Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Smart Home Section Update

Hi MrOllie,

I recently re-added the "Smart Home" section to the *Home Improvement* page, ensuring all information is now backed by reliable sources and proper citations, following Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I reviewed your previous feedback regarding verifiability and have made sure that each claim is supported with credible references. The references are formatted correctly and integrate into the existing structure of the article.

Please feel free to review the edits. If you have any further suggestions or notice anything that needs adjustment, I’d be happy to improve it further.

Thank you for your time and for maintaining Wikipedia’s standards! ElenitaElen (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posting AI generated comments on people's talk pages is frightfully rude. Write in your own words or not at all. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaji Page Update

Hi, Shivaji was Chhatrapati, this title is offered after coronation. Mumbai international airport is named after him as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, therefore what you have reverted is mistake. Also in Death section, description about his son is not only out of context but very disputable and controversial. Its wrong to believe on anything merely because its written in english. this particular controversial part is taken from controversial book written by James Laine which had caused much of uproar in India. Further you may refer this link related to this part https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-cm-cyber-police-sambhaji-maharaj-wikipedia-9843272/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajyot Jadhav (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to make duplicate comments on my user talk page. Direct any further discussion of the article to the article's associated talk page, which is where it belongs. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve blocked the ip range doing the spamming

Finallly. Should have looked earlier. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request review for action

I think you might have made a mistake in your review of my actions G4Wikis (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you definitely deleted a big chunk of an article for no apparent reason. Don't do that again.
You've also been adding commentary on the status of URLs directly into articles. You shouldn't do that either. MrOllie (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of established content

To promote collaboration and avoid edit wars, before deleting content that have been in place for years, please propose your changes on the articles' talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.3.1 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. WP:BOLD. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. WP:BOLD is about adding not about deleting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.3.1 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I could not find in WP:BOLD any section on bold deletion. However, Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion seems relevant to this conversation, and you may want to review it FYI. Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.3.1 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well what is allowed and what isn't - for example, there is no statue of limitations on deleting stuff that was added by a block evader. Kindly keep that in mind, and don't come to my talk page to offer erroneous 'advice' again. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Can you explain to me why you undid my minor edits. I am literally expanding existing sources. You can check the references that are there and therefore are considered valid. Aganon77 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing about what you think of the cited sources are not 'minor edits', they are exactly the same stuff other editors were disputing on the talk page, and which you'd already gotten blocked for edit warring about. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Direct any follow-up to the article's associated talk page - many people have problems with your edits, my personal talk page is not the right place to discuss this. MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie
No tags for this post.