This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

hi, so are you going to specify what you think is putting my own personal opinion into the article, when the article specifically asked for updates relating to what I updated, and I cited everything? Ndwikifixing (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"This is an entirely uncited block of text was found on this very Wikipeida page". (Also note the misspelling) You've also deleted some stuff without any apparent explanation and added some inappropriate sources. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RS. In the future, editing will be much easier if you would edit things one at a time (making several edits in a row is OK) rather than making these single giant edits that jumble a bunch of bad stuff in with the salvageable. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow that's really great feedback (no sarcasm) thank you! In the future I will do my best to make a series of shorter edits so this process is easier for other people looking at it, that's a really great tip too! I wish you had please just said this paragraph in the first place! I spent a very long time updating this page that's been neglected for a full year, and the part you just quoted: it's totally true didn't get to come back to some areas that I just now came back to fix further and that is indeed one that I missed (including a typo, oops!). As for "deleted some stuff without any apparent explanation" I do see now that making shorter edits would allow more room in the explanation box (which is very small) and I would be happy to discuss anything that you think was erroneously deleted instead of phrasing the sake of concision or was replaced with corrected or updated information that is cited. I'm not sure what you consider "inappropriate sources" in this case because to my knowledge I haven't cited any, so go ahead and please let me know about specifics. Again, will make shorter edits in the future so it is less confusing, that is a very good note. Ndwikifixing (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the changes you and other people are suggesting and for some reason it says I'm in an "editing war" whats up with that? Ndwikifixing (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You're repeatedly reverting other people's changes to reinsert your text, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Read the warning message on your talk page carefully, including clicking on the provided links. MrOllie (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie, I believe you put a COI tag on the Wikipedia page for Michael Luby on September 21, 2021, likely in reaction to me (Michael Luby) adding some information to this page that was deemed to be a COI. I just went and removed the material that I suspect triggered the COI tag. Hopefully this resolves the issues that Wikipedia has with this page and the COI tag can be removed. If there are still issues, let's discuss other possible resolutions, like removing this page from Wikipedia completely. The mike luby (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the page still needs going over and cleanup by an unconflicted editor. You really should stop writing about yourself and/or your companies on Wikipedia, whether it be adding material or removing material. - MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie. Whose sock is Anucksonamun, please? Bishonen | tålk 02:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC).

It's Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jinnifer. Note the obsession with horror movie decades and the batman is the protagonist of DC comics nonsense. Has a few edits on 107.119.69.61 earlier, too. Harrassing poor Andrzejbanas again. - MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. Bishonen | tålk 03:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you! If you could see your way to rangeblocking 107.119.69.61/24 for a little bit you can head off the inevitable next account. They seem to jump around a lot, so it wouldn't need to be for very long. - MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If such a small rangeblock will be of any use, sure. Done. It's the middle of the night here, so I'm not really of those present. Good night. Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC).

And now, this.

Honest language issues, CIR, troll, talking out his as...tronomical telescope :) , or some combination thereof? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward poor English skills, definitely. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to add encyclopedias to this article but you reverted my edit. It's true that these encyclopedias don't have their own articles but I wouldn't want to add them all with red link. What is the solution? Can I add them with plain text and add the url in a reference? Thanks.

Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a list of encyclopedias that already have a Wikipedia article. You can write the article first (WP:WTAF). MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is it stated that it's only for encyclopedias with Wiki articles? There are other similar articles which are more inclusive such as List of almanacs or List of biographical dictionaries. I think including more items on this list would fall under notability per the topic being notable.--Adam Harangozó (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a very common list inclusion criteria. If you'd like to change it, feel free to start a RFC on the list article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes and in some cases it's useful but here it only makes the list a lot more limited. Wikipedia states in the selection criteria for lists that "while notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles." These encyclopedias are topically relevant but might not need separate articles in English. Is it okay if I expand/transform the list according to this? --Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would object, I think that the list should include only entries with corresponding Wikipedia articles. Otherwise the list will get filled up with random wikis off of Fandom.com and similar. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There are separate lists for random Wikis, this can be stated at the beginning of the article (for example saying that these are not crowd sourced encyclopedias). Would that be better? There are plenty of important, high-quality encyclopedias missing from this page. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be better. Inclusion criteria must be firm and clear. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The notability guideline states "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." I understand that you don't want infinite and arbitrary lists but this is a well defined, narrow topic which is missing relevant items. The more or less established guidelines for lists seem to be more permissive than your preference. What do you think? --Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you sure do like to see me repeat myself. MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm bringing arguments based on guidelines while you are saying your personal opinion. No need to repeat but I would say the guidelines are more established. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The text you just quoted includes " editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries [...] with Wikipedia articles." The current criterion is just as based on guidelines as your proposal to widen it. It is a matter for editorial consensus. Hence, what I wrote above: "If you'd like to change it, feel free to start a RFC on the list article's talk page." For the record, I'm not the only user who maintains this list according to this criterion. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, your comment on my edit does not describe what is "inaccurate". Please let me know your concern, so that I can put edit on "acceleration (computing)". Please guide me so that I can contribute or request edits while following the rules. Thanks. Shailldve (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You linked to an article on Hardware acceleration, and your text didn't describe hardware acceleration, but rather program optimization. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I wasn't referring to program optimization, since it may or may not lead to "acceleration" -- speedup of execution's efficiency (typically execution time) --. I will rewrite and resubmit it, thanks. Shailldve (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, your comment on my edit does not describe what is "rv blog spam". Please let me know your concern, so that I can put a subsection/edits on "AI accelerators leveraging sparsity" - which is a common recent trend. Thanks. Shailldve (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You additions were full of improper external links and sources, including blogs and arxiv preprints. Please have a look at WP:RS and use better sources in the future. Thanks. Also, please see WP:COI. You shouldn't cite yourself like that. When you have a conflict of interest you should instead propose the edit on the talk page associated with the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Yes, there was one top-quality arXiv article containing tutorial on quantization, another (got quoted as arXiv but arXiv was the only paper URL I got online) was "deep compression" paper for compression of deep learning models - which got Best Paper Award at International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2016 and is highly referred by. External link to a blog was referring to NVIDIA A100 architecture - popular accelerator today and industry AI accelerator supporting sparsity, and another link were referring to Samsung's presentation for their paper at 33rd HotChips conference, describing how their NPU accelerator and how it leverages sparsity. I am really not sure how could I omit such best references, but will try to rewrite before I re-submit the text. Please note that I do not have any conflicts here with these authors or their institutions. About COI: thanks for informing - I wasn't aware of the COI and the process. If permissible, I will resubmit the subsection by omitting text that cited (unfortunately mine) extensive literature review on the topic, published at the proceedings of the IEEE (flagship IEEE publication, since 100+ years). Later, I may separately propose edit (that can have the conflict) per guideline, as you suggested. Thank you. Shailldve (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, You have comment on my page, that i have made external link, yes i have created that link and FYI, the link was broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Rivenburg (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie Why until now the previous two paragraphs stood for years. Aren't these advertisements? Did you think of it when I entered data as a Turkish software developer? You are applying a double standard. This is your inappropriate behavior.

You said "This is not a place to build a vendor list"

Evans & Sutherlands Zeiss? goto? Minolta?

Aren't these all vendor companies? Asafyurdakul (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop spamming your company on Wikipedia. You've had an article about this deleted (3 times!) we don't want your advertising. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're the one making the real double standard and destructive regulation. I am enriching wikipedia. Do you own Wikipedia? Let another controller decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafyurdakul (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

3 other people deleted your advertising as well. Keep this up your account will be blocked, and your website will be placed on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which will damage your SEO efforts. - MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're not just violating my right. You're also violating Takayuki Ohira, Microsoft and GoDome. I will inform them of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafyurdakul (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on my talk page. I couldn't explicitly find in the guidelines why any of the sources I used aren't usable, particularly this article: https://solutionsreview.com/enterprise-resource-planning/whats-changed-2021-gartner-magic-quadrant-for-transportation-management-systems/ and this one: https://www.oracle.com/scm/what-is-transportation-management-system/. From the guidelines, it sounds like certain sources are preferred, when they are available. In the case of the Transportation management system article, there are currently no sources at all, so wouldn't some of these sources be better than no sources? I was under the impression that articles need to have sources, so I tried to add some to support the information on the page, but all of them were removed. Please let me know what I might be missing. Thank you for the help TSBshejY (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The solutionsreview article is press release churnalism. Oracle is a vendor blog. You also added a forbes contributor (see WP:FORBESCON) and cited patents directly (those are primary sourrces). I don't believe it is better to add poor sources than no sources, because that discourages the addition of sources that actually meet the sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples for usable sources when it comes to such a broad topic as Transportation management system? I appreciate your help.TSBshejY (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Major newspapers, peer reviewed journals, and books from major publishers are all good sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you guys bots or real people? I wrote an edit summary to my first edit, why are you telling me I did not? But who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongó 4 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You wrote an inadequate edit summary, and you are edit warring to delete sourced content. You must go to the article talk page and get agreement from others to make that deletion. MrOllie (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie

I am a retired philosophy professor who tried yesterday to add a couple of peer-reviewed articles I've written to references or further reading sections. I received a "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia." I thought I was contributing relevant material even if it was my own, but if I'm not allowed to do this I understand. But if I think the material is relevant should I have someone else put it up and let you then judge its relevance? Does that work?

And thank you for all the time you spend ensuring that Wikipedia is a good source of truth. As we both know there is so much lying out there that undermines social stability. thanks again . John Messerly, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmesserly (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

When you're adding citations to yourself to Wikipedia, you are editing with a conflict of interest. A message about this with explanatory links was added to your user talk page back in June 2017, and since then you have continued to primarily use Wikipedia to add citations to things that you've written. You should not 'have someone else put it up', as they would have a conflict of interest as well because you told them to do it. When you would like to suggest a citation to something you have written, what you should do is post a message on the article's associated talk page with your suggestion, and let someone with no conflict evaluate it. Please read the links that have already been placed on your user talk page, this is all explained there. - MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_waste&action=history 00:43, 13 January 2022‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 148,986 bytes −5,645‎ Restored revision 1065313981 by Drmies (talk): Poor sourcing. Student essay, perhaps?

Could you please elaborate on the poor sourcing? The information was either made more concise or taken from the cited material. Or the citations themselves are poorly formated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altali (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't use vendor websites or blogs as sources. It also read as very POV, more like somebody's essay than a encyclopedia article. MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, the article from Greentec was a press release which should be a rather credible resource.

But the Volpy citation was from the vendor themselves. I will remove that one and rewrite or delete that sentence.

And of course, there are more technologies and applications available which are not listed, that is why it sounds like POV, it was more of a report of examples of what is available.

Maybe if I add For example some of the technologies are the following: to the article then it will be less POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altali (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Press releases are marketing, and are the opposite of a reliable source. And no, adding 'for example' to a laundry list of product offerings will not turn it into something encyclopedic. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be turned into lists of semi related concepts. - MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_security&oldid=prev&diff=1065339682 hi Mr. Ollie I'm glad to see your volunteer work on wiki! But you check my links? This blog is about mobile security and we saved billions of users data in last year ( U can check posts about Tik-tok, Samsung and other vulnerability issues ) Our mission is to keep humanity's data safe online. That was my desire to add this blog. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikhorolskyi (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't link blogs, sorry. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie i am here for my contribution to the community. if there is broken link or information is outdated, then we should update it. I see you are doing spamming to other contributors too. i am looking for your thoughts on outdated information and broken link, if you are teacher here then teach me what to do with outdated information and broken links. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Rivenburg (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're not fixing broken links or adding useful information, you're adding spam links. My thoughts are: stop adding spam links. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay you win — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Rivenburg (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

how can you say that ware spam? link was broken and i updated it. i guess you only allow big sites to add their links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Rivenburg (talk • contribs) 09:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if you saw, but "Drmies" has said that I have been "disregarding the comments and actions of ... User:MrOllie." I honestly cannot think of a single edit or comment of yours that I have disagreed with, let alone "disregarded," so I have no idea what they mean by that. Do you have any idea what they are talking about? I asked them, but got no response. I think you and I have been in agreement, but if there's some comment or edit of yours that you think I've disregarded, let me know. I really appreciate your help in trying to more accurately describe AI history. Thank you! --Elspea756 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to stalk an IP's edits, at least be competent, which is not what happened at Gavin Newsom. I fixed the issue you propagated; however, if you stalk me by reverting my edits I will file a complaint, because that behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. 2600:1012:B04C:AEA8:29A4:663D:1674:976E (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP, and you seem to have followed me after this discussion where obviously we disagreed. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B068:2F9B:8144:441F:3175:626A. If you are a regular editor of Gavin Newsom's page, please disregard this message. 2600:1012:B016:2BFD:1D93:70B:E0FF:1886 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've had Gavin Newsom's page on my watchlist for a long time, probably 10 years or so. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies then, my emotions got the better of me. Please disregard this. 2600:1012:B016:2BFD:1D93:70B:E0FF:1886 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for improving the sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello you mentioned that there's a sockpuppetery block in your edit summary. May I know more about what you were referring to? Without further information I don't think it's appropriate to undo somebody else's remarks in a talk page. Thanks. 112.120.39.119 (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_rot Hello, Mr. Ollie. I have been trying to add the usage of hydrogen peroxide in treating root rot onto the root rot Wikipedia page. You have removed them citing that it is unacceptable since the references are from either a website or a blog. And by reading the WP:RS link you provided, it seems Wikipedia deems any information that isn't from a news organization or academic as a questionable source. Since I just started to contribute on Wikipedia, I'm wondering if there are exceptions to such rule? By looking at a similar Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseplant, almost a quarter of references at the bottom are from a website or a blog. ​It would be much appreciated if you can clarify this issue for me, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanhao10001 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited, I'm sure you will find all kinds of things in need of fixing. Please try to follow the policies rather than following what may be bad examples. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some insight into your thoughts over on the copyright infringement talk page. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A large section on business school tuition completely was removed by you without discussion or explanation in the talk page. I will await your response before I undo the deletion. Ctatkinson (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT we should not be building tables of pricing information. We're an encyclopedia, not a college catalog. MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Pricing is the issue. Got it. Thank you for responding.Ctatkinson (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

At Talk:Race and intelligence, you said Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, we generally do not report on single studies. I recently tried in vain to convince two editors that a study performed in hospitals of Mexico City is a primary source (Talk:White_Latin_Americans#Mongolian_spot). The examples given at WP:PSTS don't mention biological, genetical or medical studies, although for me it seems clear that they are primary sources. So my question is: Do you know of some old RfC or something like that which puts it more clearly? Or do you have an idea where I could start such an RfC ? Thanks in advance, Rsk6400 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Biomedical sourcing issues are expanded upon at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks a lot. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove restic? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_backup_software&type=revision&diff=1061410714&oldid=1061410427 Was that accidental? Rotiro (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a list of software with a Wikipedia article. restic has no article. MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says "This is a list of notable backup software ..." Why is having a wikipedia article a requirement? Backup software can be notable without having a wikipedia article. Restic is quite popular and widely used, it has > 15K github stars, more than many others in the list. Rotiro (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what notable means on Wikipedia. Github stars and other gameable social media metrics have no bearing on notability as it is defined here. Wikipedia:Write the article first is a good explanation. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, you removed my example for matrix multiplication as "original research". While this example is original itself, the basic calculation and the way of understanding matrices that way is not original at all - this is common in data science. Removing such an entry looks like removing an example for multiplications like "a farmer has three apples, how many apples does another farme have, if he has three times as many" as original research. If that would be true, any example that is not from a textbook would be original research. Could you consider readding my addition, because an intuitive explanation for matrix multiplication is really missing on that page in my humble oppinion! Kind regards, Dr. Kling — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepKling (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your addition contained numerous unsourced claims and betrays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is written and edited. We can't add your original 'intuitive explanation', everything added to Wikipedia must be traceable to a reliable source, this is required by two of our fundamental policies (WP:NOR and WP:V) and we can't simply ignore them. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#MrOllie_reported_by_User%3AStix1776_%28Result%3A_%29

I really tried asking you guys if there was a dispute resolution. Stix1776 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think escalating this is going to go the way you seem to think it will. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've requested dispute resolution 4 times. I'm at a loss as to why you think it's ok to keep edits with obvious problems. Stix1776 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I keep telling you to file whatever noticeboard discussion or RFC you like, and you don't do it. Also, as have you have seen on the article talk page, I do not agree that there are obvious problems. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: ((subst:arbcom notice|Inappropriate censorship of contribution to page entitled "God")). Djhbrown (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. - MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The case request has been removed on confirmation from an arbitrator. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Thank you, got it. Yes, i wanted to write about the work I did. Interpreting the guidelines, I think it is permitted as long as it is not considered excessive. I was careful to keep a neutral style. I will add review articles, and use ((requestedit)) if I want to cite my own work. Alexander M. Wolf Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. An example of 'excessive' might be adding a whole subsection on your work to several articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: OK. I will use secondary sources, or wait until they become available. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Another question for clarification: If I use the >requestedit< process, as you suggested for people with a COI, is the preference for secondary (review) articles/sources dominant over approval by neutral reviewers? The guideline say that secondary sources "should" be used, but it isn't clear if this is an absolute necessity or not. I saw that you also removed an edit I made in December 2021, which was corrected by another review (Boghog). Maybe he didn't see the COI, but the COI is anyway no impediment to editing, if it is clear and I go through the appropriate approval process. If you say several subsections is excessive, ok, but the single subsection from December too? I just wanted to know whether it makes sense to go through the requestedit process as you suggested. I don't want to waste other people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander M. Wolf (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This 'not excessive' language is trying to cover expert editors we have who edit lots of articles, and they'll cite themselves occasionally (like, 10-25% or less of the articles they touch). The Wikipedia community isn't all that enthusiastic about editors who will cite themselves on every article they edit. The primary vs. secondary concerns are specific to medicine, which has more stringent sourcing requirements than most topic areas on Wikipedia. Please read WP:MEDRS thoroughly if you haven't yet. Articles on medicine or human biology almost never cite individual studies or research papers that present theories. Wikipedia largely wants no part of the 'cutting edge' of medicine - we want to cover old, boring settled science, the kind of stuff that almost everybody in the field knows about and agrees with. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. That's maybe not what I wanted to hear, but it is reasonable and makes sense. After all, it is Wikipedia The Free >Encyclopedia<, not Wikipedia where everybody can write his opinion just because it once managed to pass the (now often completely dysfunctional) peer review process. I'll work on improving existing articles then and wait for my own things to become sufficiently "old, boring & settled" to pass WP:MEDRS criteria. I hope it doesn't take decades. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, hope you are fine and doing good. Really sorry if you felt I was spamming. Actually, I am the founder of sublimationhome.com it is an online site that is getting authority in the sublimation industry. We are focusing on quality content and research-based content(You can visit the site and see yourself as well).

The purpose I paste my link in the reference section was to help the user if they need any information about sublimation. Yes, I edited multiple times because it was showing me an error and pasting the link in the wrong format that can impact badly on the user.

I hope I cleared myself and you understand my opinion. Best Regards, Sublimation Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan mehmood 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't add your own site to Wikipedia again, please. If you keep it up it will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may damage your SEO efforts. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, I believed that the citation was appropriate for an encyclopedia because the author is a PhD. I'm sorry if it did not follow Wiki's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeK2033 (talk • contribs)

Hi there @MrOllie, I was just checking out recent changes and saw you reverted one to the page Firewood, stating that it seemed to be a conflict of interest / self-promotion. I don't see how the edit that was made could be interpreted that way. Would you mind explaining it to me? Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

On Goji berries, You had claimed that the Given sources stated that (as of 2018, there are no clinical benefits found from Goji berries).

Except the given sources doesn't say that at all. Did you even read the dates of the sources. They are from 2007 and 2013. How can they make that claim if none of them is even from 2018. It's original research and not a sourced statement And why I removed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068098575

49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep this on the article talk page where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Not sure why the easy peasy ebook is on there but mine is not. My ebook is a newer and more concise version of easy peasy with updated science, and it should avoid copyright claims. So not sure why one is allowed for an encyclopedia and not the other. Thanks. CSmith56843 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:ELNO. Do not add links to your own website or write about your book. If someone else has added an inappropriate link, that is not a reason for you to add more. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

hi @MrOllie, I am not being compensated for my (minor) edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickinsonCollegeFDST (talk • contribs)

Given your promotional username coupled with the promotional edit, I don't really believe that. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to put my IP address. not sure how to do this, first time making an edit. should I change the username? I don't want it to be a "promotional username". not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickinsonCollegeFDST (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

sorry - what does unsigned preceding comment mean? not sure I am following. Should I remove my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickinsonCollegeFDST (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Really disappointed at that. It's perfectly fine if you're unwilling to fix the refs yourself, but I really don't get it why you would simply remove the little that's left and make it more difficult for everyone else. – Uanfala (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's still in the history, feel free to document on the talk page. Deliberately keeping user-facing errors on the page isn't the way. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it's the page history, then you're welcome to fix it. Replacing a minor error (half-broken refs) with a major one (altogether missing refs) is not helpful at all. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, May I please ask what was the reason to revert recent changes on the CloudStack Page? And to delete the known users?Andrija.panic (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for advertising. Why did you try to turn it into an advert? Are you associated with the software or its developers in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Apache CloudStack is an open-source software project, which is community-driven and part of the Apache Software Foundation. The official listing of its known users is not promoting specific companies, but showing what types of companies are using the software. Also this list was published long ago both on the Foundation website + the Wikipedia page. So I believe it is normal to have a list of users. You can also check similar pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStack

Also, please advise why the changes in the initial paragraph are also reverted? Andrija.panic (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it? MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I am part of the contributors to the project since the last 4 years.Andrija.panic (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Please, also provide an argument of reverting the changes in the project description.

Please read WP:COI - you should not be editing the article directly, particularly not to add promotional wording. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Apache CloudStack is not an employer of anybody, as it is an open-source project. Also the customer list was not added by me. So I do not see any conflict of interest there? Andrija.panic (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest are not limited to employer/employee relationships. You are a contributor to this project, you are adding inappropriate promotional material about the project - you have a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What in the description is promotional? Andrija.panic (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The replacement of the fact-based opening with a collection of marketing buzzwords and claims about 'worlds largest', etc. Do you work for ShapeBlue? MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the promotional part. I appreciate it. According to what I see, editing the description in a strictly technical way should be fine? Andrija.panic (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, editing the article with a conflict of interest is not fine. Do you work for ShapeBlue? MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so it will be a conflict of interest if I create or edit a page for ShapeBlue. Will adding information for latest releases, dates and features be a conflict of interests according to you? Andrija.panic (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Working for a company that funds development of CloudStack and sells integration services for the same is an obvious financial conflict. Please see WP:PAID, which applies to you, and note that you have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. You may make suggestions for changes on the article's associated talk page, but you should not be editing that article yourself at all. The Wikipedia community does allow for this find of thing through talk pages, but we do request that you be open about it. Misleading statements like the ones in the above conversation will not be met with goodwill by the Wikipedia community. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, allow me also to join the conversation. I believe the idea here is the page to be updated with up to date technical information for the technology, which can be useful for anyone. Can you please help on this and maybe also contribute to the page? 78.83.163.2 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:EWLO, you're not fooling anybody. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You removed a large amount of text from Community structure without providing a clear justification for such a radical amputation. You provided the edit summary "clean up havlin citespamming". What is havlin? What is citespamming? O'Dea (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Citespamming is adding numerous citations to self-promote. Havlin is the author of the improperly emphasized citations I was removing in that diff, added by one in a series of single purpose accounts/sockpuppets (or perhaps hapless grad students) who have been adding mentions of him and his work everywhere they can on a few dozen articles. I really don't think removing some barely-on topic material cut and pasted into several articles was a 'radical amputation'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The opaque edit summary accompanied by the chopping of a chunk of text gave the appearance of radical amputation. Meaningful edit summaries can avoid this kind of confusion. Thank you for your explanation. O'Dea (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated a source but maybe I made something wrong in the formatting. This is the source https://web.archive.org/web/20211207113327/https://www.italian.tech/2021/05/27/news/a_milano_claudio_cecchetto_e_marco_camisani_calzolari_lanciano_un_social_network-302961639/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggingmilano (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not remotely a notable social networking site, it should not be listed in the timeline. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course! it was the first in Italy. At the time I was one of the few users with an Internet connection. InternetworkCity was promoted every day on the national Radio Capital because it was the same owner. So something revolutionary I think, when other websites was just static grey pages on Mosaic... Just because you are not italian, it doesn't mean it didn't exist or was not notable. It was in the country because was the first one. In the list there are many other local national social network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggingmilano (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There are 195 countries in the world. The first of anything in each one is not necessarily going to be notable. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie. I'm new to this on Wikipedia so forgive me if I did this wrong. I wanted to make you aware of the attempted brigading of a page that you've edited. Please refer to this post from Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/si9z1k/need_help_with_wikipedia_circumcision_talk_page/ Cblackbu1 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

thank you for you message. In the article "Zero_trust_security_model" you remove a section which was available since 2 years. You have to consider that the reference link is an offical patent in Switzerland and that the invention about the untrust-untrust network was published in 2014 (https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/loadPatDocPdf/07F1C1C2058E036459A22D25BBF215424050B742).

Basically with your change you let a huge hole between 2019 (the UK National Technical Authorit) and 2010 (Google), which it does not correspond to the real developement.

I kindkly ask to reconsider the text that was online for more than 2 year. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs)

Patents are primary sources and are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. You need independently written, secondary sources from well known publishers. Also, Wikipedia is not for self promotion. You must stop writing about yourself and linking your self published books. - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The patents that bring a huge advantage to the society should be considered and published. I understand that is very difficult to review all the articles of Wikipedia. I am fully aware of it. I appreciate very much your work, but in the other hand you should recognize the hard work of inventors too. The inventions, as you probably know, are avaible for everyone - for free. With the removal of that section, you let a huge hole of 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC) There is no official document or evidence prior to my registration of the "Untrust-Untrust" architecture patent. So, I appeal for fair treatment to recognize my person as the inventor of the first "Untrust-Untrust" system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that history is repeating itself: the real inventor is ignored (see Meucci for the telephone 100 years ago) and others take the credit. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia isn't a place for you to set the record straight and get credit. I suggest you see if you can get a tech journalist from some place like wired.com interested, that is the sort of source Wikipedia could use. Your thoughts on usability of patents are noted, but are in conflict with Wikipedia's policies, and I cannot simply ignore policy. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to ignore the inventor. The section had been there for 2 years and nobody complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Inventors should always be given their due recognition. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The last comment is unclear: why should I contact a journalist of wired.com? I published the first system using the Architecture "Untrust-Unstrust" as patent at Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in 2015. It is a fact that cannot be forgotten or overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The invention is even registered in the European Patent Office:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/056797945/publication/CH710768A2?q=moresi%20gianclaudio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs)

Wikipeda would need secondary sources, written and published by people who have nothing to do with you. Patents do not meet that standard. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I request fair treatment and republication of the removed section. There are a lot of sources and webpages in internet with my name associated with the Architecture "Untrust-Untrust". And it's better to used an article of wired.com than a Patent in the European Office? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you reading what I'm typing? We cannot use patents as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All article are full of links to patents! One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla There are over 15 Links to Patents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci Meucci, with 15 Links to Patents:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs)

They're not being used without secondary sources, and they weren't added by Nikola Tesla as part of a self promotional effort. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In documents, all sources must be cited. As the inventor of the first system with the "Untrust-Untrust" architecture, I still kindly request to be quoted and to restore the original section, in order to acknowledge my invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable sources and none appear to exist. This will be my last reply on this matter on my talk page, feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My last comment to summarize your intervention:

First: I am extremely disappointed. You (and not wikipedia) prefers to let a hole of 10 years (between 2019 and 2009) in the history of the Zero Trust Network. Second: you remove a section which was there since over 2 years and no one has complained. An third: you prefer to ignore the first official document available in internet describing the architecture "Untrust-Untrust" which was published at "Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property" in 2015. There is no document on the internet which describes the Untrust-Untrust Network prior to my patent. Underlying these reflections, it almost seems to me that there is a form of jealousy and incorrectness. I am an inventor and publish many patents in the cybersecurity field. The work of inventors should be recognized and cited honorably (you should know what does it mean because you work for Wikipedia). I recommend reviewing my points and my reflections, because there's a lot of work behind all these inventions. Thank you in advance and I'm relying on reflection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In the old latin there is this aphorism: "deterior surdus eo nullus qui renuit audire" (=There is none so deaf as those who will not listen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissinventor (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So, I see that you've deleted my addition to the article stating it as a blogspam. Did you even check the info? It was there for a few years and it is 100% correct and doesn't mislead the reader! And you just decide that it is wrong or spam. What do you know about the eyelash extension? And why do you consider it to be a blogspam? That is my homepage and I'm an expert in the field so I hope you will provide a detailed explanation on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindagab (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My changes have been reverted due to being an "unreliable source". What is the indication for you that it was an unreliable source? Because I simply stated the facts and if you knew that procedure then you'd have agreed with me. Instead of improving the articles or removing really unuseful and untrusty information (which is a lot there but just don't bother), you are just making it worse for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindagab (talk • contribs)

Personal websites are not usable sources on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. There is an exception for experts, but that doesn't apply here - it's for people like Eugene Volokh, who are regularly published in peer reviewed publications but also have a blog. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Before deleting a source and counting it as spam, please take a look at the source page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.173.46.188 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking to an advertisement for a lawyer is 100% spam. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is the problem with improving articles? Loki4050 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixing images, what is wrong with it? Loki4050 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding substandard images. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

But which is the problem with it? Like in Mullet you did reverted everything when there were fixings on it, plus you re-added references that were damaged. Loki4050 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Just give me a proper explanation on why is it wrong, and I would stop with it. Loki4050 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop spamming that substandard image. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Well got it MrOllie, but at least could I restore my edit on the Mullet page? the image itself fits good and there were already changes regarding death refrences, I´ll stop with the other 2 pages. Loki4050 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Stop spamming that image. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. OLLIE May i know what is the issue in adding a link which describes "What is Professional Employer Organization". I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW IS THIS A SPAM LINK & WHY IS CONSIDERED SPAM. i request kindly to please re review them as it is not spam Shini Ramith (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you reverted my recent edit to the Cloud computing page. Can you explain why? I used proper sourcing and this was a notable multicloud partnership between two of the largest cloud computing organizations. It received extensive media coverage. So I was surprised to see you remove that from the page. Thank you. Ronanitu (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tech news blog. We're not supposed to be making a chronology of minor events and news stories. - MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I completely understand that. I would respectfully argue, however, that this is not a minor event. This was a major partnership from 2019 that had coverage across outlets like Business Insider, TechCrunch, Reuters, ZDNet, TechRadar, VentureBeat among many others. I would understand if we were talking about some small name organizations, but this was a notable partnership in the multicloud arena, not a minor event. Given this information, do you agree? Thank you, Ronanitu (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to reach out again to see if you had a chance to review what my previous message. Thanks in advance for your time, Ronanitu (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed it, but am unconvinced. Press releases are frequently churned by multiple press outlets, but this sort of industry positioning isn't all that important to the concept of cloud computing as a whole. - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and for taking the time to review. Ronanitu (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you add JetBlue to the list of low-cost airlines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.57.55 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Why do you ask? MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My bad, got the wrong person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.57.55 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Before claiming boldly that content is an opinion, and reverting back to old content which is blatantly subjective and quite untrue (as an industry veteran), please do your due diligence. Prioritizing one-off research as the sole, as you claim "most important" work in the cyber insurance market, is frankly a disservice to the public viewer. I say this in a friendly manner :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:680:7640:28F2:846D:E0FC:FF8D (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, citing sources is required. MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, citing sources is required; opinion(s) or subjective classifications are discouraged. As such, this is not "Ranting", it is regarding the topic of cyber insurance. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGrosser (talk • contribs)

On my talk page I'll title the sections as I like. Also, I'm not the one who added a paragraph sourced to nothing but my own say-so. - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. At any rate, in good spirits, thank you for all your contribution(s) to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGrosser (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted some edits I made to the Disco page. Why? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As I stated at Talk:Disco, we follow what the reliable sources say, not your personal impressions of what the music sounds like. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove the citation to article on stock prediction. On what basis its judged as citation spam or predatory journal. This referenced article is published in Web of Science, most reliable database of peer reviewed articles.Arjrs123 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to self-promote by adding citations to yourself. See WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia that relies on continuous updating and user contributions. Scientific knowledge doesn't build itself from nowhere. Without wikipedia also my work is visible. Its the readers of information who will assess quality or biasness of articles/sources if any. On what capacity are you acting as judge and doing similar activity on genuine edits too elsewhere. Sorry, but its intrusive and pathetic. Arjrs123 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia does not mean that it is a unconstrained free for all. We have guidelines against self promotion for a reason. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree to your wrong conclusion. You should look at the book before branding as promotional. It is a dis service to users. IBMPC BG (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't repetitively add your own book to articles, or add fake reference numbers. That is not improving the encyclopedia, that is spam. - MrOllie (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have joined only yesterday. Made three or four contributions in Glossary of Computer Hardware Terms such as Accumulator, Bus, Cache Memory etc. Your action and conclusion gives the feeling that genuine technical experts are unwanted here. It is a pity. IBMPC BG (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Technical experts are familiar with a wide range of sources from diverse authorship and have no need to cite themselves exclusively. MrOllie (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

IBMPC BG (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC) You may check with another technical expert to verify my contention.

I don't find any reason to block the domain. Since It contains accurate information that Wikipedia lacked. Neither it was an external link nor it was spam. Do you have any personal problems with that though? Removing all the links related to depressionals.com from Wikipedia doesn't make any sense. You must have checked the article and read them thoroughly before taking any action. Nevertheless, I would suggest you to take another review on the decision you took. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.52.248.168 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and was being repetitively added by dynamic IPs, who were ignoring talk page warnings. Blacklisting the domain was the best way to halt the inappropriate additions. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please can you re-examine what you have redacted of mine, with the nursing page. The definition you called 'buzzword-jargan' was in fact a very well known definition of nursing by WHO. Thanks for all your hard work on the wards by the way Mwnt888 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

The opening sentence must be written clearly, neutrally, in easily understandable English and it must quickly define the topic of the article. The WHO version doesn't do any of that. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

please contact me.

i cannot log on to my wiki account.

Bruce Mann 603-465-1381 seachanger@gmail.com 70.109.129.16 (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a technical support person, I cannot help you with that, and I am not going to call or email you. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Glad I found a way to talk to you. My concern is the claims I see from published authors.

A quick search of us patent database "inventor=mann city=mason" will show about 20 patents over a period of 30 years. Most of these patents were for products that generated $100 million per year ... one was $1 billion/year in 1985 (LAT terminal server)

Bruce Mann on linked-in has 500 connections that can confirm my work.

Engineers do not normally publish their work. When it come to the development of the internet, most of the work could not be reference because the internet did not exist.

When I referenced that Ungermann-Bass paragraph, which I did not write, you deleted it. But I can confirm what was written and can refer to a few other people who are still alive about that work.

An engineer at Bellcore in 1998 claimed he invented "Virtual LANs". He was unaware of the product built in 1992 at Ungermann-Bass which was dismantled by CEO Roel Pieper. He sold the network technology of UB to Cisco. Cisco engineers came to visit me at SeaChange International (which I co-founded ) asking if the engineer (Ywoskus) who wrote the code for a VPN worked at SeaChange. I introduced them, and they thanked him for the work. This work was the first VPN, and Cisco when on the market VPNs on their routers.

My point:

You deleted data from Ungemann-Bass page which I know was word for word accurate. Wikipedia credits a Bellcore engineer Dr. Sincoskie for inventing Virtual LANs because he published his work. I can get references from a few engineers to verify this claim.

I know Virtual LANs were invented at Ungermann-Bass in 1991 and the code was transferred to Cisco where VPN were implemented in their routers.

So Wikipedia and many others are crediting the wrong inventors ... innocently ... and I cannot reveal the truth.

Bruce Mann

I 70.109.129.16 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As I already stated at your talk page, Wikipedia requires independent, reliable citations for all content. Without such citations content may be removed at any time. Patents, your linkedin profile, or your personal recollections are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for details. If the published sources are wrong, you have to take that up with them, not with Wikipedia. Perhaps you can get a tech journalist interested. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello - 2 months' worth of research have been removed in one click - please allow me to disagree with your restored revision - Wikipedia is open-source - accepting data from contributors making their homework on the subject, and I believe I made mine... - you refer to the content added in as being promotional, have you taken the time to read through the updates? All backed up by quality references? Please revisit the updates added on 7 February 2022 - if there are any specific sections that raised a red flag, please let me know, and I will make all necessary changes to get the content approved - thank you! TomAlexander85 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)TomAlexander85

Wikipedia is not a venue for marketing or promotion - your replacement version was promotional from top to bottom. As a paid editor you should not be editing the article at all, and you should not be adding mentions of it or links to its website to other articles as you have been doing. If you have factual changes to request, you may suggest them on the article's associated talk page, but we simply cannot return it to the advert that you made of it. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering how this list can be updated by adding entries about other notable software. I've observed that you have repeatedly reverted such additions, e.g., about Simio or about JaamSim, both of which are notable cases of discrete event simulation software, as anyone from the field of discrete event simulation can confirm.

This crates a strange bias in favor of the vendors that have managed to get on the list (such as AnyLogic, FlexSim, etc.). Drgwag (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the word 'notable' is shorthand for 'has a Wikipedia article'. If you would like to add more entries, and they have the required independent sourcing, you can write the article first. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you have redacted my changes to the Desktop Virtualization Page. As my 1st edit in the "See Also" section, I had added some more popular Desktop Virtualization offerings other than just Azure Virtual Desktop. I had added VMware Horizon, Citrix Virtual Desktops and Amazon Workspaces which are competitive products from 3 different companies to Microsoft's Azure offering and arguably all of them are more widely used than Azure Desktop. Two of these three - VMware Horizon and Citrix Virtual Desktops already have wikipedia pages. I thought this was fairly non controversial. I would like to understand why these were redacted. Thanks and Regards KalaGosw (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)KalaGosw

Wikipedia articles generally should not be used to make vendor lists. I've removed the other vendor references as well. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello I got your message about placing external links, I was only trying to help by referencing Google's top advisor for certain risk and insurance topics. There's quite a bit of misinformation or ambiguous information about niche topics in risk amangement and insurance that are outlined on wikipedia so I simply did edits to provide a true technical explanation of some of the concepts to the intended audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredo de Catalonia (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot use adverting as sources on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why you reverted the addition I made to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_low-code_development_platforms&oldid=1072289725 There are other real-world instances of low-code platforms in that list, so I thought I was following the ascribed format. Why the removal? Davejenk1ns (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you employed by Iterate.ai? I believe you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use, see WP:PAID. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am receiving no compensation to post these edits to Wikipedia besides my role as a full-time employee of the company, with responsibilities to ensure that our company is represented accurately. I am not a black hat nor a paid advocate. If you would look at my history, I have been editing the Wikipedia since its first years of creation. I would equally ask you if you are being paid to revert my edits. In reality, I don't think you're being paid, but I have no proof that you are not (just as equally you have zero proof that am being paid, you only have your somewhat overzealous (IMHO) self-guided opinion. I have been working in software for 30 years now, most recently in low-code and no-code platforms. I would respectfully request that you stop reverting my edits purely on your own unproven assumptions, . MrOllie. What can I do to prove to you that I am not a paid advocate? Would you like to have a zoom call? Would you like to see my bank statements? Davejenk1ns (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no way that someone on the marketing staff of a company can prove that they are not a paid advocate, because that is unquestionably what they are. MrOllie (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ollie, I'd like to understand the decision of deleting my fix of a 404 error on the List of codecs page. The current link leads to a nonexistent page that doesn't add value nor makes it possible to confirm information. And the name of the link is different from the actual link: LHDC org leads to Lincoln Hills Development Corporation (see link) which is completely irrelevant to the information on the page. Why do you think this is a better source for details about the LLAC codec? The link I updated with actually has information on the LLAC codec and it's presented in a way that's easier to understand. Since I was editing information about codecs I saw the aptX page is rather bare. It gives multiple warnings about lead section being too short and having too few citations for verifications. I added new information and a source, if the latter is the problem we can delete it. But I believe we should keep the addition to the lead section as it improves the page. I can't imagine you'd have an argument to the contrary. The lead section is literally one paragraph right now. I'm sure you can see that your honorable intentions of fighting promotion sometimes result in limiting Wikipedia's potential. With the hopes we can solve this. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davissam (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The link you replaced it with is a blog that does not remotely meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. I note nearly all of your edits have inserted links to this site in various places. Is this your own website? - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what is confusing about my edit. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentences are supposed to clearly and succinctly define the topic of the article. Your version got bogged down in irrelevant details and split essential information apart so it wasn't presented in a clear sequence. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I tried again? ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't experiment with the live article. Take it up on the article talk page if you want to suggest wording. MrOllie (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What are the reasons for reverting the changes made to [system|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommender_system] on February, 18th (added health recommender systems)? Regards --89.14.134.70 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a short summary, not a laundry list of every topic that recommender systems have been applied to. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I Agree. But than the lead section is already now far from optimal. Nevertheless, I would like to include the topic into the page as it is nowhere mentioned and an important application with increasing relevance. So I would suggest to move all mentioned applications to the "Overview" section or even add and "Application" section. --89.14.134.70 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have secondary sources, maybe. Applications sections are typically very unhelpful and prone to become overlong listings of low-value papers. I oppose any additions based on primary sources only for that reason. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

i am a new editor on wikipedia and i don't have much understanding how the system works. a am a environmental conservation enthusiast, and am trying to help with this web page because of many missing government agencies. the edits i made where to try to help patch the missing agencies after they where deleted by you i was unsure or what to do so i undid the edit. i am sending you this message so we can come to a agreement and reasoning for why my edits should be removed. i would be happy if you could enlighten me about why it was deleted.

alexander vee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander vee (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Every time you try to add things to the page, you are simultaneously deleting other things. You've got to stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ok can you tell me what was deleted so i could take a look on how to work around it Alexander vee (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)alexander vee

See Help:Page history MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

I have find some new information on the cloudyML site which I thought should be there on Wikipedia page for this reason I have changed the section and ad the reference. This lines are for better knowledge of a learner about decision tree pruning techniques. Could you please let me know why this lines should not be their?

Best Regards, Kalpita

Hi MrOllie,

I have find some new information on the cloudyML site which I thought should be there on Wikipedia page for this reason I have changed the section and add the reference. This lines are for better knowledge of a learner about decision tree pruning techniques. Could you please let me know why this lines should not be there?

Best Regards, Kalpita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpita Chatterjee (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot use advertising materials such as that blog as sources on Wikipedia. Linking your own blog (and/or your company blog) in this fashion is considered to be linkspamming on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie. I created the page "Draft:Takumi's Aviation" and mentioned the drink in the page "Gary Regan". Regan was a famous cocktail historian. The cocktail was created in 2010 and nowadays it has become one of the most popular modern classic cocktails. It can be found in several cocktail books in the past 10 years, and it can be also found on the internet in Australia, Japan, Taiwan, China, UK, US etc, around the world. The topic is very useful in F&B industry. How can I improve it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyCocktailian (talk • contribs)

The best way to improve your encyclopedia writing would be to stop using promotional language - 'famous', 'popular', 'took his breath away', etc. You seem to be singularly focused on Takumi and his work, please also have a read of WP:COI and WP:PAID - if you have some connection with Takumi you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit concerning the mathematical relationship between entropy and complexity? It concerns results in a new publication. Coachaxis (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources - it is not a place to use primary sourced to publicize new results or papers. Are you associated with Theodore Modis in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not associated with Theodore Modis, but I am a fan of his work. I believe that this mathematical relationship between complexity and entropy will be of interest to many readers of this page and deserves to be noted in an encyclopedia. Of course, it must also have a reference not in order to publicize a paper but in order to document the validity of the text. If I leave the name out and rephrase the paragraph as follows, will it be closer to Wikipedia standards?

"It has been demonstrated with information-related definitions that complexity is equal to the time derivative of entropy. To the extent that all definitions for complexity—and for entropy—are related to each other, this relationship provides guidelines on how complexity relates to entropy in general.^[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really, no. You should wait for a secondary source - somebody unrelated should validate this, so we know that it has been accepted and is being discussed by the scientific community. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was the reference to his sockpuppetety accounts and legal threats that got his Wikipedia ban in 2019 and over his claims removed, all links within Wikipedia, This was not vandalism. 86.165.245.55 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

On a biographical article we can only write about what reliable sources have written about, and none have seen fit to mention this Wikipedia editing. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI on that IP sock. Meters (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/173.241.182.119#Suspected_sockpuppets Meters (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)\

I want you to not revert me again. The two phenomena are not the same. There is a difference. Let us talk about this. There is a different between mental disorders or disabilities and mental illness. There is a functional difference. The conflation is ableist of the elites who aren to disabled who define this this way. It does not properly reflect our lived experiences. Cbinetti (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)cbinetti

Please keep all discussion on the article talk page where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the problem right? If the academics and medical community exclude a perspective then how can I contest bad facts and wrong terms, if none of us disabled people are allowed into the conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this with you on two pages at the same time. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie, I don't think you were wrong to revert--the user was indeed edit-warring, and your point about them having to seek consensus is well taken. The same goes for me, of course, but we're hashing it out on the talk page. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I would value your opinion in the ANI thread in the section about Zabbix. Thank you. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied there! MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you noted a link I included in an edit of the Cheating in Gaming article. Would you prefer this link? https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/call-of-duty-vanguard-tournament-disrupted-by-cheating-scandal-3089973

The header for that article specifically asked for the adding of citations and research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLaserfalcon (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ollie. Let's revert and discuss the description of the Tesla coil. What concept do you have for resonant transformers? Is it not approved unless it is a double resonant circuit with resonant circuits on both sides of the winding? Here is one reference. Efficient power transfer is possible even with a single resonant. This is described by TDK. It can be highly trusted. JPA_2012182980

[0084]

[Third Embodiment] FIG. 19 is a principle diagram of the wireless power transmission system 100 according to the third embodiment. The wireless power transfer system 100 in the third embodiment also includes a wireless power feeding device 116 and a wireless power receiving device 118. However, the wireless power receiving device 118 includes the power receiving LC resonance circuit 302, but the wireless power feeding device 116 does not include the power feeding LC resonance circuit 300. That is, the feeding coil L2 is not a part of the LC resonance circuit. More specifically, the feeding coil L2 does not form a resonant circuit with other circuit elements included in the wireless feeding device 116. No capacitor is inserted in series or in parallel with the feeding coil L2. Therefore, the feeding coil L2 is non-resonant at the frequency at which electric power is transmitted.

[0085]

The power supply VG supplies an alternating current having a resonance frequency fr1 to the feeding coil L2. The feeding coil L2 does not resonate, but generates an AC magnetic field having a resonance frequency fr1. The power receiving LC resonance circuit 302 resonates due to this AC magnetic field. As a result, a large alternating current flows through the power receiving LC resonance circuit 302. Through the study, it was found that it is not always necessary to form an LC resonant circuit in the wireless power feeding device 116. Since the feeding coil L2 is not a part of the feeding LC resonance circuit, the wireless feeding device 116 does not move to the resonance state at the resonance frequency fr1. Generally, in magnetic field resonance type wireless power transfer, a resonance circuit is formed on both the power supply side and the power reception side, and each resonance circuit is resonated at the same resonance frequency fr1 (= fr0) to transmit a large amount of power. Is interpreted as possible. However, it was found that even if the wireless power feeding device 116 does not include the power feeding LC resonance circuit 300, the magnetic field resonance type wireless power feeding can be realized as long as the wireless power receiving device 118 includes the power receiving LC resonance circuit 302.　　--Neotesla (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again, patents are not reliable sources, and you cannot keep adding your original research to articles. Place any further discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. I will not respond here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The description that energy is stored in the double-tuned circuit is also an original research. And even more physically wrong. Can the literature show that it is physically correct? --Neotesla (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of presenting the TDK literature is sufficient for you to lose confidence in the superstition that resonant transformers are limited to double tunes. --Neotesla (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually read other people's comments? Go to the article talk page. Stop commenting here. MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Okey. Right now, in talk page, everyone is unable to answer the question "Can the Tesla coil be physically generalized as a leakage transformer?". If you answer this question, it will surely be a constructive discussion.--Neotesla (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, hope you're doing well. I was wondering about Cinnamara College Publication, specifically the source used [1], [2]. Would you mind having a look. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this - I don't know anything about them. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I now understand the rule of not doing self promotion or adding external web link. Will it be OK if the link to the webpage is not included at all or use a link to a documentation web just like .Net nanoFramework (https://docs.nanoframework.net/content/getting-started-guides/getting-started-managed.html) instead. Aimagin (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks Aimagin (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not for advertising, with or without a link. MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mr.Ollie,

I added a citation for graphQl where it states "GraphQL servers are available for multiple languages", it then begins to list the programming languages it is available for. WunderGraph was a citation that I added because it's an open source framework written in Go and allows you to create a GraphQL Server from it? Hasura did it for Haskell, so I am confused to why my citation was removed? Did I format it incorrectly? Any feedback would be awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodSoftware2011 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources, linking to one framework or another is not acceptable sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

But can you explain how Hasura is able to link to their framework? I'm confused. I have zero association with both, but I am confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodSoftware2011 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That link shouldn't have been there either, I removed it as well. MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

not going to start an edit war with you but your removal of several important iOS apps from this article is quite contra-productive. This article is obviously meant so that people can find these apps - even when there is no article for the app, e.g. RaivoOTP is arguably the best 2FA app on iOS right now (but very few people actually know about it) and thanks to your revision it's now harder for people to find it. Bookplayer has 4.8* on the app store from 5K people but again you removed it. Session is an important upcoming alternative to Signal.I didn't go over all your removals but you remove important free software from this list and you are not helping us to spread FOSS software to the masses.

"If it doesn't have an accompanying wikipedia article it's not important enough to be listed here" is a sad approach, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E6:970B:B300:4DF2:CD04:F0F1:60 (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to help spread FOSS software to the masses, so I'm fine with that. - MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you deleted my article on arsenic! I apologize for not citing it correctly I guess but I did provide in the editing reasons book sources I used. Also no disrespect but you can verify all those claims with a quick search. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia though! Professor moltone.J (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You provided no sources, you added it to the lead of the article (the lead only summarizes material already present in the article body), and you did not write in an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia articles don't use informal language like that. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - why did you remove my addition of LeadMeNot? If I don't include my actual webpage, can I include the Google Play page? Or, can we add LeadMeNot without an external link? Though, that's my preference

Jasonleadmenot (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Jason Mathew

No. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company. See WP:PROMO and WP:COI, as well as WP:PAID. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Understood, but I'm stating a fact that LeadMeNot is a free solution. What would be the appropriate way to have LeadMeNot added in a non-promotional manner?

Jasonleadmenot (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Jasonleadmenot

When we have high profile, independent citations, such as dedicated articles in major newspapers. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Jasonleadmenot (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Jasonleadmenot

Thanks for informing me of the links but I didn't intend to add links except they are valuable to the organization Mobilesnigeria (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. A cited addition to the List of simulation video games page was reverted because it was without a Wikipedia article. Can you explain why a Wikipedia article link is required on this particular page but the rest of Wikipedia is fine with and encourages citations? Is there a policy page that Wikipedia has for list pages such as this one that I have overlooked? I didn't see the restriction to Wikipedia pages in the article or the talk page itself.

Unrelated to the above, I am going to have to revert the other addition of the word "notable" since it is subjective and difficult to factually determine whether a game is notable (i.e. invites opinion debates to the article). Lathe26 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

'Notable' on Wikipedia means that it has a preexisting article. This is the most common list inclusion criterion on the site, and the one being observed on the list in question. These criteria are set list by list. You can find some info at WP:WTAF MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears both matters up. If you feel it is worth the effort, it might be good to mention the above on the Talk page for the article. Glancing at the article's history, it appears other folks have made the same mistake as me. I could add it to the Talk page if you prefer but I'm guessing you'd do a better job. Lathe26 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am just wondering why. Is Kalincski's Wordpress reliable? 2601:CE:4002:A0A0:A029:C9A9:B866:298B (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

We put that template in very few places (mostly contested stuff like Aluminium), and when it is used it goes on the article's talk page. It is unnecessary in this case, though. MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And, MrOllie, is Igor Kalicnski's Wordpress reliable? 2601:CE:4002:A0A0:A029:C9A9:B866:298B (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my edit, so I don't know why you're asking me. If you have general questions about Wikipedia try WP:TEAHOUSE MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Added it to Teahouse. 2601:CE:4002:A0A0:A029:C9A9:B866:298B (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

I've been watching your edits. Nonetheless, with refer to the article on propelling nozzles. The addition I made is specifically in the section that talks about propelling nozzles of variable geometry. There are no other citable references available in the public literature about automatic control of propelling nozzles. What is your suggestion with this regard? I do consider is a valiable contribution to the topic.

Regads UASLab (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)UASLab

If there is truly only one suitable reference anywhere, per WP:UNDUE the article shouldn't be discussing it at all - it isn't widespread enough an idea to belong in a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Still, it's a peer-reviewed article on the topic evaluated by experts on the matter. It's not a minority opinion, it's an ongoing research.

UASLab (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)UASLab

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of every paper published. You seem to be falling into a trap common to academics who start on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a place to share new results or to get the word out about ongoing reasearch. Wikipedia really only wants settled, oldish material. The kind of thing covered in independent, secondary sources. The kind of stuff that most people in the field will think of as 'old news'. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidelines: "If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge", we have already published the results in reputable sources and, as indicated, we're sharing now accepted knowledge on the matter.

UASLab (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC) UASLab

Contributing to the previous point where you mention new results: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Published content exists and has been peer-reviewed.

UASLab (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC) UASLab

See WP:COI and WP:CITESPAM. You should not be repetitively adding your own stuff, the Wikipedia community considers that to be self promotional spamming. And, again, per WP:UNDUE we need to see that it has truly become 'part of accepted knowledge' - which means that independent individuals are using and writing about your work. Seriously, we don't want people who are just here to see links to themselves. Find some unrelated topic to write about for a while. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, since you keep responding both here and on your own talk page, I am done perpetuating the divided discussion. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

According to wikipedia guidelines, there's no reason to undo the submitted changes but your own personal opinion:

"If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge"

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

UASLab (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)UASLab

You keep reverting my updates by arguing COI. Nonetheless, ath the same time in the same posts you allow:

The convergence of ADRC is proved by Guo and his students.[3][4]

You're taking this as a personal matter, which is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UASLab (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is other inappropriate content, that is not a reason for you to add even more MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to only edit changes made by me, while keeping other edits that are indeed COI. In contrast, my edits did contribute to the article.

UASLab (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)UASLab

No, your edits contributed self promotion. The articles got worse. I'm done here. Once again, feel free to take the last word if you feel you need it. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please see my question about your revert at The 1619 Project. Thanks. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, just wanted to say thanks for reverting all the harassment on my talk page about the Horror film article. It's getting ridiculous. FYI, it appears this person has also messaged me on my Commons talk page too under multiple accounts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they do this across all the wikiprojects. Just try not to engage. WP:RBI and WP:DENY are good advice. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ollie, I wasn't aware that this was an edit war or anything, I was not deleting or changing others hard work either. I was contributing to the article with my research and I don't appreciate my work being erased because you don't agree with it. If we could work something out, that would be great!

I did not receive any other messages on my talk page that I was doing anything wrong either, so before you delete my work, which I have researched and studied for this article, could you tell me what your problem is with it before you delete only my work please ? Thank you!Ro513R3dxoxo (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Ro513R3dxoxo

Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. Wikipedia isn't a place to host your original research, and all content must be supported by reliable sources - the blogs, user generated content, and Wikipedia clone sites you are using do not qualify. Also, please note that I'm not the only person that removed the material you added. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know, as i'm a new user I didn't know that other people were deleting my work and thought it might just be a site error. I only thought it was you because I didn't receive any other messages saying that I was doing anything wrong, I will go over my research again and find the reliable sources needed. Ro513R3dxoxo (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Ro513R3dxoxo

That's backward. See WP:SYN - you can't stitch together a series of sources to support your conclusions. The conclusions have to already be in the sources, Wikipedia just summarizes. MrOllie (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"MrOllie moved page Comparison of open licences to Comparison of free and open-source software licences over redirect: yet another undiscussed move"

Hi, I understand your opinion, but read this: "No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging --Avoinlähde (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is about merges, not moves, and in any case it should be obvious at this point that your systematic changes of open-source terminology are in fact controversial. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I was merge those two articles to new name.. Maybe, but the use of the term 'open-source' also depends on the context. I’m aware that when it comes to software, it’s pretty common, but at least in harware, for example, it’s not the most common (see my latest comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open-source_hardware#Requested_move_2_March_2022). I thought it might be good to use the term 'Open software' in software as well, because then the reader would understand more clearly that these are related(openness), and 'open software' is quite used already. --Avoinlähde (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read through Wikipedia:Article titles if you haven't already consistency between topics is only one factor used in naming articles, WP:COMMONNAME is usually considered to be more important. MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your deletions at Precious Plastic [3] were difficult to review, because you gave no explanation. In future, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your explanation of "We don't second guess reliable sources in this way" does not address the issue at hand. Both sources upon translation show a complete lack of explanation and reference to any falsifying evidence to corroborate the pseudoscience status; they simply list socionics in an x,y,z format next to other proclaimed pseudoscience.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Please revert the omissions back.

ThanksCirrosky54 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to show their work or explain all their evidence. 'Appeal to authority' is a common objection to Wikipedia's policies, but that is indeed how they are structured: see WP:V and WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears as though Wikipedia does indeed allow such unfortunate styles of claims support. Ultimately the burden of intellectual honesty seems to be placed on the admins of the page. In this case appeal to authority is very blatant and is as bad as claiming socionics to be scientific by merit of an otherwise respected committee claiming it to be such (without referenced falsifying evidence). Cirrosky54 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work keeping the article clean. Would it be possible to use edit summaries in cases where the removed text isn't obviously problematic, such as here? Enterprisey (talk!) 02:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie! Wanted to reach out regarding my recent contribution to the MNIST database page, wanted to understand what caused the issue, since I'm new to contributing. I do not represent Zalando, but it's one of the most popular datasets and I do know from very extensive experience with open-source datasets that users often confuse it with MNIST, so it felt appropriate to mention, especially since E-MNIST was also mentioned in the text.

If the issue was with linking to [https://docs.activeloop.ai docs.activeloop.ai], please let me know -> it is a link to the documentation for Hub, an [https://github.com/activeloopai/Hub open-source dataset format for AI], and a free to use and (increasingly) popular project.

Thanks a lot! Mikayelh (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

forgot to sign the message hehe ~~~~ Mikayelh (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The self published links as citations were certainly a part of it (see WP:RS, such sites and github pages aren't generally used as sources) we also should not be building a list of datasets that are sort of like MNIST, that is not the purpose of the Wikipedia article, even if their progenitors did decide to give them very confusing names. - MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for warning me about performing proxy edits at the request of banned users. And second, speaking of banned users, could you please ban this user (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MwiqdohTheThird) and any other user from asking me to perform any more proxy edits? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a wikiquote admin. I believe the place to report that kind of thing is here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Check my contributed history, I have done all I could. Updated everything on the talk page. What should I do when people dont acknowledge that ? Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If talk page discussions don't lead to an agreement, you don't get to make the changes. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I'm puzzled by this recent edit: [4]. Can you please clarify. On the surface this looks like a suitable title for inclusion in the bibliography. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Every reference to Tumanov on Wikipedia was added by a single user, who has been ignoring COI warnings for years. Here's a short COIN thread about it from a few years ago. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie,

I would like to open up a discussion with you about the edits for the page. I, along with MKardestuncer, are student helpers for Dr. David Ring, and we are working on a project to fix musculoskeletal medical misinformation on Wikipedia. I completely understand that the deletion of the surgery section and some clarification of material lacked adequate explanation. I will contact Dr. David Ring to provide further explanation on his reasoning for those edits. I wanted to reach out to explain ourselves and our intentions to avoid any misconceptions on us performing vandalism or removing information without good reason. It is because we have a brief edit classification system that we follow to track our edit data that our edit summaries are a bit short, but I will make sure to reach out to Dr. David Ring to give more in-depth explanations on edits in the future.

Sincerely, Trit6611 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that our articles be reliably sourced - many of your edits are removing sourced information, or even worse removing the sourced info and substituting unsourced information. Where you add sources, they are often not in compliance with Wikipedia's requirements for medical sourcing, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. In particular note that peer-reviewed articles are not always usable. MrOllie (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Mr. Ollie. We will greatly increase our justifications when editing all of these pages to meet the rules. So far, these are the instructional pages that we are adopting into our guidelines: Wikipedia:Content removal, Wikipedia:Editing policy, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Would you have any further suggestions on pages that we should look into to increase our understanding of performing edits properly?

Thanks, Trit6611 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You should also have a look at WP:NOR, which is about adding things based on your own expertise rather than sources. Information about editing as academic assignment is at Wikipedia:Education program. If you have any questions specific to editing medical information on Wikipedia, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine is a good place to ask for assistance. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the resources and guidance. We greatly appreciate your help and apologize for any trouble we caused. We will start looking into these pages and make sure that our edits are properly justified. Trit6611 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop being biased . Without reading the information that I am providing over there , you kept reverting The Edit . Saiful Trismegistus (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep in on the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Those users with new accounts keep harassing us by telling us to split one of the sections of the Horror film page (2010s to present) into two sections (2010s and 2020s). So could you please find a better way to do that without using any of the proxy stuff they keep adding? AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

They'd just move on to harassing about some other change, it's just what they do. And much of the stuff on their list is nonsense that's never going to stay on the wiki. MrOllie (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hai, Yesterday I added this [https://www.shyaway.com/bra-size-calculator/ link] related to the bra size calculator. The link is disapproved now, may I know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahibafathima (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it was link spam? Wikipedia doesn't link to web stores. - MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you recently removed what you term 'redundant citations' from the page "National Human Rights Institutions". The citations were the addition of a new major work on the topic published by Oxford University Press. This is a highly relevant work for readers. And this page is real in need of updating (some of the citations are very out of date in the field). I work daily on this subject area. Could I kindly ask the reason for the removal and how the page could be updated with new references in keeping with Wikipedia policy? JohnSmythson (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by you 'work daily on this subject area'? Are you associated with this book or its authors in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I mean I work with NHRIs and I know this subject matter very well. That was the reason for the edit. Are there rules about adding citations that I can refer to? JohnSmythson (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I really don’t understand this. Even if you didn’t take my word for it that I know what I am talking about – which is fine, you dont know me – can you not appreciate that an Oxford book precisely on NHRIs would be relevant for the NHRI page, and also see that the other literature citations on the page are years old and make it outdated? I joined up in order to help update pages in the fields I know about because when I look on Wikipedia this is unfortunately common. This was my first edit, but there is no point if this is what happens. JohnSmythson (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We see lots of people who are primarily here to promote academic citations and/or books. One hallmark of such is that they will add cites and further reading entries without actually writing any new content for the article, or they will tend to use the same cite over and over. I also note that you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it: 'Are you associated with this book or its authors in some way?' MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not. As I said, I'm new to this and trying to learn how to add value because so many things I come across could do with updating. Perhaps it was a clumsy first attempt, then. But I am put off by the idea that I could spend time making updates/edits for them to all just be undone on suspicion of my motives (which I think is what you are suggesting).

What can I do then that would avoid this? Can I try to update more of the article (not just this one, others too that I know about in terms of subject matter) and add a range of relevant citations. Should I avoid academic citations and only put in official ones (e.g. United Nations)? JohnSmythson (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

'Very concerned about censorship of factual information

dear Mr Ollie, I updated a page with a factual statement, which has been proven in the UK court of Law. Legal Firm Appleby experienced a cyber hack where their systems were infiltrated by cyber criminals - this has been proven and noted in legal proceedings. I do not understand why this information is considered not "neutral". It is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulCommunicator (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you rephrased an article to conform with your personal opinions rather than what the reliable sources say. MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You provided the source, but you apparently didn’t look at it very closely. Accuracy next time. See discussion --Avoinlähde (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat things on my user talk. Keep it on the article talk where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I added to an article about artificial nails, discussing another type of artificial nails for an academic project. I provided reliable sources, and with my mother being a licensed nail technician, I made sure to have her read through it to make sure all of the information was correct. Please refrain from taking this down at least for the next week as this happens to be an assignment for one of my college courses. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke.domingues (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has minimum sourcing standards, which you can find at WP:RS. The citations you are using do not even come close to meeting them - they are not reliable as you claim. Since you are making claims about health, WP:MEDRS also applies, and those standards are quite stringent - peer-reviewed medical journals and the like, not websites of nail salons or popular magazines. If your professor has assigned you an assignment that requires you to edit war to keep something in an article they are the one who is on the wrong - please point them to Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators - MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Understandable, please allow it to be up for about 2 weeks and I will take it down. It is all accurate and not opinionated. Brooke.domingues (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No, we can't leave up badly sourced content, that violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. Especially not the borderline advertising that you're putting up. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If I change the sources, will you leave it up? Brooke.domingues (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any combination of available sources or any way you could write a section like that about a single company's product and have it be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The negativity you are having towards my possible improvements are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am genuinely trying to improve this so that it can be left up. I am asking if you are going to continue to spam taking it down if I improve it, I was not asking for what you think my writing skills can or cannot do. Brooke.domingues (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is I don't think your addition is an improvement. And I won't have to 'spam taking it down' (I'm not the only person who has reverted you, by the way) because if you keep on as you have been your account will almost certainly be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are familiar with artificial nails, as your name is Mr. Ollie, but those methods listed are out of date. Therefore, I added one of the most commonly used methods of today. How is adding a new modern method not an improvement? Brooke.domingues (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not meaning this in any disrespect, just want to make a post that can stay up and wondering how you specifically will let me do that? Brooke.domingues (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for advertising, so no, adding a section about a specific brand and cut and pasting in promotional statements such as "world's first dip powder nails system to give women a healthier alternative to traditional manicure methods" is not an improvement. It runs directly counter to what the Wikipedia project is trying to accomplish. Your other problem is the citation links to resellers and vendors - these are clearly unreliable. If you want to start over and write something that meets our standards, take a look at the 'health risks' section, which cites things like peer-reviewed journals, NIOSH, the USDA, and so on. Do a literature search on MEDLINE and come up with something to add based on what you find in the sources - not whatever turns up on google. If you have further questions about how to write on Wikipedia in general, WP:TEAHOUSE is the place to ask. MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My opinion related to Indigoego is factual. I feel it’s fair to state the fraud and scams that have been allowed by Indiegogo in addition to the successful projects listed on the Wikipedia page. Consumers should be able to read the negative as well as the positive. Investing in Indiegogo can lead to a loss. I would like to repost with less passion regarding this company. Many have been hurt by them. 76.238.230.181 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not make me fool with your company. I think my text is "You need consensus". --5.43.84.70 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is trying to communicate. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To respect your preference to keep discussions unfragmented, I've responded to your comments about solitaire card games on my talk page. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

See further interaction on this issue on my Talk page from Bermicourt, whom I didn't invite to comment, yet has expressed similar concerns as mine, and an additional point for your consideration. Gregorytopov (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to ping me to a conversation, please do not post on my talk page as well. - MrOllie (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is an article with interviews and quotes by Dr. Ian Billinghurst spam? The whole section is about his model and his take on raw feeding. The video interview and written work are also there. He is the creator of this model, so why is he spam?Jaystee97 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Even setting aside the fact that this is a site that is set up trying to sell pet food telling you why their pet food is great, We have specific requirements for such things, which you can find at WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. But I know this isn't about that, because 100% of your edits are attempts to add inappropriate links to Wikipedia. And I note that all these sites use the same marketing firm. What a coincidence! MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I plainly stated that decades of painstaking research has been done on this human rights issue. Why did you summarily delete it without any cogent or meaningful explanation? This is so wrong, you are suppressing information concerning vile and illegal government slave-trafficking in the USA. How could you do this? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because, as MrOllie said in his edsum, it is unsourced. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unsourced"? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2000 decision in Apprendi was plainly cited. The provisions of the thirteenth amendment were also referened. The fact that this particular painstakingly researched issue is presently "unresolved" by the courts was also plainly stated. How could anyone seriously claim this is "unsourced" information? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

How to I appeal this decision to delete the information I added? Antislaveryman (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

By 'unsourced', we mean that you didn't cite any sources. Citing your sources is required. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Note in particular that you can't reference the 13th amendment and just give your opinion based on that - everything has to come from a cited source. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious why you cut the example products section from the Portable water purification page. Did it violate any policy?

All the products that were there I thought were interesting because they were developed to solve third world clean water issues. Had I known someone would cut the entire section, not sure I would have added what I had added.

FWIW - I have no affiliation with the product I added, just discovered it today while researching water disinfection techniques. Also discovered this page today as well, and thought it was a worthy improvement. I disagree that any of the products in that section would be considered SPAM.

I also happen to be someone who gets much of their drinking water from untreated sources, so the topic is important to me.

Is there anything I could do to persuade you to revert this cut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongfa (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really concerned about why the link I inserted here is not approved! Whether it is very informative, containing huge List of Bangla newspaper. I think the link is ideal for List of newspapers in Bangladesh page as a reference. Please, have a look on the link Ahmadul (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory. See WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please for your kind information, I've pasted the link as a references not like link building Ahmadul (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Wikipedia isn't a place to list your website, which does not meet requirements for sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

you guys are one eyed! Ahmadul (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Who are you calling "guys?" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @MrOllie. I noticed that you have undone my several revisions of the item "Tag_cloud" with the reason "Your github isn't a reliable source". I have some doubts in my mind.

First, I find there are many references to personal blog and website in the same page, such as:

• Lamantia, Joe. "Text Clouds: A New Form of Tag Cloud?". [https:655/http://www.joelamantia.com/blog/archives/tag_clouds/text_clouds_a_new_form_of_tag_cloud.html Archived] from the original on 2008-09-10. Retrieved 2008-09-11. ((cite web)): Empty citation (help): Check |archive-url= value (help)
• Mehta, Chirag. "US Presidential Speeches Tag Cloud". Archived from the original on 2007-10-19. Retrieved 2008-09-11.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Word_population_tagcloud_2011.png A data cloud showing the population of each of the world's countries. Created in R with the wordcloud package

And there are more references of this kind. Why are they reliable? Your undoing makes me quite confused.

Second, my source code is a word cloud implementation. It's open. It's reproducible. It's an entity, not an opinion or information. Believe it or not, it DOES exist. All the pictures I added DO exist on my personal page. How can they be fake pictures?

For the above two concerns, I hope you could give me further explanations. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuoYongzhi (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited. The presence of other sources that don't meet the guidelines is a reason to replace those citations with proper sources, not to add your own self published material as well. Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a newbie, and I just followed others on the same page to make a quick contribution. But don't you think we really need a picture to illustrate the large paragraph of the [Visual appearance] section? With your permission, I can remove the link and leave only the picture, just as many other pictures on that page do. I just want to make this entry better. Original images are not considered original research. Is my understanding right? I'm afraid there are not so many resources in newspapers or published books for such a non serious entry. And maybe that's why there are so many unreliable sources on that page. Or, if leaving only the picture is still conflicts with the policy, I think I can volunteer to help you to undo other unreliable sources on that page. Thank you for your contribution. GuoYongzhi (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That page has more images than it needs already. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How can you consider the references I just made on Spider Solitaire not relevant? There is no source for the specific claim and I'm adding a source. KarlJohan108 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You were adding an unreliable source, apparently for promotional purposes. Don't do it again, please. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What about this source - https://online-solitaire.com/blog/freecell-and-its-unsolvable-games-game-11982-and-the-99-999/ - do you find unreliable? It seems to be a well-researched article that has all the answers to the claims in the Freecell wiki! KarlJohan108 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Self published sources such as blogs are almost never considered reliable on Wikipedia. Is this your own website? MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie - just following up about the reverts of a student of mine on Nurse Practitioner so that I can assist them. Your talk page message didn't specify which of their changes required consensus, and you didn't link to any policy supporting your reverts. Can you clarify DarthVetter (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Matthewvetter: There have been lots of discussions about the mid level practitioner stuff. There is a NP professional org that really, really hates the term and would very much like it removed, but the reliable sources are otherwise fairly unanimous that that is what they are. Recent changes also were from an overwhelmingly US perspective - for example talking about 'The Nurse Practice Act of each state'. It's a global topic so it should be a global article. I'm also not in love with the use of search results pages as citations. - 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Thanks for this explanation. Keep in mind, though, if you're using it - Twinkle is meant for anti-vandalism and shouldn't be used to revert good faith edits (see WP:Twinkle#Abuse). You might also find it helpful to review WP:Revert only when necessary - as these edits could have been easily revised, or even reverted individually if you had an issue with the terminology. While it is a global article, there are sections for U.S. that can still be developed. Anyway - thanks for your feedback! - best, DarthVetter (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, i have been updating the records page, because the information contained there is outdated. 150km of range is quite small and people achieved 500km nowdays already. As the article says, the record by previous person was GPS verified, so the ones I was putting were also GPS VERIFIED. All that info was gps and osd verified, maybe next time the user who broke the record should upload a full flight dvr to something like vimeo, since youtube is blacklisted on wikipedia? The reason I am bothered, is that people who are unfamiliar with the topic are seeing really old data, 150km and 500km is a big difference. If the data must be OSD verified, then there are proofs on youtube, but at the same time i cannot put in "self-proclaimed" youtube video. Best wishes, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarillo-1 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Videos are easily edited and/or falsified. Self published materials like youtube or vimeo postings are never going to be considered reliable sources - world records need to be verified by independent third parties. - MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Then I want to see a full proof of a "current" record. Including full dvr or verification by third party. Also another record on the page containing 30km of altitude, originally was a youtube video. If this logic is followed,then that record also has to be removed. Yarillo-1 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the other sources weren't any better. I removed the whole section. MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, at least people wont get confused by outdated info. I hope this section will be recovered once and pilots will be able to proof their achievements.

Jan. Yarillo-1 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and reverting them! DMacks (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie,

This is Tri, a student working on the Dell Med Wikipedia Project with Dr. Ring. I made a few edits on the "Tendinitis, Bursitis, Impingement Syndrome, and Rotator Cuff Tears" section of the "Shoulder Problem" page that showcases our current understanding of editing a variety of edits (such as relocation of material, addition of material with evidence, and removal of inaccurate material). Would you mind taking a look at these few edits and giving us a bit of feedback on what we could do better to improve our edit justifications? Thank you so much for your time and help while we try to build our understanding and experience with Wikipedia.

--Trit6611 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please take such requests to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine rather than my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I did not realize. I will submit a request there right now. Thank you! Trit6611 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

I am the facilitator for Wikiproject:Dentistry. Our members have been attempting to add in the dental implications of diabetes mellitus to the Diabetes Wikipedia page but have had their edits removed and were flagged as disruptive. The content uploaded was evidence based and backed by numerous systematic reviews, may I enquire as to what reason were the edits deleted and deemed as disruptive? Please help us understand how we may temper our edits accordingly. Thank you

Suki1744 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Dentistry has been around for years, much longer than your account which has only a handful of edits. Who are you really? - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, Wikiproject Dentistry is a project managed by dental practitioners and dental students around the world. The founder of the project recently stepped down as facilitator which is why I have taken over temporarily and I have indeed not been a member of the project since it's creation. But the crux of the issue isn't my status. I would just like to ask why were our edits removed so that we may improve them. Thank you Suki1744 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Claiming ownership of a Wikiproject affords you no special authority, please do not act as though it does. Who is 'our'? Why is that article being editing by a series of brand new accounts who are making the same edits? Are you coordinating this effort somewhere offsite? MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s somewhat questionable that you take part in almost every conversation I start. Sure, anyone can participate, but given that many of the articles you haven’t even edited before, it’s clear that you’re participating in my initiatives in a targeted way. There are dozens and dozens of reviewers in these articles, so you could leave some for others to review and discussion. In many previous initiatives and discussions, you brought expertise and useful arguments, but little by little this goes over. So let’s stay to articles and topics which we have knowledge and insight to bring. --Avoinlähde (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in open source and open culture, so I have many of the pages you're trying to move on my watchlist. When I see something I disagree with (especially something which is a bit of a big deal like undiscussed page moves) I see no reason not to weigh in, and I really don't appreciate being asked to stay away from articles I have a legitimate interest in. If you don't want your page moves to get reverted so much, I suggest you take on board that articles that have had a stable title for a long time probably have that status for a reason and should not be moved without gauging consensus first. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m also interested in FLOSS, but it’s clear I can’t be know of everything, because FLOSS and openness are everywhere. As an example open learning, which I simply don’t think I know well enough yet. You may have misunderstood a little, I don’t want to try to interfere with your participation, but it feels like you’re taking a stand on my initiatives in particular, which would be a little problematic. Good if not. I hope that the cooperation will be better in the future, I appreciate your work in other respects. You’ve been here since 2008 and improved many articles on FLOSS and openness, among other things. Thank you for that!

As for the renaming, I understand that you have questioned some of them. The intention is not to harm them, but to update the used terms that live and unify article names. You must have noticed this. Nor is it intended to minimize article names unreasonably. For example, look at the open file format, on the contrary, I specified the article name used when there was a reason for it. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article names are specifically not supposed to be 'unified'. They are supposed to be the WP:COMMONNAME, determined case by case. Systematic page move campaigns are misguided. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but yes they can be questioned and it is obvious that some articles (and they names) are related to each other. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just stop moving these things unilaterally, you are aware at this point that doing so is controversial. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie In regards to my link in GDPR page, is there a way we can keep that there as an external link? There is no Spam or affliate product there. Just a comprehensive article about GDPR and Data Privacy. Im sure if you read it from top to bottom you will see that its a blog post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croixdoix (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:EL. Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs. MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie  ::Its not a blog, its a page or a hub as you may call it on topic about GDPR could you please reconsider at least one last time? Informations there are valuable Croixdoix (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference. It's a self published posting by a company used to steer people to buying their services. We don't link to such marketing materials. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr @Ollie, This is no content promotion. It is not a paid product, there is nothing you can buy there, it is a completely free turn server available for the WebRTC community and is being used by thousands of developers for free.

Please reconsider adding the link

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.105.232 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory - it is not a place to promote things, even things which happen to be free. - MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, hope you're well and thank you for all your edits.

I note you reverted my edits to the prediction markets page. Fair enough. Is there any way we could work on a compromise? I do quite a lot of work in the space and it seems arbitrary which markets are included and which aren't. Removing Kalshi (with whom I have no affiliation) seems wrong to me since they are the only prediction market in the US able to trade on many topics legally.

I have read around on Wikipedia but I guess I've made some errors. Would happy draft better version but mainly I just want it to be accurate. Was there anything that caused the reversion that I should specifically avoid?

Thanks for your time. Nathan PM Young (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

All claims should be sourced (that is a core policy, WP:V), and any examples that you add should have an article first. We really should not be listing companies based on press releases, particularly in an area that has a confirmed history of paid promotion. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

mrOllie@MrOllie the oracle and google does have something to do with the controversy read 1[5] and 2 it has something that dates back to 2010 and you are a dentist so what comment is that Dimitrovja (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kotlin still requires the Java class libraries and APIs at issue, so the switch is obviously unrelated. - MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude you are no admin and how are you able of destroying my articles and calling me a vandalist Dimitrovja (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude get your awnsers right this is wiki a trash web site sence they keep on saying am a vandalism but this is trash website Dimitrovja (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have the wrong person. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

they still switched to kotlin and ik that they are inspired by java but they dont wanna get copyrighted as in the lawsuit since its java libarys they have kotlin librys Dimitrovja (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Kotlin requires and uses the Java Class Library. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

am not wrong on lawsuit thingDimitrovja (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

i am wrong srry Dimitrovja (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

am wrong on the libary thing but not on lawsuit Dimitrovja (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

They have nothing to do with each other. Mentioning Kotlin in the section about the lawsuit is falsely claiming a connection exists. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude the connecttion is that google is switching Dimitrovja (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

and am clearly saying google is switching Dimitrovja (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude now you are claiming that i am diruptive person Dimitrovja (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

you are geting my acount banned Dimitrovja (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

reply Dimitrovja (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply Dimitrovja (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

why dude Dimitrovja (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are knowingly including false information, adding garbage links, and damaging articles. And now we can add talk page harrassment with these repeated posts. One more and I will recommend you for banning. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

bruh am not Dimitrovja (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

am not adding garbage links whatever that means to you Dimitrovja (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie please stop saying that my content is a lie and i clearly say google isswitching to kotlin Dimitrovja (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding an option is not 'switching', and once again, it is unrelated to the lawsuit. Is English your first language? Your posts and article edits are nearly incoherent. Perhaps you will do better at your native language Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude who are you to just go on websites page wiki and just comment Dimitrovja (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

it is in the lawsuit they say anoucing they are switching to kotlin Dimitrovja (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

and are you harssing me Dimitrovja (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

dude you are harassing me bruh

Dimitrovja (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

and why are people saying bad things about your comments Dimitrovja (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am convinced at this point your English reading and writing skills are not good enough to work on Wikipedia. If you edit my talk page again, or if you make another false or incoherent edit, we can pick this up at an admin noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ok do it Dimitrovja (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

honestly i will just move on Dimitrovja (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ok @MrOllie pick it up at an admin noticboard Dimitrovja (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ill be happy as am in jail just jokeing Dimitrovja (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

wait edit your talk page? i did not edit it Dimitrovja (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

wow no response i wonder what you are doing probably geting me banned rn Dimitrovja (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to discuss with you about mentioning eSIM.me in the article about eSIM. You tagged my 2 sentences as advertising, despite an imo objective and neutral wording. Now, how is it supposed to be "advertising", when there are particularly named several types of smartphones in the same section e.g. "Pixel 2; Motorola Razr; Smsung Galaxy S20 & S21"; etc.? I would like to know/learn, how the eSIM article could be completed with eSIM.me as a kind of new device in the eSIM universe? What needs to be done from whom to get this done? Thank you in advance for your answer!

Best regards Ross Rosshaartrimmer (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It was clearly advertising, based on a press release, which is not considered to be a usable source on Wikipedia. If you have genuine independent sources (again, not press releases) on the topic, see WP:AFC for how to create an article. If you are in any way associated with this company, please also see WP:PAID and WP:COI as you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can you please explain why My edit was removed, it's a considerable piece of information about Mr Rents.Can you please engage in a dialogue with me before trying to delete my edit again without good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative cheese ball (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the sports section (WP:NOTNEWS), it is not a place to report transient information like sports injuries. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a key factor in his career and is considerable as it nearly ended his career as a footballer. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• key point* Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Being out for a few games is not a major event. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  It had lasting effects on him which is notable and also meant it resulted in him losing his place in the first team due to multiple new players playing in the same position being selected.As a result this is one of the reason why he went on loan. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The article misses to reflect recent therapies and my edit was reverted two times.

There are multiple references to this, it should be reflected, it has been applied successfully already

22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgomez (talk • contribs)

As already I explained on your talk page, your addition does not meet Wikipedia's special sourcing requirements for medicine, found at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I observed you reverted my edits saying that I added links to external site to use a SEO strategy.

I added two external links: one to https://doi.org and another to https://www.sciencedirect.com. Additionally one of the autora of the second link, is already mentioned in the section.

Why are both wrong? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.128.17 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You've also been adding links to blog.leanxcale.com and references to leanxscale across many articles. This is in apparent violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Since at this point 5 accounts and/or IPs have been adding references to leanxcale and two articles on the same have been deleted by the community, you can look forward to your company's domain being placed on Wikipedia's spam blacklist if this happens even once more. - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to understand. Which ones were deleted? I have no clue about them.

So, to recap:

Multiversion concurrency control: it was deleted because a link to blog.leanxcale.com, right? It's no SEO strategy but I can understand it

Partition: it was deleted because a link to blog.leanxcale.com, right?It's no SEO strategy but I can understand it

Ordered Key-Value Store: It was deleted just because leanxcale was mentioned.

NewSQL: It was just deleted because leanxcale was mentioned.

Distributed Transaction: it was deleted after a posterior edition, just because leanxcale was mentioned.

Scalability: it was just deleted because leanxcale was mentioned.

Database Transaction: it was just deleted because leanxcale was mentioned.

I guess that for the last three ones the article on "science direct" is relevant enough to justify the edition and also I was adding a relevant information about another databases. Some of the articles had just information from ten years ago. I don't agree with opinion, but it's OK. If you don't mind I will update the last three avoiding mentioning LeanXcale. 83.56.128.17 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising, even if you have promotional content on sciencedirect to cite. If you promote your company by inference that is not acceptable either, even if you avoid mentioning it by name. Just stop editing about your company. MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

-) It's funny for definition of promotional content.

Database Scalability is stuck on 2007, and at least for me it's sad.

Have a good day 83.56.128.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Any specific reason to send this in draft? Please share the guideline link you are referring to for doctors and scholarRickinmorty (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. Independent sources are required. MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Bit curious, I google, scholar notability guidelines and I got WP:NACADEMIC. Do I still need WP:GNG.Rickinmorty (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

NACADEMIC relaxes the requirement that the article subject be the primary subject of the reliable sources used, but in practice it is impossible to definitively show that any of the requirements of NACADEMIC are met without some level of independent reliable sourcing. You'll notice that NACADEMIC talks about independence of sources a few times. If the draft were brought to the mainspace and then subjected to AFD right now, I think there is a good chance it would be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to this external link? If so, can you just remove it and re-instate the changes? I need to change the article for a class I'm in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schakel2 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to your whole contribution, which is not supported by reliable sources and includes external links to particular software libraries. Wikipedia is not a software directory. If your instructor is requiring you to edit live Wikipedia articles in this way, they are not complying with our requirements for coursework on Wikipedia. Please point your instructor to Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators. - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the most recent revision. I understand now that wikipedia is not a software repository; however, you're saying I can't provide external links to Python libraries? Only links to other wiki articles? Schakel2 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your most recent version still has problems. You shouldn't mention nonnotable libraries at all. Nor should you be adding stuff like 'one of the most popular programming languages'. But all of this belongs on the article talk page. I am not the only person who has reverted you, and other editors may wish to weigh in. Please secure agreement from other editors on the talk page rather than making variations on the same edit over and over. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright I'll respond on the article talk page and ask for some help with contributions Schakel2 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about the changes to edits I made to these pages! I would like to ask if there would be any better approach to include my information in these Wikipedia pages? Please let me know any advise you can give me at all. Thank you so much again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outreachyf (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You should try to use sourcing that meets WP:RS, and not self published stuff like 'findaddictionrehabs.com'. This is especially the case for medical content, which has special (and very stringent) requirements which you can find at WP:MEDRS. - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ollie. I undo your changes, 'cause: Our's editing was relevant, semantic and unique in the context of the page block. The source is indicated according to the material presented. Cheplyk (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are link spamming. Keep it up and you can expect your account to be blocked and your site added to the spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ollie and Cheplyk, the text added with the blog link was also a complete copyright violation from that blog, as I have noted on Cheplyk's page. It doesn't matter how semantic (?) and unique the text was, Cheplyk; it wasn't your own. Wikipedia cannot accept copyright violations. Therefore, if you do revert Mr Ollie's removal, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC).

Hello, I'm Hajrakhala. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ghalib 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. Thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A vandalism warning? Seriously? MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am Curious to know why you have reverted my edit where I have added better and English language source from a book published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing by replacing the source published by religious organization name Turkey Diniyat Foundation. Your revert was not at all constructive but more or less it seems an attemp to block me from Ghalib for today as I am at my third revert already. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Your motivations are transparent. Add additional material if you like, but do not remove İslâm Ansiklopedisi at the same time. That is edit warring - I could have reported you already and you would very likely get blocked. In fact you are at your 4th revert for the day, and the 6 reverts you made on the 20th are going to end up contributing to any report as well. You've got to stop this. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Better to report me if you like and I am not at my 4th revert for today. Why I should retain that link if I have better and English language source from Cambridge? Hajrakhala (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Because you have no consensus backing to remove it, and you should not edit war. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Why should I wait for consensus just for small edit which is an improvement (By removing source published by non notable religious organization and adding better source from Cambridge Scholars Publishing? Hajrakhala (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to be blocked, have at it. Either way, I think we're done here. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What? what with did you m ean with that? YandereDev50 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia isn't a place to add selfies. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• That info you are trying to remove it's been there since the creation of the entry in 2006, if it's been there all that time is for a reason, me myself and I am sure many others come back to that entry specifically for those calculations.

  Regarding the sources, the source of the calculations is the multi stage fitness or beep test itself and anyone can check if they are correct or not, don't need an eminence to tell us, just don't want to redo them every time.

  Kind Regards. Rodersb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

When someone finds a problem, that the problem has been there a while doesn't mean no one can ever fix it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of useful information. When something is off mission we remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought the external links were relevant to online poker. Reasons why I added that website is Wikipedia was showing citation required. I am not associated with any of that websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerking16 (talk • contribs)

Please have a look at WP:RS - there are minimum standards for sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

why you remove my edit as a citespam, if this reference included for 4 years at the digital pathology page ? I just made some corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraljmatjaz (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As previously explained, you are one of a series of accounts who does nothing but add citations to one particular academic. That is citation spamming. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I added one citation 4 years ago, and added another topic just some days, once again, I respectfully request that decisions be made on a substantive basis, and not via simple rules and quantities of edits Kraljmatjaz (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You also tried to write a biography of this academic (which was rejected), don't forget that. Decisions are being made on a substantive basis - that you don't like that you aren't being allowed to promote this person does not change that. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I wrote this draft 4 years ago, as I add the reference to the digital pathology page. In this context, I still find it an oversight that there is no entry on Prof. Holzinger. But please explain to me why my contribution was included on the digital pathology page for 4 years, and you did not remove it before ? Kraljmatjaz (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Because that is how long it took to notice the nest of sock accounts that have been promoting Holzinger. That an improper edit has taken a while to get noticed does not mean it can never be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

what is a "sock account" and what does that have to do with me ? Kraljmatjaz (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to ask elsewhere, I'm done being your personal guide to Wikipedia for the night. MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I just can talk for myself, being sure not to be a fake or sock account, however it seems that you have some story going on that I don't know about .... Kraljmatjaz (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

One simulator link was already there before - I didn't add it myself, and it seems to have been around for a while without any else saying it was inappropriate. All I did was add one more link in the same category as an existing, seemingly-approved link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshetline (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a large, active site and volunteer time is limited. Sometimes it takes a while to notice an inappropriate link. But the presence of one link that does not comply with policy does not mean that more should be added. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that anyone interested in this astronomical clock could learn more by seeing simulations of its operation. This is a simulation I worked on with the help of the current clockmaster, Petr Král, and hardly constitutes a "fan site". Kshetline (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely should not be adding links to things you're involved with. See WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My involvement could be a COI, but it is not automatically so. You just seem to be priggish, small-minded, and drunk on your petty power here. I won't start an edit war by reverting your edit, but you're just being an ass. Kshetline (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NPA MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I was certain you'd have an initialism rule for that. 😆 Kshetline (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, lashing out is quite common when a COI editor doesn't get their way. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL BBQ 😆 Kshetline (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I just reviewed the very interesting page on the Prague astronomical clock, and had also a look at the clock simulator, this is from my point of view a valuable addition to the article. I will add it when you agree Kraljmatjaz (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:HOUNDING, it would be a very bad idea to harrass me by following me around to other disputes. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

but why 'HOUNDING', I did not track other users' edits, by chance I have seen this discussion, and can as a neutral reader only confirm that the link is very useful, I see this as a constructive contribution, and therefore also announced and requested the addition here Kraljmatjaz (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You are obviously not a 'neutral reader', and are involving yourself in other issues I am dealing with as a means to bother me. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would never do that, I contribute constructively and try to improve the quality of the articles. Kraljmatjaz (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet here you are, doing it. MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you feel bothered?, it should be about factual arguments, or don't you agree with me? Kraljmatjaz (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop hectoring me on my talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What is hectoring about asking for factual arguments and having a polite discussion? Kraljmatjaz (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I will be more clear: Do not post on my talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

that was clear and unkind, but I still take the right to say goodbye in a friendly way. Kraljmatjaz (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You dumb Mr ollie, why did u remove realme gt 2 pro content? it was not spam, bro! it was just bit more info. quit Wikipedia if u don't know how to edit properly. User:Jemlim0108 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It was obviously linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

idc about ur 'removal of linkspam', it was not even linkspam anyway. Jemlim0108 (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a self published site being repetitively added by a single user, and being used to support badly written POV. It is obviously someone spamming their own site. Apparently the admins agree, because the user is currently blocked for linkspamming. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting the original and oldest definition of Yoga in the Yogasutras is vandalism. It can be cleaned up updated etc. But should not be deleted. Doing so is against adding information and suggests bias to retain only western references at the top. None of those quoted there are not even close to being authorities on Yoga and not from the Yoga tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguks (talk • contribs)

Obviously not vandalism. You are being reverted by multiple editors, so you must get consensus for your change on the article talk page. Edit warring and making personal attacks will not keep your preferred version in the article, only consensus will. - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

By which criterion did you remove entries from Comparison of documentation generators? There are still some entries on the list without their own page (for example pdoc3). The current approach is a bit inconsistent. 62.240.134.80 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I removed pdoc3 as well. MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie. I am just enquiring why my edit of why minimum wage affects low skilled workers was removed due to just citing one literature review. The author is a credited google scholar and two it is a literature review it has many studies within it that it references so it is a credible source of information. I believed it was an interesting take on minimum wage and how it affects different demographics. Could I get this resinated please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unistudent101222 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear why the article would place so much emphasis on a single review, particularly one which seems to be at odds with most contemporary thinking on the issue. See WP:UNDUE. MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove the game companies on the UK games companies page that don't have their own articles? An automated page already exists for this purpose. The earlier page mentioned is for manual entry, OK? It's not right that you did this. ObiKKa (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the way that list has been maintained for some time (years). 'Has a preexisting article' is the most common list inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

70.79.147.42 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC) I have tried twice to get a response from you about why you removed the article on Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. This is a new and growing topic with more than 20 people contributing to that page. I will restore the article and tone done anything that seems like an unsupported claim. Margeigh Novotny of Wikimedia Foundation has been helpful to me and agreed to my restoring the article. After discussions with colleagues, we feel clear that Human-Centered AI is different from Human-Centered Computing. Sincerely.. Ben Shneiderman (ben@cs.umd.edu)

We don't keep multiple pages on the same topic, certainly not at the behest of an editor with a conflict of interest who is using it as a vehicle to write about themselves. The Wikimedia foundation has no authority to weigh in on article content, and if someone there told you to use their name like this they were not acting within expected community norms. MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that the Wikipedia community generally frowns on off-wiki coordination, which it appears you are alluding to here. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

A colleague referred me to a source at Wikimedia to inform about what to do - they simply guided me in responding to you. I respectfully disagree that the HCAI page repeats HCC content. Yes, I am active in working on HCAI, but that does not constitute a conflict of interest. I have revised the article to reduce unsupported claims, so I still seek to understand what would enable you to accept an article on HCAI. There are 2200+ people active in a Google Group on HCAI, so if you don't accept my efforts, would you prefer that someone else continue to work on telling the story of HCAI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.147.42 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your name is literally in the text you're trying to revert back. That absolutely is a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. Recruiting someone else from your google group will not improve this situation, per the link posted in my previous message. I suggest someone with no COI write a short section on the article we already have on this subject ( Human-centered computing ) for anything AI specific. We're not going to host lists of research groups, Workshops, etc. We're also not going to host sections that are stitched together from multiple sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have donated to wikipedia over the years but have rarely edited and not all that familiar with protocol and what constitutes appropriate revisions. I recently edited Great Firewall to add to the history of how "Firewall" was first referenced in the media when referring to China's blocking systems. Can you explain why you removed that? One guess why you might have reverted is that I initially marked my submission as "minor edit" which I now see as my mistake as that option should be confined to syntax or spelling corrections that don't change any meaning of the article. Thank you for being one of the folks that maintains the quality of Wikipedia that is so important to the world.LeastActionHero (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a discussion about Talk:Network address translation#IPv6 NAT in Enterprise Products. I'm just informing you since that you have reverted my edit. - 2001:4453:581:9400:C044:83DF:67DC:4E3 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia contributions, but it's something I want to get better at. You said the citations I added to this section were not reliable sources. I researched all three of those sources thoroughly. I've also read the Wikipedia page about [sources]. III.org is arguably one of the most authoritative insurance websites in the USA. Businessinsider is an extremely popular and trustworthy publication. The Choice Mutual website has an author with impeccable credentials for that type of insurance. Plus all three links back up the claims made in the wiki article.

What is wrong with those sources and what should I do differently?

Axerr22 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Self published information from vendors and from their industry group representitives are not great sources - the people involved in selling you something are rarely incentivized to present a complete view. Insurance is a very well studied topic, so there is little reason to resort to industry sources. I would suggest you look at business textbooks or google scholar. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why did you remove my edit on the Sociology of Literature page? The current references are very outdated. They do not portray the state of the art of the field. Also, why is it considered as promo when someone writes a concise and thorough introduction to the field and offers it for sharing? Thank you.Sociological Fiction (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You added some sentences that were just instructions to read the sources, providing no information about what was in them. This is an encyclopedia, not a reading list. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why did you remove my edit on the Out-of-home advertising page and Digital signage page? It was relevant to the topic information. Thank you. Pakarpo (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

One was unsourced, and the other used corporate blogspam as a source. MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please check this diff /arch., alt. arch./ (maybe compare with other revisions after edit wars) before speedily reverting seemingly weird contrib. Thanks. --5.43.77.122 (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Explain your position on the talk page. Edit warring as you have been will not work. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not interrupt forward contributions. I've reverted to stable version first and then improved details... Don't know what you and other accounts do; please start cleaning up from my contrib afterwards with cleaner diffs. --5.43.77.122 (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep it up and the page will just get protected again. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why LibreOffice Draw can't be on the list when Dia is gone for years. Regards--The Dabura's Editor (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This list is for software that is limited to drawing mind maps - LibreOffice Draw does more than that. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you because Draw is more oriented to other types of diagrams, sorry hahaha --The Dabura's Editor (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry haha The Dabura's Editor (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my inadvertent blanking in Operating systems. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can you please explain to me why Earp (2015) does not meet WP:MEDRS? It was published in a medical journal and is a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezahaulcoyotl (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not a review article, and it isn't published in a MEDLINE indexex journal. I suggest reading WP:MEDRS, this is quite clearly spelled out. Please direct further discussion to Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#HIV MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why did you remove the citation about infrastructure inspection? This particular application of UAV systems is one of the most common and I think that an updated reference could be beneficial <ref>Bono, Antonio; D'Alfonso, Luigi; Fedele, Giuseppe; Filice, Anselmo; Natalizio, Enrico (2022). "Path Planning and Control of a UAV Fleet in Bridge Management Systems". Remote Sensing MDPI. 14 (8). doi:10.3390/rs14081858.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)<\ref>. Thanks Bnontn89 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Antonio Bono (Bnontn89)

Did you read the message left on your user talk page? Wikipedia really isn't a place to add citations to yourself. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I replied on my user talk page Bnontn89 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I partly agree with the deletion of the metabolomics section, but I do not agree with your non-constructive behavior: you cannot just delete a section without justification: yes, the new section was largely non-uninformative and redundant with the existing section on metabolic reconstruction but it would be meaningful to separate the current section into genomics and metabolomics (or rather: metabolic reconstruction). It's much better style to explain why this isn't worthy and then set a deadline. Saying the section is "non-encyclopedic is just stupid and meaningless. Greetings. Peteruetz (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have me confused with someone else. MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing my attention to the external linking policy, specifically for my external link on Transmission Control Protocol. I did want to ask if it would be considered, as "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."? The information is presented in a different manner and could potentially be useful for a reader as a learning tool, along with being a study/learning focused site. Though I certainly understand it is a questionable source and may not be considered suitable.

Thank you! Benjaminboogers (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We generally don't link to self published materials, especially ones that are trying to push subscriptions. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me,

New to this.

Is there a reason you are not letting these edits pass? On what basis are you denying them. The citations are done correctly, work is from an independent and recognized philosopher. Please provide an email address to voice my concerns about your decision. (Whether it be your or a organization body)

thank you. Polina.moralinjury (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote nonnotable philosophers or link to their personal web sites. Stop the promotional editing. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

its where the material is, the material has a DOI number, would it be best to use the document itself? Polina.moralinjury (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

non-notable? Polina.moralinjury (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, nonnotable. We don't add a paragraph on the opinions of everyone with a website, and one can get a DOI number for more or less anything. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie. My name is Timothy. I'm an expert in this field and I'll need to ask you to give me details to take this up with someone else. The information put down is NOT anything that has not already been posted on WIKI, I have upcoming collaborations with Washington Military ethics schools. I suggest you find some one with more knowledge on this field as I am amounts the most cited in academic circles. Advise next step you will be taking. Thank you Timothy.W.Shaw (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - and assuming the other accounts are other people, have them read it as well. You should not be trying to add yourself or your website to Wikipedia. We're not a social network - this isn't a place to write about yourself or share your work or your website. - MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, these are the best of dead for the most important syndrome in modern warfare. "My website" as you describe it has the thesis. I'm an independent philosopher. Please provide me with a email of who to contact in regards to this. Timothy.W.Shaw (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Typo, best ideas Timothy.W.Shaw (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have upcoming work collaborations with Washington war-ethics schools. Who are you? Whats your ability to digest this information? I have have read the guidelines and beli be I fall within them. Timothy.W.Shaw (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

People with a conflict of interest regularly misinterpret the guidelines because they are too involved to be objective, that is why we have COI policies. Your very thinly veiled personal attacks are noted, but unpersuasive. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello: I added a simulation to "significant figures" that would be most helpful to many students. Why did you remove it? I have taught numerical methods 70 times. I have no idea who has the final say. The simulation is also open source and distributable. Yes it is my work but it is a means to have broad impact User:Kawautar — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, and per WP:COI you should not be adding links to your own site. Many things are helpful to students but nonetheless have no place on this particular project. If you want to develop teaching materials, try Wikiversity. - MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have twice deleted this sentence from the Wikipedia article on acupuncture "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.[6]" It has twice been automatically restored by the "MrOllie" bot. I am neither an acupuncturist nor a proponent of acupuncture. But for a source such as Wikipedia to berate not just acupuncture, but all Traditional Chinese Medicine as "unscientific quackery" smacks of racism and anti-Chinese propaganda. The fact that the article then launches immediately into a description of acupuncture as a multi-billion dollar industry further establishes the anti-acupuncture bias of this article. C'mon, Wikipedia, where are your ethics? Pastrychick (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

All the better, MrOllie! Since you are a real human, you can certainly see the bias in this article. Your quick responses and restoration of this highly problematic sentence make you seem like an automated censor. Saying in the edit history that Wikipedia only reflects the position of "the best sources" is in itself a biased statement. You have single-handedly determined that these anti-acupuncture sources are the best representatives for an "objective" article on acupuncture.

This exchange has made clear: Wikipedia writers can make racist statements, with no editorial oversight, since its editors (here, you) uphold racist statements. Pastrychick (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't 'single-handedly' determined anything, that sentence has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page - discussions you seem to be ignoring because you'd rather delete this sentence, apparently because you personally disagree with it. Also, see WP:NPA. Going around calling people racists with no evidence is a good way to be blocked from Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't called anyone a racist—I have called the statements racist. I have not seen the extensive discussion on the article's talk page because I don't know how to find it. You'll see that most edits I've made on Wikipedia are pretty insubstantial (missing commas and the like). I'm clearly going to lose on this one so I'll just go away knowing that Wikipedia does not provide objective information.

And for the record: I have never had acupuncture myself, and have no "dog in this race." I went to the article to learn about acupuncture when someone recommended the technique to me, and was immediately turned off to the procedure by the Wikipedia article. So: it's clearly done its job, while also doing an injustice to all Chinese practitioners. Pastrychick (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jaguar padding by... If you truly needed to learn about acupuncture, Pastrychick, then how could you possibly know/think/theorize/whatever from a single sentence that an injustice to all Chinese practitioners had occurred? Perhaps I'll just go away is for the best. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What makes you emotional?--Neotesla (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles that don't remotely comply with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can understand if you edit this page, but the redirect is too brutal. Neotesla (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If you keep adding original research and incoherent English based on unusable primary sources, what is the alternative? MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You requested peer-review in those reference. If you raise the hurdle to that extent, the number of papers or reports that can be used will be very small. General newspaper article, papers or reports are not peer-reviewed. Wikipedia doesn't need that much rigorous evidence either. --Neotesla (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not my hurdle, but Wikipedia's: WP:NOR, WP:RS. If you cannot include the material you would like while respecting our content policies, it is clear: you should not add the material. And it isn't newspapers you're trying to use, it is legal documents and patents. Those are primary sources and should not be used. I have told you this several times. Please read the Wikipedia policies I have linked, this is clearly laid out there. There is also the problem that much of what you are adding is not in the cited sources at all. That is called original research and needs to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've already explained that legal documents can be separated claim (or opinion) and fact. The opinion part cannot be the source. But descriptions of administrative facts can be sources. Neotesla (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No. That might be what you personally think, but it is not what Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines say. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be more useful to update the information to the most recent news. Autenea (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for leaving a message and of course I understand the approach you mentioned. For many years of studying chemistry, it is a subject close to my heart. This makes Green Chemistry all the more important to me, as it is now an essential factor towards solving the ecological problems the world is facing. I thought that relating Green Chemistry to industry would be an interesting point of view to expand the available content. Because of the country I live in, I used it as an example and when looking for valuable sources related to the industry, the ones mentioned were the most reliable in my opinion. The repeated links from one organisation may have caused some concern, but these were the two substantive articles I relied on. Because of their similarity I could possibly use only one to avoid multiple links to one company, but in my opinion it is a worthwhile source of knowledge as an example of Green Chemistry development in the chemical industry on an international scale. I would be grateful for a possible re-verification after presenting my point of view. Thanks again for your message! Emmasi90 (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello there. I noticed that you deleted this section recently. I had hoped to add it as a guidepost for neophytes in reversing. Why destroy the hard-to-find information if the main issue was just the reference links? Why not just remove the links? Would it be ok if I restored the information without any of the links included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:B00:B300:C42B:806E:F103:C811 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is specifically not supposed to be a howto site or a link directory. The point is that there were no reliable secondary sources. Removing unreliable links would still leave no reliable secondary sources. It would not be OK to restore that information, it is off-mission for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, sir (or ma'am). I find it odd that you removed this section. +ORC's primary purpose in publishing material was to propagate his anti-capitalism philosopy. +Fravia's pages on reverse engineering have been the primary source of information regarding +ORC for 25 years and cited in several published works, including books and peer-reviewed journals. Can you explain how this does not belong on wikipedia when the +ORC page goes belong? You may delete the entire page if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:B00:B300:C42B:806E:F103:C811 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't interested in what people say about themselves, we're interested in what independent, reliable sources say. Lengthy quotes by the article subject or by people associated with them don't belong here. We also have to write neutrally, and those additions were decidedly not neutral. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Why then remove these primary sources?

Michael Lee; Sean Pak; Tae Kim; David Lee; Aaron Schapiro; Tamer Francis (1999). "Electronic Commerce, Hackers, and the Search for Legitimacy: A Regulatory Proposal". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 14 (2): 856. doi:10.15779/Z383M4J. JSTOR 24115668. Retrieved 18 May 2022.

Westfeld, Andreas (2001). "Unsichtbare Botschaften: Geheime Nachrichten sicher in Bild, Text und Ton verstecken" (PDF). C't – Magazin für Computertechnik. 9: 172. 2601:282:B00:B300:C42B:806E:F103:C811 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie Greetings MrOllie, a new section was created on this Wikipedia page for the Classic Editor Plugin, and as is noted in that section, the goal of the Classic Editor Plugin is to give people the Classic Editor experience despite core updating itself to the Gutenberg Editor. The information about the Gutenberg Plugin that was reverted is notable because it was created by WordPress and added to their repository prior to being included in Core. Yet, even though it's been in Core for quite some time now, WordPress is still actively updating this plugin, and there are over 400,000 active installations. The bad ratings for the Gutenberg Plugin (2 stars) specifically speaks to why a Classic Editor Plugin exists, created by independent contributors (not mentioned in the article), whereas the Gutenberg Plug was created by WordPress (the TOPIC of the page). Mention of both Plugins go hand in hand. It's remiss or incomplete to mention one and not the other, as it helps the facts be even fuller and richer when included. Respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphiladelphia (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I referenced an article on a site i came across and found very useful containing updated information about an educational program in Nigeria called JUPEB which secures admission into 200level in Nigerian Universities. But i found out that the citation was removed. I checked wikipedia external link guidelines and i noticed it doesn't violate any policy. I tried replacing this citation https://campuslead.com.ng/list-of-all-examination-bodies-in-nigeria-everything-you-need-to-know/ already on the page in [in Nigeria] to https://shoreloop.com/jupeb-program-all-you-need-to-know/. As the new citation will be more useful to its readers, who would like to know more about Jupeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevten (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You replaced existing links with obvious linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to update the reference link, i shouldn't have removed existing links, my bad. Should i have added the new link instead? Kevten (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't add spam links at all. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the site spam?, doesn't look like one though.. Kevten (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

hello there, may i know the reason for removing my content? I think its valid and I also made a reference from a trustable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvanesh G (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The text was redundant. MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit in Candlestick chart, but didn't provide an explanation. Usually an explanation for a reversion should be given, except perhaps in cases of obvious vandalism, which my edit clearly wasn't. So, what don't you like about my edit? Silver hr (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to me, I'm going to restore my edit. In the future, please provide reasoning when you revert something. Silver hr (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Why is the extra reference removed? It contains a concise description of data cleansing based op research of various sources performed by experts in the field. Please undo the revert.Pndt (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a little counter intuitive, but Wikipedia does not link to most self published or user generated sites, including the vast majority of other wikis. Also, you seem to be affiliated with this organization - you should not be writing about them, their work, or linking to their sites. See WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

DAMA-NL has carried out an extensive study of data quality dimensions and has come up with a list of sixty dimensions of harmonised definitions. Why has the reference to this study been removed? In my view, the deletions can no longer be called objective. They seem to take on a personal character. I find the removal behaviour quite aggressive. Deletions should be better justified. Pndt (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you reading the replies to the other questions you've been asking? The answer is the same. MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it okay if it's a site I follow/read myself? I added it as it's useful information that is relevant to the Wikipedia page. I've read into the CoI page and none of these apply to me: yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships — Preceding unsigned comment added by PensiveDrezd (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use self published materials such as blogs as sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20090601023640/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/nobody_knows_youre_a_dog.php

Is this source not also a blog? PensiveDrezd (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very large and volunteer time is limited. Many problems exist - but just because we have not fixed all the problems does not mean we should add new bad sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a rather hypocritical way of thinking? Should you not hold a neutral position over any source? "new bad sources" seem to be under your own insight, as you have the time to remove my edit which was volunteered yet unable to read through the previous edits that were made before. It is a obvious matter what Wikipedia is very large, but this is not a simple matter of fixing all the problems, but you completely overlooking something and removing things under your own rules. Wikipedia is not your sandbox to powertrip in. PensiveDrezd (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a place for you to add links to websites which plainly do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Is this your own website? MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain the revision of my edit which added context to the conflict as part of a larger Ethiopian-Muslim conflcit, an Ottoman Portuguese conflict, and added a page to the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:CB02:100C:3860:2069:DE2B:3B04 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page. Multiple other edits have objected, so you must gather consensus there rather than continuing to edit war - edit warring will not work. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What edits have objected to the Ethiopian-Adal war being part of a larger Ottoman Portuguese conflict or the information on the Maya mercenaries being on page 188 of Pankhursts text? If you aren't knowledgeable on the history of the conflict then act accordingly, I will return my inclusions and begin a section on the talk page where we can further discuss it. 2601:280:CB02:100C:3860:2069:DE2B:3B04 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, your changes will not remain until you get consensus. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus with who? That Magherbin account who has been repeatedly asked to discuss his rvs on the talk page and refuses to? Again, you haven't seen the page before, its widlt agreed that the 2,000 characters you keep removing are required to understand the background of the war. I've started a discussion on the talk page and you need to personally bring sources to rebut the claims or you're simply vandalizing the page. 2601:280:CB02:100C:3860:2069:DE2B:3B04 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This page has been subject to long term edit warring by sockpuppet accounts and IPs belonging to a sitebanned, long term abuser of Wikipedia. If you continue edit warring it is highly likely you will be assumed to be that person, you will be blocked, and the article will be locked to prevent further disruption. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_requirements_engineering_tools&action=history Hello Mr Ollie, I added our product to the table because it is a leading requirements engineering tool. You removed our entry. I'd like to understand what would satisfy you that this is legitimate such that you would not feel compelled to remove it. I'd be grateful if you would help me. Colinrhammond (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You can help Wikipedia by ceasing your attempts to use it to advertise your products. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I swear I'm not following your around, just keep running into you across multiple pages! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Truly unfortunate and not in the interest of accuracy from making edits to a page due being blocked when the editor and mod are clearly biased and showing favoritism here. Any my appeal by the mod was denied. And I thought this was about building consensus on a topic, not about automatically favoring one's content over another. MrOllie has consistently reverted changes to the entry: "NP training covers basic disease prevention, coordination of care, and health promotion, but does not provide the depth of expertise needed to recognize more complex conditions." However, this was based on zero references and is already biased. As stated on the requested edit, diabetes, a complex disease, affecting more than 34.2 million, absolutely falls within the education and preparation of nurse practitioners. Its a blatantly false and unsubstantiated statement and yet, I get blocked for attempting to make the entry accurate. NPTruth (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Ponyo! MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You keep reverting my edits on a page (Business process reengineering). That's what I do for a living and I've sited multiple credible sources??? It's really frustrating, when someone is trying to constructively contribute to a body of knowledge and you keep destroying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.125.244 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A random collection of consultant spam and product pages are not reliable citations for anything. Please have a look at WP:NOR. Also, if you start randomly reverting unrelated articles again, I think it is very likely you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, see WP:FORBESCON - forbes.com is mostly not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie! Last month, you shared some sockpuppet info at User_talk:GoingBatty/Archive13#Horror film. You might want to check if the poster at User talk:GoingBatty#Talking is the same person. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:, yes, clearly them. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_sockpuppets_of_Jinnifer MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You may want to see the recent posts on my talk and at drv. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I commented on the DRV MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi You edited the page free statistical software. I can't quite figure out what you changed. Could I ask what changes you made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I've edited that page a few times, generally to remove inappropriate mentions of particular software or websites per WP:NOT. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

May I ask, what are inappropriate software or websites? I got your point about not linking to specific software in the intro paragraph, so I revised the intro so no specific software or website links. In the main body of the article, though, wouldn't it be appropriate to link to specific software packages? Socialresearch (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No, usually not. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a catalog or a software directory. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You keep reverting my edits with no regard to accuracy. You use your personal opinion to justify the censorship of facts the public deserves to know. I suggest that you reference my citations before reverting my edits. It’s better to make a decision being informed. Subjective opinion is not a suitable basis for reverting any edit or post. Jamshid321 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page, where such discussion belongs. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You make no effort to verify whether my claims are supported in historical literature and research on the matter. I can assure you I am completely correct. You sir are a racist and a bigot! Jamshid321 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You will need to get a consensus of other editors to get your edits to remain in the article. Namecalling is not a good way to get people to support you. - MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what went on here before, but it seems an IP with no previous edits has immediately returned after the protection expired and done a similar act. Might want to take a look. Aidan9382 _(talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's FromSenegal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading their block. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain it? The legend describes the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gondolabúrguer (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible. It is full of smudges, even when expanded to maximum size. The legend is not helpful - it is long and full of irrelevant details. This is an article that is already crowded with images - it is better without this additional one. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, when you come across an IP with a long track record and previous block log like that, you can safely report them to AIV straight away or let the previous blocking admin know the block is due for renewal. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will do. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

My page Meesho deleted, because there is draft for it before so, I want to know if there is any other way to publish it again or to contact the person who created the article before. It is translated in a detailed way from Hindi language to English language and I believe it must be published again because it is an important topic but, I don't know exactly what to do. So, If you can advise me in this thing. Thanks in advance! Kawthar Kalot (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It was discussed at AFD very recently and the community found that it does not meet the requirements of the English language Wikipedia. You should respect that decision and stop trying to add it. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, why was this genuine change reverted which added NSUCRYPTO olympiad https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Science_Olympiad&oldid=prev&diff=1071226188&diffmode=source ?

Thanks. Rootkea (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It isn't 'commonly recognized', as the table is defined. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. What was the reason for this [6] removal of content? If I understand correctly, it was removed in the past because of self-promotion, but I'm not an Adlaj sock. I think that Notices of the American Mathematical Society is a reliable source. A1E6 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. It is an alternate way to do the same calculation, sure, but the 'very rapidly' is unjustified - it doesn't converge any faster than more common ways of doing it. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The convergence of the arithmetic–geometric mean iterations is quadratic (very fast). A1E6 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And the article didn't even state that it "converges faster than more common ways of doing it". A1E6 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And why do you think it goes against WP:UNDUE? According to WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." What is the more widely held view here? Mentioning that an algorithm is fast does not contradict anything in the article. A1E6 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is commonly used to exclude things that aren't commonly referred to by others. The more widely held view is that Adlaj's formula isn't worth writing about. Especially given that people like Carlson published better ways to calculate incomplete elliptic integrals before Adlaj's paper, it isn't surprising that there isn't a lot of notice taken. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Carlson's method is not "better" because it needs ${\displaystyle M(1,1/{\sqrt {2)))}$ (or ${\displaystyle M(1,{\sqrt {2)))}$) and an infinite summation term. But there's no infinite summation term in ${\displaystyle L=2M(1,{\sqrt {2)))+2\pi /M(1,{\sqrt {2)))}$. See Elliptic integral#Computation.

"WP:UNDUE is commonly used to exclude things that aren't commonly referred to by others" – this sort of stuff is nowhere in WP:UNDUE.

"The more widely held view is that Adlaj's formula isn't worth writing about" – whose view is that? Can you support this with a reliable source? A1E6 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is self evident from the way that no one writes about it. The citations that paper has are trivial mentions in lists of prior work on ellipses. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It was published in a reliable source, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, this is sufficient for a mention on Wikipedia. A1E6 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That is required, but not sufficient. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all information that can be sourced. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There are at least two papers [7][8] citing the article in question. It is not insufficient. A1E6 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)