User talk:MrOllie/Archive 16

Insert a newer image (linguistic map) in the articles "Mineiro (dialect)" and "Brazilian Portuguese"

Can you add this image, please? It is a newer, better one, with self-explanation (legend). I cannot edit visually anymore both articles. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialeto_mineiro#/media/Ficheiro:Isoglossas_no_estado_de_Minas_Gerais._EALMG,_UFJF,_1977.png Gondolabúrguer (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No. I do not believe that adding that image would improve either article. MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Spider-Man most popular Marvel Comics superhero"

That editor is definitely the same person as the IP. — SirDot (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your revert on my talk page

Do not revert a user attempting to discuss something with me on my talk page. There was no valid reason to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious sockpuppet of a long term vandal and block evader. Their edits are supposed to be reverted, even on talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Show me where it says that you're meant to revert a legitimate talk page discussion of a suspected sockpuppet. It's unnecessary. They were responding to a warning I placed on their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:EVADE MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that the user is not blocked and is only a suspected sockpuppet, that means this should not apply as of yet. You're basing your behaviour on the presumption that you're correct when it could be a wild coincidence (not saying it is, just hypothetically). It also states, "However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor". You believe them to be a sock but you're jumping the gun in your reverts, especially the ones that aren't malicious in nature like opening a discussion in response to a warning I placed on their page for not adhering to WP:NPOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly their MO. at least now they're successfully eating more editor time on this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So let it play out and let the admins ban them, then go to town. It's not WP:DENY when they're getting all this attention instead of just reverting their edits, issuing talk page warnings, and reporting the user to be banned.

I understand that the intention is to do something good and helpful. But to be blunt, it pissed me off that multiple people removed what appeared, at least at first glance, to be legitimate comments on my talk page that I was in the process of responding to. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I'll continue reverting these where I see them. The alternative is a steady stream of confused editors when Jinnifer hits them up on their talk page to do proxy editing, which wastes everyone's time. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:RBI and WP:DENY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Jinnifer will tend to harrass people indefinitely, including by sending talk page messages on other wikimedia projects that have more lax enforcement than enwiki. It is really best to engage as little as possible. MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem of reverting insincere requests for conversation made by the latest sock puppet of a manipulative vandal who, despite having the conversational skills of a sociopathic toddler, delights in coercing and bullying other editors into becoming accessories to her vandalisms even more than her actual career of vandalism and editwarring to protect her inane personal opinions. But, if you want to preserve her manipulative inanity and thereby mark yourself as a favorite target to be harassed repeatedly, be our guest.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Examples of Danbooru-style imageboards | Edit 1094066088 on Imageboard

I see that you have removed the "Examples of Danbooru-style imageboards" table under "WP:NOT" which creates more confusion than clarification, even considering you may have ment "WP:LINKFARM"

In this case I see fit that there should be a "Comparison of Imageboards" or "Comparison of Imageboard Software" do you think I should start drafting for such page or is it not Wikiworthy? Emircex (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:LINKFARM is a subsection of WP:NOT, yes. No, you should not break it out into a separate page. Lists of external links are off mission for Wikipedia, whether incorporated into an existing page or standing alone. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The existing table was not a linkfarm but a software comparison table it compares which language these sites run on and their software license, Wikipedia has alot of these if you're not aware. Emircex (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Wikipedia isn't for making lists of nonnotable software. Wikipedia does have lots of lists and comparisons - they are either of notable items, or the list or comparison itself is notable for some reason. - MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

M. F. Husain - vandalism and possible protection

Hello MrOllie, hope you're doing well. Reaching out to you regarding M. F. Husain's page. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for keeping an eye on the page and reverting the vandalism attempts in the recent past. Currently, it looks like the user Veersanatani (not tagging for obvious reasons) is determine to spoil the page, starting right form the name. When I reverted their edits, the user has added their hateful comments on my user page itself, instead of politely asking on my talk page. Just look at the stupidity. Hopefully some due action can be taken in this regard, because they only seem to target Husain's page in particular.

Also, I suggest adding some sort of protection to the page in order to prevent cases like these. It's really sad to see that Husain's incredible artistic career is overshadowed by his controversies, which is also the only thing mentioned on his Wiki page. I'll update the page in due course of time and make it more comprehensive, limiting the controversy part to how much is actually required. However, please do think about adding protection in the meantime. Otherwise, believe me, vandalism cases like these will keep happening from editors in India. The man is dead for years now, maybe we should let him rest in peace, quite literally. DesiBoy101 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't really help you with anything that's gone on at your user page. I suggest you report any inappropriate comments to WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant taking action on the user's edits to the main article, just like you've warned them about blocking. My user page is not an issue, only wanted to show you the extent of their erratic behavior. Any thoughts on page protection though? Or you'll continue to monitor the article for the same? DesiBoy101 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I might request page protection if it becomes more of a problem, but in my opinion the frequency of vandalism isn't all that high. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's quite manageable as of now. Alright then, thanks for the help and inputs. DesiBoy101 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

12x12 (4x3) exact count now verified, with link to source code

I'm curious about your reverting my edit to Mathematics of Sudoku. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmaxDaddy (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Self published material like sourcecode on github isn't a usable source on Wikipedia - see WP:RS. Before you ask, I am aware that lots of other sourcing on that article isn't compliant either - cuts will be forthcoming. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, your rules. However, if you cut this and everything in that section that doesn't meet your standards, Wikipedia cannot cover this topic at all, and no one else will. There is never going to be a more solid proof of this result than complete source code and data sets that anyone can study and run. There is no more complete exposition of enumeration methods anywhere. Only one other person on Earth knows as much or more about Sudoku grid enumeration as I do--the Norwegian mathematician Kjell Fredrik Pettersen. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and computer science from MIT (1980), and 51 years software engineering experience. If not me, if not Wikipedia, who is going to preserve this and make it available for future readers?

Bill Silver (aka PatmaxDaddy) PatmaxDaddy (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine - Wikipedia is not supposed to cover everything. If we can't source it as the content policies require, we're supposed to leave it out. I suggest you set up your own website or submit to some relevant journals, but Wikipedia is expressly not supposed to be a place to share original research. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Muslim military leaders

Hello, hope you're doing great. This message is with reference to the edits you reverted in List of Muslim military leaders. As far as I can extrapolate, you have some problem regarding the grammatical syntax/linguistics, because questioning well-sourced facts is too trivial and irrational for a reputed Wikipedia member like you. Consequently, I would request you to mention those mistakes I committed in my edit, which engendered a revert, so that I can add the additional facts and, simultaneously adhere to the Wikipedia regulations. --Snapthirsty110 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Want to add more value to existing article

I'm really sorry that I was added link directly without proper formatting. But, based on my knowledge the page is more relavant and helpful to the users. So, I request you to check it again and help me to add that article in external links. Please note, here my intention is not to add links into wiki. I want to share the best knowledge. Aditya3181 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious linkspam, which you've been warned about before. And now that I look, I see that it has been added by a half dozen sockpuppet accounts. I will be recommending that this link be added to wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the content added value to learn more about artificial intelligence Tejasuvv (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:136.57.191.25

This user, Special:Contributions/136.57.191.25, just told me to stop making pointless edit summaries. My edits are not pointless. So could you please tell him to stop sending me messages about that? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd ask me about something like this. If you need to report a problem editor, WP:ANI would be the place. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL

re: this. I love living rent free in the heads of trolls and ne'er-do-wells. Clearly I'm so humiliated. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If the trolls and spammers are lashing out, you might be doing something right. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

recommender systems

You keep deleting my revision on this article. But the text is a rephrase of the text obtain from the recent edition of the RecSys handbook: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_1

here is the original text:

" Recommender systems (RSs) are software tools and techniques that provide suggestions for items that are most likely of interest to a particular user. The suggestions usually relate to various decision-making processes, such as what items to buy, what music to listen to, or what online news to read. “Item” is the general term used to denote what the system recommends to users. An RS normally focuses on a specific type of item (e.g., movies or news articles) and accordingly, its design, its graphical user interface, and the core recommendation technique used to generate the recommendations are all customized to provide useful and effective suggestions for that specific type of item. RSs are primarily directed at individuals who lack sufficient personal experience or competence to evaluate the potentially overwhelming number of items that a website may offer. " 84.229.167.218 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Any update on that? 84.229.167.218 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Update on what? If you have a source, cite it. Don't add text in random places to the article without a citation. MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing behavior

Hi MrOllie. I saw a note from you on my page:

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But I did include a summary.

Panorama is about products and services, so it doesn't need its own header. The documentary talks about TerraCycle for all of five minutes, then moves on to the greenwashing conversation about plastic-producing companies "not doing enough." 81.187.88.97 edits remain slanted, rife with conflict, and bizarre and at best a misleading promotion of the "documentary."

The "dispute" on the page surrounds IP editor 81.187.88.97, who asserts ownership of the page, and has been IP banned from the page before, which limits the editability to experienced users. That IP editor markets the Panorama documentary, as much as possible. It is undue weight.

At a minimum, the headers don't logically follow, and a "criticism" header isn't warranted where there is a clear 2019, 2021, and 2022 chronology.

I'm asking you to undo your reversion of my edit. 47.198.242.207 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Just stop trying to delete or obscure well sourced content. Heaping personal attacks on the opposition is not helping you and only makes it more likely that you will be blocked and/or the page protected from your edits. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Embrace your health

Hello, I have added info that was conducted in a study. Embrace You Health is like Healthline, and a study is in the process if being published. The current pcos articke provided little information on supplements for pcos and does not list all the info on the low GI diet. I realize you feel that the link is spammy, and I may have to contact Wikipedia, to get more info.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliesmith45458 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Healthline isn't a usable source either, see WP:MEDRS. Please explain your connection to the other account that has been repeatedly adding this link, User:Doreenmoore2222. - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed they had some medical studies and others have linked to them.

Did you create this article on PCOS? To help you, I can go through and remove some of the links that are not directly linking to verified medical sources. It might help. I will also contact Wikipedia and get clarification on citing. Thank you Juliesmith45458 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Contact whoever you like, they're just going to tell you to read WP:MEDRS, as I have just done. Also, again: 'Please explain your connection to the other account that has been repeatedly adding this link, User:Doreenmoore2222.' MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I already stated, I found the source online and added the citation to the PCOS article. There are some holes in the article that I was trying to fill to help viewers when reading this article on PCOS. I added a citation, to the content I added that was backed by a medical study. I removed a link , vice.com and I contacted Wikipedia in regards to this link, as you stated, personal or spammy links are not allowed. This vice.com link has articles for "gamming", and that really has nothing to do with PCOS. The link I posted was to a comprehensive article related to PCOS. As I stated, before, the link I placed on this article was to help other who have PCOS and fill the gaps in this article. I added a citation, it was not an External link. The goal was to help inform Wikipedia viewers not improve the search engine rankings of this particular website. Also, please tell me your affiliation with Wikipedia, for my own knowledge? Why did you allow a website like vice.com ( with gamming articles), to pass by your link/citation audit of this website? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not reviewed every cite on the article, just the ones recently added by multiple new users. Thanks for your efforts to ensure the article complies with medical sourcing requirements, but you should probably know that Vice Media is a very well known publisher who has won several major journalism awards (including a Pulitzer) for their news coverage. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. was the news related to medical or wellness? All I see are gamming, video, money, cannabis, drugs, cocaine, horoscopes ( literally there is a menu drop down for drugs), and a section on health. I don't mean to knock this website, but I don't see how this website was cited for a PCOS article and the article add on I cited was removed. I'm sorry, but I still don't know how this link made it through your audit and the article I cited did not. Can you please tell me why you removed my citation and the info I provided to fill in the holes on this article. This article on PCOS is a good one, but it still needs a little work. You shouldn't just be removing links without reading the article first or having some knowledge on the subject. Instead info was removed from the article that could have helped someone, struggling with PCOS. It's just sad. Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed your citation because it was spammy junk, and doesn't remotely meet our sourcing requirements. I'm not going to debate this any further, particularly not with someone who is being obviously dishonest about using multiple accounts. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me again, why my link was removed when it was intended to fill in the holes of this article on PCOS? Its great the owner of Vice Media, won an award, but what does that have to do with my article add on being removed? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because it was obvious spam. You're the one who brought up Vice Media for some reason. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I brought up vice.com because the article was not a medically sourced article and it passed by your audit without being removed. Instead my article add on was removed that filled in holes in the article. Vice.com had added info as to the basics of PCOS, but unlike most of the cited articles it was not a from a verified medically published source. It still passed and it was added to the article. The website I cited had a comprehensive article with medical journal links but, did not pass by your audit and was removed. That's why I brought up vice.com, there were actually several article similar to vice.com Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what your talking about or how that relates to my add on article being removed? If you can explain your rationale? The info I stated was on how Omega 3's help those with PCOS it's well known knowledge. I added it into the article because its important info for others to know about and helps those with PCOS. Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep answering the same questions over and over. If I see that site added again, by any account, do not be surprised if it ends up on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. I will not be responding here any more. Feel free to take the last word if your require it. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take the last word. I'm just trying to help others. If you wrote the article I'm not trying to offed you, there have just been loads of new studies done and some of those studies should be added into the article. If you want to do that then great :) Why are you threatening me by saying you are going to spam a cite link? You let about 6 or 7 other links pass by that looked similar to the one I cited, but mine was removed by you? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Juliesmith45458: If you are trying to help others, then cite a reliable source. MrOllie removed the site you linked to because it is a blog, not a reliable source. If you would like to discuss this further, I will be glad to discuss this matter at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred they're spam socking anyway. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to know what gamming is all about? - Roxy the bad tempered dog 03:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Doreenmoore2222. I agree with Praxidicae that there is spam socking going on here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Help against vandalism

Hi MrOllie, I'd like to ask for your help to revert vandalism edits by Mlayu on several articles, namely:

• Borneo
• North Borneo Self-government Day
• Sabah Tanah Airku
• Merdeka
• Sarawak Independence Day
• Iban people
• Pocong
• Tajul muluk

Currently I do not have the privilege of reverting multiple edits at once.

It seems that the user has deliberately make factual errors and omit info pertaining Malaysia to promote Indonesian nationalistic bias.

Thank you in advance for your help. Azuru79 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? are you allergic to facts? stop pushing your POV to suit your agenda. In Wikipedia we use WP:NPOV and I voluntarily want to be part of WikiProject Discrimination. It's not vandalism if I add citations and expand the articles, stop accusing other people performing vandalism when you are the one who did that by removing factual information and citations that doesn't suit your own interest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1097186595. You can't just remove things that you simply dislike per WP:DLS and WP:JDL. If you find that the factual informations irritates you, you have to ask what's wrong with yourself. (Mlayu (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC))

Mlayu You are clearly twisting my words. You are also being delusional, claiming my edits to be violating Wikipedia guidelines when in fact it is yours which are clearly in violation, not just pointed by me but by MrOllie, and both of us are just reverting and rectifying your vandalism. Adding citations do not guarantee WP:NPOV if the sources themselves cannot be guaranteed to be neutral. Your edits pertaining info on Malaysia on the related articles are not WP:NPOV yet you claim to be so. I can see that you're attempting to promote Indonesian nationalistic agenda in those articles. You are the one who are clearly attempting to remove and modify legitimate info which has been added by previous users. Please stop being delusional. Azuru79 (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Delusional? oh wow I didn't know that we are allowed to attack someone personally per WP:NOPA. I don't know what's wrong with you but you apparently love to accuse and mock people just because their contributions didn't suit your own desire. What a wise and constructive behavior, huh. (Mlayu (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC))

Mlayu I apologize for that but this does not invalidate my point that you are the one who is clearly violating Wikipedia guidelines and vandalising articles. Linking whatever WP pages as your argument will not legimitise whatever vandalism edits you have made. Azuru79 (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The administrator has already responded that my contribution are not considered as vandalism, yet it is constructive one. So it means, the problem is you. And for your information, accusing someone performing vandalism while they are not is violating the Wikipedia guidelines. Please beware of your words and behaviors, you can't bossing around, Wikipedia built by contributors and not owned by any spesific editor. You are clearly harassing someone who wants nothing but to be part of constructive editors. WP:HARASS. (Mlayu (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC))

The administator does not say that your edits are constructive either. The administator only dealt with the alleged personal attack I nevertheless have apologised. It is not considered vandalism only because per WP:AIV that you and I both put forward complaints on WP:AIV page. Again, you are also making accusations towards me, when in fact your conduct has also been pointed by MrOllie. This is the case when you are lashing out on MrOllie on [1] when he pointed out that you make drastic removal and modification on the Indonesian language article. Again, based on your edits you are trying to insert unsourced controversial facts which Wikipedia is not the place and against WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY, such as claiming Sabah and Sarawak as illegally annexed by Malaysia as you have done here [2]. Azuru79 (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Biased Reverts

Please do not revert factual information without good cause as you did at the page for Abortion. It’s an indisputable fact that the fetus dies during the abortion and it’s an indisputable fact that it would not make sense for someone to claim they successfully conducted over 1300 illegal abortions without a single fatality, unless you clarify that the fatality count does not include the aborted fetus. None of this is a political position. It’s just a fact. I made no effort to state whether or not I think that such a thing as good. Only to state what occurs. It’s important that Wikipedia be factual and so I would ask you not to revert productive edits in a manner that only suppresses the truth.

Thank you Annfrankenstein (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You're POV pushing, despite your very unconvincing claim to the contrary. Wikipedia isn't a place to spread a political agenda. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Not true. Whether a fetus dies during an abortion or whether an abortion involves at least one death (the fetus) is not a political position. Whether this is okay, good, bad, or whether it should be legal is a political position. Please don’t falsely accuse people of pushing political opinions when it’s obvious they aren’t. Such a thing can be considered a personal attack. Annfrankenstein (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to report me to WP:ANI. Because you 100% were/are pushing a political POV, and it is extremely disingenuous to claim otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Annfrankenstein, stop edit warring with other users on my talk page. I fully support their removals. MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Vallathol

Why have you erased Mustafa Khanbhai's linkage of the article on Vallathol to an internet page on Kathakali which explains what he did to preserve and promote that art form? NRPanikker (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the website in question is being systematically linkspammed across Wikipedia by a series of sockpuppet accounts. MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The article of Singapore

Pardon me, but who are you? Are you a Singaporean? And do you know I state my reasons while editing? Manwë986 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Singaporeans don't WP:OWN the article. You must build consensus for your reversion on the article talk page - excluding others on an arbitrary basis will not work. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any agreement of using this present revision in the article tale page. And the only ones engaged discussion about Singapore are the Singaporean Wikipedians, and there are also administrators among them. And besides the infoboxes of articles about countries don't have any minor languages. Please check the articles like United States, China, or France if they have minor languages section within infoboxes.--Manwë986 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You've been reverted by multiple other editors, you're the one who is going to have to start a discussion and establish consensus for your preferred version. Arguing with just me about it on my user talk page will accomplish nothing. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Who are these multiple other editors? And are you an administrator? --Manwë986 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor who made the edit you reverted, myself, and the other editor who reverted you. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but the one made the edit did not even get permission to do so, the one who reverted me do not know the full details. And as you, I can only say that I am following the Wikipedia guidelines. The articles about countries don't have minor languages in infoboxes, please feel free to check. And if you're not an admin, then I'm done my talk with you, but you should be discussing with the Singaporean Wikipedian administrators about this, not me. And until the administrators of Singaporean Wikipedians made their decision, the article shall be reverted to the original version as the other articles about countries per Wikipedia guidelines. --Manwë986 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No one needs your permission to edit, and 'administrators of Singaporean Wikipedians' have no authority to make content decisions. That you apparently think they do is strong evidence that you are not following 'the Wikipedia guidelines' because you apparently have no idea what they actually are. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not my permission. And the administrators of Singaporean Wikipedians know information about Singapore more than you do. And the one who made the edit do not even discussed in the talk page.--Manwë986 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what administrators do here. If you keep reverting on spurious grounds like this, I'll file a report on the edit warring noticeboard about it and I think it is very likely that your account will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of "reverting on spurious grounds". I ask you one last time, are you an administrator or not?--Manwë986 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ollie's status as an admin is irrelevant and I believe they've answered this but you're more than capable and welcome to look it up yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm done here. So stop accusing me of "keep reverting on spurious grounds like this".--Manwë986 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I will gladly stop bringing it up, if you stop reverting people based on what you think their nationality is. MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not about nationality, it's based on the infobox rules.--Manwë986 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

1) Then don't write things like the articles about Singapore were handled by us Singaporean Wikipedians. and 2) If there is some 'infobox rule' that was violated, it is up to you to link to the rule, and to explain what the violation was, on the article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine then.--Manwë986 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Note

Your recent editing history at International Science Olympiad 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iterresise (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Just take a look at what you're actually doing, please. MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Constructive Solid Geometry

Why are you reverting adding Roblox Studio to the application of CSG? You justify the revert by mentioning that it is not sourced, while usage of CSG in Quake, Unreal and other engines mentioned are not referenced either. This argument lacks coherence, even though it's excessively easy to find sources that it is a core philosophy for Roblox (on the developer's documentation and create documentation on Roblox's parts, although roblox.com's domain is blocked from wiki) with parts being "Roblox's primary building block". You also mention Roblox is not a major engine. Roblox studio is by far a more important engine today than Quake Engine (15 games), Torque (Last stable release 5 years ago) and Hammer (proprietary engine, 50 games) in number of games developped with it, activity and users (over 40 million games/experiences as of Q2 2022 and 9.5 million developpers using Roblox Studio as of Q1 2022). Beammyup (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Beammyup

I'm reverting it for the reasons I gave in the edit summary - despite its contingent of vocal fans who seem devoted to mentioning it everywhere they can, Roblox is not important to the industry as a whole - neither currently, nor historically. But arguing on my talk page will not accomplish anything. See WP:BRD - you made an edit and got reverted, now you need to build a consensus on the article talk page (not my user talk page) to see if you can get others to agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I argued the reasons you gave in the edit above because I am under the impression they are incoherent and biased by your personal opinions (which is what I explain above). Your additionnal argument that Roblox is not important to the industry as a whole is also a personal opinion and not factual. That there are "vocal fans devoted to mentioning it everywhere" doesn't change that CSG is as relevant in application, if not more, to Roblox Studio than the other engines mentioned. That you may be annoyed some people are trying to mention Roblox everywhere doesn't justify a biased reaction when it is actually relevant to mention the engine. Whether you like Roblox Studio personnally doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most used engines in the world and that it's producing research published in top-tier graphics conferences. It is industry-impactful at least currently, and historically would depend on one's definition. Arguing on your talk page won't accomplish getting the change accepted, but I do hope for more coherence and less personal opinions in your justifications. Beammyup (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Beammyup

Religion and mental disorder

Hi editor, I have modified a paragraph to improve the accuracy of representing the academic sources, like this:

In the history of psychiatry, religious experience was considered as delusional, but it is a challenge for modern psychiatry to differentiate nonpsychopathological religious/spiritual/transpersonal experiences from those that are caused by disorders.

If there is any problem with this edit, then discuss it. Lightest (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please revert the OnePlus Wikipedia page to an earlier version, as it has been heavily vandalised now? I have no idea how to do that myself. 103.70.199.52 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fatehpur Sikri

I am incredibly sorry if I have violated any guidelines of Wikipedia by any means. First, let me clarify that I am not associated with the website or its parent body. I work for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and got the reference for this organization from the United Nations Civil Society organizations' list. I follow the non-profit organizations working for SDGs and want to enhance the Wikipedia encyclopedia with relevant, trusted, authentic, original content. The external link that I have added to Fatehpur Sikri is pertinent and provides correct information about the direct descendants of Hazrat Salim Chisti, the 15th-century saint for whom Fatehpur Sikri is famous. There are some pages on Wikipedia which is filled with misleading information about the descendants of the saint and Fatehpur Sikri while not mentioning the real people who are also accredited by the Government of India, which I came to know while studying the pre-colonial history of the British colonies in my fellowship studies of the Rockefeller Foundation in the association of UNESCO. The Hazrat Salim Chisti Foundation lobbied with the UNESCO and United Nations to get the UNESCO world heritage site status of Fatehpur Sikri. I have witnessed many Wikipedia pages and references, which is a gross violation of all the Wikipedia guidelines, including primary referencing. However, they are still actively present in the encyclopedia. Still, in this case, my impartial and authentic contribution is discarded, which I'll bring to the notice of UNESCO and the organization I work for. If you see the referencing of any article from the point of view of promoting that website or organization from which the article is generated, in that case, more than 80% of Wikipedia pages violate the guidelines. Suppose this is the policy of Wikipedia in my case. In that case, I'll stop wasting my time from today onwards in contributing to this encyclopedia for which I used to fight with my professors in my college days when they discouraged all our classmates from citing Wikipedia articles as references. Please forgive me if I have hurt you personally in any way. I never intended to, but it feels terrible when the precious time you invested in a noble cause without any profit motive gets wasted. Victor4SDGs (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, per notice at the top of this page. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

Why do you delete my comments?

All my best,

Diakov 88.84.194.150 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have seen your message. 88.84.194.150 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Homomorphic Encryption

Ypolyakov (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi editor,

Could you explain why you deleted many libraries that were on the Homomorphic Encryption page for years? These libraries have existed for many years and are well-known in the FHE community. I only added one library and can understand why this library may be too early to add. But others should stay there in my mind (they were added by other authors).

Ypolyakov (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a web directory or a list of libraries. We are here to explain what Homomorphic Encryption is to the general public, not to help engineers find a library to implement it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ypolyakov (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Similar to the comment below for PALISADE, I want to point out that I previously wrote a lot of text for the Homomorphic Encryption article not because of some virtual "paid" interest but because I am one of the leading researchers in Homomomorphic Encryption (again see Google Scholar and dblp). Your comments will discourage me from writing anything else on the fields where I am an expert.

Ypolyakov (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

I find your comments very discouraging. As an active member of HomomorphicEncryption.org standardization initiative, a member of open-source community, and a researcher, I have been updating the Homomorphic Encryption article for several years. If you look carefully at my revisions for this article, you will notice I always used a neutral tone and often corrected statements that were too biased. I strongly believe that articles on technical topics should be written/reviewed by experts, otherwise they may be highly inaccurate and their quality can strongly suffer. This is how prior encyclopedias have often been written. In academia, there is a peer review process that controls the quality of papers, and biased comments can be removed. I found your sarcasm about "well-recognized researcher" very inappropriate for a respected Wikipedia editor (you can easily verify this statement) - I never saw such behavior in academic peer review process and was deeply surprised that such behavior is tolerated in the Wikipedia community. I also never saw such comments in the history of this article. If you believe a certain statement is biased, please correct/revise. But simply removing an entry about an open-source library that was developed by authors of three libraries that have Wikipedia pages based on the grounds that it is promoting a business seems groundless to me.

PALISADE (software)

Ypolyakov (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear editor,

I feel that my contributions are not being treated fairly. For instance, if you look at the PALISADE article, you will see that it was not created by me, and you will see that my updates are primarily about updating the preview and stable versions of the library. I also added technical details on what versions include. Everything I wrote was written in the neutral way. Why is there a problem with updating the version number or writing text in a neutral way?

I want to point out that I am well-recognized researcher (18 years after getting my PhD) in this field. See, for example, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zuMwV7QAAAAJ or https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pid/172/1695.html (or just Google me). Any content I add, including more than 100 academic papers that I have authored over the years, is written in a neutral way, including the updates for the PALISADE library. I feel some discrimination in your remarks. It is not hard to see that any content I added today to this article or a different one was written in a neutral way. Ypolyakov}} I would like you to reconsider your remarks in view of what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypolyakov (talk • contribs)

The article was written by yourself and a number of other single purpose accounts. It needs checking and I stand by the tag. As a 'well-recognized researcher' you are no doubt familiar with lots of sources and technologies from a diverse range of authorship - if you are here to help write an encyclopedia and not to promote your own interests, it would be nice if you could find something to edit that is unrelated to the business you are engaged in. - MrOllie (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ypolyakov (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I find your comment inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor. I also strongly believe that technical papers have to be written/edited by experts. For instance, if I add an article about a topic of ballet that I know nothing about, I should not be writing about it in Wikipedia. I should only write about things I know well about, which in this case, is homomorphic encryption. This article about an open-source library has existed for a long time and my updates were of purely informational nature (not biased or selling some business). I am a scientist, and my reputation is important for me - this is why I used the account that spells my name. Another expert can revise my edits through a regular peer review process of Wikipedia. I am really saddened by this experience, and discouraged from writing articles for Wikipedia in the future, regardless the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypolyakov (talk • contribs)

This is the opposite of Wikipedia's editing ethos. If this is how you think things ought to be run, I don't think you will ever be able to happily work here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

sorry

Didn't know you have already sent a warning (How to Make Money Selling Drugs). Cheers Uricdivine (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

OTT media service

Dear MrOllie, my contribution to Over-the-top media service article was reverted without any comment. Could you explain why you deleted it? what was wrong with this information? Iitsearcher (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You did not cite a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why https://www.informa.com/ is not a reliable source? In the article, I indicated that the classification was developed by Informa Telecoms & Mediaruen. Iitsearcher (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not include a citation. And even if you had, we don't promote businesses in that way - Sources should be independently published. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm VS6507. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Thought (disambiguation) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@VS6507, is English your first language? You are edit warring to keep in grammatical errors. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie It is not my first language. However, I speak English fluently, I would be aware of a major grammatical error if there was one. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. Feel free to ask someone else if you don't believe me. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What bit is not true? That I don't speak English fluently; in which case I would take it as a ad hominem personal offense. Orrrr that there is not a major grammatical error on the page? Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an obvious error of grammar in the sentence you are edit warring back into the article, which you are clearly unable to recognize. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who is a native English speaker and as I suppose interested in this field of science you appear to have a very low frustration tolerance. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have asked someone about a potential major error of grammar, and they were not able to see it. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, another editor did manage to see it and has reverted, so I think we're done here. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@VS6507, an apology would be appropriate now. --Serols (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Why did you undo revision 1097729680? My intention was to contribute, not to vandalize or self-advertise. 186.137.76.153 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

MLOps

Hi! Why was the MLOPs page reverted as user 103.70.199.52 suggested? The included paper is very popular in the MLOps community on LinkedIn and has already gained multiple citations. It is a great overview and should be used there as it provides a solid definition of the term. As an MLOps expert, I would ask you to please look into that carefully. 185.124.144.98 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Popularity on social media is not a reason to include something here, especially not something from an unreliable source like arxiv. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is a well-cited arXiv paper with a rigour methodology less worth than a towardsdatascience article (which is listed in the sources)? 185.124.144.98 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The first section of the article seems outdated:

- there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore

- there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore

The discipline evolves and the recent paper seems to provide a solid definition that was already discussed lengthy in the MLOps community on Twitter and LinkedIn. 2003:EE:1705:39AB:7C96:27A:D5AE:D172 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, that something is popular on social media has nothing to do with Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the first section of the article seems outdated:

- there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore

- there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore

Wikipedia should be a trusted resource. Outdated, non-scientific information and articles, that have been withdrawn by authors themselves do not fulfil that criterion. 85.195.241.170 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I am entering the discussion here: I believe the current version of the Wiki article does neither provide a good definition of MLOps nor does it give an adequate overview of the topic. Including the definition from the mentioned manuscript would significantly improve the Wiki article. From a methodological standpoint, deriving a definition from the review of 27 peer-reviewed articles, 11 tools and 8 interviews is sound and more reliable than the current version of the Wiki article (even though the manuscript does not seem to be peer-reviewed). However, many other Wiki articles are based on well-cited arXiv paper, so this should not be an exclusion criteria. Just my 2 cents. Nz2004 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue to promote arxiv preprints and other self published stuff, please stop cluttering my talk page with this. Am I being brigaded by people from this linkedin community or something? Very poor form if so. MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. In this case, however, I see a comprehensive definition of the term MLOPs. People are using Wikipedia to receive short and precise definitions and the mentioned manuscript provides one, which is derived in a rigor way. What is the argument, on a content level, to exclude that definition here? 2A00:1398:5:0:F4A4:5513:B840:3146 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use self published materials as citations. If there are other bad sources, that is not a reason to add more. I am done responding to this on my user talk page, which is not an appropriate venue for this discussion. Please take the hint and stop posting here, whoever you people all are. MrOllie (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is plain out wrong. On the very same Wiki page on MLOps multiple sources are self published materials like blog posts or slides. I can understand you do not want to continue the discussion, but, if you are not willing to discuss this on a content level, who is? Where can we have an honest, objective conversation about this? 80.137.220.210 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Subjective Databases Table

Hi! I would like to know if I could somehow edit Subjective Datasets table, which was posted on Subjective video quality page, to level out any discrepancies with the Wikipedia formatting rules (overlong list of external links). May be I should reduce it or just add additional columns such as «Databases official websites» (like it was presented here)? And thanks for your work on improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. Supremum of tilt (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a problem with 'formatting rules' - Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link directory, catalog, or indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that list belongs on an encyclopedia at all. Formatting the links slightly differently will not solve that. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

But may I simply leave only ~5 biggest and most valuable (famous) datasets in the table (removing some optional columns)? I observe such «Comparison tables» quite often in Wikipedia. Supremum of tilt (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Those tables are nearly always limited to notable entries and/or entries that have a preexisting Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Publishing article on wikipedia

Hi, I have written an article/blog on react native security practices which I have posted on my official website. That blog is performing really well on Google SERP. Now I thought to publish the same article on wikipedia so that it can provide more value to the reader and can be helpful for the reader community. I have tried multiple times but everytime I got the massage that my article is voilating the copyright policy. I am not able to understand why this is happening. That is my own article which I have written which I am trying to write here again. Can you please look into this matter can help me out.

It would be great if I get a help in the matter.

Thanks is advance.

Mayank Mayank1695 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a blog host, it doesn't host howto type articles on security practices. Even if you resolved the copyright issues, it would be deleted on that basis. You should keep your blog style writing on your own blog. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

My edit was a simple extension of the current content - there was nothing wrong with it. So why was it rejected? KeepOnHiking (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You added an improper external link, see WP:EL. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Zellers

Thanks for opening that. I figured one of us was going to have to do it eventually. User indef'ed before I even got to comment in the ANI. Meters (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yea, writing was definitely on the wall there. Hopefully got a few more watchlists to deal with any other sock accounts, too. MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

European Association of Distance Teaching Universities

I have added information about the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities in Distance education. Is a new article about it better? --Tiberio Feliz 00:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfeliz (talk • contribs)

You keep adding promotional text about that organization. Are you associated with it in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand yet the meaning of 'promotional'. I have to study it. :-(

I think this association needs a specific article. I am preparing it. Best regards. Tiberio Feliz 23:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tfeliz, you didn't answer my question. Are you associated with the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities? MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, I am not and I don't understand the reason you say it's promotional. You haven't answered my question either. Tiberio Feliz 07:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It is promotional because it is written like an advertisement. This is not surprising, because the only source you cited is the group's own website, which is their means of self promotion. The same sort of promotional content on a seperate page would not be better, and would be very likely to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Langrehr

Many sites have links to books relating to the material. Such as Kevin Rusby for Libertalia, or 2021 novel entitled The Law of the Sea for the Flor de la Mar, I will limit where I reference this information so kindly stop deleting my posts or I will take this to an administrator. Mamabear1331 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You are systematically spamming Wikipedia. I will absolutely continue to revert any spam I see, so please do take this to an administrator. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie, WP:COIN, or straight to WP:ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, they seem to want to get in contact with administrators, so WP:ANI would be appropriate. But maybe the DRN volunteers will surprise me and give them a talking to. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's to hoping. This is a nice change of pace from yet another Jinnifer sock, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Emplifi Wiki Page Review Request

The current [[Emplifi]] page is almost completely unsourced promotion and tags. I disclosed a COI and proposed [[[Emplifi]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JordanJulian19/draft a replacement] that is just a few paragraphs long and summarizes all the biggest press articles about the company. I was hoping you might be willing to review the draft as an impartial editor with no affiliation to verify whether the overhaul would be an improvement for Wikipedia and its readers. Best regards. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> JordanJulian19 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of machine translation applications

Lingvanex is one of the players in the translation market. I wrote an article about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lingvanex_Translator. Why this information "not notable"? Why does the comparison not include all players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergKrasius (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote a draft about it. It can be added to lists and comparisons if and when the draft is approved. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

OK SergKrasius (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Design Thinking Lead

Many thanks for the role that you play. I'm writing because I'm wondering why the design thinking lead was simply reverted rather than edited? I can see the dangers of overcitation and self-citation and fixing that seems admirable. I'm really happy for us to remove the citation to my own work and perhaps reduce the references.

I just want to draw your attention to the fact that the edits on the lead have a history. I found the lead on the page to be misleading and so I started a conversation about this with Nigel Cross which is on the Talk page of Design Thinking and we went back and forth to find something that works.

I'm all for others (such as yourself) improving on that by removing self-cites and reducing citations but shouldn't there be some kind of discussion around the lead? I found the act of simply reverting to be a bit reductive and against my understanding of how wikipedia functions. I ask that not to try and say how things should be but from a position of naivety as I'm new to this whole editing thing--I'm asking for you to please explain to me why that was the action taken and how I ought to have incrementally worked with others to improve the lead on this article (which is what I thought I was doing over a duration of nearly a year). Alternatively, if the answer is that this is a closed page that can't be edited then I'm happy for that to be the answer. Many thanks. NickKellyResearch (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply, do you mind if I have another crack at the lead of the design thinking page (in line with discussions on the talk page) with fewer citations and zero self-cites? Thanks

NickKellyResearch (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I also appreciate your edits but this one I find inappropriate, and I support the query from @NickKellyResearch:. Nigel Cross (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to take another run at it without the self citation. Please do consider that the lead section should not be nearly as technical as what you produced, though. It is supposed to be a simple explanation for someone totally unfamiliar with the topic, not the technical jargon you'd use with another practitioner. Think about trying to explain what it means to a middle schooler. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie:Thanks! I appreciate the advice and I will try to rewrite the lead in this way whilst still keeping the spirit of the changes.

NickKellyResearch (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@NickKellyResearch:@MrOllie: I propose to edit the lead to a short, accurate statement and insert a new, introductory 'Background' section that I hope will resolve these issues. I will try this in the next few days. Nigel Cross (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dream edits

Hello Mr. Ollie, I see you recently rolled back some recent problematic but (I think) good faith edits in the article Dream from a user with 19 edits total. The user in question is continuing to make edits on the page, and I'm not entirely sure how to address the situation. They are trying to cite their claims, but not everything is cited, and the edits are also breaking the formatting of the page. Is another rollback the answer? The chances are they will continue to try to edit the page, and I'm unsure of how to proceed from here. Thanks! Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:Praxidicae has fixed the issue! Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy

Hi MrOllie. I made some edits to Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy yesterday which I see you reverted. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't realize that external links should not be inline. I put the links (which are reliable - they're the high school's website, where archives of The Polis are stored, and a web databse of Yeshiva University, where archives of Shema Koleinu are stored. I also redid a couple of grammar corrections I assume you had no issue with, like changing "Art work" to "artwork." Please let me know if there's still a problem - I'd appreciate if you replied before reverting my edits, if you still feel a need to do so for any reason. Thanks! BullMoose4 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC) hi mrollie, it is i, overjoyed scooby. It appears that you have ondone my changes. who do you think you are. you are most definitley a short man.have a good day, not so overjoyed scooby

Biotechnology

Dear Mr. Ollie - I appreciate the sensitivity on conflicts. I was involved in developing biotechnology legislative recommendations when in the Federal government during the Clinton Administration, and was interested in reforming the way it way regulated. These references I've suggested relate to that. I have never worked in or for that sector and have offered this addition so that the history will be remembered. I am going to leave this where it is for now and perhaps you might help me to reinstate the reference. Pelucidity (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the only way to have a WP:COI. Are you William Yancey Brown, or are you associated with him in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie. I am William Yancey Brown. I did not create that page for me, but I have periodically updated references. I think it is all neutral, but it is me, so I understand the point to be careful and perhaps I should avoid any editing of that. Also, I am interested in helping to keep Wikipedia articles useful and up to date, and just recently I looked at several articles (the ones you addressed) and saw ways that I could improve them with references to things I know about and was involved in. I am trying to just add objective observations about things I know. I don't have any financial conflicts with these, but I appreciate your points. I'm not certain I can really contribute without in some way connected to what I've worked on. Anyway, I think perhaps I should just use rather than contribute to Wikipedia. If you would look closely at the William Yancey Brown page and revise anything you think is not neutral, I would be appreciative. And also let me know if there is anyway I can help you on environmental issues. Pelucidity (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely should not be editing about yourself or adding links to your work, especially not edit warring to add mentions of yourself to Wikipedia. As a subject matter expert you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of sources of diverse authorship. Please cite those, instead of yourself. Also, it is generally a good idea to stick to academic journals over think tank publications whenever possible. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Demographics of the Philippines

Hi, MrOllie. Thanks for your feedback on the edit to the Demographics of the Philippines page. As I tried to summarise, the content I deleted was quite clearly unjustified (no sources or weak/biased sources) and unrelated to the topic of the page (i.e. national demographics versus religious history or individual cases of behaviour by Catholic priests). This - and other - content on the referred page had already been deleted on 14 August, by another editor. I would also point out that other "Demographics of..." pages on Wikipedia do not usually contain this sort of content. I would appreciate your consideration. AqFla AqFla (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a perfectly legitimate book from a reputable academic publisher, by no means a weak source. If you want to pursue deletion, please gather consensus on the article's associated talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfounded removal of list items

Hey. I have added the required disclosements of affiliations to my profile. Is there a reason why my edits have not been added back? Qulizard (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI more thoroughly. Making the required disclosures does not mean your edits will be added back, for example when the entries you were making did not meet the inclusion criteria of the list in question. MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Microblading

Hello Mr. Ollie,

I want to get in touch about the reversal of changes I have made on the microblading page. I understand that spam links are not allowed. However, the links I have provided to replace broken links are highly relevant, informative and educational. They are by no means commercial pages, in fact, they are from the most comprehensive platform related to the content. I ask you to review the links once again, as well as the content I had added to expand the page. The changes had been previously accepted by another moderator. Please note that reverting the changes means that multiple broken links are now listed as references once again, which is, you will agree, not helpful to the readers and makes this page less reliable.

~~~~Wewannagetlisted Wewannagetlisted (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No, you were clearly replacing citations with linkspam. It is better to leave dead links alone (so they may be replaced properly, with archive links or similar). The links were not 'accepted by another moderator' (that is not something that really happens on Wikipedia). MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Set theory (music)

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Thanks for your edit and comment - I only added my own site to the External Links section (without a link to my homepage) because most of the links I checked there were not working, and my own pitch-class set calculator works. Not trying to blow my own horn or anything. If you would consider undoing your edit I would appreciate it, but if you keep it off I won't argue, I very rarely edit anything on Wikipedia more significant than minor grammatical errors. In fact I'm not even sure I'm doing this comment correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staylor71 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

National stock exchange

I add only BSE official website link to Wikipedia because that is very important and related to NSE why you removed it Pavanpadghan (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a separate organization. It has a link on its own Wikipedia article, and only there. MrOllie (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I understand but why Wikipedia add external link of NSE to it Pavanpadghan (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

An organization gets a link to its own official site on its Wikipedia article. Please read WP:EL to understand when links should or should not be added. MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Independent

Mr. Ollie, why are you erasing the important language on the meaning of the term "independent"? I provided sources for my edit and yet you keep undoing it without justification. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to share your own opinions, and you cannot cite a bunch of dictionary definitions to stitch them into an argument that is not explicitly made in any one of the sources. That is the essence of WP:NOR, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't opinion. This is definition of the term and it's legal application. Do you need me to source the concept of authorship in the arts? It has a long history and is complicated to source.

It is relevant. It feels like you are editing it out due to personal opinions. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the dictionary was one citation and it was important to simplify the concept of artist independence. There is a reason why people have to sign over their rights for "independent" labels. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR carefully - the whole page. Pay special attention to the section titled 'Synthesis of published material'. Sources must directly support the material you are adding. Your sources clearly did not. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

My sources including defining the term "Independent creation" by a government entity. Can you explain why that is not relevant here? Copyright law is also a few decades ahead of the 1920s, which the sources of that line are both completely broken. Can you explain why it is fine to keep that line? Again, there is a reason why artists have to sign away rights to these labels. Can you explain why this is opinion and not offering readers more insight to the nuances of the term? MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources used to define 'independent music' must specifically be about 'independent music'. Not random other citations you have found that happen to include the word independent. Your opinion is that the definition of this term has something to do with copyright. That position is not supported by the sources, at all. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Music is a creation. Music legally falls under this umbrella. The description of creation includes music. Legally, they are one in the same. This is like saying I have to cite sources to say Stevie Nicks is a human. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That is your original research - you are setting up axioms and combining them to make arguments. We don't do that on Wikipedia. You also have not established that the definition you have come up with has been used by anyone else. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If I DO provide more sources would you accept the edit? I am staring at a few now that describe independent music as music made by musicians who are not signed to any label. The question is what kind of source will you accept? Because you seem to be ok with a broken link on another but not ok with the US government on my edits. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not 'more sources'. Reliable sources that exactly make the same point. Reliable is defined WP:RS here. In a nutshell, they should come from major, reputable publishers. No blogs or suchlike. In any case, my user talk page is not the place to argue about this. If you require the last word here, feel free to take it now - I'm done responding to this here. If you need more help with understanding the WP:OR policy, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I just said what the sources said. Is that not enough? If I use similar language of a provide source will you accept it? MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

electric fence deleting

dear Mr. Ollie, can I ask you, why you deleted my contribution at electric fencee article? ewerything i descibed was based on an articles that contain true informations confirmed by users experiences. I thought it could be interesting to introduce people, that there are new possibilities of using electric fences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natálie Pecháčková (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It was obvious advertising. Wikipedia is not a place for your company to advertise. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a confident user that wants to inform others, that there are possibilities of controling electric fence via mobile or computer. I am proud that this system is czech... I also mentioned the name of the firm that provides this Cloud solution as the only one in the word. I don't see the reason, why I should not mention this... there are iphone articles on wikipedia, that informs people it is a produckt of Apple Inc. company, why this is allowed and to mention this is not? there are some other firm's names in the article... this was the reason, why i thought this is allowed... in the article there are mentioned a lot of companies as a producer of virtual fence... i would mention more producers, but there are no others in this use... Natálie Pecháčková (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you. Just stop adding advertising. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Multi stage fitness test

Can you give a solid reason why the breakdown of the times/time CANNOT be on the page. It has been on there for several years and was a good source if information especially for people taking fitness test. USAF has been using this cart for members who are taking the new test to see if this test or the old run test would be better. To be quite frank, the only person who seems to have a problem with this being on here is you. The chart does have 2 sources so unsourced cannot be the reason. 144.51.249.5 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

See the article talk page, where consensus is clear. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, some details are simply not within scope here. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

the "consensus" is like 3 people. The definition of an encyclopedia is defined as a book or an electronic database with general knowledge on a range of topics. The Encyclopedia Britannica is an example of an encyclopedia. Key phrase "general knowledge on a range of topics". That chart is general knowledge and gives a breakdown of the test. It is informative to boot. 144.51.249.5 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has site-wide consensus. MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

cite the policy please. if its clear then I will shut up about the whole thing. 144.51.249.5 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Have you edited that page under a previous username? MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

no. i went there today to find this cart for a fellow service member and saw it was gone. i found an edit where it was deleted and then undid that and said why 144.51.249.5 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

Summary-only descriptions of works. -- the cart was NOT this

Lyrics databases. -- the cart for sure was NOT this

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. -- the cart was NOT this

Exhaustive logs of software updates. -- the cart was NOT this

BUT

data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources the chart WAS in context to the material 144.51.249.5 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the 'Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' part. In any case, WP:CONSENSUS is clear. Wikipedia isn't a place to host anything and everything. Maybe you can start your own website and put it up there. MrOllie (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

it doesn't make it unsuitable either. It just seems like you are an ass on a little power trip. 144.51.249.5 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the personal attack, the sure sign that one is out of rational arguments. With that, we are done here. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting Jinnifer's sock edit's on my talk page. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Formatting?

Mr Ollie, why is it not acceptable to seperate animation studios and independent animators in the independent animation category? Why is that "damage"? MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You damaged the article by stripping out much of the formatting, I would guess by improperly cutting and pasting. The article size decreased by more than two kilobytes in your edit. Your new sections also did not agree with Wikipedia's Manual of Style MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Which part of the manual of style specifically? How can I achieve separating individuals from studios and youtube? MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you should, chronological is better. If you feel differently use the article talk page and see if anyone else agrees with you. MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

So a person can revert on opinion? If chronological is better why separate USA from the rest? And each category I added is still in chrono order within. It also is leaving out many folks, especially women, queer, lgbtq and folks who HAD to go to indie bc they weren't welcome in studios. There is more language about Bakshi than anyone else, even though he is one person. Thus a category to focus on him and his studio efforts would be better. MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Use the article talk page, not my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The image of bakshi was removed. My error. If I return the image and reformat will you leave it up? And we can ask people if they want it back and let them see how it looks? MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Use the article talk page. Don't post here again, please. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Out-dated external links for Privacy software

YourAdventure (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC) PRISM Break used to be a great website and resource for privacy software, but it's last minor update was over a year ago (https://gitlab.com/prism-break/prism-break/-/commits/master) and many entries of the website are out-dated. The addition of PrivacyTools.io provides Wikipedia readers with an up-to-date recommendation list, that was last updated yesterday: https://forum.awesomealternatives.org/t/privacytools-changelog

Wikipedia is not a link directory or a place to promote websites. MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. It is currently providing vital information that is out-dated, I'm trying to fix that. Sources are provided by me to you to verify this. YourAdventure (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That one site is old is not somehow a justification for promoting some other site. MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

PRISM break was not removed, it was left with an out-dated note. It is also self-explanatory that up-to-date privacy software is vital for users security. YourAdventure (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

PrivacyGuides, formerly known as PrivacyTools, is a known, current, review site in some circles; therefore, I have reverted your deletion at DivestOS and moved it to external links. The purpose was not to promote the website. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Long Halloween Bruce Ivy deletion

Was the information I added deleted due to inaccuracy? I personally felt like Long Halloween was a somewhat important development in the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Poison Ivy or was it deleted from a purely technichal reason as I'm aware I damaged the article due to an inexperience with wikipedia editing. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused Ooneill2000 (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparison images

It is completely absurd to say Wikipedia doesn't have product images, especially ones of previous generation electronics to show visual comparison between the old, really old, and newer-ish ones to aid in visual recognition of specific models. Just look at the articles for Apple Inc (which has many pictures showing the older AND newer stuff to help readers recognize the older models, and Nokia (which has loads of photos of the newer stuff as well as the older stuff). I don't see how the gallery could be perceived as an advertisement considering 1. Most people aren't eligible for cochlear implants (but are likely to see them at some point and be like "what the heck is THAT? I should look it up on wikipedia") 2. All but one of the things in the gallery is discontinued (only the Neptune is still on the market, but having a picture of the funny-looking/unusual modern body-word processor will help people understand what the heck it is when they come to look it up); the other stuff in the gallery is just to help provide recognition of the devices that some people still wear/recognize what is what. The old 1990's ones are obsolute AF and go to show how cochlear tech has evolved; the harmony and early Naida models are still used by some people so readers of Wikipedia will be helped having pictures of them in a gallery. Would you feel better about it if the pictures aren't in a horizontal gallery per se, but were scattered in the article? Because you are being very strange here. I've NEVER seen a rule against having pictures of older and new-ish electronics for stuff like this.--RespectCE (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between images used to illustrate the article, like at Apple, and a context free gallery of bad product images. When images illustrate some point made in the article they are within policy - when they are there for their own sake, or for simple decoration, they are not. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But there's not for decoration. They are clearly to help people recognize different devices over the years. The captions clearly provide context, labeling the era the devices are from and providing their names to help people recognize and research them. And the gallery won't remain "bad images" forever. I placed a request on reddit to the cochlear implant community to donate photos of devices - some new but mostly the older ones - so that they can be used in a gallery to show evolution of the devices over time. I tried to send people links to the galleries in the articles so they could see what was missing/understand why I wanted them to go searching for their older devices to take photos, but so abruptly removing the gallery without even trying to have a discussion first doesn't help that at all.--RespectCE (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a product catalog or a recognition guide, so such a use is not on-mission for this project. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But enabling people so recognize all those specific devices as cochlears (as opposed to say, hearing aids, google glasses for ears, bluetooth ipod stuff, cyborg stuff, hair clips, etc) IS in the scope of wikipedia. And it will be helpful to everyone who gets the "what is THAT THING" question to have a nice and clear wikipedia article to point too. Please considering bringing the discussion to the talkpage instead of rushing to remove. I highly doubt other users share your very strict anti-image views.--RespectCE (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it really is not. Lots of information is 'helpful'. Lists of phone numbers are helpful, but Wikipedia isn't a phone book. Per WP:BRD, reverting disputed content is standard practice. Disputed content doesn't enjoy some favored position where it must remain in an article until after a discussion. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is utterly disgraceful you are comparing a widely done practice of including a few pictures of obsolete electronics nicely labeled in an article with turning Wikipedia into a list of numbers. Stop strawmanning me. Just stop applying different rules to cochlear implant company articles and the ones used for all other electronics-company articles. If you truly beleived that such images shouldn't be in wikipedia, go pick on a cell phone company article or other more-watched article and see what other users have to say. I am done dealing with your petulant and utterly unreasonable detrimentale attacks on Wikipedia articles.--RespectCE (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that you're resorting to personal attacks, I am done responding here. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert mistake

Hello, I was making a bunch of subsequent edits, and wanted to let you know, that I did not initially realize you reverted me until after I reverted that edit. Sorry about that, my mistake! Prcc27 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Advertising website

This user:103.141.159.244 continuously removing official website at [Pakistan Junior League] and adding his personal advertising website. The Orignal Website pjlt20.com was added by Wikipedia. This User is continuously Adding his personal website to misguide the User and wikipedia. Google is also showing Misleading Site notifications on his site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalmunir987 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: The Site was added by Wikipedia itself during article creation, Now this user:103.141.159.244 is trying to take the advantage of having a similar domain. I request the Wikipedia Officials to check both websites ages.

Self-promotion

Dear MrOllie, I hope you are having a great time. Please inform this user (Vegansolo) about Wikipedia rules. It tries to add self-citation. Thank you. Scholartop (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please check this user as well (Hydrolox) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholartop (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

clarification of paid edits

Hi @MrOllie,

I have seen your notes about paid contribution terms on the talk page of my marketing colleagues. It is not clear to me: is it allowed for me to update the page of the company I work for, when it is not part of my job to promote my company (therefore I would not say I am paid for my edits)?

-- Torzsmokus (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community typically does not spit hairs or make fine distinctions when it comes to the paid contribution requirements, especially when an article has a history of promotional editing. In your shoes, I would follow them. MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion claims

Those claims on block evasion for North Macedonia-NATO Relations page are false, that was someone else who was undoing those edits, not me. Please stop with the false accusations when I have a static IP, not a dynamic one. Don't believe me, then use an IP locator to find out. Creepershark77 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You would say that, wouldn't you? - MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The accusations are pretty understandable; it's also clear that the reported IP addresses needed to be blocked, and I did so. Details about my doubts, however, can be found on my talk page (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Something New

Hello @MrOllie,

I appreciate your work to maintain the Humanoid robot page. As a quality 3rd party author, I hope you might be interested in helping to create a page for Agility Robotics. I work for Agility and as such don't think I can be an impartial author. I believe Agility has enough notoriety to warrant a page and I can help share articles written by 3rd party media that would reinforce that. No harm if you aren't interested, it just seemed like you might have some experience in the humanoid robotics space. Thanks for considering. Keganator (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ageing and DNA damage theory of ageing

Hello @MrOllie Thank you for your efforts in maintaining the knowledge in so many fields of science. Recently, two additions that I have made to "Ageing" and "DNA damage theory of ageing" were deleted. Perhaps I should have suggest the edit with the: {{request edit}} template.

A new paper that me and my colleagues wrote is considered to be important to its contributions to the science of aging, not only by the authors, it was also acknowledged by top scietific journal "Nature Metabolism" and by independent important scientist that studies aging for long time. <<cut and paste removed>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrl (talk • contribs)

The requested edit and content goes on the article's associated talk page, not my user talk page, and not in the middle of the article itself. Any writing about an "important" paper should be cited to secondary sources, not to the paper itself. If it is very important, it will be widely known and one of the authors would not need to show up here to write about it themself. - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will make sure that the changes will be according to Wikipedia requirements. Orrl (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Purple Barnstar
		This subject line qualifies as "undue hardship" in my book, so it entitles you to this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Why against biodiversity protection campaigns

Hi Ollie, Hope you are good! Why are you against the quotation here ? I am not a troll buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreabrugiony (talk • contribs)

You may not be a troll, but you are one of about a half dozen accounts who have been spamming links to illuminem.com and ignoring talk page warnings about it. But I suppose that will not be a problem any longer, since that site has just been added to the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're not a troll buddy. Thanks to your recent efforts, we've added your site on our spam blacklist. We're not against biodiversity, but we're most definitely against spamming. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohnotsjamie, I'm also not a troll buddy, but I have something you might find of interest: User:Technologyreviews, whom I just blocked for their username, is CU-confirmed with Andreabrugiony. I leave it to you to draw conclusions from that, if you want to. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting; smells like some sort of COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Auroville

Dear Mr.Ollie,

The controversial development plans edit I made on the Auroville wikipedia page were cited with resources that included court verdicts and legal documents, FIRs, including requesting newcomers to speak to community members to form their own opinions.

I resonate wholeheartedly with your view to maintain neutrality but Auroville is being taken over by the might of a government. If you could please send me at least what I had managed to write, I'd be happy to try to rephrase it and would be grateful for your feedback on the same, but please understand that we don't have what "they" have. At all. Nowhere. They have thugs, millions of rupees lining the pockets of I don't even know how many higher ups, and we have a computer.

In gratitude

`````canwetalkaboutwhatsgoingon Canwetalkaboutwhatsgoingon (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, it sounds like you are far too close to this issue to keep neutral in your editing. From now on, please make suggestions on the talk page of the article rather than trying to make edits yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to try to right the wrongs of the world, see WP:RGW. MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

nepalinerd.com

IDK why I'm here but looks like my edit was removed for external links, its ok if you remove the links but I don't understand who and why would someone remove the information. The page I tried to edit was not not even 10% complete. I'm new so... Harikumarthapamagar (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It was not written in proper English and there was no reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

E Sahril from Gtech Insight team.

Dear Mr. Ollie. Sorry if I have to edit the article on Wikipedia. I always contribute to making articles on Wikipedia. on the condition, why I am editing the article because I have created an article for my website with research and using a lot of my time, I think if my article is good, can be accountable, like no campaign, and I don't get money from the article, I think I can get the link from Wikipedia. I need to get the link for my website to make people thrust when reading my article on the website. I make sure the link I enter is related to the context.

I have 2 times edit the article, but I'm having trouble editing it. So, if I can edit again and get the link. I will say thanks to you. But if Wikipedia can't give the link to my website. I am disappointed.

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion.

best regards, Gtech insight team Egi sahril sam (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. You should stop trying to add links. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I write because i have reference, so if you dont have reference you can adding something with your capacity?

I dont get the money from wikipedia, i created a lot of article on the wikipedia version Indonesia.

and i need one or two link on the site, you cant get me the link?

i think I did not violate the terms and conditions. Egi sahril sam (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You aboslutely did violate the terms of use and the external links guidelines. If you keep doing so, it is very likely your account will be blocked and your website will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may negatively affect your rankings on search engines. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok Sorry MR Ollie if i am always using my website to get the link.

I am sorry about that. now I have read all the terms of use and external links guidelines.

From now, if i am contribute to Wikipedia, i cant adding my website to get the link. i am promise.

But if you remove all my contribution in this site without leaving one, I think is not fair.

right now my website rank is drop very significant. i think if i am get one link that suitable terms of use and with the external links guidelines its oke to get me link back. such as on the link: site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_A31

Why me say that?

1. on the site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_A31 I am using my website to reference the information

2. I know the information like i am using the wikipedia to get the link.

3. but on the situation, I know the article has a lack of information, because i am adding something with the research. with the external links guidelines.

4. If you want to know, what the difference significant spec of Galaxy A31 and a51. the difference spec on the phones is information that i am adding on the article.

5. why i am know about that, because i have used both smartphones and with the research. So i read all the article and i am adding with the the external links guidelines.

6. i think on the article I did not violate the terms and conditions.

Thank you.

so can you explained why you delete all my contribute. Egi sahril sam (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Your site does not meet our minimum sourcing requirements. Any link we give you will not help your site, because Wikipedia puts the nofollow attribute on all outgoing links. Once again, if your site continues to be added, it will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may drop the ranking of your site even more. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Over Accountability Software

Hi, I’ve started a dispute page where we can hopefully resolve this quickly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Accountability_software Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of some citations and the improvement of existing ones from the articel "Evolutionary algorithms"

Evolutionary algorithm: I added three citations for the sentence "seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems" replacing the remartk "citation needed" and improved some existing references by DOIs and the like in the section "Bibliography". You removed that completely. Why? What is wrong with that?

--~~~~ Wilfried Jakob (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to self promote. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. However, I cannot see any self-promotion in the fact that I have substantiated a topic with three literature references, one of which comes from myself. Do you want to prohibit experts who have worked in the thematic field of an article from citing one or other of their own publications in addition to other sources, provided that it fits the facts? The publication in question deals in detail with the complexity of the task being worked on with an EA. In other words, exactly what was described in the article and for which evidence was sought.

I am looking forward to your answer.

Wilfried Jakob (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to prohibit that. Citing a few other sources is not tax you pay in exchange for putting your own name on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Gartner and Forrester analyst reports in "Enterprise Architecture" page

First off, I want to thank you for the sharp eye you use to keep link spam off the Enterprise Architecture page. I was going through yesterday and removing a bit of self promotion (by one of my esteemed colleagues in the EA field) and reviewed a series of edits and reverts you had made. I agree with almost every one. I did have a question about one, though, and wanted to ask you about it.

On July 29, 2021, In the article on Enterprise Architecture, you removed a section that had been added to the page that contained a list of Enterprise Architecture tools. The list cited analyst reports from Forrester and Gartner, two independent analyst firms who, on an annual basis, each put out lists of the major software vendors for hundreds of different needs. Analyst firms are commercial firms, as are most sources (like newspapers or magazines), but they are paid by their readers to refresh their articles every year with new information. Typically these "reports" are used to both describe different software products and to rank them (Gartner coined the term "magic quadrant" as a way of ranking the companies they review). While they are far from perfect, the reports are written from a neutral point of view and are often quite useful for the people and companies involved in purchasing software. They have their own guidelines for notability of software packages, and have extremely tight editorial control.

The edit in question is linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enterprise_architecture&oldid=1036075579

I searched and could not find a mention of the use of computing analyst reports, either for or against their use as a reliable source. Personally, I think they are more reliable, more carefully edited, and more tightly controlled than magazine articles in ZDNet or Computerworld (both of whom are listed in Wikipedia as reliable sources for technology).

I did not restore your edit for two reasons. 1) I am not a full time Wikipedia editor and do not have the experience that you bring. 2) I think having a list of tools in that article is a bad idea all around. It distracts from the topic and invites link spam.

I wanted to ask you with respect to edits in general: "Do you believe that analyst reports from firms such as Gartner, Forrester, IDC, and the Cutter Consortium to be unreliable sources?"

I believe that the meet all the criteria for reliability but I'd like to know your opinion. Nickmalik (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability has an established meaning on Wikipedia, which you can read at Wikipedia:Notability. In a context like the vendor list on that page, it generally means that the listed items already have Wikipedia articles. Analyst reports like the ones put out by Gartner and Forrester typically list every industry player they can find - they are indiscriminate and so do not establish notability. They can sometimes be reliable sources, though - just not ones that establish notability. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Advertising website

This user:Faisalmunir987 continuously removing[3] official website at Pakistan Junior League and adding personal advertising website

This user use account only for advertising on wikipedia and already received multiple warnings. 103.141.159.244 (talk)

Note: You can see his added website is running google ads and you can also check article history which which website was used during the article creation, now past 2 to 3 days this scam advertiser created similar website and start getting it in article.

cult movies

Sir who said to you this meaningless thought Oscar doesn't belong to cult film, please search. These movies are already considering as modern cult movies and but you're denying the fact for the viewers. I already gave links to even you can search yourself what's cult movies and why these are considering Shahriar776 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Cult films are obscure movies that generally didn't do very well at initial release. Oscar nominated movies are by their nature universally known. The citations you have been using are of terrible quality. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic Honesty.

I cited my claims. I would like you to tell me how I am not being impartial. You need to explain yourself because its my time you are wasting when you decide to take down my contributions. Thomas Sowell isn't a conservative, by the way. You wouldn't know that because you have a particular bias. Classical Liberalism almost unanimously objects to CRT, so why did you remove those impartial facts. It's like you want only one side to be heard. AndrushkaA (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to add that Classical Liberalism objects to CRT. Stop scapegoating right-wing politics.

How is the information below as it pertains to ACADEMIC CRITICISM biased?

Academic criticism

Despite what popular themes may suggest, criticisms of CRT is not something unique to the Right, but both sides of the political spectrum. Classical Liberals, such as John McWhorter, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Hicks, Thomas Sowell, Christina Hoff Sommers, have all criticized CRT for its very strong illiberal overtones. In The Coddling of the American Mind, renowned sociologist Jonathan Haidt and former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Greg Lukianoff, argues that CRT promotes a “common enemy” mindset that replaces the long-standing liberal tradition in education that we share a “common humanity.” He further emphasizes the dangers of focusing on impact over intent. Mathematician, cultural critic and father of the Grievance studies affair, James Lindsay sums up CRT in a few points saying, "First, critical race Theory is centrally concerned with power, which it holds in higher regard than truth. Second, it distinguishes itself from “traditional” civil rights and instead favors identity politics (in the radical sense). Third, it is not interested in progress but revolution. Fourth, it calls into question “the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Fifth, it is anti-Western and, in the narrower context in which it arose and mostly applies, anti-American". AndrushkaA (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Email me at As-lareau@wiu.edu so we can come to a common understanding. AndrushkaA (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is the article's associated talk page. I will not email you. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Projects using OSGi

Thank you for your review on my changes. I understand the fact that having broken links/pages is not great but it is not the only existing entry that has that problem (see Joram). Even so, in my edit there was another entry (Jahia) that does exist, could we just restore that one ? I can take care of it if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhillou (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Jahia's article is about the company and not the platform. It is also terribly sourced and should probably be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Connection between the topics of Infodemic, Infodemiology, and Misinformation with Cognitive Immunology

I appreciate your concern for the edits I made on the infodemic, infodemiology, and misinformation pages, however, I don't think your reversions of my edits are in the best interest of these pages. I’d like to work with you to enhance Wikipedia to recognize the new science of Cognitive Immunology. Could you please further explain the why you reverted the edits I made to these pages?

First, there are a few specific points I'd like to address though.

- My addition of inoculation theory on misinformation seems quite valid considering the already existing mention of inoculating minds (i.e. "Another approach is to "inoculate" against it by delivering weakened misinformation that warns of the dangers of the misinformation.") Similarly, the addition of the sentence about Cognitive Immunology seemed quite warranted as the topic related directly to prevention of the spread of misinformation and I included a reputable source (the foundation book) on the topic.

- You marked my addition of information about Cognitive Immunology to infodemic as a neologism, which seems pretty ironic given that "infodemic" is itself a neologism. There's nothing inherently wrong about neologisms, especially when they are used to refer to something that is truly a new development, which is true in the case of infodemic and Cognitive Immunology and is supported by the sources I included about Cognitive Immunology.

- Finally, in the case of my edits on infodemiology, I improved the introductory sentence on the topic by providing a more accurate definition of the field as described by the academic who coined the term. And, again, my addition of the mention of cognitive immunology seems quite reasonable given the obvious relation between these two fields.

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia but I did my best to read up on the rules of the platform and I thought my edits to these pages were all quite fair and I'm not convinced your complete reversion of each of them was fair and would appreciate further explanations. Meletao (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they seemed more about promoting a neologism than about improving the encyclopedia. You're right that there is nothing inherently wrong with new terminology, but Wikipedia is not a place to get 'ahead of the curve' and attempt to force usage of a new term, nor is Wikipedia a place to systematically promote a particular person's work. Can you explain how you are associated to Andy Norman and/or Cognitive Immunology? WP:COI may be relevant. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a good point. I'm new to this and hadn't checked out this COI page yet. By Wikipedia's standards I do technically have a conflict of interest – although I see it more as a confluence of interest – because I work for the Cognitive Immunology Research Collaborative (CIRCE), which is the research institute founded and led by Andy Norman. I didn't know this was something I'd have to declare when making edits related to the topic. Now that I'm better informed, it's occurred to me that it'd be in everyone's best interest for someone like you who's not associated with CIRCE or Norman but is experienced with Wikipedia to help with the draft page for cognitive immunology. Would this interest you? Do you think a case can be made for creating this page? Meletao (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a rebranding of Inoculation theory to me, I do not believe we need a second page on it. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cognitive Immunology is recognized as distinct by some of the most notable inoculation theorists. Sander van der Linden, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Jon Roozenbeek, and Josh Compton—have all signed a declaration that:

- Announces cognitive immunology’s arrival to the academic scene

- Asserts that cognitive immunology is a discipline in its own right, with boundaries quite different from inoculation theory’s. (Inoculation theory is a branch of psychology; by contrast, cognitive immunology sits on the borderlands between epistemology, psychology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, immunology, etc.)

- Clarifies that cognitive immunology goes beyond inoculation theory in the questions that it asks. Indeed, it asks questions that can’t be posed properly in the language of inoculation theory. Questions like “How does the mind’s immune system work?” and “Why do mental immune systems fail?”

Over two dozen scholars have signed the declaration so far, including top experts on disinformation mitigation like Seema Yasmin and Claire Wardle. Also, This View of Life magazine will soon publish a print symposium about cognitive immunology. You can find the declaration and it's signatories here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1e-5R8XVxHnuUdjgdijRN61eUuOJrQUFR Meletao (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't find science by press release particularly convincing, but at any rate you will not accomplish anything by arguing about this on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair, but you're missing the point: if anyone has say about whether or not cognitive immunology is distinct from inoculation theory or not it's the top experts in inoculation theory. I'm just trying to get this information out there the right way. If you have any other advice or more feedback I'd appreciate it. I hope you can keep an open mind about whether or not cognitive immunology deserves its own page. Meletao (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Kmart

I saw where you reverted my edit to Kmart, saying that we need to wait for a source. The source is literally in the article. This is the source. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the cited article, not just the headline: "three in the continental U.S. and a handful of stores elsewhere" MrOllie (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

OmniVision Technologies is now OMNIVISION

Hi @MrOllie, I see you've got OmniVision Technologies on your radar. The company has going through a reorganization and the current page is no longer accurate, however as I am an employee of its marketing agency, I'm not allowed to make any edits to the page. So I put a request on the OmniVision Technologies "Talk" page, with the required disclosure statement. There are a lot of changes and additions, and I included citations. I realize you may not make all of them. But the main issue is that the company is now OMNIVISION. Someone did up date the logo, but that's all so far. I think a new pages has to be created? Please let me know if this is something you can do, and what changes can be made. I appreciate your input. Thank you! StellaBean (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't use the {{requestedit}} template, which will add it to the queue for such requests. Do note, though, that per Wikipedia:Article titles it is not necessarily the case that the article should be titled with the company's preferred capitalization. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for showing me the template! I did some research to figure out how to do this, and never found it. Just the one template disclosing that I'm paid to do this. I will follow the instructions. Regarding the Article name - it's not the capitalization that is most important, but the fact that the name is no longer Omnivision Technologies, but merely Omnivision. I know it's not possible to rename a page, so do I need to request a new page be created with a redirect? Thanks, in advance, for your response. StellaBean (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to rename a page, and the reviewing editor will do so if they think your request meets the policies surrounding article titles. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks so much! StellaBean (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Brostocks as a source

Hey there. Not that I have any problem with the reversion, but if you're going to remove this as an unreliable source from KMart, you'd better also remove it from Sears on the same basis. I think it's been in use there for a while now. All the best, Skybunny (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

wiki/User:MrOllie Page

I came to leave you a message and I guess you are choosing to be anonymous since you have redirected your User Page as a Talk Page which is your right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:

• From outside all talk namespaces: This is a redirect from a page outside any and all of the talk namespaces to a talk page. This redirect page must be outside the talk namespaces.
• Note: If this redirect is in any talk namespace, then it will populate Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace instead of the expected category.

:::::When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.
See the next note Bbachrac (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The art of medicine - Medicine: art or science? by Dr. Gavin Francis

@User:MrOllie Per your request, I am sending this note here.

You might find interesting

The art of medicine: Medicine-art or science? by Dr. Gavin Francis published in The Lancet Perspectives|The Art of Medicine| Volume 395, ISSUE 10217, P24-25, Jan 04, 2020

"If the aim of medicine is to offer the hope of alleviating suffering, to invoke and influence human change, it needs more than science and technology. In a text called simply The Art, one of the Hippocratic authors states “there is nothing that cannot be put to use by good physicians, and by the art of medicine”. As a profession, medicine is suffused with the language of science and technology, but to practice it effectively is a lifetime’s work, and it’s my experience that no knowledge related to our humanity, however and wherever gleaned, is wasted."

Medicine is a Science, the Practice of Medicine is an Art which is why Complementary and Integrative Health has been adopted by Medicine.
Thanks for your perspectives.Bbachrac (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to post anything on my talk page. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

caribbean

The Caribbean is a region of the Americas that consists of the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the surrounding coasts. The region is southeast of the Gulf of Mexico and the North American mainland, east of Central America, and north of South America. Enlightened105747 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

To make major changes such as that you must get consensus on the talk page of the associated article, not my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

its not a major change at all, im simply adding information that is true, im not deleting any thing that is true like you Enlightened105747 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page and get consensus there, my user talk is not the proper place for this. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not recieved a response. I made by case in the talk page and nobody disputed it. I will make the same change to the pages I made before, please do not undo this, I am simply trying to make both articles as accurate as possible Enlightened105747 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not add "west of Africa" to the description of the Caribbean? I Believe the punctuation is incorrect by the use of too many commas. General Patdown (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

everything west of Africa does not speak a Caribbean dialect, whether that sand Andres creole, patois or Caribbean Spanish. Everything west of Africa does not border the Caribbean Sea or have Caribbean culture Enlightened105747 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit.

Not an offense, I see that you reverted my edit on some articles. Can you explain please? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:35D7:C35:ECF9:D53 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

They violated various policies. For example, Wikipedia doesn't host external links to bookstores. MrOllie (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks for responding me! -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:35D7:C35:ECF9:D53 (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Cassava and Simufilam

First off, I do not understand why my edits I just made were so terrible. I was just moving the accusations to one section vs. muddying up the whole story of Simufilam. People aren't responding on the talk page. I think both cassava and simufilam should be reworked to have the story told without all the accusations, then we use the accusations in their own section. Right now they both have very repetitive language throughout of all the accusations that becomes the story. It is a drug and a company that has followed research protocols and has a phase 3 trial executing right now. Short sellers of the stock that benifit from the decline in the stock caused all of these accusations. How do you suggest I got about getting these pages reformatted so they tell the story of the drug and the company? Until it is fairly moderated and the content is balanced it represents a FALSE narrative on the page and you will just keep getting people coming to try to fix it. Mnachtrab (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

After placing a request edit template, which reads: The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. - you proceeded to wait a day, and then you whitewashed the article. Your inability to understand why this is a problem is exactly why we discourage people with conflicts of interest from editing. You will find that Wikipedia editors do no care a whit about what the stock market is doing. If we just keep getting people coming to try to fix it., we will run sockpuppet checks on the new editors, and probably protect the article from editing if we continue to have problems with attempted whitewashing. I suggest you do not try to get the pages "reformatted" - trying to move all criticisms into a separate section to hide them below the fold is a common tactic of POV pushers, common enough that we have statements in our guidelines and policies that prevent it. This will be my only comment on this on my talk page. MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

hello MrOllie, you've reverted my edit on list of web browsers, i feel that it is inconsistant

there is another browser on the page without a wiki article on the browser (JioBrowser, which links to Jio's list of apps), and several without a link at all. i think vanadium is the same as JioBrowser, as vanadium is in GrapheneOS' list of apps. thank you Omilc (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

reverted / deleted my edit

Hi, I see you reverted/deleted a section that I added to AI, artificial intelligence? I'm simply adding in some sales functionality related to AI. It's a valid function of AI and is being used in the industry by multiple CRM companies. Browardauthor (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It was unsourced. Per WP:V / WP:RS, unsourced content will be deleted. If you've got a reliable source that can support this (something like an academic textbook or a journal article), please feel free to rewrite it to match the source and re-add. Note that what vendors might or might not be using it is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for the quick response. I'll get the sources. Browardauthor (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

forgive me if I ask too many questions.

I do have a great source, https://people.ai/blog/6-ways-companies-are-using-ai-for-sales-to-become-more-efficient/#:~:text=in%20sales%20first.-,What%20Is%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20In%20Sales%3F,efficiently%20and%20close%20more%20deals.

I just wanted to make sure it was a good enough article. Browardauthor (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. With few exceptions (which do not apply here) blog posts are not acceptible sources on Wikipedia. Especially not blog posts like that one - which are really advertising material for a company that is trying to sell a product. If you have more questions about sourcing or Wikipedia in general, WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is τλ:δρ

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is τλ:δρ. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Home Care In the United States

Hello,

I am a home care expert without a commercial interest, and I decided to make some edits to the page. In my initial round of edits, I cited sources and added references to make robust changes that were supported by government and established industry organizations. Those edits were removed due to "irrelevant" external links, which would be factually incorrect. Because the original version was restored for that reason, I went back through and added my edits without the links and those edits were removed because the information I added wasn't supported by references or links, so quite frankly, I'm at a loss for words. I'm simply trying to help families make an informed decision and can't win whether you spit facts (with resources) or not.

Please advise,

thanks! JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the content you added was unsourced - you can't use your personal knowledge for writing here, everything must be based on reliable sources. You also added a list of commercial vendors, which isn't appropriate with or without external links. MrOllie (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I cited so many sources in the initial round of edits, but I'm sorry, you probably didn't see those as the version was instantly removed. Please continue to revert to the original version that contains a lot of misinformation. One I'd like to cite in particular is the wages for caregivers. The source is citing 2012 data, and I was trying to update that with 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics data (with a citation), and you took that down. You do realize that you can partially edit my version as well? You can help me out a little bit. JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the list of commercial vendors, the section was "Home health software." It's appropriate to let people know what software programs are out there, especially for new business owners, they need to know what their options are. And now if I wanted to add my edits back, I'd have to start all over in grabbing the links and references. What a waste of time. JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You added one citation, which did not cover most of the added content, and you added a set of inline external links, which simply isn't done on Wikipedia. You also added a few mentions of organizations with citation-formatted stuff that was really just a link to their home page. Wikipedia isn't a link directory, don't do that. Wikipedia also isn't a catalog, don't list commercial software here. Wikipedia is not designed to be a buying guide for new business owners, so the fact that they can't find their software options here is actually a good thing. Are you associated in any way with any of those companies? If so please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the wage information back with a citation, is that appropriate? JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, and wanted to clarify for my own account safety that I am in no way affiliated with any of those businesses. I am trying to help families make an informed decision when trying to find home care for a loved one. Thanks! JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for reversion of edits?

Hi, I see you reverted/deleted an edit to biographical page on Saurabh Bagchi. This had mention of cybersecurity of critical infrastructures and referred to a third-party source from a reputed publication that covers government and cybersecurity regulation.

https://www.govinfosecurity.com/should-public-utilities-get-paid-to-secure-power-grid-a-20216

Can I request you to allow this addition?

Techphile (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles that quote a person are not independent biographies of that person. What is your connection to Bagchi? Nearly all of your Wikipedia activity revolves around this person. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles that represent scientific work done by a person is valid for a person's Wikipedia entry. I am going to put that material back there.

There are many single purpose editors on Wikipedia. So I hope that is not reason enough to reject my objective edits. Techphile (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have a WP:COI you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Please stop using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. - MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Polisport

Thanks for your work, MrOllie. Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC).

How to raise in-text questions

Thanks again for your input MrOllie. Question: I have occasionally seen questions about page text inserted directly onto the page, usually parenthetically, by editors, usually only one question. Is there a WP rule that can be articulated about that, for future reference? I realize that my questions re: the WSJ quote are probably too numerous to place in a parenthetical expression. Thanks again, 2600:4040:780C:6F00:F8F7:CC7A:42BD:19B2 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors should never insert their personal opinions or comments directly into an article. Not even one, and not even in parenthesis. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you MrOllie, I did think the WSJ quote, which I had posted myself last night, was quite startling and questions seem inevitable. I didn't realize that questions could constitute personal opinions. Hopefully our society will be able to address these in the upcoming months in the court system- there are some interesting cases coming forward as we speak - and then maybe these questions can be more properly addressed via case ruling citations?

Thank you again,

2600:4040:780C:6F00:D527:23B9:E88:AF79 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you could be startled by that quote, it looks to be standard stuff to me. VSafe is pretty boring technology wise. You also should not be using court documents or rulings as citations, see WP:PRIMARY. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your talk page revert

Hi MrOllie. Please don't just revert good-faith comments on Talk pages like this one:[4] New editors often put comments in the wrong place. It's best to move the comment instead of reverting it. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Unnecesary reverting

Hello. As I see you are reverting all my edits for no reason. I ask you an explain of why you are reverting my edits (Including already acceped ones) because this is

1. Annoyng.

1.1 You're not giving reason
2.2 You don't have why do this

2. Unnecesary

2.1 I'm not vandalizing anything
2.2 Those where ALREADY ACCEPTED edits

Thank you. 190.114.36.177 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Michael.C.Wright (<sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Edits</sub>) 16:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Enema

Greetings! I was surprised to see that you had deleted the mention of enema as a weapon. The fact has a serious proof, the patent of US Patents Bureau. Meanwhile, nobody is ashamed of keeping info about it's usage for BDSM, punishment and drug intoxication, but it's usage for self defence was labeled as undue. I supppose that the fact deserves a mention. ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It is trivia, and your citations weren't very reliable. We don't use self published materials or patents as sources. Are you associated with telhistory.ru in some fashion? - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the link on Russian site is not considered a serious proof of the fact, here is an American patent ("issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors") Wikipedia:PATENT

I was surprised to know about the strange usage of the implement, even though we've got a monument to enema in Russia. ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked you a question, are you going to respond to it? MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

At first you told me "citations weren't very reliable" and "We don't use self published materials or patents as sources", but "issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors") (Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are patents reliable sources?)

As for the question, I am Russian and I use Russian site to prove my point. Just like I use American, French, Polish and other sources.

If you don't like Russian site, I can make an entry with American patent only. ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's still not an answer to my question. If you read the whole policy you cited, you would see that patents are considered to be self published primary sources - which means that they should generally be avoided. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, whatever. ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Youtube

YouTube is a completely valid source for Wikipedia, in my opinion. 117.215.48.119 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't really matter here - Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines do. You can find them at WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That's nonsense. I've had made edit on the burpees page and it's not possible that two pushup burpees variant, or other variants, do not exist just because there's no book written by "subject expert" on the topic. Although I do understand it's Wikipedia's guidelines, I find it hard to believe that something is dismissed as uncredible solely because it's not a book or whatever written by a subject expert.117.215.48.119 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It is possible, though, that because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that stuff that has only been shown on youtube doesn't belong here. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally I just wanted to help the online community and share what I know with rest of the world. Exercise is such a topic that not many books are dedicated to it to my knowledgeand therefore it's hard not to use YouTube as a source. Then again I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so I do not know the guidelines very well. Okay, I guess, YouTube isn't allowed. 117.215.48.119 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of books on exercise, and lots of work published in academic journals on the subject. If this is your interest, I encourage you to visit your local library and summarize what you find in Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff.

WP:BLP states the following:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

WP:RSP states the following:

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.

Even when a source such as WP:SBM is considered generally reliable, that does not mean it is considered universally or unquestionably reliable.

As stated in Kulldorff's talk page, the statement you reinserted "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in that two year period..." is factually inaccurate according to the source provided by the SBM article. A two year period would include two influenza seasons (2019-2020 and 2020-2021). During those two periods, there were 200 total deaths. Therefore the statement is factually inaccurate. The only influenza season with only 1 child death was 2020-2021, which is not two years, according to how the CDC tracks influenza seasons.[5]

The overall paragraph is in contention by other editors, not just myself. Therefore it is better to hash this out in talk without disruptively editing a living person's biography.

I hope we can come to a consensus in the appropriate talk page. See you there.

Michael.C.Wright (<sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Edits</sub>) 17:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope we can come to a consensus in the appropriate talk page. See you there.

Yes, I'd posted there before you came here. Please don't post redundant messages on my talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

CCFL inverter

No matter how much I present the source, you will not accept it. You are obliged to explain each specific reason in detail. I want you to stop destroying baseless articles. You shouldn't be making your own decision here, and you should bring in multiple experts to discuss this.--Neotesla (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You cannot continue to ignore Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Especially this description is messed up. "The multilevel inverters are basically classified into three topologies namely, the flying capacitor inverter, the diode clamped inverter and the cascaded H-bridge inverter. All the topologies have the same property of reducing the harmonics. The cascaded has the disadvantage to need separate DC sources but circuit layout is compact and voltage sharing problem is absent." Why leave this, if you really understand the technology, isn't this embarrassing? Neotesla (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change it, you must cite a source that actually meets Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. You have to stop changing things based on what you personally think is true. You've got to stop using patents, legal documents, and other self published materials. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Such vague remarks should not be made. You should evaluate each sentence in detail. Neotesla (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate in that comment. Please work on your English writing skills. MrOllie (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"The multilevel inverters are basically classified into three topologies namely, ---" This description is left under your responsibility. Therefore, it is your responsibility to correct the description so that it is technically consistent and clean. Neotesla (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't you have the skills to fix those just little technical description that you leave? With such a lack of skills, how can you interfere with technical content like this article? That is very strange. If you have a emotional problem that you don't like me, if you can honestly talk about it, we may be able to solve it together. Do you maybe hate me for being the author of the paper? --Neotesla (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

With such a lack of ability to communicate in proper English, why interfere with the English language Wikipedia? Why do you continually ignore Wikipedia's content policies? MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require native English. That's something that editors should work together to fix. I can not understand that you deleted articles when you are lack of technical skill. Neotesla (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia written in English. Reading, understanding, and following core polices is required. WP:CIR. Content that does not meet policies can and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia's policy is that we are friendly and users cooperate with each other. You should contribute to the growth of Wikipedia. Neotesla (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is accusing other people of having emotional problems. MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are not a cooperative person. Not kind either. Neotesla (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No personal attacks is a policy here, too. Do not post on my talk page again, I've read enough insults. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

There's something that I told you which you didn't answer. This is the CiNii Research's database of Japanese papers and literature [6]. Several magazine articles which written by me are also registered. Please answer whether the references from the articles registered in this database are valid. I added it as a reference in the Wikipedia article I mentioned. And it was also included which you removed.--Neotesla (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not post on this page again. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You are obliged to answer this. You can reply to my page. Neotesla (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Retail drive by edits

I'm so tired of the incessant POV, OR and trivia on retail store/mall articles... thanks for your work on this. Meters (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is exhausting some times. Don't let them grind you down. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Prayer

Hi iii, what's problem with my image, I am know religion educations. So don't touch my edits. I am have very many books. Okay? Andrewler (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Images are not for decoration, and must be directly related to the article subject. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, other people are going to touch your edits. The number of books you have is irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

UNdisclose payment

Hello MrOllie, regarding you qusetion in User talk:Yaniv unger, here is you can see a facebook profile of Yaniv Unger from Tel Aviv, work as SEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:530B:1500:CD90:DFF2:B11A:60B4 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:OUTING please don't post stuff like this in the future. But yeah, I think it is obvious to everyone that their answer to my question was not completely honest. MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Stanford Prison Experiment

Hi, perhaps you can help make this article better contextualized than I can, since I am a newbie at editing Wikipedia articles and you seem to have edited this one. Between Le Texier's "Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment" and Rutger Bregman's chapter on it in "Humankind" I do not think the article should present it as an unequivocally legitimate experiment in the first few paragraphs as it currently does. I think it should say straight at the top that the very legitimacy of the experiment has been refuted. The "volunteer" guards were not volunteers and their treatment of the "prisoners" was directed from above. Even the famous plea of one of the prisoners to leave was staged. I fear the article as it is structured, even though it calls the experiment into question further down, helps perpetuate the narrative that it proved anything about human behavior, which it didn't. The BBC Prison study mentioned lower down was more realistic, and also deserves mention in the opening paragraph as a refutation of the manipulated results at Stanford. DrStevenJKlein (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

Hello Mr Mollie, may you please help me to Interlanguage link the English articles and isiZulu articles of the same title. I noticed you have removed all the local links I created, and thank you for correcting my error. But that hasn't resolved that the links to Zulu translation of the same article is missing. I don't wanna see this articles becoming orphan articles, because usually Zulu readers start with English articles and then check for their Zulu translation.

thank you Fongcwele (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Information on how to properly make these links can be found at Help:Interlanguage_links#Wikidata. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Classical music and IQ

My purpose in discussing the link between classical music and IQ is to establish a non-causal relation. I am satisfied that although smart and learned people are more likely to gravitate toward classical music, especially in chamber music with generic titles that say little about the music. Such qualities are not what IQ tests are intended to measure, like formal learning (more a connection to opportunity than to intelligence), taste (consider how awful many Top 40 tunes are -- really, this is undeniable for many of them), a taste for formalism and irony, and a tolerance for deferred gratification (so the climax of a fugue comes after ten or fifteen minutes instead of two. Even if those traits correlate with intelligence they do not define it.

Classical music fans are probably smarter than the average, but even classical music fans can recognize virtuosity and imagination in other formats. IQ has validity as a predictor of ability, but hardly of results in personal life, including cultural experiences. Classical music making one smarter than country or rap? Probably not? Jazz or folk? Both can hold many of the characteristics of classical music -- extended length, formality, irony, and exposure to a culture not one's own. The pianism of Oscar Peterson (jazz) and the repertory that Claudio Arrau played (entirely classical) would seem to have much the same effects upon a human mind.

You tell me -- do big businesses commonly inflict classical music upon employees so that those employees can make smarter and wiser decisions or have more mental flexibility on the job? Some might, but it would be insulting to those who despise classical music for whatever reasons. Multitudes hate classical music, and they are not reliably stupid. It might even be an undue distraction in a workplace.

Do I have a bias? Sure. I love classical music, including works with generic titles that give no hint of what to expect. But I also know that multitudes thoroughly hate it.

I wish to refine my position so that it can stick to the discussion page. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't a place to post your unsourced speculations about music or intelligence. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. No amount of refining your position will make it 'stick to the discussion page'. Take it to facebook or twitter or something. - MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

gun control

why are you changing my addition to the gun control, it clearly says in the graph that the US has the highest levels of gun ownership and gun deaths, also the comment about the good guy with gun is right above the graph where it shows that bystanders stopping active shooters are statistically insignificant, so neither is unsourced.

I'm just going to write it again and put references this time. Rabbo375 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It was unreferenced WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't a place to write your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Flash fiction

Please explain why did you remove today the addition to "Flash Fiction". This is an article written by Prof. David Fishelov Davidgute (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the message posted on your own user talk page. Wikipedia is not a venue to add citations to yourself. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bears and burglary

Ursid burglaries are real, and ursid burglars are generally as dangerous as human ones. These appear in the news in some areas (especially the Rocky Mountain West.

Bears are obviously not looking for gold jewelry to pawn for food; they are interested in the food itself. Technically the cartoon character "Yogi Bear" is a burglar and (as one can expect of talking critters in cartoons) highly anthropomorphic. They are clever; they are powerful. They can use their paws like hammers or crowbars as would human burglars. They are also extremely dangerous.

Due to extreme damage to property (broken windows and containers, destruction of vehicles, damage to sheds), bears are a legitimate concern for wildlife enforcement.

Oddly, dogs can also be burglars, although it is more technically going where they would never be welcome (like grocery stores). I have seen video of dogs going behind a butcher's display (if a customer did that without employee consent that would constitute burglary) to grab meat. Dogs of course are voracious eaters, and they can eat up a large amount of highly-valuable meat. Keeping dogs out is obviously easier than keeping bears out, and dogs pose much less danger than do bears.

Not all burglars are human. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

No. 'Burglary' is a legal concept. Animals do not form criminal intent. They are not tried by legal authorities or sentenced to prison under the laws. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There was plenty of room for a Cat Burglar joke here. I'm disappointed. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you’re interested in ursine burglary you might like this. Brunton (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bears are typically relocated or destroyed for encounters with humans or for destruction of property, so in effect they are treated as criminals without human rights.

Overzealous

MrOllie - you have made a most unwelcoming experience for me as a first-time editor of Wikipedia. You indiscriminately removed my edits to an article for "promotional" content, even though some of the edits merely updated anchor links and citations. I updated the article again, this time linking to a third party authority affirming my contribution. You removed it again without explanation. You could have helped me in my obviously genuine attempt to improve the article (I even asked for help on my Talk page), but instead deflated all enthusiasm about participating in the Wiki community by way of your unemphatic attitude. 67.168.186.226 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It was still advertising. Perhaps you really didn't know any better, but obviously pasting promotional content into Wikipedia isn't appropriate. I linked you to WP:RS and WP:MEDRS so you could read our sourcing guidelines. A blog post on a society for rabbit owners does not meet those guidelines, and the text was still promotional. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The "blog post" you're talking about is a site actually cited 24 other times in the article, including in the paragraph directly following. You are acting without care and going too fast attempting content moderation, leading to mistakes and alienating new users from participating. Reflect on your role in this community. 67.168.186.226 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Footwear

Why did you remove my addition to materials when it needed more information? Desiledbetter (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It was an unreliable source. But the bigger problem is that you are repeatedly adding copyright violating content. Please read the warning on your own user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Some CROs

Some are notable, will add them after creating articles Fostera12 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion

An article that has some content that is written like an advertisement, with a promotional tone and style, but whose subject does qualify for an article (under WP:N, the Notability guideline) should not be deleted, but instead be marked {{ad}}, notifying others to change the writing style to give it a neutral tone. WP:DOUBT 65sugg (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, that article should be deleted. The sources are all unreliable, sponsored content, or press releases. If by some chance it doesn't get speedy deleted, it'll happen at AFD instead. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of DDS from IIoT Page

Can you please tell me why you removed by addition of DDS as a protocol for IIoT. IIC is listed and the IIC recommendation DDS as an IIoT protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyhnpya (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Requirement of License During Off-Roading

Hello,

While this page caters to important information about off-roading, the page lacks information regarding the requirement of a License while off-roading.

As a regular off-roader, I think it is essential to convey the relevant information regarding license requirements while off-roading.

I want to add a few lines as below:

"As I see, while the legislation for a license varies from state to state (or across countries), there is the license mandate in many regions.

Off-roading is different from a usual driving activity involving regular motor vehicles; some newbies drive them after 18. It is a specialized activity – although it is all-time fun – yet it has some rules and some types of equipment that must be in vehicles to perform off-roading.

According to the Government of Canada and the USA Transport Department, every driver operating any off-road vehicle must have a driver's license only if they bring the vehicle onto the road, highways, and forest service roads. The license is not mandatory if you drive on private properties."

Source: [https://offroadhandbook.com/can-you-drive-off-road-without-a-license/ Can You Drive Off-Road Without a License? Know in Detail]

--Dasgupta Surya (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You have been reverted several times by more than one editor. You must discuss this at Talk:Off-roading, not my user talk page. I will note that offroadhandbook.com has been linkspammed by several user accounts before, and is not a usable source for Wikipedia. Do not continue to add links to it. MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Planning article

Appears that seven new editors recently made an edit or edits to Planning, all essay-like in style and with refs not correctly formated. All have been reverted. Given that one owned up to being in a PhD class, I left a message on each talk page asking if this was a class assignment, and borrowed your wording about education projects. There were also a few entries to Communication not currently reverted. As ref formating was similar across all, I suspect the instructor is not well versed in Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect the word is getting around among the class by now. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an Overzealous deletion: →‎Mobile phone-based authentication: lacks reliable sources

Why did you delete my entry. You sight "lacks reliable sources". Did you actually do your own research? Did you actually visit the quoted source? Do you actually realise that the Wayback Machine is cited in Prior Art Patent cases as the primary source for first use case. Do you know what Prior Art means? If you don't please visit this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art for a definition of Prior Art and maybe you'll find some stuff to delete there too. If you are unable to contest the entry with proper evidence please don't go around deleting other peoples entries because you're unable to accept their sources. This entry was made with proper legal due diligence I am going to restore the entry. If the World thinks its incorrect, let them provide the evidence beyond what I have provided. BabsOje (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires secondary sourcing for such content. Social media posts and old copies of your own website are not secondary sources. Are you associated with Ojejinmi or Neticash in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There is secondary sourcing in the form of a magazine publication in 2006. Mobile World is a Mobile Phone Magazine focused on Africa. I will contact the Publishers. BabsOje (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Considering that AT&T had a system for this in 1996, I doubt that magazine will support what you would like it to. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the context. Whilst AT&T may have had it in 1996, NETICASH was the first to have used it in any MOBILE MONEY INTERNET transaction circa 2004/2005 any where on the internet. So I really do not understand what you are going on about here. Unless, you are telling me you have information or data of where AT&T used it in a financial transaction on the internet or mobile between 1996 and 2005. Please provide the evidence else...... BabsOje (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

or else what? MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

you see, you have already misinterpreted the "English" I did not say "or else", I said "else". And what follows should sound like, "else let things be" and not what you're thinking. No one is here to pick a fight with anyone, clear!!!! BabsOje (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Are you going to answer my question now? I'll repeat it here: Are you associated with Ojejinmi or Neticash in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is that important, are you connected to AT&T in some form or fashion??? BabsOje (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Typical evasive answer, with a bonus of Psychological projection. That's a 'yes'. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. You are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

From your response you must have some connection to AT&T or some form of vested interest, so I am not surprised by your response. As it stands I don't see how I am in violation of the Wikipedia's terms of use if I am posting information that I am privy to. BabsOje (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

As someone associated with Neticash, you should not be editing Wikipedia about Neticash or attempting to use Wikipedia for promotion. If you continue I think it is highly likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I am finished responding to this issue on my user talk page. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie

Patrick here, after you sent me the message (You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines)

All of my website traffic has gone to zero! I am now earning no money from my website because of this! You sent me that message on the 24th of October and on the 25th all of my site traffic was gone. Did you make this happen? Patricksblog (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sardar Patel Vidyalaya Notable Alumni

Hi Ollie, I have been asked by my high school's alumni association and the school management to update the list of notable alumni. I am 70 + retired alumni in New Zealand trying to help the school. I have just become an editor on Wikipedea. I am in the process of learning the various features. I am getting relevant reference from the internet and linking them. Please help me to update the pages of my school which is India. seven and a half hours behind us in time zone,

Thanks Expatelian (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COI, you should not be making edits at the school management's behest. You also should not be adding external links or nonnotable people as you have been - that is a list of people who have demonstrated notability in the form of a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

MFA page

Hi, could you kindly explain why the open para is not an improvement I have a decade of experience in the field, keen to understand you POV? Robidy (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not very well written (it is more confusing than the older lead section) and conflicts with the article body. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

So what's a sensible approach to improving the page? Robidy (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not making it worse is a good start. Direct further discussion about this to the article talk page, please. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your tone seem rather harsh, I feel uncomfortable with your approach, can I ask for support from another person? Robidy (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not from here, this talk page is for communicating with me personally. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Where should I ask? Robidy (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy gaming

Hi, I saw your contribution there, I provided reliable secondry sources and nothing is from my original research. India have a huge fantacy gaming industry, some states have banned them. So don't revert anything without discussing on talk page, your welcome to contribute. As you know 3 revert rule, you already did 2 reverts, now please Talk, discuss on Talk page there. I have left a message for you there.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They were full of inappropriate name dropping of particular businesses, were massively non neutral, and the grammar was so bad the text was incomprehensible in places. Per WP:BRD you don't put your disputed text back in and then discuss - leave it out. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You shouldn't entir well sourced edits without discussing on talk page. If you think my writing was awaful the please give one chance to fix it but you reverted. See what you replied when someone did thing like you did to me [7], Just reverting well sourced content is not right thing according to me.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the borderline incoherence of your talk page postings, I don't really think you're capable of fixing the article edits. I think you would be more successful editing the Wikipedia of your first language. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie sir please be civil. You should behave politely with rookie editors.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That was civil as is possible given the situation. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Press releases

This is an AP News Article about Dpoofing Device fingerprinting and the the link is for AP NEWS, is AP News promotion link? APNewsSecurity (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously a press release, not a news article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice pointer

Hey. When you post an {{ani-notice}}, especially to inexperienced users, please consider also adding the thread= parameter. That way, they could get to the thread in question with ease. Cheers! El_C 20:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, but it would be very helpful to add that to the notice at the top of WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wasn’t self promotion

Dude, it’s factual that a group is trying to legalize it. I will even link two 3 articles. Loverofwomen91 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to promote any group. Do not edit war to push a political point of view. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-notability of Metricool

Having now read about the Wikipedia threshold for notability, I do not claim that the Metricool company that I just created an article for is notable. Feel free to delete the article at any time. Thanks! (FWIW, this is the second article I've created. The first, C++20, was certainly notable.)

Dotyoyo (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edit?

I wonder, why exactly you have deleted my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy_video_game&oldid=prev&diff=1122459235 Аргскригициониец (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Links to random steam webstore pages are not usable sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You reverted some updates I made on the Louis Vuitton article?

I made an innocent update on the Louis Vuitton article and saw that you reverted. I'm unsure if what I did was wrong or maybe I did not reference right. I would appreciate it if you could help me understand the problem. The update I made has been trending online in the last 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmaa (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:RS and WP:RSP. Wikipedia doesn't use unreliable publications like the daily mail or tmz as sources. Also see WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia is not a place to cover trending topics or the latest developments, either. You should be certain that something you add will be something readers might care about a year or more from now. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, That helps a lot. I actually thought daily mail is a reputable source. Kelmaa (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for you:

I tried to add info on 2020s article with sources cited, but you reverted my edit. Here is what I showed you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1123240808&oldid=1123239119&title=2020s

But I wanted to know why you reverted my edit. Would you explain? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Speculation about population estimates is not nearly important enough to go into the lead section of that article. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why removed?

This goal of development is literally described in the source Materie34 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Sourcing requirements for medical information are quite stringent. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why revert my edit to HTTP page?

I saw that there were some formatting problems. Would you accept the mods if those were solved? If not, why not.

To explain my motive: I'm a committer over at ruby-lang.org, working mostly with the documentation. I wanted to be able to link to the added headers. BurdetteLamar (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You duplicated several sections, which is obviously a problem. Also adding all the new sections made the TOC worse. If you just want link targets see {{anchor}} MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks much! BurdetteLamar (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to make another mistake, so will ask: Is '{{GET}}' (without the quotes) a valid anchor (single word with no vertical bar)? BurdetteLamar (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Please read the documentation at the link I just gave you. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any testing, while you work it out. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help on this. The ability to add anchors will be very helpful to me. BurdetteLamar (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not notable?

I see my addition to web frameworks was made not notable. I am not sure what exactly why, but if you search "vely c framework" on google, duckduckgo etc, there's plenty there. I found it on hackernews. I use Vely, and I understand that doesn't make it notable, but it's a nice web framework that's been around for a year or so. As far as I know, also the only C web framework. Danwatkins1 (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability has a particular definition on Wikipedia, which you can read about at WP:N. In this case the list inclusion criteria require that any framework have demonstrated notability in the form of a preexisting Wikipedia article. Google search results aren't really relevant to that. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. I will leave that to somebody else then. I just wanted to point out Vely is a great new web framework IMHO. Thanks for explaining this. Danwatkins1 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Tarot deck drama

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(You probably didn't see the ping because they misspelled your name. The drama seems to be over as the original poster has been usernameblocked, but I thought you might want to know about this regardless.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

MasterCard not work in Iran!

I’m Iranian and I’m from Iran I have master card, and I never can use my card everywhere Right? Or not?! 2.147.143.84 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean: In Iran, it is mostly used to bypass foreign sanctions and internal restrictions. It’s some way to use VPN for people! 2.147.143.84 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work in Antarctica, either. The word 'Worldwide' does not mean 'every single place in the world' - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s big lie to human But ok, tell me where can I explain this information for tourist and foreign people?! SepehrMomayezAdel (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you start a blog somewhere. Wikipedia is not a tourist information site. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Why removing the change in Quadratic Programming section?

It seems unclear why you have decided to remove the change I made for the Quadratic Programming section. Could you precise your action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:80:E500:D85:876A:1E38:969D (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I already explained on your talk page. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

re: rm nonnotable entries (List of flashcard software)

Is there a metric that you would consider as meeting the threshold of notability?

Echo Prof is young but (in my opinion) the amount of work that has been done on it is surely deserving of some note.

David d12345 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC) David d12345 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

In the case of that list, the criteria for inclusion is that there is a preexisting Wikipedia article on the software. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Myprotein reversion

Hi, you've just reverted the Myprotein page back to remove all my edits for promo editing and whitewashing. I've got to politely object as I've done exactly the opposite.

You've re-added lines such as "In 2020, Myprotein won the Lausanne Index Prize - Silver Award." Which seems like promo editing to me, which I had removed.

As for whitewashing, I removed the controversy section because both parts seem to be unencyclopedic. One part is a Japanese tweet. I tried to find a reliable reference to go along with this such as a newspaper article but found nothing.

The second 'controversy' is a story which turned out to be untrue and the newspaper references withdrew the story. Again, to me this seems unencyclopedic.

And then you've removed the logo. I don't understand your logic. Dgp4004 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You may not have seen this as your talk page was edited by a bot after I posted it. Or you may not have had a moment to read it yet.

I don't want to start an edit war if you passionately want to retain something I removed or disagree with something I added? If you find the content of the controversies section valuable, I disagree but perhaps you can find a better source for the tweet part at least if you want to keep it?

I'm disappointed that you went straight for a full revert of all my edits though. I put a fair effort into those edits and I suspect you didn't actually read what you were reverting to if I'm honest. No talk post, nothing. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've tried to engage you. I'll add a discussion to the Wiki page with my suggested changes if you later change your mind and want to engage there. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid tag on the Nextflow article

Hello Mr. Ollie,

Thanks for being so observant to notice that I have made a major overhaul of the Nextflow article draft. I see, why this edit might raise some concerns regarding undisclosed payments, but rest assured that I have not received any payments or other benefits in exchange for this edit.

Please allow me to elaborate on my background and the motivation for working on this article: While I do not have a user page on the English Wikipedia, I do have one on the German Wikipedia as well as on Wikimedia Commons. I have been contributing to both since 2007, when I was an undergrad student at the university. I have mostly ceased from contributing to Wikipedia due to time constraints by now, but of course continue to cherish the project.

When I learned that an academic collaborator of mine wanted to add an article for Nextflow to Wikipedia, I was thrilled. It had never occurred to me, but I was immediately convinced that this is a good idea, because it is a very important tool for our research work and students might want to look it up when it is mentioned e.g. in the method section of scientific publications. However, I had to agree with @Onel5969, that the article in its previous form was written too promotional and partly incomprehensible. So I sacrificed a free afternoon (and unintentionally also the evening) to fix the (in my opinion) most blatant issues. Admittedly, it was way more work than what I initially wanted to put into the edit, but I also couldn't stop halfway through either, since I eventually ended up changing the entire structure. Major revision so to speak. ;-)

I have tried to incorporate the criticisms expressed to the best of my ability, but agree that there should be an external review to ensure that haven't been too sympathetic with the subject.

Conflict of interest statement: I am employed by the Swedish National Genomics Infrastructure, which co-founded the nf-core community. Phil Ewels is a former colleague of mine, and I have met other core Nextflow/nf-core contributors at scientific conferences. I work with Nextflow daily, and it is fundamental for my work. However, I have not received any payments or other benefits for editing the article, and it was my own decision to devote my spare time to edit. I have no investments in or affiliations with Sequera, the spin-off company that maintains Nextflow. My real name is Matthias Zepper, which you can use to verify this information.

--Curnen (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What does 'trim spammed site' mean

Hi,

Just wondering what 'trim spammed site' actually means. The excised links still work as expected and contain a lot of useful information from an expert source that is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia.

If this is something that can be fixed by them I will contact the owners of the linked site to alert them.

Thanks 51.9.236.176 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC) 51.9.236.176 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It was spammed across many articles by a member of the organization - who is now blocked, and now they have switched to using another account to continue. Spamming is a behaviour, not anything that can be fixed on the site itself. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that it is someone within ISKO that is spamming Wikipedia articles? Just trying to get a clear idea here. Those two removed links were placed deliberately by me. I don't often contribute or edit so am unfamiliar with a lot of background. Hostkvall (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what happened. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been in touch with the webmaster of isko.org – the International Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, who in turn contacted the Editor-in Chief, a distinguished Professor Emeritus. It appears from his reply that he is the person whom you have accused of spamming Wikipedia for adding what he considered to be legitimate links. On the basis of that you seem to have taken the high-handed approach of determining that all links to isko.org links should be treated as spam. The links that I added are legitimate and useful to others researching the topic so I request that you reinstate them. Hostkvall (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he thought what he was doing was a good thing, but it was obviously against Wikipedia policies he was most likely ignorant of. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Since your dispute is with him, and I am effectively an 'innocent bystander' would you please reinstate the two links that you removed, or do I have to do that and have you remove them again? Hostkvall (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe the links improved the article, so no, I will not be restoring them. useful to others researching the topic is not a reason to add a link since Wikipedia is not a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems to me decidedly unhelpful to the potential reader. Neither 'E.J. Coates' nor 'retroactive notation' have entries in Wikipedia though I could of course create them with reference to the ISKO entries and some personal knowledge. Since these links were intended essentially as footnotes is it permissible to create footnotes that accommodate them instead? 51.9.236.176 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not a valid way to create an article. MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point about personal knowledge which would in any case have been minimal.

You haven't answered my question about whether these links would be permissible as footnotes. The ISKO entries linked to provide additional contextual information that is not available elsewhere. I don't want to waste my time adding them if you will then waste your time removing them. I hope this is seen as a sensible compromise. Hostkvall (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have - I do not believe these links improved the article. Changing the format slightly does not affect my opinion. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your wielding of the 'editor' scalpel willy-nilly is coming across as bizarrely hyper-maniacal. Please get help

And you can sue these people here for exposing you. You're not a villain.

https://www.reddit.com/user/The_NSA_Here_To_Help/comments/

Ascertain2022 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Just stop trying to use spammy marketing materials as sources. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My contributions range from medicine to military topics and finance. You've defined as 'spammy' a firm that is a major consultant to one of Australia's largest government departments. Which is exactly how firms such as Gartner, PwC, KPMG etc. get their cachet. Is firm size your criteria for 'non-spammy' citations? Or their being American firms? Your editing is coming across as strikingly scattershot and trigger-happy. Please do better - and especially a better job of both explaining your criteria and pondering them before chopping away. Ascertain2022 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You are using blog posts that are literally full of advertising as sources. Coming on my talk page to make personal attacks does not change that. MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Your war-like editing attacks are what come across as "personal," 'MrOllie.' This is truly bizarre, after years of seeing Wikipedia as a benign and reliable source. Someone with a seemingly pathological hunger for collecting hundreds of thousands of Edits needs help - and you clearly do.

Here is just one article from Gartner with citations across Wikipedia: How Markets and Vendors Are Evaluated in Gartner Magic Quadrants

Please be so kind as to explain how this differs from a smaller firm's article. I'd be genuinely thankful, as would many of your detractors across the Web, who could be turned around if they are genuine and honest. Ascertain2022 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you associated with mytreasur-e in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am associated with hundreds of firms across Australasia, including financial firms, law firms, military contractors, government agencies, and tech firms. Australia has a population around the size of New York State's - it's not China. Who are you associated with that is in conflict with Australian consultancies? Ascertain2022 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My, you are impressive. But here, you see, you are just a cipher, with fewer than 30 edits to your credit, a third of which are harassment of this editor. I'd suggest that Mr. Ollie has a better handle on our policies and why they exist than you do, and that you take their warning on your Talk page to heart ... and move on. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 04:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is "our?" Is this a coterie or a cartel, dear person?

"MrOllie" indulged in sweeping edits of 1/5 of my contributions, labelling them 'spammy.' What criteria was used, may I ask? I have highlighted the fact that American consultancies' blog posts are cited widely across Wikipedia. A cursory glance at any of them will reveal that they are similar to the blog posts of the smaller Australian consultancy cited. So please clarify the criteria, unless it is to merely slough off citations of what you perceive as insignificant entities from the other side of the world, but which may be significant in their geographic domains. Obscure criteria lend credence to criticism of Wikipedia editors, detracting from Wikipedia's reputation. Ascertain2022 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, not interested in allowing you to waste my time as you have wasted more than a little of Mr. Ollie's. Our policy in this regard is explained at links in the message that editor originally left on your Talk page. You can take the time to read it, or not. In the mean time, you may want to address the report concerning your violation of our edit warring policy. ("Our" refers to the community of editors here committed to the project of building an encyclopedia, which assumes that we will educate ourselves about and follow certain policies, or be separated from the project, either temporarily or in extreme cases permanently.) General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 04:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled request

Hi MrOllie! Wondering if you would be able to take a look at Bquast's request for autopatrolled and weigh in given that you have had recent interactions and appear familiar with them? TheSandDoctor <sup>Talk</sup> 06:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Tribulation

MrOllie,

I have read many Wikipedia articles that have included the reference [citations needed]. My intent is to add the citations and my hope would be that others would as well. That would be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Please do not come in and edit out my work before it is completed. I'm new to this editing and if I need to do something else, or do it in a different way, please advise me on my talk.

PeterJ99 PeterJ99 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Rye page - Addition on a section on Primitve Rye (multicaule)

Dear MrOllie,

together with other editors on Wikipedia, I created a section on Primitive Rye at the bottom of the Wikipedia page "Rye". You have deleted this section multiple times without explanation. Is there a reason for your action? There should be a section on the multicaule variation on rye in the "Rye" article, and there is reliable sources (as cited in the section) to show that. I have tried talking to you on the talk page of "Rye" but have so far not received an answer. Please let me know your thoughts! Looking forward to hearing from you!

All the best, Plantsforlife (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Research project F+F 1971

Dear Mr. Ollie, I added links at several lemma with results/chapters from F+F 1971, a research project at Zurich University of the Arts on the F+F School for Art an Design in Zurich. I also corrected some old links. You reverted all my contributions. I try to keep these articles actual, and I'm sorry it wasn't accepted. Could you help me to improve? Thank you so much. Toptenseniororg (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Show your respect to non English speaker

Don't be a fool reverting others contribution just because the content is not linked with an English wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not your life partner and I can definitely create one to bypass that requirement, but what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.87.100.165 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'point' is that the list has inclusion criteria that should be respected. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I undid my change for a discussion here. The only mention of "English" on that page, is "The following tables compare general and technical information for a number of notable webmail providers who offer a web interface in English." -73.87.100.165 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

My user talk page isn't the place to discuss such things. Any discussions should be had on the article talk page, other editors may wish to contribute. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

COI citespam?

Can you tell me about this edit you made? I don't understand how it is COI or citespam. thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The cite was added by the author of the paper. It doesn't support any content, it was purely redundant with existing citations. They've been doing the same thing on a bunch of other articles. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you made a similar deletion for the same reason at Physical therapy. Please provide evidence for your claims of a COI and the exact diffs (plural) for the additions of the content in both articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lindenfors: COI confirmedself-cite Pascoe: self cite MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. 👍 Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it? Is peer reviewed science really "COI citespam"? So you have these PhD. professors who have been publishing on their field of expertise in international, peer reviewed science journals for 25 years, and these are the people we don't want contributing to Wikipedia? It is not considered a conflict of interest to cite your own publications in peer reviewed journals. People have been doing it for 200 years.WiLaFa (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a real problem these days. Research has shown that being cited on Wikipedia leads to other citations, so people sometimes do this to pump up their h-index. It is common enough that we have had a standard template warning for this for some time ({{Uw-refspam}}). It absolutely is a conflict of interest to cite your own publications in peer reviewed journals on Wikipedia, the guidelines are clear on that. - MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not considered a conflict of interest to cite your own publications in peer reviewed journals. People have been doing it for 200 years.

Jane Goodall cited herself here and it did not seem to be a problem with the editors of Nature.

Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W.C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., Tutin, C.E., Wrangham, R.W. and Boesch, C., 1999. Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature, 399(6737): 682-685.

E. O. Wilson cited himself 3 times here and it did not seem to be a problem with the editors of The Quarterly Review of Biology

Wilson, D.S. and Wilson, E.O., 2007. Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4): 327-348.

Is there something specifically controversial or problematic about Lindenfors or Pascoe? WiLaFa (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a distinct project with different policies and community standards than what you might find in academic publishing. Not everything that is acceptable in that world will be acceptable in this one. But at any rate, if you want to change the guidelines on this, the place to make that argument is on the talk pages of those guidelines, not on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, it is NOT true that "It is not considered a conflict of interest to cite your own publications in peer reviewed journals." It is a clear violation of WP:COI to do so.

OTOH, it is okay to use the talk page to suggest one's own publication as a source. Then other editors can add it if they deem the source appropriate to use. This is standard practice. We have banned a Nobel Prize laureate for refusing to back down on this issue, so we take this very seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I get it, I did wrong by overusing the self-cite. But now you have cleaned all my contributions to science off Wikipedia, which I feel is overdoing the gate-keeping. Yes, self-citing is self promotion. But in this case it is also sharpening up the information on Wikipedia. PzychoPat (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Kessler

MrOllie,

I saw that you deleted most of my creation on the page. It was not a simple copy and paste. I addressed the feedback some previous editors raised including the content was not strong enough to form a separate page and potential copyright infringement. I rewrote and adjusted most of the content and merged it to the existing page. With what reason this content was deleted?--MagellanAquarium (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You know that several people have disputed your edits. Finding some other redirect to edit in the same way is disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the edits on the Kessler page and I replied to all other people's comments and made changes to the content based on their feedback. Is it fair for you to call it a "copy and paste" without reading it and acknowledging the good faith improvements I've made. What content I developed was beyond the normal scope of a neighborhood page that you have to delete all of them again? MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Pasting the same copyright violating text all over is just going to get you blocked. You've got to slow down, stop edit warring, and discuss calmly on article talk pages. (not my user talk page) MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've started a talk on the article talk page. Happy to talk about it. Curious to know what part of the content is copyright violating. New to wiki editing so I'm happy to learn about specific things. MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to tag you but it would be great if you could show me on the talk page which part is copyright violating. Most of the languages on the page I've adjusted/deleted/rewrote myself after other editor mentioned there was copyright violation for copying lengthy content from other website. MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You should ask the admin who has been deleting your stuff about that. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

which admin? you are the only one who is active deleting. Other peoples' opinion has been addressed on the noticeboard and they didn't do anything afterwards. If you don't have any objection, why are you deleting it? MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're not sure how to read deletion logs, you may ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. Since you didn't take the hint earlier, I will be more clear now: Stop trying to discuss this on my talk page, you are in the wrong place. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Red pill and blue pill

Hi MrOllie,

I saw you undid an addition to the red pill and blue pill article. Your message was "Rv blog posts, again." Are you objecting to the usage because it comes from a blog? It's not clear to me why a usage appearing on a blog should bar it from inclusion, given it is both authentic and relevant. As you may know, the "red pill" is a common term used in political discussion, especially on the internet. I might go so far as saying its main way the term is used today. I think it is therefore worth including how the term crossed over into political discussions. The information you removed was just that. The source provided was a Vox article stating "Yarvin was the first to popularize the analogy from The Matrix of being “redpilled” or “-pilled,” suddenly losing your illusions and seeing the supposed reality of the world more clearly, as applied to politics. Provided this information is true, which I have not found cause to doubt, its inclusion seems important, regardless of the fact it is froma blog. What is your view on this? Scamperton (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My view is that 1) I object to the long-term edit warring campaign that has been waged to mention that blogger on that page and 2) discussions about article content belong on article talk pages, not my user talk. MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough on point 2. I have just contributed to the talk page on the article. However, I am not the first to add to the section on this Vox article. There are two existing contributions both seemingly supporting inclusion. So far, no one has made the opposing case. Given that, I think you should add your objections in the talk page. I have asked for those opposing to explain themselves in my post. Please explain this blog hang up since I don't get it.

As for 1, I don't see your point. If you agree with me that the information is both authentic and relevant, then don't remove it and there is no edit war. If you don't think the information is authentic or relevant, then explain why on the talk page. That would contribute to something more fruitful than an edit war. As it stands, if there really is a sustained edit war, it is not reflected in the talk page. Scamperton (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed it if I thought it belonged there. MrOllie (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

immunofluorescence

hello

I am editing on immunoflurescence article, it is my master class project, can you stop editing my work please.

Yasemin-alkassem (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A class project does not give you ownership of an article, so no. If your grade depends on your edits staying in the article, your teachers aren't doing things correctly. Please direct them to Wikipedia:Education program. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Avengers members

Should All-Out Avengers and Secret Invasion Vol #2 be considered for bolding members of the team.Jacob Wilkerson (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussions should be had on the article's talk page, not here. I've already commented there. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

I am concerned you deleted my link. It was a genuine contemporary Golden Dawn order. Please explain. Thank you. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, this is the wrong place to advertise your group. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

So how do I reflect on the page that there are a variety of contemporary Golden Dawn orders out there and give some examples. I am concerned that the readers will only think there are two recent contemporary orders. There are probably over 100, but only one or two larger and more established. Advice appreciated. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on reliable sources (see WP:RS), such as peer reviewed journals or books from major academic publishers. Without such sources, you do not list your group because, again, Wikipedia isn't a directory. MrOllie (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MrOllie!

Happy New Year!

MrOllie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MrOllie!

Happy New Year!

MrOllie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops <sup>⋠T⋡</sup> 01:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops <sup>⋠T⋡</sup> 01:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Article edit

HI, I was trying to update an article, Graduate Management Admission Test, and got a a message back saying "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia." However, if you look at two links currently used as sources (citations 36 & 37) for best GMAT prep, one is the company itself (self promotion- Menlo) and the other is affiliate links. I was just trying to put out some honest student reviews that ranked GMAT companies.

Please advise id this is not possible- thank you & HNY! Gradswm (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have found other inappropriate links on Wikipedia, that is not a reason to add more spam yourself. MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Editor you reverted at White Hole

2603:3020:BB8:D000:EDDD:5E78:603D:6200 - LTA, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami Off-topic, FTN can be an unpleasant place to post. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't familiar. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

His style is usually a good clue. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to semi-protect Talk:Seven Seals?

A bit drastic but it's basically only Brad Watson, Miami who uses an IP address there. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's Talk:Seven seals with the lower-case s that needs protecting. (I've just redirected the other spelling.) Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen so I just need to figure out how to offer IPs a separate page? Doug Weller talk 12:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug, I remember I once created a subpage to Talk:Kyiv (at that time, Talk:Kiev) called Talk:Kyiv/naming, and enforced its use. That was because the regular talkpage had become impossible to use for anything except the hot-button name issue (Kiev <-> Kyiv). I worried a little about the effect, because it meant hiding away the naming issue. But that would be a desirable effect in this case. So, how about creating a subpage called, say, Talk:Seven seals/Comments from people who actually are Christ, and enforcing its use? Or, more seriously, since nobody seems to have used the talkpage since at least 2017 except Brad Watson and people reverting him, it would seem harmless to semiprotect. Say a year to begin with? Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC).

PS, I looked at the edit mode of Talk:Seven seals to try to figure out what's up with the strikeout (of everything since 2011!), but had no luck. The <s> is closed, surely, but it doesn't act closed. Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen Sorry, need to make it clear they are all from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Not sure what happened to the strikeouts. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A missing <s, should be 25 of them. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve protected as suggested. I expect he’ll go elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Popular culture edit??

Hi I was wondering why you got rid of the "In popular culture" section for the article titled "Popular culture." After all, the article for "In popular culture" (a different article) has an "In popular culture" section, and the concept of "popular culture" is sometimes referenced in pop culture. Cookie The Amazing Cat (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Self references are discouraged on Wikipedia. And what you linked here is not an article, it is a projectspace essay, where the rules are different.MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a self reference - xkcd happens to be one of the most popular online comic strips and its author has published several NYT Bestsellers.

The essay I was citing was merely to establish the precedent that "In popular culture" sections are common on Wikipedia. Cookie The Amazing Cat (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is a self reference. This has come up before, take a look in the talk page archives. Consensus is not to include. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Fold

Why you deleted the pics on the Scottish fold article? There aren’t reason dude Ansrea (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not an image gallery. It isn't a place for users to upload redundant photos of their cats. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s not my cat by the way Ansrea (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The image was a clear, punctual example of the species Ansrea (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

And completely redundant. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You’re making a mistake. This isn’t in the Wikipedia rules, it’s just uncorret Ansrea (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It sure is, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Also, I'm pretty sure 'punctual' does not mean what you think it means. - MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your decision is clearly subjective so that’s against the rules, it’s simple. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE SITE, YOU CANNOT DELETE SOMETHING ONLY FOR YOUR WILL OR PRESUNCTION Ansrea (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

if I’ve violated the rules delete the image but without a reason you are making a mistake Ansrea (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons and linked you to the relevant style guideline already. It is now time for you to stop posting on my user talk page. If you still have grievances, I welcome you to file them at whatever noticeboard you find appropriate. Do read WP:BOOMERANG first, though. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Italian passport

Why u deleted the clarification on the Italian passport’s page? Wtf you are deleting all my changes dude. I’m gonna to report u Ansrea (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a clarification, it was a statement of opinion and was removed per WP:NPOV. If you want to make a report WP:ANI is the place to do that. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll definitely make a report Ansrea (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Check the New Zeland Passport page. Bye Ansrea (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

3rd World Country - Beer Festival Entry

You still have not provided a valid reason for removing this one line entry from the Beer Festival page. You cite Advertising, but there is no advertising in this entry: "In Quito, Ecuador, a yearly beer festival called VIVA Cerveza! takes place. The first was in 2016. It is listed as the 3rd largest festival in South America."

Yet, that same page is LITTERED with advertising from international brands and corporations, yet, you do nothing of deleting those entries. Perhaps because they are from 1st world countries and these are large corporate brands? Do you have a prejudice?

You state the following violation: "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion."

Again, my single line entry does no such thing. Vivacerveza (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yawn. Where's that arbitration you were threatening? I'm waiting. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Really, that's your response? "Yawn, Where's that arbitration you were threatening? I'm waiting". So ignoring my valid request for clarification on the reason you deleted my single line entry, with no validity of sopapboxing, advertising, or promotion, is the way you handle yourself? Well, that makes my case even stronger. Thank you. Vivacerveza (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Defensive driving

"A driver safety program called the Driver Example Program was developed in 1964 by Chris Imhoff of the (US) National Safety Council." this is a promotion / primary source (reference 3) and on top of this, this Wikipedia page/article is linking to a page that no longer exists, it links to a page not found.

Alonso-gomez-avila (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Rather than just saying predatory journal and remove two other journals which have nothing to do with "predatory" as you say discuss that edit before you do that, also don't just revert an entire edit without thinking of the other citations which have nothing to do with that source which you do not like. Therefore, i will revert your edit, but will replace that predatory journal as you say. CtasACT (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You must get consensus for your edits on the article's associated talk page. Coming to my user talk to order me around, and then continue edit warring, will just getyou blocked. MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, as i said i was the first individual to give the source if an editor disagrees with which i have added then it is their job to give out the consensus to why my first edit was wrong, i have been nice to you and removed the source which you disliked, you removing the two sources will get you blocked much less me for actually citing valid reasons. Hypocrisy on your side is ironic, now i will revert edit yours and as i said if someone disagrees, they must first create a talk age and explain why my edits are wrong, they brought forth the disagreement i simply edited. CtasACT (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You have it backwards. See WP:BRD. See you on the article talk page - you should not post here any further. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wizardman's talk page regarding an abuse of editing powers by user MrOllie. The thread is entitled Calling MrOllie to your attention regarding an ANI.  Thank you. GabeTucker (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not how any of this works. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly." Source: Wikipedia:Noticeboard/Incidents GabeTucker (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just stop posting on my talk page. MrOllie (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." Source: Wikipedia:Noticeboard/Incidents GabeTucker (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one, when opening a section on the noticeboard. Which you didn't do. And here you are still posting. Don't do so again. MrOllie (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Closeness to colleagues

Hi MrOllie assuming Astor's reference is okay will I encourage Ireland to do something of a similar quality? He told me it would be months before he can get a paper out on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Unctious (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:COI. You shouldn't be posting about Ireland, and if you encourage him to write something we should not use it on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the title of our discussion. The rules you are using are not definitive on what constitutes a colleague. If I replace the citations you deleted can they be Hassall et al., Newton or Davis. I've previously put links to their work and I see they are still there. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So, I can see you are happy with the edits I've made so far. Most of the time you have left the information intact. I'm sure you'll agree that it is important that we do support the information on Wikipedia with reliable sources; you have said as much in the documentation you shared yesterday. Are you going to replace yourself, do you intend to delete any remaining unsupported information or are you happy for me to continue adding scholarly sources such as Prof Hassall et al or Prof Davis where suitable? I don't want to waste the time of either of us.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not reviewed your latest edits, I may or may not be happy with them when I get around to doing so. MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. Why would you be unhappy with them may I ask? I don't think you'll find journalists researching and writing about these topics. You are only likely to find them written by academics writing in peer-reviewed journals. As you will note from the documentation you shared, this is the standard we should be trying to attain here on Wikipedia.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, since I haven't looked at them. I don't really care to speculate. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've also reinstated some information you deleted with a new citation. It would be useful if you could take a look. We are going to be working in German for the next hour or do you do any work on there or can you suggest someone to reach out to? Todd Unctious (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I've searched for alternative verification of some of the information that no longer has a suitable citation but in vain; others I've found and edited in and remain, while others, which I've found from suitably distant colleagues, I don't have time to edit today. I asked above about the issue of information you have left without a citation but you have not responded. This is a specific question to you. Are you going to leave the information with no citation? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice; I don't want to take up too much of you time. Thank you in advance for your response. Todd Unctious (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing the previous comment. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I need to encourage someone to write about it. What can we do? Is the Astor Zhao one okay? Todd Unctious (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is also a blog. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, we lag behind the cutting edge on purpose. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Wait for someone completely unrelated to you to write about it of their own volition. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I just called him he says he can get a World of Science indexed paper on it out by around May. I told him not to ask me to post it but to speak to you about what to do. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What to do is nothing - this kind of thing runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please take some time to review Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:NOR, WP:COI, and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia isn't a venue to get the word out about the latest developments or to include your latest papers. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Really? I'll be honest with you. That is going to be a difficult thing to keep the lid on. While the publishers have Wikipedia in the journal metrics Universities are insisting that academics cite on Wikipedia. I know because I've attended workshops on it. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a huge problem. Everyone who is doing this is actually violating Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to speak to the publishers about not including Wikipedia in the metrics. It's on an industrial scale. It used to be Linkedin but that is now out of most metrics. Now Wikipedia is without doubt top of the agenda when I attend research promotion workshops. I'm sure the only way you are going to solve the problem is by asking the publishers to stop. And what probably makes it worse for Wikipedia is that Twitter is another big one they use and we all know what's happening there.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand people are trying to change such things, but it is much like asking google to modify their search rankings to combat link spam - there is always going to be some motive or another for people or institutions to exploit and/or pollute common resources for personal gains. Tragedy of the commons. - MrOllie (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I am sure that if, for example, Wikipedia had a way of stopping Altmetric or PlumX using it then things would improve dramatically. You know there are teams working almost full-time on translating Wikipedia pages (not in any place I've worked I should add). Every time a Wikipedia article is translated it adds an extra count to metrics. As things stand any institution acting ethically in Wikipedia's eyes will definitely lose funding. Todd Unctious (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just on a break here and I've reread this. Are you saying that newspaper references are not acceptable? If so, there isn't going to be much left of the ChatGPT page once the newspaper entries have all been deleted. If Wikipedia "lags behind the cutting edge" then having been through and assessed it, very little should be left of the page. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, reliably published journalism is fine. Please read the policy links I gave earlier. MrOllie (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have and in academia we class journalism as grey literature while peer-reviewed articles are definitely a much higher standard despite the unreliability of the peer-review process. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll find that standards on Wikipedia are very different from what you're used to in academia. MrOllie (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that but the documentation you have linked to seems to contradict what you are saying here. If you read what you have above it contradicts what is happening on the page itself. If you can't see that that is the case then no worries we can leave it there for now. I do fear you are fighting a losing battle though. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect, my user talk page isn't really the place to ask your general questions about how Wikipedia works. I suggest you look at WP:TEAHOUSE for that. MrOllie (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking general questions. I am however questioning your interpretation of the very documentation you are using to support the 'reliable journalism' that hold in such high esteem Todd Unctious (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)