, Generalrelative (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Despite being an editor for quite a while, I don't know the answer to this. In a [very] roughly similar case, an administrator intervened to block the IP. I would start from wp:ANI, certainly not AE at this early stage. I suggest requesting an IP range block, which is a much lower hurdle to jump than a full talk-page restriction. ----John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- AE would be required to get 500/30 protection back, though that might be a big ask since we haven't seen the return of you-know-who's deluge of sockpuppet accounts yet. ANI would be the most streamlined way to get an IP range block, I think. That might not fully stop the disruption, but if they switch to sock puppet accounts to dodge the range block that will be a powerful argument for page protection. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both for the advice. I've filed the ANI report here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- AE would be required to get 500/30 protection back, though that might be a big ask since we haven't seen the return of you-know-who's deluge of sockpuppet accounts yet. ANI would be the most streamlined way to get an IP range block, I think. That might not fully stop the disruption, but if they switch to sock puppet accounts to dodge the range block that will be a powerful argument for page protection. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ollie, i disagree with your last deletion regarding the MICE article.
Hey Mr.Ollie i have a doubt. Why did you delete the last edit i have made? The one regarding MICE Events in Thailand. Its a correct use of the citation and it only leads to the URL i have provided due to it being a reputable source of information regarding MICE (It's a case study of it) the citation is needed to prove where the statistic came from so it is following Wikipedia's guideline. It is NOT self promotion, and it's only intended to add more information regarding MICE visits in Thailand (specifically in the year 2018) please reconsider the deletion. Agustin0100 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustin0100 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- We can't use vendors or linkspam as citations for Wikipedia. If you keep adding links to that company's site it is very likely your account will be blocked and/or the domain will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
so sorry
Microneedling in page
The site cited is a reference siteو And not a personal site. This page is a review of articles on microneedling And all the paper have been published in PabMed, And Borg's page]has presented them briefly and in Persian. I do not receive any benefit from inserting the link. The page in question needs a reference. So I decided to use this link for this page about microneedling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadmehrmd (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Embedding an external link in the middle of a sentence is not a reference, and the site you added is as obvious a case of linkspam as I have ever seen. If you keep adding links like this you can expect your account to be blocked and/or the domain to be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Carvalko Jr. - Wikipedia
MrOllie: I noticed a flag on the webpage that said "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (December 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" After a review of the site again, and a review of particular policies, I'm not sure what to do next, as it appears to be in line with your requirements. But not being an expert or fully knowledgeable as to the intricacies of your editorial requirements, I would be appreciative of any guidance you might provide. Thank you for your feedback in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:380:aa40:c9dd:841b:d950:2070 (talk • contribs)
- The article clearly isn't neutral, and has been edited by a single purpose editor who is solely devoted to adding mentions of Carvalko around Wikipedia. Since you aren't familiar with Wikipedia or its policies, I would recommend you get started with some topic that isn't already in a problematic state. Help:Getting started has advice on how to begin. - MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Business Alliance
Could you expand on your removal of content (here) from Business alliance and how it constitutes WP:COI / WP:CITESPAM? They are two singular references from two different journals from authors that are not used elsewhere in the article and I am not understanding your perspective on how it meets either policy guidelines. Thanks. BarkeepChat 17:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- It was added by a member of a sockfarm dedicated to adding cites to the work the work of Fabrice Lumineau. Example accounts include Winch666 (talk · contribs), Scholar765 (talk · contribs) and User787878 (talk · contribs) - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- OK, fair, I totally understand that reasoning. On the flip side does that totally invalidate its reason for inclusion in this particular article? Doesn't Wikipedia want to encourage those with knowledge on a particular subject to contribute this website on subjects of their expertise, especially, if its a fair and balanced representation within the article itself and not written entirely from an WP:OR POV? These contributions appear in I would assume to be peer reviewed journals and not sources that are self-published. It also doesn't appear that any these account have been banned for sockpuppetry violations (correct me if I'm wrong). BarkeepChat 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, when 100% of editor activity is adding mentions of a single academic, the motivations are clearly off. That is why we have COI guidelines and warning templates such as {{uw-refspam}}. Academic spam on Wikipedia is getting to be a real problem, especially now that some of the academic portals have started tracking number of citations on Wikipedia. Many of the citations added by these users are redundant with citations or material already in the article. The mass additions here were pretty bad (around 40 articles were hit). All that said, all I really want is for these guys to use talk pages instead of shoehorning in a citation to one of their own papers anywhere they can find an excuse to do so. None of these accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry violations, no. On the other hand none have been warned or reported, either. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- In this particular instance I find the content added by Winch666 (talk · contribs) to be fair and balanced as the user also included other ref'd content that you didn't remove. It is hard say definitively that the user's motivations are clearly off. The user only has five edits and all five seem to be reasonable and on a topic the user appears to have knowledge about. Based on this small sample I'm not inclined to think the user is self-promoting themselves. I will not speak to the other two users as that is not my primary concern. The content in this particular instance will be restored. If you still disagree I hope that you will pose this question to the community first before engaging in an edit war; either through the article talk page or to seek out a third opinion. Thanks. BarkeepChat 16:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, when 100% of editor activity is adding mentions of a single academic, the motivations are clearly off. That is why we have COI guidelines and warning templates such as {{uw-refspam}}. Academic spam on Wikipedia is getting to be a real problem, especially now that some of the academic portals have started tracking number of citations on Wikipedia. Many of the citations added by these users are redundant with citations or material already in the article. The mass additions here were pretty bad (around 40 articles were hit). All that said, all I really want is for these guys to use talk pages instead of shoehorning in a citation to one of their own papers anywhere they can find an excuse to do so. None of these accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry violations, no. On the other hand none have been warned or reported, either. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- OK, fair, I totally understand that reasoning. On the flip side does that totally invalidate its reason for inclusion in this particular article? Doesn't Wikipedia want to encourage those with knowledge on a particular subject to contribute this website on subjects of their expertise, especially, if its a fair and balanced representation within the article itself and not written entirely from an WP:OR POV? These contributions appear in I would assume to be peer reviewed journals and not sources that are self-published. It also doesn't appear that any these account have been banned for sockpuppetry violations (correct me if I'm wrong). BarkeepChat 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Steven Crowder 'Edit-War'
I'm curious how you justify restoring hyperbolic language of a graduate student's opinion, given how non-neutral it is. Please justify how their language is neutral, and your actions in curating my attempts at making it more-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Laplace transform
Dear MrOllie,,
When looking at the page for Laplace transform (for a completely different purpose) I noted (to my surprise) that nothing was mentioned about the application of this transform to problems in economics and finance.
Since such applications have been around for half a century, I tried to insert a short passage explaining the main formuae.
I then received a message that I should check, if there was a Conflict of Interest.
In my view, there is no conflict of interest, no commercial interests whatsoever, no external relations, only a strong interest to inform the readership of Wikipedia of very useful applications in scientific areas apparently unknown to the authors of this page.
I cited four references from very reliable sources, (i) Managemnt Science, (ii) International Journal of Production Research (I'm on the editorial board of this journal, and on similar boards of a dozen of other jounals, does that count as an external relation preventing me to edit and publish?), (iii) a booklet authored by a Nobel Laureate and published in Finland, and (iv) Econometrica.
I sincerely hope that this small passage of mine can be published.
With kind regards Bob (RWG00)--RWG00 (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you are citing things that you wrote, that is a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. And since you have been reverted by multiple editors, you need to go on the article's associated talk page (not this page, which is my user talk page) to develop a consensus in favor of your additions before you make them again. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Dye Sublimation printing Speed
The website i have linked with that wiki page contains graph of sublimation printing speed of different printers. Umargumn (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources list on Nitrogen generator page
After reviewing you comments I can see how the initial links were in breach of the guidlines, the second update and corresponding link is information orientated, after going through the other links attached to this article 2 out of the 8 are relevant and functional I thought an updates of sources was required as this is a complex subject that does need first hand sources.PearsonC98 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
MOS
if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X". If you revert someone's edit, and quote them a guideline that specifically supports the edit they made, you're trolling. PhysicistZ (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Take it up on the talk page and get consensus for your changes. MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Mrollie
Prove him wrong. 2A00:23C5:94C6:9900:E037:C7B2:AD5:3D0 (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Qualifications?
What qualifies you to make edits about medical subject matter? 69.14.39.4 (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The ability to read and write in good english, and to follow wikipedia policy and guidelines in doing that writing. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your edits on Luckin Coffee
The Motley Fool is a paid stock subscription service that makes money from promotional content, and it is not a legitimate source. Please remove all your text using the Motley Fool as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- No. Address any future comments on the article to the article's talk page. And you must stop edit warring on that article. That you're continuing to edit it like this while an ANI case is open on you is a truly terrible idea. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Your Motley Fool "source" contains self-promotion for Motley Fool asking people to pay them money and subscribe to their service. I will be marking it as such in the article. And you are edit warring as you've reverted content several times today, including legitimate content about the company in the sidebar: [1] [2] [3]
Since I have proof that you are edit warring and removing valid content and inserting promotional content, here is a warning for you:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
References
- The New York Times asks people to subscribe, too. There is nothing wrong with that. - MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Dr Mccullogh misinformation
But what misinformation? You say he gave misinformation about COVID 19 but don’t give one example ? 68.132.24.242 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
APPOLOGIES
Hello Mr Ollie, am new to wiki, felt some already peer reviewed articles within my reach would help. Am sorry for the mixup. Meanwhile, I will be grateful if I am pardoned because am willing to make huge contributions to wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinseffah (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hope you're happy to get subpoenaed
Mate, I hope you're happy to get subpoenaed for (repeatedly) restoring libelous statements to a Biography of a Living Person. You are acting irresponsibly both towards the subject of that article and towards the Wikipedia project. Oska (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned, given that the content in question is well supported by reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You can tell the court that a ragtag collection of opinion pieces are justification for labeling someone in an encylopedia as 'promoting misinformation and telling falsehoods'. Of course, we both know that you are unlikely to be subpoenaed. But you are still acting irresponsibly and this sort of editing of BLP articles will eventually blow up in Wikipedia's face, just as it has done before. Oska (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Take it up on the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm done here. I won't touch the article again; I tried to do my part in keeping Wikipedia neutral and professionally written but you restored the libel. The reason that I commented here on your talk page is that I wanted to try to bring home a sense of responsibility to you in how you edit BLP pages. Obviously that message is falling on deaf ears so I'll leave it here. Oska (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Lacking Clue. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm done here. I won't touch the article again; I tried to do my part in keeping Wikipedia neutral and professionally written but you restored the libel. The reason that I commented here on your talk page is that I wanted to try to bring home a sense of responsibility to you in how you edit BLP pages. Obviously that message is falling on deaf ears so I'll leave it here. Oska (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Take it up on the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You can tell the court that a ragtag collection of opinion pieces are justification for labeling someone in an encylopedia as 'promoting misinformation and telling falsehoods'. Of course, we both know that you are unlikely to be subpoenaed. But you are still acting irresponsibly and this sort of editing of BLP articles will eventually blow up in Wikipedia's face, just as it has done before. Oska (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
no-till farming
I was surprised that my "further reading" was removed. My father, ag journalist Frank Lessiter, has covered no-till agriculture for 50-plus years in NO-TILL FARMER and authored a book that is considered by researchers as one of the top 25 pieces of no-till literature ever assembled on the topic. Please advise how to go about adding this book. Today was my first experience in adding to Wikipedia. Mike Lessiter Mikelessiter (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC).
- Please read WP:COI and WP:ELNO. You should not be adding references to your relative's books (and definitely not bookstore links to buy your relatives books), nor should you be adding external links to sites you are affiliated with. - MrOllie (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
IP reporting your username at UAA
Just a warning that an IP seems determined to report your username at WP:UAA for no valid reason because it superficially resembles a couple of businesses. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked for three months now but I thought you should at least be aware it was happening. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Lavalizard101: Thanks for the heads up. What a strange thing. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
83.136.108.56
Thanks! I was just trying to figure out what to do about that! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Been going on for a while, I found several other IPs had been doing the same. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Flood Modeller
Hi MrOllie, I see you removed my version history of the flood modeller software and would like to understand why? I think it is important to understand the release and update of the software as is relevant in a lot of hydrology applications, much like HEC-RAS Fromagehomme (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- With very few exceptions (such as operating systems that are used by much of the world), version histories are trivia and not encyclopedic. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
DJ reverting section
——— Hi, thank you for your interest in the DJs as a topic. Hope you are doing fine.
Before I abruptly revert back your edit, I think it is fair to discuss with you first, and give you chance to convince me about your point. You stated the Official Global DJ Rankings is not a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disc_jockey&action=history
I presume you are, as I am, very familiar with Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source
It is the de facto independent rankings site for DJs, and the go to site for Google when you search for any DJ rankings. It is a nonprofit organization; the editorial stuff is not user generated but editorially sourced. Ranked DJs do not have a chance to write their own biograph or publish articles. All this is enough to qualify as a reliable source. The site is the established standard for Google and the music industry. That should be enough in itself to qualify as reliable source. I have personally used the site a lot during my extensive work as a volunteer on discogs.com - I know this is not an argument, just sayin' ;)
- )
Aucgruppen (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- What you have written here bears absolutely no resemblance to the criteria that wikipedia uses to identify reliable sources. But my user talk page is not the place to build a consensus for this - take it up at the article's associated talk page or WP:RSN. Do not restore the edit without getting consensus first. - MrOllie (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
List of tools for static code analysis
Hi there!
With regards to the reverted change of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis&oldid=prev&diff=1062047001 - I am thinking that on the existing Snyk company page, we elaborate on the various products, and one of them will be the entry for the Snyk Code static code analyzer, and so the link will be to an entry inside the Snyk page. Does that work?
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing these changes 🙏
Lirantal (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is a list of notably code analyzers. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, if the company that writes it is notable, that does not mean that the analyzer is as well, so no, in my opinion that does not work. - MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Bagisto
Hi MrOllie, I see you removed my contribution of Bagisto to Free Software in India as I have added bagisto to free software projects from India and would like to understand why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPKumardutta (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is a list of notable projects, and Bagisto does not meet that criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Blacklisting RT as a source
I read this page regarding sources and assumed that as a state-controlled network, with a state announcing they are prosecuting video game hackers that it would be an uncontroversial self-description. If Wikipedia is really that strict against using Russia's RT network for absolutely anything, why isn't it listed as blacklisted instead of deprecrated? I would support that because that would clear up confusion, I don't understand why there's this cat-and-mouse game set in place where I can still post RT as a source if I can still post past the warning advising against it, especially for a subject that's non-controversial (ie. not political, hate speech, etc.) and it's the only source available, and then another human like you has to manually delete it when it could be fully blacklisted to begin with. Bobbykennedy2 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- If something is only reported on by a single source it is almost certainly a minor detail that we should not be reporting on anyway, especially if the minor source has been shown to have a history of publishing fabricated information. This is a bit like saying we could cite the Weekly World News as long as what they're saying isn't controversial. - MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The wording in the legend in this link makes it sound like there's still some leeway in the use of "deprecated" sources. If I saw that it said "use of the source is prohibited" instead of "use of the source is generally prohibited" then I wouldn't have posted it. Bobbykennedy2 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Why are you removing relevant content?
Hi, I noticed you are removing relevant content I added. I saw that you had a problem with including a links to a specific tools in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequence_diagram&oldid=prev&diff=1061860917 therefor I removed the links. But I don't see any reason for removing the content. All content is related and relevant for the subject matter. What's the problem?
Iiigooo (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- As indicated in the messages I left on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for particular products or vendors. MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- In that case why dont you remove for example Microsoft from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system? Or why dont you remove all vendors from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database#Database_management_system ? Mentioning relevant products is not an advertisement! Iiigooo (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of created article "Fuel Cell Generator" for speedy deletion
Dear MrOllie, you nominated the article "Fuel Cell Generator" for speedy deletion. Can you please explain why you did so? Fuel Cell Generators are one of the most important machines in which fuel cells are used. And the fuel cell is just one part of it. Like the ICE of the diesel generator. So in my point of view (with over 10 years of fuel cell back ground and participation to fuel cell conferences) I see this topic as very important and too immense as to add these recent developments in the article "fuel cell". I also see the trend and future demand of clean technologies. I can also ask other experts on their opinion. And help of other users would be great to thrive this article, as I lack of time. FuelCellEngineerFranz (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- We have an article at fuel cell which already covers their use for electical power generation. We should not have two articles covering the same information. The deleting admins (two so far) evidentially share that viewpoint. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- For understanding your argumentation, can you tell me why the articles "Fuel cell vehicle" and "Home fuel cell" exist? The fuel cell vehicle also is the machine in which the fuel cell is part of it. As well as in the fuel cell generator. The fuel cell is only the stack of bipolarplates and MEAs. In my point of view the article "fuel cell" already is overloaded and can hardly bear more informations about commercial use of machines in which fuel cells are used. FuelCellEngineerFranz (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Pattern Hair Loss Edit removal
I have sited credible and independent sources in my edit of the pattern hair loss article. Pubmed papers mostly. I would appreciate if you allow my edit to stay up please, as this is important information that might help further MPHL research. The field is stuck in a flawed paradigm. And I do know a little bit about this in fact.
Thx Jon Johnnyvee333 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please read the pointer to WP:MEDRS left on your talk page. Pubmed is not the minimum requirement here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Trailer (Vehicle) Page
MrOllie, I received your message about not adding certain external links. So in my change to the utility trailers section of vehicle trailers, I omitted the links and then you still removed the helpful information. Why?Eimpactjoel (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- New content should cite a reliable source, see WP:RS for what qualifies. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Minimum description length
Hi! I couldn't see why the paragraph you just removed is COI or citespam; could you please give a hint? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- It was added by an editor (Afternoonfriend) who exclusively adds citations to Proença and/or van Leeuwen. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. Thanks for your quick answer. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Survival tree page
Please note that "Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models" presents a vary narrow summary of the topic survival tree. Here I have presented the current status of the topic. Initially, I attempted to update Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models, but that was reverted back. Either let it be a separate page, or put this under "Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models". If you read the page, then you will see it is not meant to promote any method, rather presents the current status of the topic. Is there anyway, I can escalate this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I reject the two options you have presented and prefer option 3) - remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines on self promotion and conflict of interest editing, which have already been left on your talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Let me correct you - survival tree is not my method. It is proposed by Segal, that is already highlighted. So how does it satisfy self-promotion criteria. I have only SurvCART algorithm to construct the survival and so does the other algorithms - I have mentioned all the algorithms. However, if you see any part relevant self promotion, just flag that part only. Don't remove the entire content. I am trying to help you understand, but given your response above, I don't expect any rational thing from you. That's why I said, Is there anyway, I can escalate this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs)
- I can't flag 'that part only' because the whole thing was full of primary sources. It's just not how we write and source things on Wikipedia. You're probably used to writing for academic journals - but writing on Wikipedia is different, with its own standards and practices. I am trying to help you understand that you're coming into an established community that does things a certain way and you're ignoring that in favor of your own way. You have to learn about and respect how things are done here if you want your writing to remain here. You can read about how to properly draw the attention of other editors in the policy links which are already located on your own talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
A cookie for you! Webuser123 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC) |
Malone vs McCullough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone
Hi Ollie, I noticed that you have participated on both of these talk pages. I am a longtime anon IP whom will never register.
The tone of the two pages linked above is remarkably different. That should not be the case. The problem lies on the McCullough page being largely nothing but a hit piece while the Malone page is a decently collated encyclopedic page. The difference is unmistakable and should be rectified. The non majority POV pushers on the McCullough page are doing a disservice to the project. ie McCullough spread falsehoods in addition to misinformation, Malone receives criticism for XYZ, while McCullough is wrong about XYZ based on CNN etc.....2601:46:C801:B1F0:15B4:CBCF:47A8:1187 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- We follow the reliable sources, and the reliable sources treat these two differently. There's not a lot that can be done about that while following Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- And the unregistered editor will have at least as much privacy after registering a pseudonym and greater ability to take part in discussion in a non-ninja-like manner, but some unregistered editors are stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Removal of external link
Hello MrOllie, I am here to appeal you to not to remove that link which I had placed in fantasy sports page. As I put it as an example of a sports fantasy application. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Dhruvsoni9818 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is obvious link spam. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
External links to capture software solutions
Dear MrOllie, thank you very much for reviewing my edit! I am new to Wikipedia and would like to learn, why you took down the link, I added. The link was reported as advertisement spam, but I did not intend it that way. For document capture solutions, I think it would be very helpful to real solutions directly in the article. What´s your take, on how to achieve that, without taking my link out? Thank you so much in advance! Claasbot (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Claas
- We don't link to software vendors, nor will we mention 'real solutions', as Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to advertise. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Pages relating to AI and self-replicating machines
Dear MrOllie,
As you have seen, I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last couple of weeks editing various pages relating to self-replicating machines, AI takeover and closely related topics.
I am an expert in these areas, having done a PhD on the topic in the 1990s and having spent the last 6 years or so researching and writing a book on the topic, which was published by Springer. I am also a board member of the International Society for Artificial Life. I am passionate about sharing knowledge beyond the confines of academia, and wanted to use my specialist knowledge to improve these pages. This has included correcting some factual errors that existed in some of the existing versions of the pages, and adding new relevant information. It is true that most of my edits included a citation to my book, but given that my book is the first to concentrate specifically on the early history of self-replicating and evolving machines, that is not entirely surprising. I also added new references to other recent works by other authors on some of the pages too, where appropriate.
My heart sank when I saw that you have today systematically deleted all of my recent edits within the space of a few minutes. You say in your comment that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers", but this is an (incorrect) assumption on your part. You refer to the WP:SELFCITE rules, which I have read, but I do not agree that I have placed undue emphasis on my work. I accept that this is a subjective call, though.
I do appreciate the work you are doing in policing the editing of Wikipedia. What I would say though is that I would have appreciated a discussion about these edits before you removed them wholesale. By removing the edits and reverting to earlier revisions you have reintroduced some factual errors into the articles, and removed some relevant extra information.
With best wishes,
DrTimTaylor (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- As you concede, 'It is true that most of my edits included a citation to my book'. This is the definition of 'undue emphasis on my work'. Per the WP:COI guidelines, the discussion should have happened before you added these edits at all. But the article talk pages remain open to you, feel free to use them to make suggestions for unconflicted editors to take a look at. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie,
Thanks for your response. My understanding of the WP:COI and WP:UNDUE guidelines and and how they apply to my edits is somewhat different to yours, so it would be helpful (certainly for me, at least) if we could explore this a bit more.
First I would like to get one failing in my recent edits out of the way. In my edits of the article Self-replicating machine I did mention my book "Rise of the Self-Replicators", and the authors, specifically in the article text. I did this because it fitted in with the existing text of the section I was editing, where some other secondary and primary books and their authors were already explicitly named. However, I fully accept that this, on reflection, overstepped the mark, and that I should not have mentioned my own book in my edit of the article.
The rest of my discussion here relates to the several paragraphs of other material I added to that page, ignoring for now the one sentence which mentioned my own book, and to all of the edits I made to other pages (around 14 articles) in recent months on the topics of self-replication machines and evolutionary influences in early thought about intelligent machines and AI.
My book presents a history of these ideas, covering the 17th-20th centuries. It is therefore a SECONDARY source, and describes and presents references to over 300 original PRIMARY sources. My book was peer reviewed and published by one of the world's biggest academic publishers, so I assume there is no argument that it is - in general - a perfectly acceptable secondary source on these topics in Wikipedia's eye.
The guidelines on WP:COI define a conflict of interest as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". However, my edits were not ABOUT MYSELF. My edits to the articles discussed early thinkers on the topics of self-replicating and evolving machines, such as Samuel Butler and George Eliot in the 1800s, and various works in early pulp sci-fi in the 1920s-1940s. I cited my book as a reliable SECONDARY SOURCE to back up what I wrote in the articles. The citation by an author of a book they have written as a secondary source to justify what they have written in a Wikipedia article is not specifically covered in the WP:COI guidelines.
In terms of "undue emphasis on my work", again, my edits (apart from the one case mentioned above) were not about my work, but merely using it as a published secondary source. My book is the first to really concentrate on early Darwinian influences in thinking about AI, so there aren't any obvious choices for other secondary sources to cite. Again, the use of an author's own work merely as a citation of a reliable secondary source is not specifically covered in the WP:UNDUE guidelines, which are primarily concerned with undue representation of minority views.
There's more I could say here, but I'll stop at this point for now. I would be interested to hear your views on the above.
With best wishes,
DrTimTaylor (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- On that article you cited yourself 14 times and added your name to the opening paragraph of the article. If that is not "undue emphasis" nothing is. Still, you may take this up on the article talk page, or seek additional input at WP:COIN. My user talk page is not the venue for this. - MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, seeking additional input at WP:COIN was going to be my next step, so I'll try that. Thanks. DrTimTaylor (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Sail Outdoors
Hi MrOllie,
As you saw today, I tried to modify the Sail Outdoors page. I have no bad intentions and I don't want to put any promotion of the Sail company. I just want to change the history of the company, while keeping it factual. I want to comply with the Wikipedia rules. So I was wondering if you could help me out and give me some tips. Also, how can I disclose my employment under the regulations to prove to you that I really work for the company?
Thanks for your good work
Maximclln5 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Maximclln5