Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Naver, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Yamamomo kakijiroo (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop edit warring and evading your block, you aren't fooling anyone. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yamamomo kakijiroo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naver, but you didn't provide a reliable source. (Korea IT times) It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yamamomo kakijiroo (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense warnings aren't going to suddenly make me think you aren't evading your block. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Who is the master, MrOllie? Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Nm, I can see who it would be, but OTOH, Yamamomo kakijiroo is not a new user, so I'm not sure about socking. I have page-blocked them from Naver for six months. Bishonen | tålk 23:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  I'd already opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamamomo kakijiroo about this. Yamamomo kakijiroo returned from an absence of several months within hours of the other user's block to make a virtually identical edit. MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked as "very likely", I see. Bishonen | tålk 20:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Dear MrOllie,

I was notified that my revisions of Fortran has been reverted by you, and I would like to know the reasons. With these revisions I added the books by Metcalf, et al. in the Further Reading section of the article. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fortran&oldid=1279677550 for the version after my revisions.

You commented "Restored revision 1278899946 by Xose.vazquez (talk): Rm books frequently spammed by SPAs" on your revert. What are Rm and SPA?

I am concerned that you regarded my editing activity as spamming. I wish to resolve any misunderstanding.

I saw that you have reverted revisions that added books by Metcalf, et al., several times in the past. If you have concerns about these particular books, I wish to know about them.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope to work together with you and many others to develop a free encyclopedia.

Sincerely, Norio NorioTakemoto (talk) NorioTakemoto (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Rm' is removed and SPA is 'Single purpose account'. We see a lot of very new accounts trying to add those books to Wikipedia. Some of the additions are from accounts associated with the author, and others are simply accounts that have been asked to add the books on the author's behalf. My concern about these particular books is that Wikipedia should not be used as an avenue to promote them. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrOllie,

thank you very much for your reply. I understand your concerns.

I hope you can see that my account is not a SPA from my edit history. I have never been asked by any of the authors to promote the book. I learned Fortran 90/95 from one of the two books to the extent that I can work as a computational physics researcher. I genuinely think that it's a useful book for many readers, and I also think that it's been found good by many.

There are already some books cited in the Fortran article. Is there an official rule about what books to cite and what not in the Further reading section?

Citing a book in an article will indeed automatically promote that book unless a negatively critical comment is attached to the citation. Those books currently in the article have been already promoted in this sense. Do you feel they should also be removed altogether?

How do you think about bringing up this topic in the Talk page of Fortran article?

Sincerely,

Norio NorioTakemoto (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your alert. I think your complain is about "behaviour" instead of "behavior", and "modelled" instead of "modeled". I corrected it again. And I put my explanations back (sorry I had troubles with Wikipedia's visual editor, now it is ok). Fschwarzentruber (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided link to evidence, why are you reverting? 109.239.24.213 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cite you added did not cover all the text you added, and you deleted existing text besides. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Jayson (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I noticed you deleted a reference I tried to add a couple of times. At first, I thought it was because of bad editing (author, etc.), but then I thought I got it right. Can you help me understand why? Laotrasombra (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a venue to promote self published books. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your work and understand your rationale.

To your point, I was actually reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines for "how to not be a spammer" (Wikipedia:Spam#LINK) and found this as an additional reason to remove the reference I added (I am openly using this opportunity to educate myself as a new contributor):

#3 The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article is not just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.

By definition, my reference does not meet the above specification.

However, one question remains: I believe that the work I was trying to add as a reference does add value to the topic in general (it aligns with the principles described on that page but it offers a fresher perspective on the subject, which could be better described in the article and which I would recommend to learn more about it). Would it be appropriate to add some specific content to the page and then reference the book from which it was taken? My point is that as new information becomes available on a subject there should be a way of considering it for inclusion in a list of resources. I would be grateful if you felt like sharing your expert perspective on this. In the meantime, thanks for keeping things on the safe side for all of us! Laotrasombra (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a self published book. We can't use it as a reference, either. We need stuff that has gone through an editorial process with a reputable publisher. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks Laotrasombra (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it adds value, if it goes against the guidelines, you cannot use it. Jayson (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]