User talk:MrOllie/Archive 17

Design-Build

Hello MrOllie,

I'm a hands on, in the field, boots on the ground construction guy. Who better to add an update to the Design-Build Wikipage, than a guy like me. I feel that my addition, benefits the definition by furthering the point of a seasoned contractor adding value to a project owner by bringing field knowledge to the table. Field knowledge that just can't be replicated by office professionals/engineers/architects that have never installed a roof (in this instance). I realize that I am affiliated with the roofing company I've used as a reference, but it shouldn't delegitimize my input, because there isn't anyone else in the world who would have bothered to make that worthwhile contribution/edit. It's a justifiable edit in my opinion, even though I'm affiliated with the roofing company. It's not an egregious overstep. It's a worthy edit and shouldn't be penalized. Dupont, National Coatings, Henrys and RIM Architects will be linking to my referenced blog from their websites with do follow links, so I'm not concerned with a nofollow from Wikipedia. I just wanted to tell my mom that I got on Wikipedia. Haha.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jon Tomas Vaughn (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs a citation to a reliable source (see WP:V, WP:RS). Your blog does not meet those sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Assisted Living

Hello! I can remove the citations that link to my work on the section I added today. I was practicing adding a section so that I could show my students how it is done for them to do for a homework assignment. I don't really care if my work is cited. All the other citations are not me or my colleagues though. So can I restore what was added but remove the "Marshall" citations to fix any COI? ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You should have a look at Wikipedia:Education program. Coursework that involves Wikipedia is generally supposed to go through a particular process. Turning a bunch of students loose on Wikipedia outside that process rarely works out well - either for the students or for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm participating in a project listed below, just in case you weren't aware this was being marketed to Higher Ed to have students participate in the experience. Good educators utilize drafts and edits in the classroom before allowing anything to be published online, and students get a sense of value by providing something tangible rather than a paper that just sits on the teacher's desk. I notice that many of the wikipages regarding aging/Gerontology list that they need more citations and sources and I wanted my students to be able to transfer their knowledge in a meaningful way. But I want a good experience for my students, so instead I will have them create written educational materials to share within our local community.

This is the program I wanted to do. It is not just "turning students loose"...

"My name is Andrés Vera, and I am the Equity Outreach Coordinator for the Wiki Education Foundation, a small ten-person nonprofit that helps university/college instructors and students contribute to Wikipedia. Wiki Education's support is fully funded, and there are no fees to run a Wikipedia assignment." ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing on biomedical topics such as Gerontology has special requirements (WP:MEDRS) and generally makes for a poor experience for student editors. I'm quite surprised that whomever you are working with at Wiki Education didn't make you aware of that (and also that they apparently didn't make you aware of the conflict of interest guidelines). MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Zoom call is this week, so I'm sure I would have learned more. But I no longer plan to participate. While I value the importance of the information you are providing (and agree with COI, etc), the way in which feedback is given can most certainly be more positively worded. I would not want to put my students in a position to receive harsh feedback. We will have a more enjoyable positive experience providing knowledge to the community rather than on Wiki.

My work is in social wellbeing in older adults, not everything about older adults is medical...so not sure it would be considered "biomedical". But for what it's worth, I have a PhD.

No need to reply, I've just learned this is not the space for me. ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit on CFA Page

I have attempted to remove a biased and opinionated piece of this article, which is somehow considered vandalism. The individual who brought up this ¨vassal state¨ claim is caught up in the Ukraine trend and is therefore plastering this junk on the article. I simply attempted to restore the article to its previous form. 76.181.241.214 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, and content deletion based on your politics are all disruptive. If you do not stop I am sure you will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ref spam

Hi MrOllie, would you mind taking a look at whether these are cases of WP:REFSPAM: [1], [2], [3], and [4]? They all involve papers by Jacob Stegenga. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a single purpose / spam account to me! MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll see if I find some time later to something about it. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Prolog Edit - Third Party Logistics

Hi Mr Ollie

I just want to question your assumption that I had added an inappropriate link to 'Third Party Logistics'. In fact, the link I added was to an article that responded appropriately to an query raised in the paragraph where the citation was added. I'm aware that the links are NoFollow, I simply wished to share industry knowledge and experience on a site that I respect. If you do not think the article is suitable to be included on the page, fair enough, but I would request that it is considered, rather than being refused on an assumption of practices I do not participate in.

Amanda Price Aprice932 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vendor marketing materials are not usable sources - they are always inappropriate links. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Mr Ollie,

I would like to invite you to attend in Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS and submit your opinion. Thank you in advance. Scholartop (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Vendor list"

Why do you remove a list of notable companies producing hiking boots? Many even have their own article. Coldbolt (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a directory. Brand name mentions should be minimized, and such lists always turn into spam magnets. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a small list with specialized companies which are notable and have their own article. I can name you hundreds of these lists on Wikipedia. Go bother someone else. Coldbolt (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, take it up on the article talk page and see if anyone else agrees that we should have such a list. My user talk is the wrong place for this. MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not for me to discuss that with others. It's for you to discuss it with others if you want it removed. There are literally no rules for it as it's not advertising and all companies are notable. It might even be of good use for people. You don't own Wikipedia. Coldbolt (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, see WP:BRD. You don't own Wikipedia either. Also, you have it backward - The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to keep disputed content.MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If I source every single company of which most exist for about 50-100 years, specialized in hiking shoes and they even have their own article. What is your problem??? Coldbolt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My problem is that lists of brands do not belong on Wikipedia (just as our article on Plumbing doesn't list local plumbers), and you are edit warring and being insulting on my user talk page rather than gathering consensus for your proposed change on the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Will series

Can I asked why its considered as promotion if the actor is confirmed in both rotten tomatoes and TV guide for his role and gets removed every time? Proof on these reliable sources. There are other actors that are already in the cast that are also considered as non notable so why cant he be added?https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/edward_hayter https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/edward-hayter/3000627243/ Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Indiscriminate sources such as Rotten Tomatoes or TV Guide do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not meant to list everyone who is in a TV show or a movie, that is that IMDB is for. If you cannot get the draft approved, you should stop writing about the person on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction - Steven Crowder

You stated, incorrectly, in the edit summary section that I removed information. The edit history correctly points out that the person who made this edit: Edit By 108.7.16.199. It is clear that this anonymous user is somewhere in Peabody, Massachusetts. You made the incorrect assumption that it was me. Please do not do that. It is wrong and bad form. I live in the South, not in the Northeast. Otherwise, have a great day! LiwenAristodemos (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@LiwenAristodemos: No, I didn't. You should read the edit summary again. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: The edit summary says, "(Restored revision 1135458584 by LiwenAristodemos (talk)) Tags: Twinkle Undo". If you didn't write this edit summary then who did?LiwenAristodemos (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote it (well, twinkle wrote it, but same difference), but it does not say what you seem to think it says. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No. It says exactly what I think it says. It says that LiwenAristodemos removed the material and then you brought it back to the page. This is false. The material you brought back to the page was removed by 108.7.16.199, an anon IP editor somewhere in Massachusetts. That's what it should have said. Right now it is incorrect. Please do not place incorrect information in the edit summaries. Thank you. LiwenAristodemos (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're just wrong. Restored revision. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s very clear. @LiwenAristodemos you’ve misunderstood the edit summary created by Twinkle. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Just repeating something over and over again, even though is incorrect, does not make it correct. MrOllie removed these words, an edit that I agree with: "YouTube suspended the channel again for two weeks in October 2022 for violating its harassment, threats and cyberbullying policy. The channel had 5.94 million subscribers as of 2023." These words were removed incorrectly by the anon IP editor in MA. These words were not removed by me. So, MrOllie could not have restored the words that I removed because the words MrOllie restored, correctly, were the words removed by the anon IP editor. You are both wrong. LiwenAristodemos (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, no. MrOllie restored your version. Neither of us think you removed the material. Go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse or the Wikipedia:Help desk if you don’t believe us but please stop posting here to insist that you are right. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Correction - Bryant & Stratton College

Much of the page is out of date. Status of the college, colors, president, board of directors. The Student Outcomes section reflects one of 17 campuses, and not the main campus. The facts need to be updated. BSCIRA (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the way for you to do that is by suggesting changes on the article's talk page, not by flagrantly disregarding Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to do with this update, Ollie. This is the talk page, right? Or maybe I'm hallucinating. 184.80.225.218 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No. You do it on the article's talk page. And if you ar BSCIRA, please wait until your new username is approved. Do not circumvent your block by editing while not logged in, or you risk being permanently blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Poverty

I've asked for a third opinion. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

not selfpromo

Dear MrOllie

Thanks for your effort for monitoring the edits.

My edits as of 25/01/2023 are not "selfpromo" but rather necessary additions to wikipedia. These are recent review articles published in prestige high-impact battery journals, by prof. Stefano Passerini a world-leading authoriterian figure in the field of lithium-ion battery with 121 H-index (121 publications with 121 citations each), summarising the state-of-art understanding, development and future directions.

I am going to undo your "deletes" and please leave as is. thanks Manchuprincess (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What is your association with Stefano Passerini and/or Kun V. Tian, then? MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Stefano is a colleague and I am Kun V. Tian, we are knowlegable of this field through years of scientific research, and would like to contribute our knowledge. Will find time to edit the "unreliable source, better source needed, citation needed, etc." and I can not guarantee I will not cite our own publications if they are the reliable and better sources. Manchuprincess (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest - I see that you have previously been warned about this on your user talk page, but have so far ignored the warnings. You absolutely should not be systematically adding self citations as you have been. If you would like to suggest one of your own papers as a citation, you may do so on the article's associated talk page. Do not add it yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction - Definition of Risk

My recent update had a link to an academic paper that outlines some of the controversy around newfangled definitions of risk that do not conform with history, etymology or ordinary language use of the term. == mitchell360 == 18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the paper, and it did not support the language you attempted to add to the article. Please direct all further conversation about this to the article's talk page, that is the proper location for this. - MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve protected 0

Seemed the best thing to do. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but I suppose I don't disagree. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but as both of you were past 3RR.... Doug Weller talk 09:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither of us were, actually (not after I noticed and self-reverted, anyway), but I understand protecting before anybody got themselves in trouble. Consensus has already developed on the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Shall I unprotect? Doug Weller talk 18:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How to create a new page

How to create a new pages that no exists on wikipedia? MrOllie Rahul8460R (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The essential first step is to stop filling your drafts with unreliable sources and linkspam. - MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"AlphaFold paper"

Daer MrOllie,

Could you please let me know why you delete all my comments which are related to the AlphaFold Paper? The edits that I made are very neutral and didn't contain any advertisements or promotions. If you think my edits on the AlphaFold Wikipedia page contain any promotions, please also delete the "SARS-CoV-2" section since it even mentions the university name.

Thank you.

--Kwikwivk (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia isn't a place to publicize particular companies or their R&D efforts, and even if your edits weren't promotional (they were) they must meet WP:MEDRS when the information is in the biomedical space. Can you explain what your relationship to Insilico and/or the paper's authors is? MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

GEN is a 3rd party source. I used https://www.genengnews.com/topics/drug-discovery/first-application-of-alphafold-in-identifying-potential-liver-cancer-drug/ to support my edits. Also, could you answer why the "SARS-coV-2" section meets the requirements then? They also "publicise their R&D efforts".

Thank you. Kwikwivk (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Merely being a 3rd party source is not sufficient to meet sourcing requirements. I am disinclined to answer your questions about other sections if you're going to ignore my own queries. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I have a bachelor's degree in biotechnology and work at Hong Kong Science and Technology Park. I attend a journal club and follow local research. I never got any payment for any Wiki edits, and I am not an author on any of these papers or companies, and I don't have coi.

As you may know, Insilico is the most famous company in AIDD in Hong Kong. It may be unfair to treat our local DeepMind with bias. Since I am not paid and not associated with these studies, I hope you can reconsider your removal. I make many other edits and happy to follow more companies. Kwikwivk (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Given how much of your editing was promoting this company, and given the other accounts that have been doing the same, I stand by my removals. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But this is simply not true. And I never edited company page and only learned how to improve articles and always complied with policy and provided high-quality edits. With no payment. What proof would you require from me? Kwikwivk (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were transparent promotion, and they did not meet the WP:MEDRS standard. You were not complying with policy, and they were not 'high-quality' edits. I don't need any proof from you, your editing history is plenty. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

preprint as a source

Dear friend, you have reverted an edit based on the cited source as a preprint. I don´t find a valid reason. Or should we think that a web page like the ones cited is a better source?. Thanks a lot Agatagris (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Agatagris See Preprint#Disadvantages of preprints. We shouldn't use them. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

organic farming link

Dear sir! I added an external link on organic farming which contains full details about organic farming its benefits, types etc. So , added it because it gives more knowledge to users. Thank you. Devil00012 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your blog is not a usable source for Wikipedia. Please stop spamming us. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Help regarding fit of external link

Hi, an external link was added to the Cochlear Implant International Community of Action to the article Cochlear Implant. This group is an NGO global volunteer "community of cochlear implant user and family advocacy groups and individuals who support a shared vision of closing the global gap in cochlear implant provision and ensuring lifelong support for all who benefit." They produce documents to help decision making by the public as well as by health care systems such as described here https://ciicanet.org/resources/

You deleted the link and mentioned WP:ELNO, which was very helpful, thanks. Still, it left me wondering if there was another way to keep the link, perhaps by making it clear what they have to offer? I ask because it seems to me that what they offer is helpful to the public. I am not associated with them but I am trying to help them develop a strategy for their members to contribute input into Wikipedia. Sorry for the long entry.

TMorata (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think so. Wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting or spreading advocacy, even when the causes involved are good ones. We don't link to the Humane society on animal articles or the Sierra Club on articles about forests either. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I appreciate it.

TMorata (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Captain Wikipedia is available!

The user name CaptainWikipedia is available!! Just a jest, sorry, I couldn't resist. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Good evening Mr Ollie, I want to ask you about the reason for reverting my citation in the tourism article. Since I rephrase what is written from the other page, and I cited the link for the reliable website. I would like to hear from you. Thank you in advance. Lana klsam (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use blog posts as sources, and Wikipedia does not express opinions in that manner ('Tourism can be a great and a viable option'). I reverted for both reasons. - MrOllie (talk)

Regarding reverting edits to the Ambient Intelligence page

Hello Mr. Ollie,

Pursuant to our exchange on the Talk page for the "Ambient Intelligence" article - First, thank you for your comments.

In any case, I revised my edits according to your comments, focusing only on language edits, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take a quick look before I make them on the live article (I wouldn't want to make them and for them be reverted again)? I hope this is an acceptable request.

Kindly let me know.

Many thanks. Wikibn11 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep all discussion on the article's talk page, please. If you have edits to propose, you may do so there. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Wikibn11 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References to chesshistory.com

I see that you have been removing some links to chesshistory.com from chess-related pages. You should be aware that there are (at least) two different users who have been adding these links: User:Faranan2030 and User:Chess2050. There was some discussion of the issues in User talk:Chess2050 in late 2019.

In a nutshell, Winter's website is generally regarded as a reliable secondary source for chess history material. But adding citations of one's own website to Wikipedia is not a constructive pastime, for reasons that I am sure you are familiar with; and I don't think that adding citations of someone else's website is a good idea, either.

Another interesting question is why two different users are involved. The first thing I thought of was that some sort of block evasion might be involved; but I don't know that either of these users has been blocked. A look at the history of Raymond Keene shows that one user has restored material that was originally contributed by the other, but deleted by one or another third party.

Thanks for your interest. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Also Barnabas17 (talk · contribs) and a few IPs. There's no overlap, so even if it is the same person I doubt the use of multiple accounts is a policy violation. The systematic linking is definitely an issue, though. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Overzealous Deletion

I have added to the page "Digital Nomad" a translation of the resolution supporting the Digital Nomad Visa in Brazil as a reference. You have deleted it, as this was spamming. However, in the same reference section, there is an entry for the exact resolution in Portuguese, which adds zero value to a page in English.

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciano.nyc (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You added a link to your own website, which is most of your activity here. That is indeed spamming. There is no requirement that all citations be in English. - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule saying I cannot link to my website and how much of my activity is adding links to my website does not make the entry you reverted spammy.

Finally, the fact that there is no requirement for citations to be in English does not explain why you see value in an entry in Portuguese and no value for my entry in English. Luciano Oliveira 20:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciano.nyc (talk • contribs)

See WP:COI, WP:CITESPAM, and WP:ELNO points 4 and 11. If you are here to build an encyclopedia and not to link your own sites, I suggest you start working from reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed articles or books from major publishers. If you're here to link your own sites, I do not expect that will go well once an admin notices. - MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits to Medical device page

Restored revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_device&oldid=1137576819 1136146439 by Ozzie10aaaa (talk): WP:MEDRS / promo of particular device undo

My edit is not promotional rather an example of an unrepresented type of technology as stated in the source.

The example was given because of the source for "electromagnetic tracking system (EMTS)"

If Wikipedia find this too promotional I suggest to publish my entry as follows:

1. Navigation-guided equipment includes navigation systems for the brain, cardiology, ENT (ears, nose, throat), lung procedures, and navigation systems for placing enteral feeding tubes. Enteral feeding tubes are placed in the stomach or small intestine to maintain the patient’s food, fluid and medications intake, for example ENvue System or other placement devices.

Kindly let me know. Roastedanna (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

1) That would not solve the issue that your sourcing does not comply with WP:MEDRS and 2) Mentioning a specific system in this context is still promoting it. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits to the polyominoes page

Please follow the discussion I started on the following wiki page and justify your action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polyomino#External_links_modified Pan-wiki-tsik (talk)

Edward Winter

Winter is a well regarded chess historian. He is very meticulous with his sources (same as wikipedians are expected to be). He has published several books. He certainly qualifies as a subject matter expert. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. His website is also being systematically spammed across Wikipedia. (spam is a behaviour, not necessarily a content judgment) MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In Elaine Pritchard, the citation of Winter at the first sentence was not due to spamming, but was present when the article was first created. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In Bobby Fischer, in addition to the recent "spammed" reference to Winter, you deleted three others. It is pretty breathtaking that you removed citations supporting the article text, without removing the text itself or at least providing a "citation needed" tag. Anyway, two of those citations were added by User:Krakatoa in 2010, in response to someone else's "citation needed" tag. The third one was added by User:Faranan2030 to support some text that the same user added. My reading of the that text and the cited reference does not give me a clear answer to the question of whether they were a helpful addition to the article. I will discuss this further in the talk page of the article. However, this material (about the training match with Gligoric prior to the 1992 Spassky match) has been in the article for almost a decade, so one must certainly get consensus before removing it. In the meantime I will revert the deletion of the three citations. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Images

What do you propose they should go on? Jacanaps (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use images under copyright as decoration, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I get it can you recreate them where they won't be copyright what can they be? Jacanaps (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No. We would need a release from the copyright holder, which we are not going to get. - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok sorry is there anything I can do to help? Jacanaps (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If there's nothing we can do I understand. Jacanaps (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No, not unless you happen to own the rights to one of these movies. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this person who made the images meant for they to be copyright he probably didn't know what to do. Jacanaps (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

He must have gotten confused and made minor mistakes. Jacanaps (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The images weren't ugly weren't they? Jacanaps (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So I guess there's nothing we can do not unless one of us is an autocomformined user. Jacanaps (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no use of using the images now they were deleted from wikicommons. Jacanaps (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

removal of relevant content from a wikipedia page

Hello MrOllie, When I went by chance on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_anti-plagiarism_software page, I saw that you had removed the Compilatio software from the list for the following reason: "nonnotable software". Compilatio is an anti-plagiarism solution that equips more than 1000 institutions in 35 countries around the world! Can you please argue your alteration?

Thank you 193.251.49.93 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a list of software with preexisting Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about wasting everyone's time

From time to time I try and explain how things work to one of the IPs that pops up, in hopes that maybe they'll understand how we operate. It seldom works, but I still feel compelled to try from time to time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There's been more activity on the GBD bios lately, I suspect these are folks coming in from a twitter thread somewhere already spoiling for a fight. MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for the Removal of Block on [www.techpedo.com] from Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia administrators,

I am writing to request that the block on my domain be lifted. I understand that my website has been blocked due to concerns about spamming, vandalism, or other malicious activity. I would like to assure you that I have taken steps to address these issues, and I am committed to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future.

Firstly, I would like to apologize for any past behavior that may have contributed to the block. I understand that Wikipedia has strict policies for maintaining a respectful and informative community, and I am committed to abiding by these policies in the future.

I have taken the following steps to address any issues that may have led to the block:

I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on external links, and I now understand what is and is not acceptable. I have reviewed the content on my website to ensure that it is not in violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I have removed any content that may be problematic. I have implemented measures to prevent spamming, vandalism, or any other malicious activity on my website. I would like to request that my domain be unblocked so that I can contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive way. I understand that Wikipedia is committed to promoting reliable sources and maintaining a high level of accuracy in its content, and I share this commitment. I would be willing to work with the community to ensure that any links I post are in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I am committed to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future, and I pledge to ensure that my website never becomes a source of concern again.

Sincerely,

[Abdul imran] [www.techpedo.com] Abdulimran007 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia does not entertain requests for blacklist removals made by site owners, especially not when they are (still) evading blocks they have received. Posting here it all is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Pages

Stop to show your power. You are in the community and be normal. It looks very stupid when somebody got power and starts to use it in Wikipedia. I already 10 years here and know such kind of individuals who are not able to be strong in the real world and transfer it to the virtual. It is already known that next your step will be to block me POLNET55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by POLNET55 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr.Onlie Hi, It was necessary. Because none of these sources are of the Government of India. The information is based on just two person's opinions, just published in a regional magazine. You can check it. How can we add such information? So I removed, As Wikipedia is world-wide famous and provides correct information . I noticed you again added it. My request to you, please remove it. Kushdeep12 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You can find Wikipedia's guidelines on sources at WP:RS. As you can see, we cite much more than the 'Government of India'. Your deletions are improper. MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't understand. I wanted to say. The information's sources are not trustworthy. So I deleted it. Just look at the sources. These sources are just from some journals or just someone's explanation. And also the definition is not clear enough. Can I add the template "unreliable source " or "better source needed " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushdeep12 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand you, I just disagree. The source is fine and it should not be deleted. Do not add any templates. On Wikipedia, peer-reviewed journals are considered the best possible sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Again I say Sir please read the sources. one person "Mr. Mohanty" just gave his own opinion, why is this source trustworthy?Any journal isacceptable? He said east sea or Bay of Bengal was called Kalinga Sagar. But he didn't mention the total portion or any geographical map And Mr. Nitin Agarwal's opinion is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushdeep12 (talk • contribs)

If you have questions about sourcing on Wikipedia, read WP:RS thoroughly and ask any followup questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. We're not going to remove the source in question. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't understand what did you mean, however I am a new user. But I understood Wikipedia can accept anyone's opinion. It don't judge is it acceptable or not. I gave enough definitions, what is the reason. I just wanted to help , so that people can get correct information. I just said, can I give a template? But it doesn't allow.Can you tell me Why did you remove my edits? Because I am not admi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushdeep12 (talk • contribs)

Stop adding a new section every time you post here. Do not add a template. Read and understand Wikipedia's sourcing policy at WP:RS, you clearly have not done that. I reverted your edit because it was incorrect, and made the article worse. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you. My last question to you, You said the source is perfectly fine. I don't know how did you know, however I noticed the template "better source needed" is already used in this article. Kushdeep12 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That a template is used in one place does not mean it is appropriate to use it incorrectly somewhere else. Since you cannot follow simple instructions on proper use of this talk page, do not post here again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dvorak citespam

Stop to show your power. You are in the community and be normal. It looks very stupid when somebody got power and starts to use it in Wikipedia. I already 10 years here and know such kind of individuals who are not able to be strong in the real world and transfer it to the virtual. It is already known that next your step will be to block me POLNET55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by POLNET55 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to self-promote. Stop spamming us with citations to your own work. - MrOllie (talk)

You are not the Global Governance that to decide what is the best to Wikipedia. The community gave to you some powers and you must to work according community wishes. You are not able decide on the content of the article as you are not competent in all spheres. These articles improve the content of the Wikipedia and important for the readers POLNET55.

1. stopMrOllielawlessness — Preceding unsigned comment added by POLNET55 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You've been abusing Wikipedia to promote yourself for a long time. It is time to stop now. Seeing your name on Wikipedia is not 'important for the readers', it is only important for you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You are creating the rules which make Wikipedia out of it mission. Do you know all Wikipedia rules? I'm not sure. So stop dictate what is not you competence, just review that persons who make changes make it correctly!!! POLNET55 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Spamming yourself all over Wikipedia is not make it correctly!!!. Even setting that aside, your changes are WP:UNDUE, poorly written, and unhelpful, usually all three at the same time. But your conflict of interest prevents you from evaluating this objectively, and now that you have been called on it you respond with the personal attacks we see on display here. Insulting me is not going to help your cause. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorporate external link.

I don't want to add external link but i just add a proof of that edit on site where a whole article is written. So i just add this article link to my recent edit. I don't know how to add my article where I write whole article on recent edit topics. Can you suggest how can I do it. 2402:3A80:1960:24CE:CCB7:F866:BBAC:4C2 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what link you're talking about. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of info. related to MaaS

Hello MrOllie,

I noticed that you have removed edits on a page twice now related to MaaS.

The info. that was removed provides mobility applications which offer MaaS.

This info. is relevant for the topic & existed before I edited it.

Could you please clarify why you are continuing to remove it? Thanks! TsBhA (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote companies or make indiscriminate lists of companies. See WP:NOT. 'Relevant' is not sufficient for inclusion, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plumbing companies would be 'relevant' to our article on plumbing, but we don't make lists of plumbers. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing Redeemer Page

Please stop reverting or changing the Redeemer Christian High School wikipedia page. These edits are wrong/incorrect, and could be considered Vandalism.

Thank you, EpicEfeathers (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one making changes without sourcing, which is required per WP:V. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, the changes now have a source. Hopefully this issue has been resolved. EpicEfeathers (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria anyway, so I expect it will soon be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It will most likely not be soon deleted, as it does not qualify for any of wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] points, and has been around for 10 years. Anyways, signing out, EpicEfeathers (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It has zero independent sources, and you will find that they are required. That no one has noticed a problem for a while (even a long while) does not mean that it is not a problem. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your message to me about removals

Hello, MrOllie. Thanks for your notice. As I do not know exactely what you have removed, I am asking you to let me know. All content I am adding / changing in Wikipedia usually has references or links to other encyclopedically relevant Wiki pages. Sometimes I may need extra time to enter those references, as I do not spend my entire time with Wikipedia ... Cheers and best regards - Hageteha (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything you add needs a reliable, external citation. See WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't have time to add the references, you should not add the content until you do. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, here I am taking my time. Please let me know what of the content in your eyes was un-sourced opinion. If the notion of "Architecture" is considered by you to be unsourced, then please note that the Wiki-Link to the Arcadia (engineering) method is a valid reference. If you need another external reference to "Arcadia", here it is: Model-based System and Architecture Engineering with the Arcadia Method, Jean-Luc Voirin, 388 pages, ISTE Press - Elsevier 2017, ISBN: 9781785481697. If you see further references required, please let me know exactely for which of the issues you want to see those references.

Thanks in advance and with best regards Hageteha (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't cite any sources, so all of it was obviously unsourced. Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for itself. Adding Wikilinks is not adding citations. If you have questions about sourcing or how Wikipedia is written, I suggest you visit WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am very sorry to bother your comfort zone again. I want to add among others the external reference I have cited above which is definitely NOT a Wikipedia Reference. But due to your removal I am not allowed to add any further references to my previous additions. If that is what you want, than that is fine to me and I will discontinue my efforts in this case while leaving the readers without such encyclopedically relevant information. I do not want to waste my precious time on fruitless discussions!!! Hageteha (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Hageteha (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Appraisal spam

Listing a citation of a source of information is not promotion, I beg your parson? I also have no affiliation with any cited sources, I think your out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkin90R (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding links to commercial marketing materials absolutely is promotion. If you aren't affiliated with them simply stop adding the links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Then you can write it and find sources you like? Balkin90R (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

apparently all the citations here are marketing materials...I didnt know that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkin90R (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Epileptic Animals page

I'm unsure as to why you felt the need to revert all of my changes to an older, less detailed version of this page when I did source my edits. Please explain. Minitalia (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Webmd isn't a reliable source for medical information. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of referenced stats from Solana intro

Blockchains are developer platforms - it is not 'strange trivia' to mention the popularity of any developer platform, particularly if this is notable information. Also please refrain from deleting referenced material - even if you didn't think the popularity was relevant, it's better to move this information than delete it. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep it on the article's talk page, please. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Strange threats and false accusations.

Refain from accusing users of adding original research, when all they have done is add a source and clarify that the other sources provided do not reflect the claims made. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You are drawing a distinction between eastern and western astrology where none exists - that is the original research. The sources do not draw a distinction so neither can Wikipedia's articles. Please direct any followup to the talk page of the article in question. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with information, solve it via accurately sourced and accurately used information, not by making threats against other users. If you are not able to do that, you may always choose to be silent. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You will find that most people on Wikipedia will have a problem when you add blatantly incorrect, unsourced information to articles, which is what you are doing. If you continue like this I fully expect you will find yourself blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Edward Winter (chess historian)

You are welcome to reapply the COI tag iff you are able to explain the specific problem that made you apply the tag. In other words, to apply the COI tag you need to start a talk discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a promotional article that was written by the subject (and who has removed all criticism of himself), but OK MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not OK. If you can substantiate this claim, I welcome you to reapply the tag. I removed the tag because there was no talk discussion and no ongoing efforts to fix the problem. You appear to be an experienced editor - I shouldn't have to point you to our relevant procedure, but in case you are unaware, here goes anyway: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, taking special care to remind you of the subsequent section to avoid outing.

Whichever approach you take is up to you. All I can do is to state that the previous approach you tried - drive-by tagging an article with no explanation - isn't particularly constructive. Best of luck, CapnZapp (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Once more, please don't give up just because our COI policy is a bit involved. Assuming you can substantiate your claims, your input could be very worthwhile in improving a biographical article that I see could fly under the radar as it were quite easily. Could you - on the article talk - point to specific edits you believe should be scrutinized, editing patterns by various editors? (This is my final post on your talk; you are certainly free to simply step back) CapnZapp (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't find working on chess articles to be rewarding. I have removed the article from my watchlist. As far as I'm concerned, you now own the issue - you can do (or not do) what ever you feel is appropriate with it, just leave me out of it. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

euro

Thank you for that revert. Would you keep an eye on this new editor, please? I don't know if WP:Competence is required provides a get-out clause for wp:3RR but either way I shouldn't be the only one keeping tabs on what they do. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

About those external links

What is wrong with those links? They aren't hurting anything. Sundropie (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I already pointed you to the relevant guideline on your user talk page. You need to follow it. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I already followed it and it says there is nothing wrong with the external links that I edited. Sundropie (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No. You are obviously violating the guideline, which specifically prohibits such links to fan sites and wikis. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Apology notice

I'm so sorry for editing those external links like that. What I did was very wrong. I'm just new at this. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Emotion edit-

Do you have an objection to the style of sfns, or that the article was temporarily inconsistent. If the latter, I can edit the whole thing offline and publish in a single edit. J JMesserly (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To see the benefits of the upgrade, I recently transitioned Bird vocalizations. Besides the removal of the inline <ref> clutter, and sorting of the sources, much work was done to correct and upgrade citations as part of this maintenance. J JMesserly (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR you should not be switching or mixing citation styles. You should self revert your changes at Bird vocalizations and start the required discussion. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, my understanding was the guidance was not to switch from styles such as from harv to sfn. From your reading, no one can employ either of these vastly superior sets of templates without consensus. Since you have an objection, I will not perform any improvements to the highly disorganized, erroneous and inconsistent inline refs the article. However, your version of the article states something false about Hume's publication date. J JMesserly (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

By extension, you seem to be thinking that without concensus, cite templates cannot be used for new references in an article that never used them, or sfn or harv templates cannot be employed for new references if they have formerly never been employed in an article. Am I understanding you correctly? J JMesserly (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Switching away from inline cites is absolutely covered (quote: changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.) and requires getting consensus in advance. And yes, using citation styles inconsistently is also specifically mentioned in that guideline - you should not be doing that either. There is no Wikipedia-wide consensus that any set of cite templates or style is 'vastly superior' - that is the whole point of the guideline. MrOllie (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your point about mass conversion, but for my initial addition of two citations using sfn, what is the objection? Why is the guidance that they needed to be converted to inline references (which by the way was done with disregard to the quality of the reference, stripping out the page numbers). Sfn has been used in this article since 20 September 2012. In addition there are large numbers of non templated references. There is no consistent style being used so there is no guidance that says no one can use non inline references as have been used in the past. Your quote from citevar does not apply. They were not moved. They were new. So if you have no objection, I will restore the sfns to de Waal and Damasio and place the reference in the Further reading section as was done for the other sfns in the article.J JMesserly (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My objection is that the citation styles should be consistent, as the citation guidelines require. Please read and try to understand the relevant guideline. If someone improperly added a single sfn template, that is not an opening to continue improperly changing the cite style. Obviously, I continue to object. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your make an unsupported assertion that the citation style is now consistent. It is not. There is no regular use of cite templates versus plain text citations. There has been sfns in this article for 11 years. Please help me understand your assertion that there is a consistent citation style in use within this article. Until there is a consensus to ban sfns which have been in use in this article since 2012 your edit was in violation of the very guideline you are quoting from. Standing back from this, the impact of your actions is that false information has been restored to wikipedia. How is this making wikipedia better? J JMesserly (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That all the citations are inline is a consistency all its own. Wikilawyering about the word 'consistent' because ~1.3% of the citations used an sfn template is not convincing. I don't see any false information, but if there is feel free to make that correction - using the inline citations that are the format used on that article. MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me. Not wikilawyering but Fact. Not all the citations are inline. Haven't been for 11 years. J JMesserly (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is like claiming that a single typo means an article doesn't use consistent spelling. MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The analogy is inapplicable. Typos in Wikipedia do not persist for over a decade. You believe that you are making an improvement to wikipedia by banning use of sfns from the emotion article. But unfortunately, you will need consensus to enforce that ban. Where is your consensus? J JMesserly (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your effort to reverse the burden of consensus is noted, but contrary to policy and practice on Wikipedia. Rather than arguing any further on my talk page, please confine further comments to one of the several other discussions you have opened on this topic. MrOllie (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonetheless you have achieved no such consensus for a ban. For further information on the incorrect and erroneously encoded information which you have restored to wikipedia, I suggest you read the content of what you reverted, and which I specifically already drew attention to in comments for the edits. To your wikilawyering comment, it seems on the contrary you are less interested in improving the content of Wikipedia that you are in asserting your opinion on other editors making good faith edits. Perhaps you would care to revert the holodomor article which also has had large numbers of sfns introduced in the past couple months.J JMesserly (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: don't post here about this again. Your personal attacks are not welcome here. MrOllie (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Multi-accounting browser

Hello! Thank you for checking my edits on the subject of antidetect (or multi-accounting) browsers. The topic of digital security is very important to me, because in Belarus after the 2020 protests, there is political persecution. I want to do my part in informing people how to keep privacy online and keep political speech free. I have made edits to the articles about identification and web tracking methods:

• Device fingerprint
• Web tracking

I tried to choose reliable sources for my article about anti-detect browsers. According to the similarweb.com version, geekflare.com has a total visits 4.1M and digitalconnectmag.com has a total visits 789.4K. Can you explain why these sources are unreliable? Thank you! I would be very grateful if you could check the draft article antidetect (or multi-accounting) browsers. It will greatly help to inform people and develop Wikipedia. Thanks! Keep on trying go wiki (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Visitor numbers don't mean anything, we follow what's in WP:RS. Digitalconnectmag is someone's blog, and has no editorial oversight or fact checking. Also, the article you cited there is obviously a paid advertisement for Octo Browser. The Geekflare list you cited is also an advertisement, full of paid referral links. - MrOllie (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it. The problem is that digital security and trying to avoid surveillance on the Internet is a specific topic. It's hard to find information about fingerprinting technologies rarely found outside of the enthusiast community.

I first knew about it from the article Browser Fingerprinting. How users are tracked on the web in Hacker Magazine. I think this is a relevant source. Would it be a good idea to link to articles in Russian? Keep on trying go wiki (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it is hard to find information on this. Security is widely written about and there is a robust body of literature on this - there is no reason to resort to Russian language sources for something like this. Have a look at Google Scholar (or whatever your favorite academic search engine happens to be) and use some peer-reviewed articles or books from major publishers. MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I used Google Scholar and did find a small number of peer-reviewed articles and books confirming the content of my edits. I used the new information to improve the article on antidetect (or multi-accounting) browsers I linked to. I hoped that it would help you check the content of the article. But you undid my edit. Why? If the problem was the link to the draft, the link to the article can be removed. Keep on trying go wiki ((talk) 07:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

why do you think items without wikipedia article are not allowed in comment hostings list?

[5] - you deleted HyperComments, Facebook, VK saying "Rm entry without wikipedia article". why do you think that such items should be deleted? are there any rule or community decision? if not, and it is sole your desicion, is not it vandalism? Qdinar (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, so cluttering up such lists with things that aren't actually members (the VK and Facebook entries) or are not notable (HyperComments) is unhelpful. This is the most common inclusion criteria for such lists of software across Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

so, you have changed the reason why you deleted them. Qdinar (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

ok, i see, you say it is most common criterion. i would like to see examples. Qdinar (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, do your own research. I'm not inclined to help out after you called me a vandal. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bullwhip effect

Thank for checking my edits. You removed a reference to a peer-reviewed paper on demand smoothing, with a comment "Apparent COI". The sentence referencing the paper only contains what is mentioned in the article - please feel free to check the source and reinstate the edit. Thanks. Opsprof553 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting promotional edits to C-V2X (again)

I noticed that Cellular V2X is full of unprofessional, unencyclopedic marketing fluff, promotional nonsense, puffery, and the like, all added by one user. I also saw that you reverted three of this same user's edits back in November. (Thank you for that.) After your revert, though, they added it all back in a minute later, and I think the same person logged back in later that same day from an anonymous IP and added more junk. I wanted to add the Advert template to the article but thought that I would first give you the opportunity to (once again) revert their edits. SixSix (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. MrOllie (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

About the Ms. Gsptlsnz page

I'm so sorry about editing the page like that. I thought Comic Vine is an appropriate link. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same mistakes about external links. You were also damaging the article by changing it in ways that did not match the cited sources (but added incorrect spellings). Your editing is making Wikipedia worse, and you must stop. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with Comic Vine and how could I add incorrect spellings? Sundropie (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to continue answering your repetitive questions (see WP:IDHT). You have claimed to understand the policies and guidelines several times before. You were either lying then, or you are deliberately violating the guidelines. Which is it? MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not delete my talk page posts again. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Edusemiotics as notable subfield of semiotics

In adding edusemiotics as a subfield of semiotics, I tried to refer to the main authors in this field, highlighting the work of founders Inna Semetsky and Andrew Stables, all major academic publications with significant citations. Can you explain why you question the notoriety of these sources and contributors? In my estimation, the range of volumes and review articles on edusemiotics suggests the need for this entry (see: Stables & Semetsky, 2015; Semetsky, 2016 (ed.); Deely & Semetsky, 2017) Dr. Sebeotic (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability has an established meaning on Wikipedia, which you can find at WP:N. We generally do not build lists of scholars that do not meet that standard. We also do not tend to write about neologisms that have not reached (very) wide use in unaffiliated sources. Are you associated with one or more of these authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I realize that established meaning. I assumed the neologism, coined in 2010 by Marcel Danesi -- and the subject of dozens of articles, several special issues and edited volumes, and a handbook -- met this established meaning. I am not associated with or know the authors; simply a contributor to a related field in education that has drawn from these resources/theoretical frameworks in separate work. Dr. Sebeotic (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Solana blockchain page

Hello, I tried to add a list of discussions (podcasts) about the Solana blockchain so that readers can get a perspective of Solana that does not reflect the negative biases of the authors of the Solana wikipedia page. You removed the podcasts saying that Wikipedia is not a link directory. How can I add a list of discussions about Solana so that Wikipedia users can get a balanced view of the Solana blockchain platform? Eugeneprokopenko (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, we don't carry external links to podcasts here. It is off-mission for an encyclopedia. There is no way to 'add a list of discussions about Solana' because that is not what this platform is for. You also might want to look at WP:FALSEBALANCE - we follow the tone of independent sources, we do not seek to provide a 'balanced view'. To cite an admittedly extreme example, consider what a flat earther would consider a 'balanced view' of Flat earth. Please direct any further discussion to Talk:Solana (blockchain platform), which is where such things belong. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, MrOllie. You have new messages at Talk:Breakdancing.
Message added 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

About the pellet mill page

1.I add my process principle about the pellet mill, can my content be republished if I don't add any links?

2. Can I add a link to the archive.org category to view the archives. Stormalex (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to Solana_(blockchain_platform)

You recently removed developer stats for the Solana blockchain. As mentioned in the edit history when this information was re-added, the majority of modern blockchains are platforms for distributed applications - a blockchain being popular with developers is indeed a notable aspect of the blockchain. See Blockchain and Decentralized_application for more on this topic.

Note I did not raise the importance flags re: Melania Trump. However I did remove the information per the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You are in violation of the editing restrictions on crypto articles, as I already notified you on your talk page. I take it from this posting that you are not planning to self revert, so I'll report the violation. - MrOllie (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I have undone the vandalism as previously discussed. As discussed on your own page, your behaviour in this matter is not constructive. How do I report other users for engaging in edit wars? I am very happy for a neutral third party to judge both of our actions in this matter. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to be discussing this in 4 places, I will not respond here any further. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. For what it's worth, I raised the matter here immediately after undoing your edits for vandalism. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Fintech: Revision history - jargon bomb

Hello MrOllie,

I refer to your change: 19:22, 17 March 2023‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 31,617 bytes −244‎ rm jargon bomb for the page Fintech.

This was my contribution to an existing paragraph that has existed since the origins of the page: curprev 14:14, 4 March 2023‎ Charlesberthillon talk contribs‎ m 32,054 bytes −273‎ As such,[...] solutions. These niche areas ,[...] services. I removed the last sentence: "A subset of fintech companies that focus on the insurance industry are collectively known as insurtech or insuretech companies.6,7" The last sentence was reducing the scope of the concept undo Tags: Visual edit references removed

You are referring to "jargon bomb", but this jargon already exists in the world of Fintech and was mentioned in the paragraph above mentioned, before I modified it: the paragraph was not exhaustive. Would you be kind an replace the paragraph with your terms should you consider a paragraph safe from the jargon bomb?

Fintech is a global term that includes a lot of segments, I think this page should introduce the areas of the Fintech as it is defined in the page for Finance.

Happy to contribute further

Charles

Charlesberthillon (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Charlesberthillon

The lead summarizes the rest of the article, and none of what you wrote is a summary of the body of the article. And in general, these companies introduce a lot of neologisms in their marketing, but you have provided no sourcing to indicate these are distinct market segments. Direct any followups to Talk:FinTech, which is where this sort of discussion belongs. MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I will follow up on Talk:FinTech with sources.

Best Regards Charlesberthillon (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I apologize for sending this message, but I would like to request your opinion on the best approach for a situation. I was surprised by the aggressiveness in the Talk:FinTech space, but it has helped me to better understand the logic applied on Wikipedia. Before returning to this space, I would like to submit the following content for your advice.

I would like to add this paragraph in the Fintech page, second paragraph of the introduction:

The main business functions in Fintech include Payment Services, Credit and Lending, Insurance Services, and Investment/Wealth Management linked to client services. Additionally, Fintech encompasses support services such as RegTech for Financial Regulation. The financial industry has used persistent neologisms to define market segments based on these business and support functions. These Fintech segments include InsurTech, RegTech, WealthTech, Blockchain/cryptocurrency, and Cybersecurity.

My aim is to develop each one of this business segments and articulate the Fintech page as an umbrella for other wikipedia pages, such as neobank ...which refers to Fintech by the way

Sources: I worked on 3 main sources for this paragraph: 2 corporates Deloitte and KPMG; and one from Elsevier

https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2021/08/pulse-of-fintech-h1.pdf

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/financial-services/articles/uk-fintech-landscape.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666954422000084

I hope you can share your experience on my request.

Thank you in advance

Charles Berthillon (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Charlesberthillon

You encountered hostility because you have a conflict of interest. The Wikipedia community tends to have very little patience with COI editors, and that is part of the reason why editing in areas where you have a COI is strongly discouraged. Due to your COI, You should not add that to the article. Given the reception you have already gotten on the article talk page, it is very clear that would not enjoy support from other editors. Making such a change anyway would be a very bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincerity. I will not publish on this page then. Feel free to ask me questions on Fintech should you like to publish on the Fintech page. Charles Berthillon (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

SOAP and gRPC changes by ArtemArzamastcev

Hello @MrOllie, that you marked spam it's not correctly, cuz this topics are not fully covered and API protocols comparison is an important part while learning about them, I could add links to Wiki pages, but they are not ArtemArzamastcev (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You're repetitively adding a link to a vendor's website to Wikipedia. That is spam as we define it here. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I added links today first time to this vendor, if 3 links in a row it's to much for one day - ok, I will know, but it's not spam! it's high quality content from Google TOP ArtemArzamastcev (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not true, you also added these links in 2021. Wikipedia isn't a place to insert links to vendors. You have now been warned - if these links continue to be added your account may be blocked and/or the site will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. If you're not here to spam, simply don't add the link again. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Renfield

Hello @MrOllie: it really is that simple. Earlier today, Chris McKay confirmed that the 2023 Universal Pictures Dracula film Renfield will serve as a direct sequel to Tod Browning's original 1931 English language Universal Pictures Dracula film, marking "[t]he longest time between the original movie and the sequel". It is not a controversial statement: it's literally just what he says. 89.19.67.200 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Keep it on the article's talk page where it belongs, and do not edit war. Wait for WP:CONSENSUS support for your edits. - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for removing a lot of spam links!!! Hajoon0102 💬 03:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

About Rujak

Hello @MrOllie we need to revert the page "rujak" to its original spelling. Thanks Arif doudo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No. You don't move articles by cutting and pasting, and you have been deleting things at random as well. Stop. MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

So I can just claim...

I read in a book today at the library and it said: Aristotle said thatBatman was proclaimed king after Codrus? Obviously not, you need legitimate sources not just proclaimations. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats how that user and i got in this mess in the first place. Wild proclamations with no acutal evidence. By your logic I can say i read in the constitution that Batman made a claim that its our constitutional right to poop on the white house lawn and just simply citate the constitution as evidence? Lol no. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@PaUZz LYte: Read WP:RS and WP:CITE before continuing to waste everyone's time. Sundayclose (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Books are 'actual evidence'. If you lied about what you found in a book, you'd simply be banned from Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Books are absolutely actual evidence. People claiming this or that is within them on the other hand, with no evidence, not so much. Well, not at all actually. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Offline sources. If you delete any more sources based on that faulty argument, I expect that you will be blocked. Honestly, based on the display at ANI, you might get blocked either way. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." If you delete anymore sources with YOUR logic then yes you'll absolutely be blocked. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have warned PaUZz LYte to stop posting here. Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you very much, MrOllie, for detecting and reverting citation spam. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Food Studies page

Curious as to how this can be made to work - I totally understand your point about advertising / soapboxing, but think the institutions researching the subject are important. The rest of the information on this page has been generated by research institutions. I would love to be able to work with you to rectify this. Thank you. Jmallenfood (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what your connection to the University of Exeter is? MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I was a student there. Jmallenfood (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Software Modernization page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_modernization Cloud Migration options have moved from 5R's to 6R's. It needs to be updated under the Modernization Options. I tried changing it but my changes were rejected. Here is an article on the latest approach https://kumaran.com/blogs/birds-eye-view-of-software-modernization/. Let me know about please. Kumaran66 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use your blog as a source. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Reinforcement Theory (OB Mod)

Hello, I am seeking to understand why you removed my update in OB MOD section with the reasoning/justification as more Stajkovic citespam? Literature for the work and evidence was provided and is readily available online and published in journals. JRKWBS (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your connection to Stajkovic or Luthans? MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I took a class by professor Stajkovic. I do not work for the University. I found the topic specific to OB Mod to under supported on Wiki thus the addition and citation specific to OB Mod with supporting literature. JRKWBS (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As a person with a WP:COI you shouldn't be adding this. There has been a long term campaign of single purpose accounts adding references to Stajkovic, and it has to stop. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote a particular person or their work. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to understand this better and learn. In reading the links you shared, you are saying that I have a conflict of interest since my very first post is considered to be associated with long term campaign data? The relationship disclosure is simply that I took the class. And because of this, regardless of the scientific data or scientific journals to support the post that I attempted, the entry is not acceptable? How is Wikipedia in general not promoting work of individuals or groups of individuals that contribute to a specific area research or expertise? This statement is contradicting on the basis of how knowledge is cultivated and created, and apparently shared or censored. This basis for this type of judgement causes damage to the reputation of Wikipedia. JRKWBS (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Male Gaze Article Section: Question

Hi Mr Ollie,

I did notice you removed my section from the Male Gaze article. Wondering if I could get some clarity? I don't believe it's opinionated to say the male gaze definitely has some influence on heterosexual pornography. If you could even maybe help me rewrite it I would love input. thank you Aliahguzmanceja (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You wrote what sounds like a college essay, making claims about what is important, relevant, and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to host essays. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

can you perhaps offer some help and examples on how to write about the male gazes effects on heterosexual pornography in a manner that wouldn't result in the removal of it? Aliahguzmanceja (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the single source that has been provided, I don't really believe such a section is warranted, so I don't think that would be a good use of my time. If you have general questions you should direct them to WP:TEAHOUSE, or if you want to discuss the article further you can do so at its associated talk page. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence: Question

Hey, what's up? I removed a section claiming a "scientific consensus" with no citation.

I also added a map that shows folks geographic distributions of measured IQ - highly relevant to the topic. Not sure why you called it "fringe"

Brandon (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Citations are in the body of the article. Take it up on the article talk page, but be advised that there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus here, and the chances of adding the output of somebody like Richard Lynn is effectively zero. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

alrighty I'll separate any neutrality changes and discuss the merits of the image separately. we wouldn't want to throw out the data because some folks don't like the researcher Brandon (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Folks 'don't like the researcher' because his research methods are simply awful, and misrepresenting scientific consensus is not a 'neutrality change'. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Dragon curve in Python

Hi, can you please clarify what you mean by this new section being “redundant”?

Firstly, there is no example code implementation of constructing a dragon curve anywhere on the page, in any (programming) language. If there were, I might understand the “redundant” tag (though not necessarily, see below re: Gosper curve and Logo). Other famous space-filling/fractal curves also have code implementations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpiński_curve#Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lévy_C_curve#Sample_Implementation_of_Levy_C_Curve

Secondly, it is not obvious or intuitive, especially for beginner programmers (to whom this section is aimed), how to translate the description of the construction into a recursive function definition. I believe including this short section has much instructional value, without detracting from the reading experience in any way. Moreover, including a link to code that can be tinkered and experimented with aids with understanding in a way that static text or graphics cannot, allowing one to truly “feel” the connection between fractals and recursion.

Third and finally, this section is directly inspired by a corresponding section for the Gosper curve here, and I don’t see anyone removing that for being “redundant”, despite it being even more closely repeating the Lindenmayer system section than anything my section repeats, and there already being an implementation in another language Logo immediately prior. Nevertheless, the code differ significantly, and again, the link to interactive Python code that runs directly in the browser (not available with Logo) is very valuable.

It’s use-cases like these that make Wikipedia so much more dynamic and powerful as a learning tool than any traditional encyclopedia. To insist on reducing Wikipedia to merely a reference book is counter to the spirit and ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge that belies the Wikipedia project. I appreciate that work must be done to maintain the quality of the content, and I applaud and thank you for your efforts to that end. However, I must respectfully disagree that this is not a case where such work is needed.

Rubixmann (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It is redundant with the description of the curve itself, and it was unsourced - Wikipedia isn't a place to host code you've written. As to other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF - it could well be that that code should be removed rather than more added on other articles. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@ 47.152.157.10 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The description of the curve as it stands is manifestly opaque, especially with the grammatical error: “alternatively”, meaning “on the other hand, as another option/possibility”, should most likely be “alternately” or (the less standard) “alternatingly”.

This is exacerbated by the fact that on 13-14 March 2021, User:David Eppstein deleted a good deal of what looked like useful content. In particular, this included the precise, mathematical Lindenmayer system description of the curve from the Construction section, which is both mentioned in the lead section (so one would naturally expect it to be given later), and still present for the other curve variants on the page, namely Twindragon and Terdragon (as well as many other pages on fractals, the relevance of which as an argument shall now be discussed).

As to WP:OTHERSTUFF (ignoring the fact that that applies to deleting articles, not sections therein, which is covered in WP:OTHERCONTENT): “While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.” Moreover, see WP:SSEFAR: “…arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere.” If you could point out specific Wikipedia policy or guidelines either implicitly or explicitly banning the inclusion of code (unsourced or otherwise) detailing the implementation of some algorithm or construction, I would be much obliged.

In my opinion, the fact that the construction/algorithm itself is sourced means specific implementations in code need not be, as is the case for all code/pseudocode found on Wikipedia. See e.g. Binary search algorithm#Algorithm (Note: this is a Featured Page, and according to WP:OTHERSTUFF: “While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles … such as Featured article[s] … makes a much more credible case.” To use a blanket over-generalization like “Wikipedia isn’t a place to host code” in light of the above comes across as flippant, and adding the “you’ve written” part seems disingenuous, since it’s not the fact that I wrote it that’s the issue is it, after all, isn’t all content on Wikipedia (in theory) written by contributors like you and me?

Ultimately, “Whether a given instance of something can serve as a precedent for some other instance must be decided by way of consensus.” The question of whether code should or should not be a part of these pages is very much subject to discussion. As you said, it may well be that other code should removed, but it may also be that code should be added to other pages. But either way, it is absolutely NOT your prerogative to unilaterally delete any such content without discussion. To use a more illustrative example, would you go and delete 90% of Barnsley fern, with its dozen or so code examples, none of which are sourced, simply because you believe they are all “redundant” with the Construction or Computer generation section?

I hope others, including Prof. Eppstein, might weigh in on all this, including the other arguments in my original comment. But the question of code aside, I strongly believe that at least the L-system description should be put back. This is not an addition, it is merely restoring the section to a former more complete state and for the article to be more self-consistent.

Rubixmann (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

All this discussion belongs on the article's associated talk page, since other editors will probably wish to weigh in. Take it up there rather than here. I will note, though, that is absolutely IS my prerogative to unilaterally delete unsourced text without discussion, see WP:V and WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve copied our above discussion to the article’s talk page, there was a bit of confusion on my part, hence the reverts, sorry about that.

By the way, though I assume good faith and that you meant no ill will, I will just politely mention WP:BITE. Rubixmann (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edits on Bundelkhand and Khangar (community) pages

Hello MrOllie,

I would like to discuss the recent edits made on the Bundelkhand and Khangar Community pages. I have ensured that the content I added is in line with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View guidelines and is supported by reliable sources. Here are the links to my edits:

• Bundelkhand: [6]
• Khangar Community: [7]

I would appreciate it if you could provide more specific feedback on why you consider these edits "blatantly non-neutral." Moreover, I believe that threatening to block me is not in line with Wikipedia's Blocking Policy, and engaging in an edit war is not constructive for the community, as stated in the Edit Warring Policy. I am open to discussing these matters further and finding a solution that adheres to Wikipedia's policies.

Please consider this message as high priority.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards, Python2019‬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Python2019 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

EMDR

do you really think the few fringe "pseudoscience" people know more than the WHO, NICE, etc etc? JCJC777 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been addressed over and over at the article talk page, where such discussion belongs. Keep it there. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

sadly the fringe pseudoscience people are damaging wiki credibility here. the article does not portray the mainstream recommendation of this treatment for PTSD.

if wiki can be hijacked this easily it both reduces my view if wiki article value and my motivation to try to help maie wiki better.

it appears you side with them and/or are not brave enough to show leadership. JCJC777 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Coming on to people's user talk pages to personally attack them when they disagree with you is more likely to get you banned than to produce changes you would like in the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for any elements of what I said that were personal attack rather than challenge.

However I was stunned that, although sounding like a sensible person, you had

reverted positive and well-supported edits, to go back to an unsupported, bias and poor earlier versi- a version on which misrepresents the situation and wilfully blocks people seeking help for PTSD from accessing something that many people find work

Anyway apologies again.s. JCJC777 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Making even more personal attacks is a funny way to apologise. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

yep fair enough.

perhaps I'm misunderstanding thr purpose of wiki.

go well. JCJC777 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not faced by anyone your view

Hello MrOllie. Despite making detailed revisions and citing highly credible sources with strong social implementation as you suggested, I've been troubled by your abrupt revert. Please refrain from reverting without reading the content. Kindly review the edits made with great effort and make appropriate edits in line with the content. Please respond on the talk page as well.--Neotesla (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to guess at what you're trying to say, since this message is barely comprehensible English. I have read all the content, and I disagree with it. You know this, because it is not the first time we have discussed it. Your edit warring is not a fix for the numerous policy problems that have been explained to you. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No-Code Development

Dear MrOllie,

I am writing in regards to my recent edit to the No-code development platform page that was removed by you without any explanation. I am hoping to understand why my edit was removed and to find a resolution to this issue.

As a Wikipedia editor, I understand that accuracy and reliability are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the platform. However, I do believe that my edit was relevant, well-researched, and contributed positively to the page.

I would appreciate it if you could kindly explain why my edit was removed and provide any constructive feedback that could help me improve my contributions to the platform in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Themdfarhan (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I listed the relevant policy in my edit summary: WP:ELNO. Wikipedia isn't a link directory and your list of external links didn't belong on the article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia.

I understand your concern about the links not belonging to the article. However, I believe that the event links I included were relevant to the topic and provided additional information that would be useful to readers.

If there are specific guidelines or policies that I should follow when adding external links to Wikipedia, please let me know. I am always open to constructive feedback and learning how to improve my contributions to the platform. Themdfarhan (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please explain your connection to the company Quixy and/or the events you're trying to list on the page. MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up question. I must disclose that I am affiliated with Quixy, and my edit was made in the interest of providing accurate and relevant information to the page's readers. However, I understand the importance of maintaining objectivity and avoiding conflicts of interest when contributing to Wikipedia. As such, I have taken great care to ensure that the information I provided is unbiased. As no-code evangelist I still think these event add great value and if you check all the events they don’t belong to a single organisation. I request you check the links again.

Thanks Themdfarhan (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You're violating Wikipedia's terms of use as outlined in WP:PAID, and you absolutely should not be adding external links to sites affiliated with Quixy. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify that my edit includes events from multiple companies, not just Quixy.

I understand Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest state that "paid or unpaid, editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from directly editing an affected article". My intention in adding these links is to provide additional information to readers that is not already included in the article. Themdfarhan (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just stop adding mentions of Quixy, and stop adding spammy links. Your intentions may be good but you are obviously violating our guidelines and policies. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

CO2 coalition

I edited the CO2 Coalition to accurately reflect what it is they do, specifically explaining the benefits of CO2 in the atmosphere. You removed my edit without explanation, and reverted the page to the inaccurate description of the CO2 Coalition as a 'climate denier'. There is no such thing as 'Climate Denial' except in the political debate arena. Scientifically changes in climate are well known and accepted by every scientist. What is lacking in today's discussion is an explanation of well known benefits of CO2 such as plant fertilization. Yet you deleted without explanation my edits. Wikipedia exists to crowd source human knowledge and your political editing detracts from Wikipedia's mission. Please take your discussion to a 'climate denial' page and cease from inaccurately censoring other contributors speech. Thank you. Had3Mel (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You whitewashed the article by removing well-sourced content, creating a massive neutrality problem. Repairing such a problem is not 'censoring other contributors speech.' If you must follow up on this, do so at the article's associated talk page, not my personal talk page. But I firmly suggest you have a read of WP:FRINGE and drop it. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm done with Wikipedia. It has become an unreliable and horribly biased playground for ideologues. Not fixable. Had3Mel (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No account for "User talk:MrOllie"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/User_talk:MrOllie "User talk:MrOllie" is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if it is registered on other wikis. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/User_talk:MrOllie There is no global account for "User talk:MrOllie" Novalis69 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Why are you posting nonsense on my talk page? MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I also notice that User:Novalis69 had one edit in the past 8 years before today, and that they previously edited many of the same articles that User:Eklir has recently been editing. Looks very ducky to me. Donald Albury 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a SPI was filed. I'm guessing you're right, but we'll see what the official results are. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Microbiome

In the article Microbiome, you deleted what seems to me an entirely relevant addition, an addition which I would assess as appropriate. Your edit summary says enigmatically "citespam", without any indication of what you might mean by that. What am I missing? — Epipelagic (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was added by a sock account, part of a set of socks that systematically adds citations to a small group of academics. If you think it benefits the article feel free to put it back. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This addition is important for Wikipedia community. It took me a long time to read the literature and update this value. Levyitau (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is the "last account" you refer to on their user page? SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry - I found it. Orrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one time I was able to get some talk page engagement. There are more, the oldest one I found goes back to 2011 or so. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It is very nice to see the conspiracy.

I am not related to any of the sock accounts that you have mentioned.

I am a researcher at Yale University and I am an expert on network science and ecology and its applications, and I am very surprised by your decisions, when cutting my text.

I was citing more than a dozen of scientist.

I completely understand your point, and I saw what you mention as sock puppets, but you are wrong about me.

I fully disagree with your decision that hurts the community of Wikipedia readers (as you saw for example in Human Microbiome).

It seems that we will not agree on this case, that you delete my contributions. Neither one of us will give up on his truth, thus I would like to appeal to a third party.

Could you please tell me what is the recommended procedure in this case?

Best regards,

Levyitau Levyitau (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet you have made identical edits to the socks. MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

It is not accurate. In some of my edits I adopted prior versions. In many others, I written the text from scratch.

I understand the issue that you are raising, and I don't have any better solution, besides focusing on the scientific community which I am a part of.

The text I wrote is beneficial to the good of all. I am following the Wikipedia rules and I am writing about many scientific studies and contributing to a wide range of values, that benefits from the science of complex systems.

There was no rational reason to erase my text on biological networks, aging, microbiome and more.

Thus, I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, or could you please tell me what is the recommended procedure to appeal in this case? Levyitau (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe that you decided to do this independent of the many sock accounts that have been spamming this stuff. I decline to be your tutor on Wikipedia procedures, as I believe it would be to the detriment of the community to assist you in wasting the community's time. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The identical edits that were made, were to scientific publications with more than 3000 citations. Levyitau (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just stop spamming us. MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You are being rude. I will ignore that.

I see that you are not responding to my questions.

Are you willing to allow me to undo what you erased?

Or can you please tell me if I should appeal your decisions instead? Levyitau (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not willing to allow you to continue spamming. Don't post on my user talk page again, you are no longer welcome here. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, MrOllie. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! interstatefive  00:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Device fingerprint

I edited the device fingerprinting page by removing misinformation and adding 2 common fingerprinting techniques that were not already listed (language and timezone). My question to you is: why did you remove those edits? (If you disagree with me, and think that the browser can read the device ID, please provide some code to do so.) Betterwater (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You deleted sourced content, and added unsourced content. Wikipedia content is required to carry citations to reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Could you please add a small description for why you removed content for in the future? Thanks. Ah by the way, on the sidenote: that it has sources in some book that nobody reads doesn't mean it is true.

In the case of getting the hardware ID, you can't in a browser. Otherwise the entire fingerprinting idea is fundamentally redundant.

The claims that I made do not require a source. For example, obviously the website you are visiting knows the language that it displays the information in. And obviously they know your time zone otherwise it would be impossible for them to display time. I can show some code and prove right now that retrieving a time is possible. Here, run this code in your browser: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1091372/getting-the-clients-time-zone-and-offset-in-javascript 1000 upvotes btw, and stackoverflow is one of the most reliable sources as everybody can quickly fact check the information. Betterwater (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

hat it has sources in some book that nobody reads doesn't mean it is true. On Wikipedia we follow the sources, that is required by our core policies. We are not guided by individual editors opinions of what is true. Every claim you make requires a source, that too is core policy. User genereated materials like stackoverflow postings are not usable sources here. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works or how basic policies are applied, you can start by reading Wikipedia:Core content policies. If you have further questions after that, WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Bro go press F12 in your browser right now, go to console and copy paste the code in. Then speak again. Betterwater (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's immaterial. Plenty of information is available from the web browser but is useless for device fingerprinting. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not useless for fingerprinting.

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/privacy (ctrl+f "timezone")

https://www.techradar.com/features/browser-fingerprinting-explained (ctrl+f "timezone")

https://www.wired.com/story/browser-fingerprinting-tracking-explained/ (ctrl+f "timezone")

There you go. Idk where you got the idea from that it is useless for fingerprinting. Betterwater (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to Silver nanoparticle

Hello, I'm Exeter caravan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Silver nanoparticle 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. Exeter caravan (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is a quick fire revert and warning from some kind of anti-vandal tool and you just didn't read my edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Hi MrOllie,

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer has a lot of problems with missing secondary sources. For example, the ISO C standard is referenced instead of a secondary source.

You should probably go through the article an apply the same standards to other statements, and not just the facts I add. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer#References .

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

American primacy

Earlier you removed my addition on the Polarity (international relations) page under American primacy for focusing on primary sources. Why was it removed? I'm confused because everything else in this section seems to focus on primary sources too.Yaboijoshy (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Yaboijoshy (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your additions seem to be particularly focused on adding opinions by those two economists to the article. Are you associated with them in some way? MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not associated with them. I recently found their work and thought it would be a good addition to the page. I am also new to editing Wikipedia and am still learning. The reason all of my edits focus on them is because those are the only edits I have made on all of Wikipedia to date. Yaboijoshy (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am an undergraduate and wrote a paper (not published to the internet) about this topic in economics. I was offered extra credit for using what I learned through my research to edit a Wikipedia page with a sizeable entry (150+ words) and have that entry stay up for 3 weeks. My motive and personal views are irrelevant, though. I did not delete the information of any other contributors and a reader of the page could come to any number of conclusions by reading the section. I presented the information I had learned in a similar tone to the rest of the section and the larger article. Yaboijoshy (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please direct your instructor to Wikipedia:Student_assignments. Your grade should not be contingent on text remaining in the article for some period of time, that has proven to lead to bad outcomes for everyone involved. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, my sources for my contribution were on-par with and similar to the other ones on the page. Since I fully intend on continuing to edit Wikipedia outside of the classroom setting, it would be helpful if you could tell me what I did wrong so I can learn from the experience. I understand that some of the discussion points are controversial. But, Wikipedia articles display information from sources with a variety of views. If I were to mention the ideologic bias of the economists would that make my addition acceptable? Yaboijoshy (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak to what might or might not be acceptable to everyone who edits that page, that's the sort of discussion you should be having on the article talk page. Since you expect to get credit for this, be sure to mention the conflict of interest if you decide to open a discussion. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect anything from my contribution. Do you know what "extra credit" means? I have no problem with my contributions being removed if an adequate reason is provided. You said your reason for removing my work was for "undue reliance on primary sources". Despite this, all of the information in the American primacy section seems to also come from books written by the authors they mention. Following this logic, why was my contribution removed while everyone else's is fine? Yaboijoshy (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what "extra credit" means? I know it means you have a reason other than improving the encyclopedia involved in your editing, which is what the WP:COI guidelines are all about. I take no position on other stuff in the article - there may well be other problems. That doesn't mean that you should add more problems. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

deleting my edits

ok, my edit on gpus, was kinda off, but my edit on Nintendo switch lite was perfect why were you supposed to change it Accensions (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't put minor trivia in the lead sections of articles. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

well i had to add it, since it wasnt in the rest of the page. not text nor atleast an image Accensions (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1) The lead summarizes the body of the article - nothing should be in the lead without being in the article body and 2) See WP:V and WP:RS, everything you add must be supported by a citation to a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

well, a reliable source is the Nintendo switch website itself, and about "1" okay ill add a paragraph about the colors and the release date of each color, please let me do it... I really want to do an actual wikipedia edit, since im new to wikipedia editing Accensions (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's already in the article, we don't need the same information twice. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

that shouldnt be in the "release" section, you should add a "colors" section Accensions (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's good where it is. If you're just looking for an edit to make, pick something off the list at Category:Articles_needing_cleanup and make some fixes. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

List of environmental organizations

added the organization ParaLaNaturaleza to the Environmental Organizations list for Puerto Rico and you removed it. It is a very large organization and I referenced their webpage. Why is it removed? (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a list of organizations with preexisting Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Report for vandalism

{{subst:Uw-delete2|article=MrOllie|content=Your behavior on Wikipedia is unacceptable and against Wikipedia's policies. You have been repeatedly vandalizing articles and stalking my edits in order to delete them. This is not only unproductive but also disruptive to the community. Your continued behavior of adding vague comedic replies such as "No thanks" or "Not really" to my edits is not funny and will not be tolerated. I am reporting you for vandalism, and this report will be reviewed by administrators. Please see the following sources for evidence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_monitor&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webcam&action=history], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3D_scanning&action=history].}} 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. IT Photography (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverting your additions of inappropriate images is not vandalism - Wikipedia is not a product showcase. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading your answer it is very clear that you have not even bothered to take a look at the articles in which you have been reverting my edits. Your behaviour is suspicious for using automation programs or apps in order to perform wikipedia edits. I would recommend you to read an article before reverting an edit, and to put a minimum ammount of effort. We can discuss this in a civilized matter, or I can prepare a more serious report for your suspicious automoderation actions, and the use of spam/automation tools.

I am not aware of your intentions, but preventing wikipedia users from upgrading the old images that have been laying around in Wikipedia is odd and suspicious. If my images were from the same brand or product I would understand your concern, however, providing your instant actions and stalking of my edits it is clear that your actions differ from your words and unfunny vague statements. IT Photography (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You should go ahead and put in that report now, I don't discuss with people who are engaged in making empty threats about such things. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me understand something. If I photoshop away the logos of the computer monitors, webcams, and etc, would you keep deleting them or what is your problem? IT Photography (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Right now, my problem is a newbie user who came on my talk page to make baseless threats. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend you to answer questions unironically. What is the problem with the images and how could that be fixed? Before you reply, I suggest you to let sarcasm or jokes aside this time, absolutely no one finds them funny. IT Photography (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Make the report. Do not post on my talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

... and note that the jokes are funny. - Roxy the dog 15:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Olfactory art

Hello MrOllie, Why have you deleted the additional information and links about Perfumed Art and Olfactory which is in direct relation with the olfactory art thematic, bringing more references in this field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermes1968 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a link directory, it is not a place to dump lists of links. See WP:NOT and WP:ELNO. It is also not a place to post opinionated essays, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It is additional information and absolutely not post opinionated essays, it is the source of information completing the previous incomplete list about olfactory art. Are you specialist in this domain and how you could cut the information withouts understanding? Hermes1968 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is an encyclopedia and essays expressing opinions are off topic here. I understand your 'information', I simply disagree that it belongs on this web site. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is discriminative because you are mentioning (" I simply disagree that it belongs on this web site").

and writing by separate e-mail:

("If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing". MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC))

Creative or Corrupt? How Wikipedians decide if a new contribution is "good" or "bad" - ref: Ethics.harvard.edu Hermes1968 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are true: if you keep adding material that violates Wikipedia's content policies, you will probably be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The material which I am adding is an additional and new information in this field and you even don’t know the context because you are deleting the information immediately 2 min after every edition i.e. you are even not reading and not analysing, just deleting. You are a troublemaker in a useful Wikipedia community. Hermes1968 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It plainly violates Wikipedia's content policies. I have read it. It does not belong here. Making personal attacks on me will not change that. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Where are the violations in this below text?

<redacted> Hermes1968 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing, from top to bottom, is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Linus Pauling/Vitamin C section

Why did you revert my addition of recent work showing that high dose IV vitamin C can enhance the anti-tumor response of immunotherapy? There was no prior discussion of how high dose IV VitC affects immunotherapy, only chemotherapy. It is a very promising finding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.154.2 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. We don't report on mouse studies. Wikipedia is not the place to try to argue with mainstream medical science on this. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In no way did I "argue with medical science" nor does the edit include medical advice. The research is from the highly regarded translational journal Science Translational Medicine. I did not argue, nor do I think, that the high dose vitamin C treatment is at the point of being clinically ready. However, the Linus Pauling article so far only mentions studies about direct effects of vitamin C on tumors, or interactions with chemotherapy. Immunotherapy, which has shown incredible promise in the last 15 years, should be mentioned. There is a chicken and egg problem in the very fact that Vitamin C is controversial slows down any clinical trials, so it will be a while until we have clinical confirmation of results. However, the recent study is one of the first quality studies which suggests that early claims made by Linus Pauling may not have been as off the mark as some may think, and is thus relevant to the Linus Pauling page. This is not a clinical page, it's about Linus Pauling. Note, I have not made edits to the Vitamin C page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazimzadeh (talk • contribs)

The guidelines outlined in WP:MEDRS are very stringent, most peer-reviewed journal articles do not meet them. Those guidelines also apply to any biomedical claim on any article in Wikipedia. Please read and understand the guideline, and then follow it going forward. Wikipedia is fine taking a long time, we have no deadline and by design we do not write about bleeding edge medical studies. - MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: You should be taking this to the article talk page. If you keep edit warring in stuff that fails MEDRS you're probably going to get blocked. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That the edit fails WP:MEDRS is your personal opinion. WP:MEDRS mentions 'in vitro' studies and does not mentioned translational or 'in vivo' mouse studies. You either did not read, or did not comprehend the article that I linked, since I did not make any biomedical claim, and neither does the source. You should take the time to read the article before unilaterally deciding whether it is fringe or not. If you find flaws in the article or find that I have not represented it accurately, you are free to clarify. If you do not have the credentials or understanding of biology, then perhaps you should refer to someone who does, or defer until you have done so. While the Linus Pauling article mentioned direct effects of VitC on tumors and on chemotherapy, immunotherapy is never mentioned. Immunotherapy has been extremely promising over the last 15 years and should not be ignored. Blocking me is not an effective way of having a conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazimzadeh (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

in vitro or animal studies obviously means either, not both at the same time. We simply do not cover recent findings based on single animal studies. I'm not going to block you, but if you keep edit warring I'd have to refer the matter to an administrator who certainly will. At any rate, please refer any followup to the article's associated talk page. Perhaps someone will agree with you there, though I would be very surprised. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS States "avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies." You should read the article that I cited, and let me know specifically in what way I have over-emphasized anything within it, or its implications. I specifically mentioned that the results are "pre-clinical" which is what WP:MEDRS recommends.

The Science Translational Medicine paper is also not a small-scale study, which WP:MEDRS frowns upwon, as several different kinds of immunotherapy were tested. I am not sure if you know that, since there is no way that you have had the time to read the paper in the 3 minute time period before you reverted my edit. Note that in addition to primary literature, which is not what WP:MEDRS prefers, my original edit also included a reference to a review-like article from the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c) which is more recent (2020) than the review article linked in the Linus Pauling page (2015). This is in line with the emphasis on up-to-date information in WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, the content of the review agrees with my edit, specifically saying that "a growing number of preclinical studies are showing how high-dose vitamin C might benefit cancer patients. Importantly, these preclinical studies provide a clear rationale and potential biomarkers that may help personalize the therapeutic approach and identify patient populations that are likely to respond to high-dose vitamin C therapy."

Finally, it is clear to anyone who reads biology articles that there are many Wikipedia article which refer to single animal studies when there is no clinical data to refer to. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleukin_17#Role_in_psoriasis. (see all the sentences with single references). Just because a topic has been controversial in the past does not mean new data about it should not be published.

If you wish to re-phrase the wording of my edits to bring it into further compliance with WP:MEDRS then you should do that, instead of unilaterally rejecting up-to-date and sensible statements and repeatedly making strong declarative statements which misrepresent what I wrote. Specifically, you need to support your claim that the edits are "profringe", that the WP:MEDRS violation is "blatant," and that somehow what I wrote "argues with mainstream medical science," given the source material that I have cited.

If you continue to demonstrate unwillingness to read the content and/or source material that you are supervising/editing, then I will refer you to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazimzadeh (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't take well to empty threats. Just file the report now. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet you take to making them. I have other things to do, I will file the report once I learn how to do it properly, since I don't live on wikipedia and have other work to attend to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazimzadeh (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Great. Don't post here again until you do. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Per your request, there is now a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Best, Pazimzadeh (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

IRC Hash Tags

Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Relay_Chat&oldid=prev&diff=1133158387 - Could you please elaborate on your ingenious explanation of "also wrong"? As someone who has written an IRC client from the ground up parsing the text messages sent to/from the client/server, and used IRC for ~30 years - I see a very clear commonality of #hashtag grouping between channels and 'tags', and I question your expertise on the topic if you lack the ability to see the connection. Would you care to explain why the point wasn't valid? Manachi (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOR, WP:V. Wikipedia isn't a place to add your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about website inclusion

Hello MrOllie, I've attempted to have my website 321Chat.Com included in Wikipedia 2 or 3 times over the last 20 years. Since you seem to be the main person who maintains the chat-avenue.com wiki page can you give me some advice on why my site is not "of note" while chat-avenue is? We seem to have the same distinguished history as the longest-running free online group chat sites. Thank you for your time. NYCypher (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted some vandalism at Chat-Avenue, but I didn't write the article and I would not say I am 'the main person who maintains' - that's not really a thing on Wikipedia. As to your question, see WP:GNG. It is all about the number and quality of available sources. Chat-Avenue probably wouldn't be notable either if they didn't happen to be involved in some high-profile child predator investigations. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

T-Coffee Deletions

Hi MrOllie, I'm one of the students that has been working on the T-Coffee page. I noticed you deleted everything we've added/changed to the article. Can you please explain the issues you had with our contributions in detail? Valgraves (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your group has been adding large amounts of unencyclopedic content - lists of links to extensions that don't meet WP:EL, lists of applications, and a how-to manual (See WP:NOTHOWTO). A bunch of it was deleted by an admin who handles copyright problems for being plagiarized (see WP:COPYVIO) - and your group has not been making any use of article talk pages whatsoever, and your class appears to be unregistered and generally not following the expected practices for such editing on Wikipedia. Please direct your instructor to Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Software Project Management

I am not part of a classroom effort. I'm a sole user with vast expertise in software project management. I'm hoping to make some topic pages/articles relevant. Is there resistance to this? Richlegge (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No one said you were part of a classroom effort. You keep adding inappropriate external links and removing content. You have also created unsourced, duplicate articles and copied text from elsewhere into Wikipedia in blatant violation of copyright. None of these actions are acceptable on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI about your recent behavior posted

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.66.207.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie. I wanted to say no hard feelings. I think I did overreact a bit and I'm sorry for the ANI. That said, I do think you often are unprovokedly terse pretty often. Not necessarily uncivil, but it walks the line. Have a great day. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent example of a non-apology apology. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever pal. I admit I overreacted and publically withdrew the ANI. That is an apology. I admitted wrongdoing to you without condition or reservation.

I also politely note that you do post mean replies without provocation sometimes. Then you reply with another curt message. Irony much. Your attitude sucks. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't post on my page again, I'm full up on passive-aggressive nonsense. Looking forward to the series of blocks that will come down if you keep acting as you have been. MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor MrOllie, for having appeared on my watchlist hundreds of times over the years, defending articles from Spam & other questionable edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Intro relevance

I intend to offer a third opinion on the above-topic per the request for one, but it wold be helpful if you could please crystalize your main points on the talk page here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: It doesn't qualify, three editors are already involved in the discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I'm new to third opinions. There was a third opinion request, and I've now closed it out and noted that this should be referred to another forum on the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh no they're on to me. I mean us.

You may be amused (or not) by:

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bon courage

Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, sad. MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio on CADgene

I checked earwig and did a bit of spot checking, and other than the image that I speedied on Commons I didn't see anything. Is there some text I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a close paraphrase. For example this from the article For efficient and convenient viewing of the dataset, CADgene has three methods in place for browsing CAD genes from candidate studies. vs this from the source To help users to browse the data conveniently, CADgene provides three different methods for browsing CAD-related genes from candidate gene studies. For reference, this relates to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cash_prizes_for_student_editing_contest MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently Reverted Contributions

Dear MrOllie,

I noticed that the video illustrations I added to a Wikipedia article were recently reverted by you, along with some other links to video illustrations that I had added in the past. I want to clarify that my contributions were not intended for advertising or promotion, and I will be more careful in the future to avoid any confusion with spam or promotion.

After reading your message, I understand why my external links were considered promotional. I apologize for any confusion caused by the presence of the doctor practice's logo at the beginning and end of the videos, as well as the invitation for viewers to visit the practice on the outer section of the video.

May I request your permission for the following:

Currently, we produce educational videos featuring leading board-certified doctors. We are not affiliated with any of the doctors or practices that are featured in such content.

Our goal is to establish a verified database of leading board-certified doctors and produce high-quality, trustworthy healthcare-related content for readers to learn and explore from.

Therefore, we are interested in contributing to Wikipedia by including our visual aids in published articles as they certainly provide great value to readers.

If we can remove the practice's logo from the beginning and end of the video, as well as the section at the end where the provider invites viewers to visit the practice, would it be possible to link the revised version of the educational video to its respective article on Wikipedia?

Please advise, so we can send you a revised video for you to review and approve prior to adding a link. The video illustration will be merely educational in regards to the procedure discussed in the article.

Thank you very much, MrOllie, and I will be pending of your update.

*Could you please remove the spam tag that was added to your notes on the history page of the article when you reverted the link? I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time and my intention is not to spam, but to contribute. I would greatly appreciate it.

Suham'T 16:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Suham'T 16:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very high standards for medical content, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. Even if you remove logos, your videos simply will not meet that standard. Adding links to your own website, for any purpose, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. If additions of the site continue, you can expect that either user blocks or placement of your domain on Wikipedia's spam blacklist will be the response. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As previously expressed, if for any reason you do not feel such content to be appropriate, we will simply not add such educational videos as external links to articles.

The reason we included a new external link, recently, was because (a) we have previously contributed two over the last 2 years or so, and they were not reverted, and (b) the videos certainly provide valuable illustration for readers.

Our purpose was to contribute by adding external links to our database of high-quality, trustworthy healthcare-related content.

Thank you for your update, though. Suham'T 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Software project management

Dispite multiple attempts to suggest edits and updates, you seem unreceptive. Software Development and Software Engineering is the domain of IEEE. You apparently think Software Project Managment is also.

I've even suggested a more contemporary definition from one of the existing sources.

It seems this page will stay stale, particularly with your bullish approach to suggestions.

-- Richlegge (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep all discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Psalms

'No good reason to water this down' is itself lacking a good reason and is its own judgement call. Personal preference is not a substitute for solid reasoning and unbiased speech. Please leave as is. 204.128.182.15 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page, but we definitely do not make articles vague or ambiguous for no reason. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Question

What was wrong with my edit ? 2806:105E:14:8EDE:A0C4:8179:AD60:784E (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable / spam sources and insertion of selfie images from a sock-puppeteer who has been blocked from wikipedia many times. MrOllie (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Psalms

'Nope' is not a detailed or constructive response. Either provide analysis that is worthy of the name, or alternatively, you can provide a different suggestion. Flamework (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I did, then you decided to revert again. The onus is on you to go to the talk page and get support for your proposed change. Edit warring will not work. MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, and appreciate the suggestion. That will be my next step. However, I'm sure you understand and agree that personal views and uncertainties presented as certainties have no place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamework (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

We follow the sources and reflect mainstream scholarship. We do not insert personal opinion in the article no - and we definitely do not do that by making mainstream scholarship appear to be less authoritative than it is. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

World-Fashion

Hi Mr Ollie, I want to add some valuable lines inside this article which will be very valuable to your website readers and help them to provide some valuable information, don't you want that? Mushii56 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Milan Fashion Week" I would like to add some of my valuable lines in this article and give my link. Mushii56 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. If you keep attempting to add it you can expect that your account will be blocked and/or your site will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Spam additions are not 'valuable'. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not recommending my own site, I just want to put some of my information on it And if you readers like my information, how can they get more information, that's why I wanted to add a link to my site. Mushii56 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to give my reference here Mushii56 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not my intention to spam Wikipedia at all Mushii56 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to spam Wikipedia, simply do not add the external link again. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

So what kind of link will Wikipedia accept? Mushii56 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not accept any form of link to your website. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

So what are the links I see within this article? Mushii56 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

They meet our sourcing requirements. Your website does not. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

These are the guidelines I want to know from you, my friend. Mushii56 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

And how can I convey my information to your people through this article Mushii56 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate Wikipedia sourcing with you. You have been warned what will happen if you continue to add the link. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ok Mushii56 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

replay mushiii 2806:262:3404:145D:4D18:7ED4:A61B:42A4 (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Better Access Scheme

My edit is correct. The current rebate amount is $131.65 not the current lower value stated in the article.

Better Access Scheme: Revision history - Wikipedia Kuvesh (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

My edit is correct. The motivation for other groups to lobby for the title psychologists is so they can access the Medicare rebates which are currently only applicable to AHPRA registered psychologists.

Psychologist: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Kuvesh (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just stop adding spam links. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Women In STEM fields

Hi, please can you explain what was wrong with the links I added? STEM Women is a globally recognised organisation which works to address the underrepresentation of women in STEM and should therefore be listed under 'organized efforts'. Was there something wrong with the format of the link?

The STEM Women whitepaper is a fully researched annual publication which is utilised throughout STEM industries and higher education and is therefore a recognised publication. I'd be really grateful if you could explain how these links can be added. thanks. Universitiesstemwomen (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization (even if it is a good cause), nor is it a place to list self published sources such as whitepapers (even if they are well researched). Please have a look at WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:COI, and WP:ELNO. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, so does the link have to be added by someone else? Or does it need to be a link from a different site?

I don't understand how other (smaller and less-established) organisations have been added in this capacity? I will have a loo at these links but if you could explain how it is possible to add STEM Women as a link that would be really helpful. Universitiesstemwomen (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, I do think that this would appear in an encyclopaedia under 'Women In STEM - organised efforts' as it is exactly that, and similar organisations are linked here. Universitiesstemwomen (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The link is not appropriate for Wikipedia, it should not be added at all - not by you, and not by anyone else. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Sudbury Schools

I noticed that you reverted the addition of the Boulder Sudbury School to this page. Do you have a reason for this? Also, there are many other Sudbury schools that need to be added for this page to be useful. Dualunity (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As already explained on your own talk page, that is a list of schools with preexisting Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The Boulder Sudbury School and many other schools that were previously listed on this page, long before any mention of "notable". The very idea of you gatekeeping this page is antithetical to the Sudbury model itself, which has no central authority, no certifying body, and has numerous manifestations appearing in different cultures around the world and can still call themselves Sudbury schools. Dualunity (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Some amount of 'gatekeeping', as you call it, is necessary to keep the page in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. For example, we're not in the business of hosting directories of external links. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Gerdau Graphene

Can you please explain your rationale for marking Gerdau Graphene for speedy deletion? The contributions that the company has made to the graphene industry are both significant and noteworthy, evidenced by the independent editorial coverage about it. AaronEndre (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It was obvious advertising. As a paid editor, you should not have created it in the article mainspace. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID carefully, and use the WP:AFC process next time. MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes on the Ease of Using Cavalier Axonometric Projections

we can know what is the logical reason that led you to delete the following part: <copy and paste redacted> Hasanisawi (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't add your own thoughts to Wikipedia articles, and simply adding your name is not a usable citation. See Wikipedia:No original research. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

if the person who wrote the information has extensive experience in the field of teaching descriptive geometry, his or her name is sufficient as endorsement for the written information.

however, I will now put my published book as a reference Hasanisawi (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, not on Wikipedia, again, read WP:NOR. Also have a look at WP:COI, you really should not be citing yourself either. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Baby Einstein

Hello Ollie, I have a question, does Aigner-Clark own Kids2? Because that would be the only way that she owns Baby Einstein, WacoBell (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really find that question to be relevant (see WP:NOR). If you want to change an article, you need to cite a source. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please answer my question. WacoBell (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Apology note

I want to owe you an apology for what happened two days ago. The driver in my laptop went bad since last week and I was so upset about it, but its got a new one now. Sundropie (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope you are safe. Alex Britan jhon (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

U have no knowledge about Sikhism.

sikhism is a philosophy & theology of which elements are same in vaishnav vedanta & islam. As a north west indian, and follower of sikhism & vedanta, i know better than u bastard. Sikhism is not defined by khalsa tradition alone. Any person can be sikh if he follows the teachings of gurubani and believe in oneness of truthful religions & Oneness of God the almighty the eternal, and follow these simple terms " naam japo, kirt karo, wand chhako" & " mangeyo sarbat da bhalaa". There is no religious barrier in sikhism defined by GURU NANAK JI but barrier was created by some vandals like SGPC, Akalis, & singh sabha. There are more in triple amounts of hindus that follow sikhism than khalsa followers. Khalsa is a sect of sikhism. Sikhism is not equal to khalsa. Revert by original edits that i published in sikhism & sikh related sections of Wikipedia. I have researched about the whole topics and reality is there are about 15 crore sikhs. akalis just marginalized & limited sikh identity for their own selfish purposes. Chaitanya kalra (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. You must cite sources for your additions, and you must make some effort to format them correctly - simply adding unsourced text to the top of an article is not going to work. Making personal attacks on other editors will not help the situation. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and Unconstructive Edits

Hello, earlier you mentioned on my talk page that I had made unconstructive edits. Which edits were you referring to, and why? MrJAndTheGroovyGangFan (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

All of your edits to date. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What made them unconstructive? MrJAndTheGroovyGangFan (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This vandal is now indeffed. Sundayclose (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:IshmaelAlZahid

I didn't see the vandalism in their edit. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a continuation of edits made by 181.63.178.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They think that tobacco cures cancer. supossed damaging effects on human health, etc. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Edgar Mobbs

This place in Zillebeke is of course a special place. It was during the war that Mobbs died in Flanders Fields. This is a place where Mobbs is especially commemorated in Flanders Fields. Of course it has everything to do with the fact that 'we remember them'Dewittekat (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That article is short enough that the two existing images are plenty for the length. Even if that weren't the case, adding those images above even the portrait of the biography subject is obviously not helpful. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

As well as in England as in Flanders there is place for commemoration.

The group who visited this place today found that there should be on Wikipedia of this place in Flanders Fields.

Edgar Mobbs was a very good rugbyplayer, therefor is the picture of the little statue. For rugbyplayers, he is a hero. Dewittekat (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with what I just said. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Review Bombing Assistance

Recently put in an update to the "Review Bombing" topic with the recent events within the warthunder community. I read why you undid it and I understand and would like some assistance with updating it to get it published. I understand my sources arent clear, my attempt with my published sources was to show the original data. For example, the PhlyDaily video is the actual video, the original content that describes my passage. And the steam pages are to show the change in the Review status as a result of the review bombing. How can I better present my sources and data to get it published? Do I need it from a second hand source like a news article, or how else can I frame the original sources (steam page and youtube video) to make what im citing more clear? Any assistance to get this formalized and published would be great, thanks. CanaTheNeko (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you need a secondary source suggest as a news article. Youtube videos and such are not sufficient. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ollie would this by PCGamesN and this by Autoevolution work? Nobody (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would use the PCGamesN source. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the page with secondary sources rather than primary, although there are a few things that I still do not know how to site as its just data from these websites, like the number of reddit users in the WTPU, or the video that PhlyDaily posted. Assistance on how to cite these primary sources would be appreciated since they are vital to the current events occurring within warthunder. CanaTheNeko (talk)

tree shaping

Hi you did a revert of my edit why David Goldstein 154 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It was badly written and served to inappropriately promote designers in the lead section of the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

SilkTork said it should be in there on the talk page it was removed by Netherzone David Goldstein 154 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Diff, please, David Goldstein 154? SilkTork hasn't edited Talk:Tree shaping since August 2021. Not that SilkTork saying it should be in there would trump MrOllie's comment that it was badly written and inappropriately promoted some designers. Bishonen | tålk 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC).

^{( Buttinsky)} Ah Tree Shaping, one of the most controversial[8] areas on Wikipedia (used to be subject to discretionary sanctions ISTR). Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Got me stumped. Roxy the dog 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

OCR

You have to understand that I am not specific to Adobe. The reference was put in place because I felt a new one was required, I was not aware of the fact that Vendor's should not be relied on. The description is independent and has the right to stand own it's own. It is detailed and understandable to the non technical users of wikipedia. The-Dubnob 16:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You changes tie OCR to a specific file format (Adobe's PDF) which is plainly incorrect. It also limits OCR to match the limitations of Adobe's software ('printed text'), also incorrect. If you have any follow up, direct your comments to the article's associated talk page. My user talk is not the correct place for article-specific discussion. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Posted on behalf of the IP, see [9]) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Spam link?

I was adding more information on nail tips and my cite was removed as it was a "spam link"? I assume this is due to my citing error, as I have no affiliation with anything in that link. I'm sorry! 49.185.64.26 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, and do not use affiliate marketing blogs or other forms of advertising as sources in the future. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Will do in my spare time! 49.185.64.26 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of additions to a page

Hello MrOllie, I received a notification from you that some external links I added to a page were removed because they "don't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia." Obviously, that is your call but I don't understand why they were any less appropriate than the other entries in that section. Can you please explain to me the reasoning behind your actions and let me know if there is another way I can add those names to that page without violating any Wiki rules? Thank you. 2600:4041:44BD:E000:B9F0:BBAB:8183:218A (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The other entries in that section are links to preexisting Wikipedia articles. You added an external link to somebody's website. You really don't understand the difference? MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverts of terminology on Imageboard page

I've noticed that you've reverted a previous edit to the Wizardchan header section of the 'Imageboard' page. Your previous edits to said page seem justified, but this particular one was uninformed of the website's current rules. Wizardchan's Global Rule 2 states verbatim: "Do not state or suggest that you had, will have or want to have sexual or romantic experiences." You can verify this from an easily accessible link from the main page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imageboard&diff=prev&oldid=1136984337

Regarding the term you restored, it was originally added by an editor (linked above) who implicitly carried a grudge against the website, hence their distaste towards terminology with neutral connotations. 82.0.22.83 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what independent sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

2014 Court Order copies sent to Wikipedia Legal and Arbcom

Be advised copies of a restraining order obtained in 2014 against a stalker fan of a well known film and television actress and her acquaintance, have been sent to and were received today, to both the Wikipedia legal and arbitration departments. The fan in question has stalked both victims in person, and online since 2009. He has impersonated one of the victims, a personal assistant to one of this world’s best known actor’s, here within Wikipedia, and at various other internet sites, using a variation of the victims first and middle given names, otherwise referred to as socks, for many years, which you recently linked to in an administrative page discussion. The sock page investigation discussed, is the stalker fan. The fan has posted threats and sent threatening emails to both victims. The court specifically ordered all online blogs, posts, tweets and references to both victims names be removed anywhere the stalker posted the names, from all internet sites. You have been previously advised of this matter and you were advised of the existence of the court restraining order. Although attempts have been made to remove those names at the Wikipedia pages in question, to redact them, as it is referred to here, in recent months, regardless both you, and another editor have reverted those attempts. The stalker fan has an active warrant for his arrest for said actions and for his ongoing cyber harassment of both victims. He is a former computer tech specialist and self described hacker. Please refrain from aiding this stalker fan in his violation of the restraining order, reverting the victims names the stalker blogged, while your legal department reviews the court order and our demand that victims names be blanked from the Wikipedia talk pages at the victims colleges he attended, and the religious television show the victim is in no way, connected to. It has also been brought to our attention you reinserted one of the victims names back into the page content of the religion television series, yesterday, after it had been removed at that particular talk page, for six years. Once again, this matter is now in the capable hands of Wikipedia Legal and arbcom, to comply with the judges order that the names be removed from all internet sites where the stalker fan inserted the names, including the pages you described herein which you have recently edited, and with which you are well familiar. Regards and many thanks. 2604:1580:FE00:5:0:0:0:416 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, really? In that case it's a little surprising that you haven't even created an account. The /64 range you're using has been blocked for persistent legal threats as seen here. I wouldn't advise MrOllie to pay any attention to the mouthful of legalese above unless and until he is actually approached by Wikipedia Legal. Bishonen | tålk 10:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC).

Salvatore Pais

The interviews were published by TOE with Curt Jaimungal, so they're not WP:SELFPUB. See also Template:Youtube, this template was created for External links sections.

To address your second point, Forbes has always been considered a reliable source, and none of the other references are WP:DEPRECATED, so I undid your edit claiming "no reliable sources" (See WP:SUSTAINED). Feel free to reword the section to better fit the references or to add more references, but as I told you before simply deleting content is not the proper move. Enix150 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FORBESCON - you're not actually citing forbes. Also, 'TOE with Curt Jaimungal' is absolutely someone's self published youtube channel. Direct any followup to the article's talk page, where such discussion belongs. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Help fixing a hat note.

Eschatology - I'm just not sure what's wrong. 118.210.58.91 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Grouping tag was just in the wrong place, I've fixed it. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your reversion of my well-sourced contributions to EMDR article

We need sources that meet WP:MEDRS for such things, these clearly do not

Did you look at my sources? One of them was the peer-reviewed medical journal Traumatology (journal), which clearly meets WP:MEDRS. My edits also made no direct claims about biomedical information, only about scientific evidence and debate. The other three sources are all reliable sources on such topics.

I'm genuinely curious: Do you believe that all those sources are wrong? Do you believe that what I wrote is factually incorrect? Do you think my changes made the article worse in some way? Do you think the existing introduction is a fair and neutral representation of the scientific consensus about EMDR? GreatBigCircles (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:MEDRS thoroughly. Many articles in peer-reviewed journals do not meet that standard - the one you cited certainly does not. I do indeed think that your edit made the article worse, that is why I reverted. I decline to discuss my personal beliefs as I do not find such discussion to be helpful or relevant to writing an encyclopedia article. Direct any follow-up to the article's talk page, where discussion like this belongs. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your reversion of my well-sourced contributions to streaming platform article(s)

Did you look at my sources? Do you believe that all those sources are wrong? Do you believe that what I wrote is factually incorrect? For what reason do you believe a relevant kids streaming network with 50 million users should be omitted from an encyclopedia article? Bubalina (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Your article was deleted (by someone else, not me) as blatant promotion. I removed it from the lists and such you had added it to, as they are places to list things that have Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not cite spamming

We are not citespamming we are making contributions in various fields of tourism - korstaanje is a ref in the fiel like many others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.233.189 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been citespamming and evading blocks with sockpuppet accounts for years. Just stop. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to learn why taking a reference from a blog is wrong

I added an information which I got it from a website (related to real estate in Turkey) and I put it into the reference section as this is required to do. I'd like to learn the reason why you removed every information that I contributed to the article. Using a blog as reference is not approved?

Thanks in advance. Goddfrith (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Goddfrith: That is correct. Please read WP:RS for info on references and reliability. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to learn why linking to a highly relevant page is wrong

You deleted my links from the article on technical writing. What was wrong to link to the most comprehensive collection of organizations and conferences on technical writing on the web? Was it off topic? Wasn't there any value for the readers?

Thanks. TechAndUXWriter (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You were link spamming. Don't do that. Wikipedia isn't a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Salvatore Pais 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; read about 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.

That was your third revert today. Enix150 (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And your fourth revert, so I've filed something at the relevant noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Third* Nice try though. Enix150 (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

George Mallory

With all due respect MrOllie that article that I have written is one of the greatest, ever written on Wikipedia. It's by far, better than most Good Articles. It's not for you to say, passively "oh it's too long," or any anyone else. A lot of work went into that article. It is not too long. You may learn something if you read it. This is an improved version. The old version was full of factual inaccuracies. It's no wonder that so many people don't want to edit Wikipedia at this time. You folks are pushing away good editors with a type of totalitarianism, which is not welcome in the democratic world that civil people live in. I've wasted enough time with this nonsense. Absolutely ridiculous thing to do, to a person who put so much time and energy into this. It's just unforgivable, insulting, embarrassing, and ignorant. The article is long because this explorers life story is and all the facts pertinent to it are included. It's not my issue, if ITS' TOO GOOD FOR WIKIPEDIA. WHICH IT IS!! Zephronion (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, telling people to 'fuck off' in edit summaries and ranting on people's user talk pages is not a substitute for engaging on the article talk page to calmly discuss your edits with other people. - MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just look at the article's talk page. Good article status does require a concise portrayal of information, which I feel is not present due to the reasons I have outlined. I mean, the article was longer than the United States article, which was considered too long. It's not unreasonable to think that an article about George Mallory being longer than a superpower is kind of strange. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What's strange about it? Did you ever read "Into The Silence" The great war Mallory and the conquest of Everest? I was in touch with the author and outlined the mistakes in the book, and the author was very thankful. (respect privacy) more than you would get here! Is this book too long? Perhaps you should tell the author who bought over 500 books to write this masterpiece, just like mine. Is this article too long? Boris Johnson? Where is the long-article message template on that? Or these? Long pages What does it matter if it's longer than the United States article or any other for that matter? It's written in my good style, and that is what is important. It took ten long months ... I don't care what you people think. What's wrong with a long article? EXACTLY NOTHING. You should be thanking people for fine edits, not criticising them for that kind of thing, which drives people away. Being jealous gets you nowhere. The Bible is long; want to criticise that? There are other articles on Wikipedia that are much longer than George Mallory (the great explorer that he was). He's got more brass than BJ? Wikipedia is littered with factual errors. The article is long because that is the way it is. Life stories are long. My great article deserves a book. There has never in history been such a concise, detailed, and factually correct biography written about one of the great explorers. Its genius. Never before in such detail have all the facts about Mallory's life been assembled in one place. It is 100 years of history taken from 50 books, 40 journals, and other documents. Every sentence is referenced. It's concise and brilliant. Have respect for others great work. Zephronion (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson probably is too long.

It's written in my good style, and that is what is important. No, this is part of the problem. I'm worried that you feel as though you own the article in some way. Length isn't an inherent problem, assuming the subject matter deserves it. However, two main elements come to mind: readability and importance of information. The readability of the article was somewhat hindered by technical information. But the main problem was importance of information. A lot of the details added were somewhat trivial for a general understanding of the topic and was given undue weight.

If you do want to write a book on the subject, I would highly encourage you to do so. You clearly care and know a lot about this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My user talk page is not the place to discuss this. Direct any follow up to article talk. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Its not a rant in anyway, its how I feel and I'm pretty certain not the only one. I didn't think people were so sensitive to the truth. Now have a good day sir!! Zephronion (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

King Abdullah II

A reference/ citation was removed, on the basis of non-neutrality/POV. I do not think that this was justified. It just stated that he is generally held in high regard. I'm not sure your move was warranted. 218.48.143.71 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Popularity is discussed in the 4th paragraph, so it was both redundant and non-neutral. We're not going to turn the article into a hagiography MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Lucid Dream

I understand our policy about external links, but those links I added are not behind paywall, nor contain ads or malware Stephen Laberge is know in the world of lucid dreaming an article is directly connected to lucid dreaming also lucidity.com is used before in article so I can't understand reason of this. Thanks for the answer. Robercik101 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Spider-Man DOES have Superhuman speed

Look, I see that you delete "speed" in Spider-Man page, but let me tell you this; Spider-Man does have superhuman speed! it was mentioned that he has proportionate strength, "speed", and agility of a spider! If Spider-Man doesn't have superhuman speed, the comic wouldn't mention the proportionate strength "speed" and agility of a spider, it says in Spectacular Spider-Man comic where Spidey explains his origin to Black Cat, and the word I mention speed is in there. If you still don't believe me; look and read in the link https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Spectacular-Spider-Man-1976/Issue-87?id=19204. I have proof. Aaeliaba (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You are edit warring to include content that is just plain wrong. Stop. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the editting war, ok I'll some discussion in Spider-Man talk page if I could ever edit something. Aaeliaba (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before reverting

You just reverted changes to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing that had reached consensus on the talk page. Please read the talk page. GreatBigCircles (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That's just false. The edit you made was not the proposed edit on the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Physics Essays an unreliable source?

What is your basis for claiming that Physics Essays is an unreliable source? ScooterMcGruff (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're discussing this elsewhere. Stick to that conversation, or follow up on the article's talk page. My user talk is not the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't care who his lawyer is

Huh? It's widely covered by RSs. RSs deem it notable. The lawyer is notable. You don't consider it notable, which if fine, but the RSs trump any person who is simply making a bland assertion in the face of that. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for posting trivia. A RS happening to mention or quote a lawyer is not the same thing as 'RSs deem it notable' MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll continue the discussion elsewhere so as not to spread it over changes, but find mind-boggling that you assert that when an individual is represented by a WP-notable attorney, that fact is "trivia." Totally an opposite-day argument. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing?

May I know why are you removing all of my edits. All the edits which I make is after thorough research. As I'm new to edit contents, can you guide me regarding this as this is a part of my academic assessment. It would be really helpful if you guide me in editing two to three articles in a constructive way. Thank you. Pradeep Ramalingam R (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your class has been editing these articles in highly inappropriate ways, apparently without the training or oversight of our educational projects. Please direct your instructor to Wikipedia:Education program/Educators and ask them to halt the assignment on Wikipedia's behalf, as it is proving to be highly disruptive to our encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr. Ollie. I apologize you for the disruptions caused by our edits and this is the final day for our assessment so you won't be seeing any edits after this. I would also inform my Professor regarding the same. We are not trying to cause any disruptions rather we wish to contribute. If you have any suggestions regarding this academic assessment you guide us the right way. Thank you. Pradeep Ramalingam R (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken warning?

Hi MrOllie. I'm not sure if you saw my ping, but I think you gave a new user a caution here that wasn't warranted. You alleged adding spam links, copyvio, and inappropriate external links. The individual's only edit to that point was this one in which i can see no spam, copyvio, or external links. Would you consider striking your message? Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. As you don't seem to care, I'll go ahead and strike the caution message at User talk:Bielacomet Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPA?

I smell a sock/spa but with only one article to cross check against, it's a bit hard to corroborate that gut feeling. Do they remind you of any sock you've had to deal with at a point in the past? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in particular. Most of the SPAs activity I can recall focused on MDPI rather than Frontiers. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Same. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you check please

Hello. Can I share with you possible COI or at least what seems also as advocacy/promotion issue by user what I noticed but I am not skilled enough to go to noticeboards etc? User is BeLucky (talk · contribs) and as I noticed accidently, he recently do many edits connected with a page what he created World Constitution and Parliament Association. Seems to user "spam" different biographical pages at wiki with notes about that association etc. It seems at least as advocacy, promotion and possible undue weight as that org/associacion by what I was able to find on internet seems obscure. All that could be possible COI issue or someone really close connected with that org to make that edits. Thank you. And sorry for taking your time. I sent message to one more editor who seems to know about that stuff and who I saw at that coi noticeboard also. I just care about integrity of this place as I am big reader of many pages here. I did this just as I know about some wiki policies such as neutral point of view, no advocacy and promotion, and no coi. Again thank you and sorry about taking your time to even read this. 178.222.30.57 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Check the link

I'm adding the citation for More explanation and reference for the page Wikipedia has already link to the website already if you check it well you will see that the Link is trying to explain the more information Olaitan202 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements as explained in WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Lightsense Picosecond laser removal

Hey,

I see you reverted a lot of spam on Tattoo removal - I've raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laser tattoo removal as clearly "Lightsense" promotion accounts. KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it. Kushdeep12 (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

False Accusation of Vandalism.

I didn't vandalize anything, please explain why you accused me of such. Sambapop11 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You added obviously made up numbers here. That is vandalism. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make up those numbers, those were already there previously. Sambapop11 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove the most important intellectual step of Dr. Laing?

I think it is a disservice to hide such an important intellectual development (to reject one's own theory, which requires giving up the time and energy spent and one's own reputation usually due to overwhelming evidence), especially for those who arrive on the page looking for the seriousness of his theories.

Can you please restore:

"Laing regarded schizophrenia as a theory not a fact, but later acknowledged his views on schizophrenia were wrong."

or something to that effect with the style you like? Andrarias (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

References

I think you have me confused with someone else. You should take this up on the associated article talk page of whichever article it is you're talking about. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops! sorry! Andrarias (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Addressing Misinterpretations and Deletion of Valuable Contributions

Dear MrOllie,

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all Wikipedia users for their continuous effort in maintaining and improving the quality of content on the platform. It has come to my attention that some recent contributions, including my own, have been erroneously flagged as citation spam and consequently removed.

I acknowledge that there exists a multitude of renowned publications and subject-matter experts who contribute to niche and emerging areas of study. These contributions, intrinsically of high scientific merit, are integral to the comprehensive and accurate representation of knowledge that Wikipedia aims to provide. Therefore, the inadvertent removal of such valuable content could be perceived as counterproductive to our shared objective.

Upon reviewing user feedback and revision histories, it appears that there may be room for enhancement in our citation screening process to minimize misinterpretations. These improvements could help prevent the inadvertent removal of valid contributions.

While I deeply respect and appreciate the diligent vigilance applied to monitor the quality of information on Wikipedia, I respectfully suggest that a more nuanced approach may be beneficial. Such an approach could help ensure that genuine, valuable contributions are not dismissed erroneously. I kindly request consideration for revisiting the recent removals, including my contributions and others flagged under similar circumstances.

Once again, I appreciate your commitment to preserving the integrity of Wikipedia and believe that constructive dialogue like this can help us improve our collective efforts even further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Design and Engineering (talk • contribs)

Can you explain how you are associated with Arash Yoosefdoost? How are you associated with the previous single purpose accounts who have been dedicated to adding references to that person to Wikipedia? - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this concern. I understand the basis for your actions. However, I would like to respectfully emphasize important key points:

There are indeed areas of science that are particularly novel, narrow, or advanced, and as such, the available practical information as well as number of acknowledged experts or extensively-cited or groundbreaking publications within these fields may be relatively limited. Removing practical materials with robust scientific foundation that improved a topic's quality is against Wikipedia goals. It is also important to remember that all information and materials should be backed by appropriate citations, according to Wikipedia's policy and copyright regulations.

I hope this clarifies these crucial points, and I trust it will be beneficial in guiding your future contributions. I appreciate all editors' dedication and efforts to maintain the integrity and quality of this platform. Design and Engineering (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That is in no way a response to the questions I just asked you. MrOllie (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What is COI you have commented?

Dear MrOllie,

I will appreciate if you let me know what do you mean by COI? IMHO, my added article "Riba in Shariah" is a good further read on the subject of Riba, but you have further commented as selfpromo, can you please explain why?

Secondly I will be interested to learn about your goodself in relation to the subject of Riba, please. ISBPK23 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a place to list your own papers, particularly ones that have just been uploaded somewhere rather than independently edited and published. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

While I can easily speculate about the primary authorship of this page on Riba, I notice several misplaced references that appear to skew the information in favor of a particular viewpoint, thereby introducing confusion to the subject. Nevertheless, I acknowledge your response, although I do not find the reasoning behind it to be satisfactory. In my opinion, the criteria for evaluating relevance and added quality should have been considered, especially if you possess firsthand expertise on the subject. ISBPK23 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link on Conflict of Interest (COI). Regarding the post in question, its sole intention is to provide a high-quality and informative read for individuals interested in the subject, without any ulterior motives or personal interests involved. ISBPK23 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Dave Vanian in influences

I see the faults but I had added another source that corresponds with the source that was taken issue with before for being irrelevent, I thought it would be acceptible. And I did add an NME source too that also highlights his distinct appearance for that time. GOTHICjdu (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You should work with other editors on the article's associated talk page. But the main problem is the sources, you need sources that exactly support the content (they need to say that he was influential directly, not just a quip about the Addams Family) and they need to be good sources - interviews are almost never good sources since they are almost always overly sympathetic to interview subjects. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this was bad wp:synth and wp:OR. Woovee (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Why you are removing table "Regulatory Aproned Drug or Therapy

Why you want to remove the table for the approved therapy in T1D? A table is a easiest way to summaries the approved therapy for a reader. Do you not like the simple and easy way of information for readers, if yes, then why, and if no, then dont remove it. Manishgupta0724 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons to omit such a table: Wikipedia isn't a venue to provide medical advice, We're an international encyclopedia and don't recognize any one nation's approval process, we're not a catalog, and this provides undue weight on particular pharmaceutical treatments. This content simply isn't the sort of thing that should be hosted on this encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Advice please

At Wings Club, Aviator1942 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly introduced copyright Violation. See [10] copied from [11] I've left a newcomers copyright message and the regular copyvio message on their talk page. They are still introducing the copyvio. What do I do now? Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Question re: edit summary

Hi, I was wondering what your edit summary here means. I've noticed that editor replacing URLs in refs with ecnexecution.com; is there a problem with that site? Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that their approach to SEO is to make a copy of a PDF (without permission of the copyright holder), put it on their website, and then switch the links to their site. The linkspamming is a problem, as is linking to these PDFs per WP:COPYLINK. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, good to know. I'd already warned the editor for spamming a numerology site. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Explaining changes to the news aggregator article

I’m simply trying to update the article per the tag, and also of course, the example paper (co-written by Tegmark) I’m trying to add is actually relevant in that it shows how academia has evolved since 2018. I think that consideration, of richness of sourcing, ought to prevail over concerns over “bloat”.

Kudos for keeping the copy edits, though. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why Did You Remove The Divisibilty Tests Beyond 30?

And can you at least revert the article Divisibility rule to this version or do something else? Because I and others loved the examples for divisibility tests beyond 30! ThereNoWayOut (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It was unsourced and had no inclusion criteria. The revision that you suggest has the same problems. Even if it is cut down, it will just become bloated again in short order - and since Wikipedia isn't a WP:HOWTO site, such lists of examples are off topic here anyway. I don't see any way to include such a list. - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I did this anyway. Draft:Divisibility tests beyond 30# Iexistlol (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SirGazsi (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the journal of gemology 2015

You are continuously deleting my edits, being a new contributor I did not know before about the citations and promotional content but now i am using the same line from the journal, I respect you for what you are doing, I will be happy and satisfied if you clarify why i can not add things directly from the biggest authorities,

Amandawhale12 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You've begun an edit war and blatantly ignored WP:N. Please participate in the discussion that I've opened in the article's Talk page. Or open a discussion to change WP:N so it matches your preferred interpretation. ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:N doesn't mean the concept can't be used elsewhere, such as WP:CSC. - MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not a standalone list. ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And the common criteria are not exclusive to standalone lists. At any rate, we should not be having the same discussion in two places. Direct any follow up to the article talk page where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm QuickQuokka. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought 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. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I was reverting a linkspammer. Please pay attention to what you're reverting next time. MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Sorry. I just thought because your edit chaned Let’s Grow the Future Together → Let’s Grow the Future T farts) --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Request please

The sock thats creating the Billy Cranston page, I think you've reported it a number of times? Do you have the master account details? When I report to AIV I would like to add it into the report, rather than just putting LTA. Knitsey (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. That page isn't on my watchlist and I don't think I've ever edited it. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Doh, sorry to have bothered you. I will go take another look. Thanks for replying. Knitsey (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Ollie...good after noon

Sir...I think you are chasing me or doing some discrimination ...I don't think so I did some wrong or otherwise....please cool down and spare me ...as I am learning to contribute and trying to some good...hope your goodoffice will accomodate me as junior or younger brother....thank you Sir.. Regards Jinnahpk Jinnahpk (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

When someone is making improper edits (such as deleting disambiguation templates or repeatedly adding personal / promotional photos) it is standard to check the rest of their contributions to see if there are more problems. You need to stop doing those things. MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

okay dear I will be careful in future as earlier said I am learning....anyhow you are senior ....I am learning from you...humbly submit not to single out me or some discriminatory treatment may not be given as you are not owner or director nor I am...both are doing voluntarily...you are senior ...I am junior....I undertake to be careful in future...hope you will extend your greatness...

Take good care Sir...

Regards

jinnahpk Jinnahpk (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't call people 'dear', that is inappropriate in English. If you make errors on Wikipedia, other people will correct them. That is how this project works. We aren't going to leave problems in the articles just to protect your feelings. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay Sir....I am sorry and I appreciate you...

If you allow Sir...may I request you humbly...please withdraw or me allow to delete the allegation of template of payment etc..which hurt me ...I am learning Wikipedia and its system which is very interesting and knowledgefull ....I will be more careful ...please allow me Sir...

Best regards

jinnahpk Jinnahpk (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No. That article is obviously promotional and the maintenance template needs to remain. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Divisibility rule

While I'm inclined to agree that that the article does not need detailed examples for higher numbers, I strongly suggest that you open a discussion on the article's talk page. The page was given admin-only protection for 4 days by user:DMacks as "Edit warring / content dispute" (after the material was recently removed 5 times in 2 days). Since the protection ended the material has been restored and removed three more times. With the exception of two edits by an IP and one by user:Black Yoshi all of this editing was by you and user:Iexistlol. Neither of you has opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I see no grounds for claiming an edit warring exemption here, and I suspect both of you would end up blocked if this goes to WP:AN3. The admin-only protection should have been a pretty big hint to both of you. Meters (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie, you know what edit warring is, so I won't template you, but consider the above a warning. I will template the other user since they are a new user who has not previously been informed. Meters (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Martdj (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC) I think Wikipedia's policy is clear. When there's poorly sourced contentious material is found, this material is removed first. Then discussed. Not the other way around. You can't hide behind "my source is from a domain that is excepted by Wikipedia as trustworthy", when multiple people have already pointed out major flaws in the article. It's a badly written paragraph, lacking proper references, and should at the very least be thoroughly rewritten.

You thoroughly misunderstand Wikipedia's policy. You cannot cry BLP to edit war and keep reliably sourced information out of an article. MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Why?

What was wrong with my edits? Parham wiki (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Links

Dear MrOlie, I have added detailed information about the topic which was covered in detail in the cited link. Also I have added detailed information which was reverted. I might have over linked the text but my every edit has been reverted. Can you please explain this ? Regards AWAZAD (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You're spamming external links. Stop. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What if we cite the reference of information? is that also spamming? AWAZAD (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are adding links to your website (which does not remotely meet our sourcing requirements), you are spamming, even if you claim to cite the reference of information MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well Thanks.

Can you please share Sourcing requirements for Wikipedia. AWAZAD (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

See links in the warning message already on your own talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Kathiravan 07070707

Kathitravan 07070707 183.171.79.92 (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

brand journalism is not same as advertising or native advertising.

Hello. Brand journalism is not advertising because, unlike advertising, it provides information and content that adheres as much as possible to journalistic standards and informative content formats. Also, brand journalism requires an independent article from native advertising, because brand journalism must be in accordance with the standards and formats of journalism, but there is no such requirement for native advertising. So please don't delete the brand journalism article on the pretext that the two are similar. Also, please don't delete the explanation about brand journalism in the journalism article because brand journalism is different from advertising and I explained why. Thank you . Wikijournalistt (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is quite clear, it is the same thing. Please stop adding your personal opinions on this to Wikipedia. It is impossible for advertising to be in accordance with the standards and formats of journalism, they are fundamentally incompatible. Per WP:POVFORK, we can't have two articles on the same concept. The book you've cited even states directly that they are synonyms. MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

About your conversation with a new user

Hey MrOllie, I've had Analyst.Rehmat's talk page on my watchlist since I left them a welcome message earlier this week, and couldn't help but notice the warning you've given them about adding inappropriate links. I wanted to clarify with you why you were using relatively harsh language in your response to them, and implying that they were engaging in sockpuppetry. Correct me if I'm missing something, but this seems like a simple case of a new user not yet fully understanding Wikipedia's guidelines and making good-faith mistakes. It seems that they need nothing more than a gentle nudge towards WP:EL or WP:RS to fix the issue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

They are part of a series of accounts that has been spamming links to the same website across Wikipedia. Stiff language is sometimes needed when dealing with spammers and vandals. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Is there an SPI that determined that they were vandalizing across multiple accounts? Or was there just a surge of links to cleverbot2.com all at once? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We usually don't bother with SPIs when accounts are all spamming the same link. They just get blocked independently (one was blocked a couple days ago) since they're all violating the policy in the same way, and then once we rack up a half dozen or so we blacklist the site. Sometimes a firm warning halts the issue without getting the blacklist involved, which is preferable. MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I jump in here or this is another violation? Please don't take actions if this is a violation, I am new and still learning. Thanks Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Just stop spamming. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Analyst.Rehmat: Yes, the links you are adding to the Cleverbot article don't appear to be constructive. cleverbot2.com does not appear to be affiliated with the actual Cleverbot, so linking to that site would be inappropriate on this article. With that said, I've reverted your edit again. I'm going to assume good faith and trust that you're not intending to vandalize with these edits I would recommend that you check out WP:RS for information on identifying appropriate sources to add to Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Ollie,

I appreciate your efforts to ensure Wikipedia's authenticity. However, I'd like to clarify a point regarding dead links. According to my understanding, when encountering dead links, they should either be removed or replaced with live links.

Regarding the web-archive concern, I want to highlight that cleverbot.io was not the official website for Cleverbot. The correct and official web application is Cleverbot.com, which is already live. It seems that instead of adding live links, dead links were inadvertently placed.

Let's work together to maintain the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia by making the necessary corrections. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please correct me if I am wrong here. Thanks again. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe my edit was an improvement over yours, wouldn't you agree? Please understand that I'm just asking and not trying to be offensive. Let's have a constructive discussion about the edits.

Thanks Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong about this. The fact that a dead link exists does not mean that any live link can be added in its place. You are always responsible for the links you add, including making sure that they are not spam links, are reliable sources, and actually support the statements they purport to cite. Your edit was not an improvement, that is why it was reverted. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Dang it. @Girth Summit: beat me to it with fancy checkuser tools. Anyways, this is a massive sock farm - tracks back to your old MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2023#mrexamples.com report. I think Misbah6666 is the oldest. Lots of overlap in the domains mapped. Since they've all been used abusively, I'm going to blacklist the rest (ilovepdf2.com, cleverbot2.com, pythononlinecompiler.com, javascriptonlinecompiler.com, jsonminify.com, unminifyall.com, emailidator.com). Sam Kuru (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I picked it up at AIV, and blocked a bunch of accounts and recorded what I'd done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandon Smith121. Looks like the reports in the blacklist archive you linked to will be stale, but if there is an existing SPI case or similar that I can link them to, let me know. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No significant outliers; you blocked every one of the recent ones on my list I was ticking off. I presume AlexJohnn55 was not molested since he was already blocked - or was he not a match? Sam Kuru (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yes, forgot about them - yes, they're confirmed too, you're right I didn't bother listing them because they were already blocked, but I've added them for completeness. That's all I can see - feel free to ping me if any more crop up and I'll deploy the CU broom. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You're awesome. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert on the Photographic Film Page

Hello MrOllie, I would like to know why you reverted what I just added on this section: Photographic film#In production

Film Photography Project states on their site that they acquired old equipment from the Svema plant to resume production of Svema branded film in Ukraine.

I do not know exactly when they have started doing this, but there is a capture as early as April, 2018 on the Wayback Machine for this url:

https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/svema-film

Does Shostka, Ukraine not count as another legitimate coating plant?

Is the source not reliable because it is a store site?

Why did you revert my edit?

Thanks,

FilmDoodler (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't link to people's web stores. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, can I ask for a link to the directory if you're going to cut that entire section then?

FilmDoodler (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Entirely disregard; I am new here,

I have found out List of photographic films exists. FilmDoodler (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad to have corrected an error  :) FilmDoodler (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what's inappropriate about the link.

Hello! @MrOllie I have done a small edit in the page and the link i cited had the detailed information about the topic. what's spam in it?

Content strategist 1 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Your blog does not remotely meet our policy requirements. Adding your site was linkspamming as we define it on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it. but i don't agree with you on this Content strategist 1 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You're allowed to disagree with Wikipedia's policies, but you've got to follow them anyway. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle

I just noticed <this> warning you gave a user using Twinkle, seems that it broke.

From experience if you include "[[" inside a template, but don't close it ( {{subst:void|[[like this}} ), it doesn't do anything.
Although I do realize that your case happened because of a typo (should have been a single opening square bracket). – 2804:F14:80B2:4F01:FD70:3461:5359:B35D (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Just wanted to make sure you saw this, since I sent this just as you (I'm guessing) went away for a few days and other -ignorable- edits happened to this page after it. – 2804:F14:80A4:9701:D537:4E86:F39C:17C (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I left a level 2 spam warning and removed the malformed warning. Sundayclose (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

news reporting

news reporting is a subfield of journalism. all subfields of journalism have article. why you do not let it to have special article? what is your problem? Wikijournalistt (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they are the same thing per the cited sources. You must stop moving articles and rewriting them based on your personal opinions, which are at odds with the relevant literature. What you are doing is disrupting Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

DJFLEX-mk2

@MrOllie You did not bother to look deeper into this, I was there in late 1970's and 1980's (History). How are your sources reliable on your part to remove contents? DJFLEX-mk2 22:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no sources cited on that article section. Sources are required to verify content (see WP:V). This is core Wikipedia policy. 'I was there' is not sufficient, readers need to be able to verify the sources themselves. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Kmart

@MrOllie why did you remove my edit and what talk page are you talking about? You better not say that because the sources are not reliable because they are. Do your research. In the meantime, im reverting my edit. Mmartinezmdr (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Kmart's article talk page, where it is discussed that at least one of the sources you used did not support the content, where there is agreement not to cover announcements until the store actually closes, and where it has been explained (many times) that the number of remaining stores cannot be updated until a new source for the number is available. If you don't know how to read talk pages, see Help:talk. - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

send me the "Kmart's article talk page" please. Mmartinezmdr (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Click on the tab that says 'talk' at the Kmart article. Or read the help file I just linked. MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation spam

But MrOllie, you are doing the same as a dictator. Who are you to decide the policies of Wikipedia? Do you know everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majavic (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that you've been abusing Wikipedia and blatantly violating its terms of use. Just stop spamming us with promotional junk, please. You're not going to be able to evade detection by IP socking. - MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

disruptive editing

Hi, you recently posted a warning on my page regarding edit war. however you didn't issue the same warning to User:ජපස I believe user jps was the one who was engaged in reverting my edits and making other changes as well without discussion. I was waiting for other editors to comment and in the next few days to ask for dispute resolution. But you issued a warning to me and made an edit to the article confirming jps edits. It appears to me that your actions may be interpreted by some as being biased towards a specific user. I was wondering if you could please address my concern. There may be a misunderstanding. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You should worry more about your own behavior and less about jps. Treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND as you have been is a good way to find yourself blocked. MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I think your behaviour is treating wikipedia as a playground and you appear to be the one who started this argument. Regardless i'm not going to continue this discussion. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning 08.07.2023

Please refrain from instantly reverting someone else's edits, especially if they were accompanied by a comment about replacing the questionable source with a source request in the hope that someone will fix the problem. In this way, you not only do not solve the problem, but only worsen it, provoking an edit war and worsening the atmosphere due to a rude tone like "crap source". Solaire the knight (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring with other editors who are removing crap sources or unsourced content. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case, you are in the edit war, removing other people's edits almost instantly, resolving the conflict, and not even allowing you to replace the source with the source request. This is clearly conflicting behavior. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Leaving it unsourced is not better. It has been challenged - you either source it properly or leave it out. You must comply with Wikipedia policy on this, including WP:V and WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop, stop. Do you understand how the "source request" works and what it is used for? You are now actually denying the meaning of this template, since you are literally demolishing the information marked by it as "unsoursed". Solaire the knight (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is highly appropriate to remove any material not supported by a reliable source. The {{cn}} tag system is an optional method, when there is no question that the information is correct but a current source isn't yet found. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So the information is really correct and known to any player in this game. Moreover, many people know about this game thanks to this meme. What's the point of asking if you can't even supply it? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The claims are highly dubious. It is extremely unlikely that 'many people' know about it. But at any rate, it has been challenged and now should not be restored without sourcing. That is basic Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the game and find it debatable, you could let me put in a source request and I or another user would find another source. But you just went for a confrontation, which only made it pointlessly personal. Even though you weren't even involved, I reverted another user's edit. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You are perfectly capable of finding another source without also edit warring the unsourced text back in. But at any rate, it is not productive to argue about it here while the ANI is in progress. Please do not post here again. Thanks in advance. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Kmart

You keep saying things have been extensively discussed but it’s just you disagreeing and reverting anything you don’t like. There’s way more people who don’t agree with you than do and your attempt to use a talk page to validate a rule that you self imposed on this article isn’t exactly the most rational thing on earth. TheUSConservative (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not true, read further back on the talk page and its archives. There are many new users who come to that talk page ignorant of Wikipedia policy. That means policy should be explained and then followed, not ignored. Keep further discussion on the article talk page where it belongs and do not post here any further. Thanks in advance. MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Whack!

{{trout}}

Dear MrOllie,

I'm an expert in my field of work and I also happen to be good friends with several seasoned Wikipedia admins irl.

Please stop gatekeeping the editing process and harassing other users with excessive and unwarranted reverts. This is the last friendly warning before I will have to initiate a lenghty and boring process, reporting you as a "disruptive user" or maybe even for "vandalism", which will probably end with your account and your IP getting suspended/banned.

Please think carefully about your reply and your next steps. Don't make life harder for yourself and for everybody else. We all don't have time to deal with these kind of discussions and you too for sure have better use for your own time and talents.

Thanks and best regards!

RRR3MU5 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't respond to empty threats, you should go ahead and initiate that process right now. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RRR3MU5 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And I've closed this at ANI. Jesus wept. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)