Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

All links used in the chapter "The ancient Greek seven - string Lyre nowadays" are not promo, as stated, but a proof of evidence supporting the article. More specifically all links are proving that:

- A solist of the instrument that has a huge contribution of it's revival (Dr. Nikos Xanthoulis) exists.

- Academic studies on learning how to play the ancient Greek seven - string Lyre exist (conservatory of Nikaia and Democritus University of Thrace).

- A complete learning method of the instrument.

- Growing repertoire written specificaly for this instrument.

All above are vital parts in order to revive the ancient Greek lyre and must be included in the wikipedia article to provide information to any user interested on the topic. Διήων (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It is blatant promo, including inappropriate external links. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not the place to 'spread the word' about such developments, certainly not based on primary sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How exactly academic studies on the top of the ancient Greek lyre, the existence of a learning method after almost two millennia and the revival of the instrument is blatant promo? Διήων (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The text was plainly added to promote Dr. Xanthoulis and the program in question 100% of the sourcing comes from those entities. Wikipedia needs independent, secondary sources - materials written by people entirely unassociated with Xanthoulis or the University in question. You appear to be associated with this program yourself - you are likely in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as explained at WP:PAID and WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean the university in question? Do you say that the university is a not existing foundation or you are assuming that the research provided as a verification of the article via academia is not an acceptable source??? I think you underestimate the importance of the revival of the instrument after 1600 years. Διήων (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do not understand what a primary source is, or if you have other questions about Wikipedia in general, please consult WP:RSPRIMARY and/or follow up at WP:TEAHOUSE. But first, you must address your WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To begin with there is no conflict of interest here. You are using the term wrong. my only interest on the subject is as a musician and i recentrly discovered the existence of such academic curiculum and I find it exremely important for the instrument and it's story that's why i made the addition. According to WP:COI article that you were kind enough to share what i posted is not violating anything. No financial or any other benefits are coming from the publication of the existence after 1600 years of academic studies on the ancient Greek Lyre and the story behind it. I really don't get why you keep editing and removing such an important part of the article, even though several links of verification have been provided. You say that the article is promoting the work of Dr. Xanthoulis but it is not doing such a thing, it only recognise his contribution on the revision of an ancient instrument. If you took some minutes to review the links assosiate with this part of the article you could see yourself that they are coming from different sources and all verify the informations i posted. Please consider what I said above before re-editing the article. The revival of this instrument is big news in the musical world. Διήων (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is no conflict of interest, how did you come to take the photographs you uploaded at File:Firstcirclegraduatesdelphi.jpg, and File:NikosXanthoulisLyreBlackBackground.jpg, both of which you tagged as your own work? MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I found them from facebook posts in a group about the Greek lyre, I asked permission to post them here and I got it. I did not take the pictures myself. Διήων (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll tag them as copyright violations, then, since you uploaded them in error. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No copyright violation, they are posted publically and I have the permision to post them from the owner. Διήων (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Being posted publically is irrelevant. That you have permission is nice, but they need to give Wikipedia permission, you may not freely license images on someone else's behalf. Process for that can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if this is 'big news in the musical world' that does not explain your use of primary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to spread 'big news', see WP:NOTNEWS. You're simply trying to get Wikipedia to do something it is not designed to do. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a personal reason for not wanting the informations regarding the ancient Greek lyre in the modern world to be on wikipedia... It is interesting information and there is no reason to not have them in the article. Διήων (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You got me, I have been editing Wikipedia for years in preparation for this moment, keeping your promotion of somebody's musical career and classes off of Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also interesting that you keep bringing up this view on the matter. The edit was about the revival of the ancient Greek lyre. We did not know absolutetly anything about the instrument apart from archaelogical finds. A recreation of the instrument was made possible due to the reaserch work of Mr Xanthoulis (I provided the links from academia with his pappers on the subject as verified proof) and I will say it once more.... after 1600 of silence the ancient Greek lyre is now sounding again and this should be part of the article too. Now regarding the "classes" its an academic program and know that in Greece several universites are public, like the Dimocritus University of Thrace, and they are non-profit institutions. Your arguments are invalid and extremely curious. Διήων (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They might seem curious if you completely fail to engage with their substance - which is that adding material like this based on primary sources is counter to Wikipedia's content policies. It isn't just me - other editors have noticed the same thing, and you are edit warring with them as well to try to force this into Wikipedia. It simply does not belong here. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just googled your wiki name and several articles and post came up saying you are really into edit wars and some even said you are a "paid contributor". The fact that you are bold enough to say that the revival of the ancient greek lyre, the fact that people are again studying it, music is composed for it and even academic studies on the subject exist proves that you are either stubborn or serve your own agenda. I already answered to several accusations of yours and there are no evidence to your claims. My edit is truthful and I have documented it enough to support it. 2A02:1388:14A:DB17:D8CB:40FF:FEA3:4371 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't believe every bit of nonsense you find on google. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ain't THAT the truth. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your name seems to appear repeatedly throughout my time on Huggle, the abuse filter log, and just about anywhere disruption occurs. Hats off to you, good sir. Synorem (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie!

I seen that you removed my added text from the article "Smoothie King" for the reason of not encompassing a neutral point of view. I'm not looking to conflict with your reasoning, but from the actions you've taken on my edits, I will take your feedback into consideration and revise my changes! To avoid this in the future from other editors, if not yourself, any recommendations you don't mind giving to a neophyte, such as myself, for editing articles on Wikipedia? I have a definitive understanding for some of the required principles (sources, respectable tone, research) for editing on Wikipedia, but now is when I am actually applying them, hoping to avoid extremities! Thanks Mr. Ollie!

~~~~Kelly Carolinian Kelly Carolinian (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My recommendation is to use only independent, secondary sources. Don't use press releases or press-release churnalism articles, and particularly do not import wording from press releases into Wikipedia. When you start with promotional sources you are going to end up with promotional results, and that doesn't meet WP:NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Strikethrough 201.227.221.154 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Chris Messina was not the first person to apply usage of a hashtag on the Twitter platform, I cited the source which was Sylvain Carle in Montreal, Canada from his Twitter account. If you don't like my change, at least remove that Chris Messina used the first hashtag on Twitter, which is completely FALSE. Perspicaciousonion (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You added a link to a search, which is not a usable citation on Wikipedia, and which doesn't actually show what you seem to think it shows - not unusual, since twitter search links are notoriously unreliable and show different results for different users. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

So which source do you think is most reliable to disprove that he did not in fact, send out the first hashtag onto that platform? Perspicaciousonion (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a well researched topic, I would expect you can find something like a peer-reviewed article or a book on the history of computing or social media. Also have a look at WP:RS, which explains sourcing standards for Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

gREAT TO SEE YOU

Kafudoariri (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I began this RfC on 6/14/24: [1] The RfC template was removed by bot on 7/1/24: [2]. I attempted to restart the RfC on 7/25/24 in hope of drawing more participants to the discussion but I put the code in the wrong spot, and the RfC template never appeared:[3]. So it wasn’t actually restarted. I have also checked the all RfCs page and could not find this one listed. When I noticed, I fixed the placement of the code on 8/23/24 - restarting the RfC for the first time: [4]. Eleven minutes later, you reverted my action, effectively stymieing further participation. Your rationale was: “nope, we don't keep relisting these indefinately.(sic)” [5]. So, this RfC has never been relisted, not even once. I therefore wish to relist it, but before doing so, I wanted to explain the circumstances and be sure you were not going to revert it again. .

By the way, even if it was relisted once, it has now been 4 months since then. According to WP:RFC, discussions can relisted so long as they aren’t closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC. There is no policy prohibiting more than one relisting.

Please let me know if you intend to delete the relisting again, in which case I would rather discuss it here first. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ian, you did in fact relist the RFC once. You then relisted it again a month later - RFCs are not meant to be relisted again and again - this is not something you can keep open until you get the result you want. Even relisting it once was inappropriate, given your COI. It is time to stop starting RFCs over and over, and then relisting RFCs over and over. That is an abuse of the process. Instead, it is time to accept that the Wikipedia article will not be what you or your employer would like it to be. I definitely will revert if you continue to try to relist the RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, have a good time.

About this [6] ,i wanted to ask if this source [7] is valid?

By the way, is the passage acceptable in this way:

"In contemporary society, the process of buying, selling, and transferring goods, services, and other valuable commodities through computer networks is increasingly recognized as electronic commerce. This transformation is largely driven by advancements in technology, which have facilitated the integration of electronic devices into the commercial sphere. As a result, consumers are no longer constrained by geographic location and can engage in online shopping and ordering from virtually any place, provided there is internet connectivity. This ubiquity of access to digital platforms has fundamentally reshaped traditional commerce, enabling a more flexible and globally interconnected marketplace."

Thanks.

FactFinder1402 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, see WP:INVESTOPEDIA. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

how about these sources? Are they reliable?

[8],[9], [10]

FactFinder1402 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect, you should read WP:RS thoroughly and evaluate these sorts of things yourself. If you have general questions about Wikipedia you may ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I ask this question because I want to add that passage to the article and I want to know if these sources are acceptable for it?

Because I don't want it to be deleted again

thanks.

FactFinder1402 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been leaving you msgs everywhere. I lightly outlined som major problems and under your name ull see a slightly more outlined one. However, without knowing if it will be fix I'm only gat about 10% of the information 2601:541:800:56D0:BDA3:68E4:2275:EA94 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

you emailed me and said I was "rude" simply because I said much of the content was missing or incorrect MaitreyaBuddha00 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I left a message on your user talk page (not an email) because you were making blatant personal attacks on other editors. For example you wrote: you have no place writing this article. you understand nothing. That is disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97760155&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

or will it be considered a non approved external Link??

Appreciate your response. Ejaipal123 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not interested in the doings of the trademark office. Don't add the link again. MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please review your reversion of this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDF-XChange_Editor&oldid=1262037877 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDF-XChange_Editor&oldid=1262075391 Even though I am a random IP, I think you'll find my change was justified and not contentious. 129.96.87.34 (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Only the Viewer arguably meets Wikipedia's WP:N inclusion critera. We'd need the required in-depth, independent sourcing to turn the editor redirect into an article. If you think you can provide such sourcing, you should start a draft and use the WP:AFC process. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

03467503314 2402:E000:450:4B02:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Happy Holidays, and here's to the new year! Plasticwonder (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You have indicated in a Talk message that you beleive we have added something that violates WP:OR. We believe you to be responding to an automated (bot) assessment, and we contend that it is the bot assessment that is in error, and that we have not added any content that is WP:OR. (Most likely, it is responding to our tagging or moving content that is WP:OR.) This can be said with some confidence, both because we are firmly committed to the policy of WP:VERIFY here, and as original content cannot be traced to a WP:RELIABLE source, we are likewise committed fully to complying with WP:OR. Otherwise, your not having indicated which article and edit is in question, we have to await your further reply. (Here, if possible, because we haven't time or bandwidth to monitor many places. But we will, in response to your kindness in reaching out, monitor your response here.) Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No bots were involved, no. Much of what you added was editorializing and not directly supported by sources. That is WP:OR. Since you don't edit much I suspect you know exactly which addition I'm talking about. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that since this is IP editing, the address is conflating more than a single editor. For you are mistaken at least once in all these cases—for we indeed edit often, we are indeed very experienced, and we do not editorialise (though if another has, we generally do not do bold redactive edits, and so may therefore have moved existing editorial content). So again, I ask. What are we talking about? Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If your IP is shared, apparently nothing. Also: Please do not repeatedly make minor changes to comments on other people's talk pages, as you did with the comment in the section above. The user in question gets a notification every single time you do, which is quite irritating. MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you not simply state an article page, so we can determine if there is an issue? As for the multiple corrections to the page, thank you for stating that. No one in close two decades took the time to state as much (if such notifications were indeed going on over that whole time). Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your confident, effortless decision stands for the moment, because we know that there is unstated bias against, and that we have no standing. The edit does not lack merit, and should not have been reverted on the whole, as you fail to make any substantive, real case anywhere for editorialising or WP:OR (the latter of which we in fact were first to tag, as it pre-existed). It appears that the care and respect we brought into this discussion was not reciprocated at any level. We end our discussion here. But we will call attention to your decisions at that article. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So now this isn't a shared IP? Why do you keep referring to yourself as 'we'? MrOllie (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, thank for the information about why my changes have been removed. I liked the structure of the german article about CrypTool better and tried to adapt it. Would you please be so kind to help me figure out how to do this more neutrally? What exactly causes the article to be unneutral?

Best, Canyon9556 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's presented like a product brochure - unsurprising, since most of the sourcing is the project's own website. The best way to write a neutral article is to find independent sources and summarize what they have to say, rather than repeating a group's self-descriptions. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of the citations seem RS, others have no source and are just text. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a certain ring of familiarity, but I don't think I know them, no. Articles on pseudosciences attract a lot of that kind of writing. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some text was removed and the reason was for copyright violation, but the text was not a violation of copyright so I undid it.

You reverted my changes and said it was not nuetral, I would like to ask how it is not nuetral?

It is discussing the historical origins of aquaponics, the sentence you removed was specifically referring to the evolution of system designs of the flood and drain system.

If it is not nuetral to say that todays flood and drain systems originiated from the work at NCSU, then why is the article allowed to say that the New Alchemy Institute laid the foundations for DWC? Why is it allowed to say that Rakocy's research had led to the adoption of deep water culture hydroponic grow beds? Wiki142B (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For exactly the same reasons we discussed on your user talk page, in the section titled 'May 2024'. Please try to read and follow the relevant policies this time, rather than asking me the same question which will have the same answer. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the issue is with the wording and not the topic being discussed. If I remove the word "pioneering" it will make the statement nuetral.

Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. Wiki142B (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not about single words, this is about the consistent tone of your editing - which is exactly what I said last time you asked me this. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You said that "Your writing is full of value-laden wording: examples include 'significant', 'pioneering', 'visionaries', 'significant strides', and so on. Please don't remove just those words and put the edits back - those are examples." I am unsure what you mean by the tone of my editing. The one being discussed now was a direct quote from a non-copyrighted source.

So instead of;

"The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry."

I should replace it with;

"The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You should not replace it at all - your reworded version is still more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I asked why the references to the New Alchemists and Rakocy were allowed, is it not "puffing" them up too?

It's a factual history of the development of flood and drain systems, it informs the reader of the history, foundation and evolution of that specific system type. It is supported by a reference, it is not an opinion.

An possible alternative would be to say "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in discussing unrelated sources or edits on my user talk page. The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Replying to @User:Wiki142B—If you wish to promote work being done by a scientist a university, being one, and having done such for years, the path is straightforward.

• (1) Find a reputable secondary or tertiary scientific source—a review or text are examples—that makes a statement regarding the primary source research that you believe is pioneering. That is, it must be someone else that says this, in a reputable source, and not you or me (i.e., not WP editors). That review or book should not be by the individual on whom the accolade is being bestowed, nor should it by his research group, students, colleagues, collaborators, or university in any fashion (nor anyone else closely associated with him or the work). Otherwise, the individual making the statement has a WP:Conflict of Interest. That is, as we say here, the source needs to be from an independent, third-party source.
• (2) If possible, find a second source of the same type that says the same thing.
• (3) Etc.
• (4) Then, summarise the opinion of the two or more sources, regarding the primary research, and cite the secondary or tertiary sources using this sort of format (at the linked page, see the box at right). Note, if one reliable source says something positive, and another reliable source says something negative, it is standard practice to present both perspectives (e.g., when there are competing claims made with regard to a discovery), unless and until a consensus appears in the secondary and tertiary literature—in which case, it can be said, "Most individuals reviewing this matter conclude that it was the team of Brown and Goldstein (and their collaborators) that made the seminal discovery in this area.[1][2][3]".
• (5) After this care is taken, as a courtesy, the primary source that all these sources point to as being important can then be added. And,
• (6) As indicated, in making the statement, (a) titles like Dr, Prof, Nobel Laureate, etc. should not be used, (b) English given names are generally omitted (indicating only the last/family name, and leaving the citation to elaborate more fully), and (c) institutions are almost never indicated, because the affiliations of scientists are often complex (involving multiple institutions/departments), it often moreover takes tremendous careful historical work (or involves prohibited WP:OR) to accurately determine with absolute confidence where a particular individual was working when they made a discovery, and/or the courtesy primary source citation just mentioned speaks for itself with regard to the individual's affiliation(s).

That is how we have and would recommend accomplishing the edit that you appear to wish to make. Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a very thorough answer, and extremely helpful. Thank you. Wiki142B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of companies of Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Star.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dear, I have made the valid contribution in Poonam Pandey wiki page, please review it again and revert the valid contribution from my side. She is an pornographic film actress. I have also added a valid cite too. Thank you. Eram7 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and kindly do not rewrite the article based on tabloid sources again. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dear.

h

t Eram7 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

★Trekker (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Triptane. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WP:CITEVAR was not a valid reason to revert the constructive edits, and then to edit-war over it is just not done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You reverted an edit I made to the Monge's Theorem page because I used a Youtube video as a source. According to the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia:Video links, there is no general prohibition against using a video as a citation for an article. There are specific concerns if the video in question contains copyrighted music or other such things, or is from a disreputable source. 3Blue1Brown is run by a well-known mathematician, Grant Sanderson, to the point that both the channel itself and the mathematician have their own Wikipedia pages. I don't understand why using a video citation is a problem. Even if it were, wouldn't the correct choice be to put in a request for better citation, rather than completely reverting the edit? Nothing I wrote there is untrue. EzekielRaiden (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, You undid revisions I made to update this page. This included:

-starting with a more general definition of the term that encompasses modern uses of algorithmic management (beyond uber etc.). this is currently buried later in the text, which creates an awkward flow and makes the page less relevant than it could be.

-added more general functions of algorithmic management. again, this is an important update to earlier narrow uses to control workers on platforms. I cited recent published and peer-reviewed work (yes, i am a coauthor on this paper, but it is highly relevant - but feel free to find a better source).

-collected "issues and criticisms" which are currently scattered in different sections. it seems reasonable to have this in one section and avoid repetition.

Please reinstate my edits, which I believe significantly increase the value of the page.

Thank you! Henrysauermann (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Your changes did two things 1) Added an inappropriate citation to yourself. You have a message about this on your user talk already - and 2) Took the opening further away from what it should be as defined by MOS:LEAD. I will not reinstate your edits, since I disagree that they 'significantly increase the value of the page' - that is why I reverted them in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I had not seen your post in my talk page. I followed your advice and explained my suggested edit on the article talk page. The current article covers well the early stage of algorithmic management (Uber etc.) but I do not think it does justice to the current state of this field. Thank you! Henrysauermann (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not certain why you would knee jerk remove a couple of links that add information to the Fashion Week page, while leaving something called DN mag, which no one has heard of in this space, links to a schedule that is two years old, i.e. ridiculously outdated, and on top of that is simply a scrape of the official FHCM website that I tried to include. I think this is why people dislike Wikipedia, people have a tendency to revert things without knowing anything about the subject 98.173.239.180 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EL. If you think other links are bad, that isn't a reason to add more links that do not agree with Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed DN mag now as well, thanks for pointing that one out. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

this user seems to like to support the 'no no reverter' Vincent Lefèvre in 'edit wars', evtl. this is the purpose of this account, could some official pls. warn him to act less aggressive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.225.16 (talk • contribs)

You should consider using talk pages and following Wikipedia's core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR, you would get reverted far less often then. - MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaaaa4 103.122.253.26 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This user seems to believe he is the policeman of the Internet. Likes to cite "Wikipedia's rules", ignoring that there is interpretation involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a page to communicate with me directly, not to make unfocused personal attacks. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, You undid contribution I made in the article "Linear Canonical Transformation" while these contributions were there for months and are based on the contents of peer reviewed high quality scientific journals as sources. Could you explain what is wrong with the contents (so that it can be corrected properly if necessary)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshon13 (talk • contribs)

For the reasons we discussed at length on your own user talk page. You know this. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The informations contained there, which are scientific fact and knowledege, are from peer reviewed paper. I just report these scientific content which are directly related to the wikipedia article. Where is the problem ? Have I reported something that are falses or wrong ? Rshon13 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

One my talk page I ask you to quote the text where you see a problem and explain clearly where in the text is the problem and you never did this Rshon13 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You have asked the same question several times on your talk page, which I had already answered. When I told you there that I wasn't going to repeat myself that was not an invitation for you to come and repeat your question several times here as well, nor was it an invitation for you to continue adding COI self mentions to the articles in question. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My question is clear here , do you find anything wrong in my contribution in "Linear Canonical Transformation"? that is based on peer reviewed sources. There nothing related to COI here. Is there scientific error in the text or anything else like that ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the issue I explained on your user talk page. There absolutely is a COI issue. I will not respond to this question again. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you at least understand the contents of the text you removed before removing them ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And you are mixing everything. The previous talk is about another article (which is now a draft under review). Here I am talking clearly about the contribution that you removed on "Linear Canonical Transformation" that were there months before . Rshon13 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The same issues have been present in all your edits. That these issues went unnoticed for a while (even a few months) does not somehow mean they can never be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have made other edits with other references. Is there scientific errors in the text you removed ? And as I said they were based on "peer reviewed high quality scientific paper": Do you understand the meaning of this ? Rshon13 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not post on my talk page again, I am not interested in seeing the same stuff over and over. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So Please , next time try to understand the true contents of contributions before removing them. As other people also suggest before, You can also at least comment in the article discussion page before removing if you find something wrong after "serious review of the contents." . Thank you for your understanding Rshon13 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie, I will report you for vandalism if you continue to remove posts on the Turing Test page that cite the work of Gonçalves. This is substantial peer-reviewed academic work that has appeared in top history, philosophy, and science journals, including Nature, and yet you call it citation spam. You do not seem to care about the content and the subject matter. Apparently you are not here to learn or to help others learn, but to control Wikipedia pages, your rented 1m2 of power. Bgonc (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It is even worse, as I've just seen. Now you removed other, years-old citations of the work of Gonçalves. If you remove it again, you will be reported. Bgonc (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm watching the situation and neither of you is covered in glory this morning. Work it out in the talk thread I just created. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD you do realise that the account is adding their own works, am I correct? Doug Weller talk 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of that until the discussion on page talk commenced. BusterD (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My edits are plainly not vandalism. Also, please don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is quite misleading. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment but in the moment I was reacting to the back and forth. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can definitely understand that. I'll move to the article talk page faster next time, rather than getting drawn into back and forth on user talk. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I value your edits and have reason to expect reasonable behavior when I see your date stamp. Thank you. Don't be shy to point out when I'm not seeing a situation clearly. I'd much rather have someone I know in my face than fail to comprehend their need for assistance. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Mindfullness is one part of the eightfold noble path taught by the Buddha. It is not derived from Chan, Guan or tibetan buddhist teachings as the original article claimed. In fact Chan, Guan and tibetan buddhism originate from the teachings of the Buddha in Pali.

You appear to have no knowledge or interest in Buddhism. Why are you removing edits on subjects you have no clue about? Keep- this up and you'll be reported.

https://tricycle.org/article/satipatthana-sutta-mindfulness/ Rottcod (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we follow what the cited sources say, which in this case are books from major academic publishers. Do not change the article in ways they do not reflect the cited source. Self published blog posts such as you posted here do not undermine those sources. Kindly take this up on the article's associated talk page - not on user talk pages, and not in edit summaries while edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI... I'm not sure how often you check your WikiQuote page but Jinnifer is using an anonymous address to harass you in to making changes for them on Wikipedia via your talk page. This was after multiple failed attempts to get me to do it for them. NJZombie (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, they like to waste their time in that way. MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they can be reported for edit warring on Biology and SO, now. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably. But no 3RR vio and they are at least talking, even if what they're saying isn't backed up by the sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, let's see. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems they calmed down. I normally don't engage in big back and forth with editors, but sometimes they genuinely just don't "get it". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's nice to see discussion work for a change, that's for sure! MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: Looks like I had to make that report after all. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And the same stuff is being added at Genome-wide association study, by the by. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted. Looks like a troll pretending to act in good faith. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your efforts on Repressed memory and its talk page. I'd like to do a major overhaul of Dissociative identity disorder soon, since it seems to give too much credence to a very fringe camp in psychiatry. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and avoiding promotional behavior. I would like to clarify that the addition I made is not promotional but instead contributes meaningfully to the topic by referencing a novel concept published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal indexed by Web of Science.

The cited source represents a reliable academic reference that aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability and reliability. It introduces a unique perspective that enhances the quality of the entry by broadening the scholarly debate. Furthermore, I believe that the inclusion of diverse academic views is critical to upholding Wikipedia's mission of being a balanced and comprehensive repository of knowledge.

If there are counterarguments or alternative perspectives, I welcome those contributions as they can further enrich the entry. However, outright removal of the information without considering its academic merit may inadvertently reflect bias and go against the principles of scholarly debate and Wikipedia’s collaborative ethos.

To address potential concerns, I propose the following:

The source and its relevance to the entry can be discussed on the article's talk page to ensure transparency and community review. If additional verification is required, I am open to providing further supporting evidence for the validity of the reference. I look forward to collaborating to ensure the entry remains accurate, balanced, and reflective of ongoing academic discourse.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.146.51.112 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Your comment appears to have been written by a chatbot. If you have something to say, please write your own comment. Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my links! Have a cookie :) Thunderblood101 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

i wanna assume whether you've got a clue what ur doin?? I hope so. Rayan241 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously an unreliable source. Feel free to seek confirmation at WP:RSN. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding Max Greenfield to famous alumnai of Cleveland High School, Reseda, CA. came from an interview he has done confirming this. My editing of The Danny Thomas Show comes from TV Guide magazine. H.I.S. (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in the Danny Thomas show. I placed a message on your talk page because you added junk reference tags to the policy page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

She was a few seconds faster than I was! Doug Weller talk 15:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Bishzilla faster than the both of you! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC).

Cookies all around MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you happen to remember the name for the Australian "history section" LTA we revert a lot?[11][12] I only need to remember once, then I can put a redirect on it forever. Thanks in advance! Remsense ‥ 论 00:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: There's no LTA page, but a bunch of the accounts are collected at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Sennick4858 MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Remsense ‥ 论 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This. One can only try, I suppose. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe that clearing recent additions to my Talk Page when I have read and understood them is "not the best response". Please do not assume bad faith. Boredintheevening (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely no bad faith was assumed or implied, and I believe that any number of responses to good faith messages on one's Talk page are better than clearing them without comment. Seeing as we apparently disagree on that, I suggest that we end this discussion now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie,

1st time on this platform so please forgive me. You recommend that I state a source for this statement. I can assure you there is no source or research that validates or invalidates for that matter the statement that I made. Its a matter of physics. Storing water on a sloped roof as a blue roof is not feasible as the water will all flow to the low end of the roof, which necessitates a flat deck. Any engineer in the trade knows that, but few people considering a blue roof realize this. We have seen thousands of designs by engineers where this is the case. There is no agenda for stating this 'fact' beside trying to be helpful to the reader.

Do you know of a better way to phrase this? Oscar-greenroof (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is no source, then it cannot be present on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:NOR and WP:V for details. We cannot write from personal knowledge here, everything has to be supported by a citation that a reader could click on to verify the content. Since the problem is one of sourcing, re-phrasing wouldn't address the problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie. I can see your point.

I have read over 230 academic papers on the subject with many of these papers being flat out wrong. I am a co-author on 3, and I funded over $1,500,000 into a non-for-profit R&D facility for green roof research which has amassed the world's largest green roof hydrology database. We developed stormwater hydrology models to predict with extreme accuracy how these systems perform on flat decks and sloped decks. We are part of the green roof industry, and we operate in Europe and the USA so that gives us international perspective.

The blue roof and green roof pages have so many claims that could be refuted by another academic paper (how do you choose which one wins if they contradict?), they have a lot of confusing statements, and a lot of errors. Its weird that experts cannot make a simple statement. They are incoherent and are not serving the reader very well. If I can only contribute by using published sources, it severely limits if not eliminates the ability to add information that is neutral and yet very informative to the user. Oscar-greenroof (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We have to rely on published sources because we have no reliable means of verifying who is an expert and who isn't, so we can't just trust in someone's personal knowledge. And the readers would have no way to verify for themselves - we can't have them just emailing whoever wrote the article.

Wikipedia has had a few high-profile cases where this has been a major problem. 'Follow the citations' is the best system we have been able to come up with. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RE: ' Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie'

By referencing: https://www.systemvalidation.me/s/stories/why-does-good-manufacturing-practice-exist

I am attempting to use a concise and factually referenced summary that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet due to the political nature of the content. Why is this an inappropriate external link? There is no attempt to alter search engine rankings. Space999 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not a usable source per WP:RS, and you have been repeatedly spamming it onto multiple articles. I will not respond here any further since this comment is duplicated from your own talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

“Second-degree cousins or closer” is confused, does it include first-cousin-twice-removed? Or first-cousin-thrice-removed? Or half-second-cousin? And in a clinical sense, the coefficient of relationship (r) should be used to consider where a marriage is consanguine marriage or not, i.e. a marriage is consanguine marriage when the coefficient of relationship (r) is a number or higher, and this number should be 3.125% since it is the coefficient of relationship (r) of second cousin. 118.170.12.249 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You are adding WP:OR and nonsense to that article, over and over again. That is disruption. Just stop, and just stop posting on my user talk about it. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

So does “second-degree cousins or closer” include first-cousin-twice-removed? Or first-cousin-thrice-removed? Or half-second-cousin? Or double-second-cousin-once-removed? 114.38.72.194 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I repeat: Stop posting here. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie, you canceled a number of my edits in Kaspersky product pages and on the company page itself as “promo”. I have re-read the overrides more than once and agree that the description of business products on the company page can indeed look a bit promotional unfortunately. I didn't have such a goal, just while I was looking into the topic of corporate information security I saw that the company has a lot of relevant products, but wikipedia doesn't have them, so I decided to add it. How to do it more correctly? Name and description of the main functions only more briefly than I had? Or is it about the source of information and need their descriptions not from the site of the company itself?

Similar question about the description of program versions. Is the problem that the source is the company's site or that there are too many details about the functions?

And the third question about the section with independent testing. I think it is important to specify that the quality of products is confirmed by independent tests. But I would like to do it correctly, not to promote the company, but just to point out the fact. Should I remove information about the evaluations themselves and the number of awards? Should we leave only the fact of positive evaluations by the relevant research centers?

I hope for your answer on these questions. Thank you. Buuzbashi (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, a product listing is not necessary, Rather than trying to figure out how to include it, I would suggest reconsidering your assumption that it should be included at all. Test results (like anything else in a Wikipedia article) should be driven by secondary sources, not by citations directly to the organizations making the tests. MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and for the link to the appropriate rule. 21:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Buuzbashi (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I must say that the interaction with you was by far the most unpleasant experience I have had in Wikipedia for years. You have deleted---in a very rude way---the absolutely correct information about Mistral AI chatbot used by zillions of people around the world because you personally decided that it was not important for the readers of Wikipedia. Looking at your "contribution" list it seems that this is actually what you do -- you delete things. Is it the power to delete that drives you? What a miserable life you must have. Anyway, I hope I will never interact with you again, Sincerely, Dmt137 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You added completely unsourced material about a nonnotable chatbot, in plain violation of both Wikipedia's content policies and the inclusion criteria for that list. You should expect other people to resist when you blatantly ignore site policies. MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know which are the requirement to be a notable chatbot, thank you, Sam

(p.s. the project Cheshire Cat AI has 2.6K stars on GitHub) Sambarza (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a list of chatbots with preexisting Wikipedia articles. Social media likes (such as GitHub stars) are easily gamed and mean precisely nothing. MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

clear thanks Sambarza (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm still fairly knew to the whole wiki editor role and was curious what tipped off my writing as "product placement". Are there any changes I can make to the piece I wrote to make it be within compliance? Thank you for your time

Cornbredphilospher (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Cornbredphilospher (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Cornbredphilospher (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a completely unsourced section with a adverty image. I suggest you don't add it at all - we do not need a list of various types of things that might be found on top of a trailer. Every other trailer type of that sort on the page is anchored by a link to another Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ugh.... and now I'm back to square one. I was told by user 331dot to post it in the trailer section as a subcategory. My original article has taken down for not having enough high quality sources. But no such source exists. There are PLENTY of corporations and other for profit companies that have articles or blog posts detailing what a cable reel trailer is... but nothing from the academia world. I feel stuck and frustrated. That's not your problem, just venting. Cornbredphilospher (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If no source exists, per WP:V policy requires that we leave it out, I'm afraid. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The WP:V policy page was helpful. Thank you. Cornbredphilospher (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So back in October/November 2024, you had some dealings with this user (link to their talk page), who was prolifically adding/replacing references, overlinking, and trying to copyedit articles (with various levels of success). I'm not sure if you ever knew what happened next because you'd never commented on it, but I've been curious about your opinion for a while: after I noticed this user, I ended up indefblocking them in a remarkably poorly communicated and executed way during my admin recall discussion (the first ever), leading me to lose my adminship in a subsequent reconfirmation RFA. The above links are rather long; the TL;DR version is this Signpost story and my dedicated user subpage. As noted on Mariewan's talk page, I swiftly undid my block on them but they haven't edited since. I just wonder what your thoughts are on all this. I would've asked you privately but you don't have email enabled. As part of the fallout of Mariewan's block, I did a watchlist purge and therefore don't find/fix anywhere near as much disruptive editing as I used to, which has been a good thing for me. Graham87 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't seen any of that before - I don't follow RFA or the signpost. It is very unfortunate that all of that happened. My initial read is that it's an example of a long standing problem on Wikipedia, which is that it is difficult to get a lot of folks to sit still long enough to understand that edits that look superficially like good ones can actually be bad ones. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Why I need source for known info for website such as language and website content I mean how do i even get sources for this info XJUBA (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You need them because that is how Wikipedia is written - sources are required by core policies here. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS for a start. If you can't find sources for it, you should not add it to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You did not understand my question why you need source for very obvious info like the website language is English or the website type is forums or so i don't get it XJUBA (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Click on the links in my message, your answers lie therein. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie

I am following due protocol and requesting that you reconsider the arguments made on the Talk:Circumcision page. Your responses to my request thus far have been dismissive to say the least. I do not believe that my suggestion was unreasonable, irrelevant or extreme and so to respond in the way you have seems unwarranted. I do not see why this cannot be addressed in a reasonable way.

Sincerely

Mangi89

Mangi89 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Coming on to my user talk page to say you don't like my comments is not 'due protocol'. Keep discussion on the article talk page where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

My apologies - I was under the impression that directly reasoning with you as the administrator was the correct course of action. I will restrict my communications to the Talk:Circumcision page then. Mangi89 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference the Dispute resolution page suggests addressing administrators directly through their talk pages, under the section titled 'Resolving content disputes'... Mangi89 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood dispute resolution, if you thought that going onto someone's talk page and calling them 'unreasonable' was going to somehow resolve a dispute. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions about the Iran-Iraq war, what makes it an edit war? Would like to know. Thanks. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The way you keep reverting even though you have seen that others disagree. You will probably be blocked if you keep that up. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It would still not constitute an edit war as it did not break the three-revert-rule. Usually, one would resolve the dispute through the talk page. However, i have brought the issue up before without answer, ergo the reverts. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Edit Warring clearly states: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. If no one has answered you, that does not mean you can then start edit warring. This is all explained if you read the policies, which have been linked on your own talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Was the message you put on my talk page a warning? KiddKrazy2 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie The image files below were generated using D_2D & D_3D plotting programs, as well as MeKin2D, which was recently unlinked from Free_Pascal. Could you clarify the reason for this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:4700:556a:f918:6b0:aedc (talk • contribs)

First, kindly do not paste giant galleries of images onto anyone's page ever again. Second, we have plenty of examples by keeping the list to software that actually has a Wikipedia article with more information, links to unrelated articles on Wikipedia misleadly formatted as if they were a link to an article about software do not belong. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see that's because the articles in question were deleted, and you were banned for using sockpuppet accounts, a ban you are currently evading by editing logged out. You should stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie Generating such images take a lot of effort, somethin ASCII contributors (or deletionists) cannot understand. Have a happy cyberlife! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:4700:556A:F918:6B0:AEDC (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop evading your block, Wikipedia doesn't need or want your images. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie Speak for yourself not for the entire Wikipedia. And stop acting like this:

There are eight (8) similar pictures on Wikimedia. Do you think Wikipedia needs these many urinating-dog pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:4700:556a:f918:6b0:aedc (talk • contribs)

You're not welcome here any more - kindly respect your ban and stop loading up the Wikipedia with redundant junk. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie Do you feel better about yourself, now that you deleted copiously what in your twisted mind is "redundant junk"? For the notion of redundant read the article Redundancy. For the second one, just look at yourself in the mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8280:4700:1DAB:5D7D:6C3A:C23F (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I feel great. Again: stop evading your block. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ollie: You might even be a nice person in real life. But you have such a short attention span :( 2601:803:8280:4700:1DAB:5D7D:6C3A:C23F (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

the origin of Sitar was in India and was done by being inspired by Existing instrument Veena https://www.india-instruments.com/encyclopedia-sitar.html 103.50.83.213 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not what the cited academic source says, and Wikipedia needs to follow that. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I wish to express profound regret for any unintended miscommunication that may have occurred. The combinatorial property I proposed demonstrates notable novelty, with its paramount significance residing in exceptional accessibility – the fundamental concept remains comprehensible even to elementary school students. As a non-native English speaker, certain linguistic imprecision in my initial formulation might have inadvertently obscured the core mathematical substance. Should circumstances permit, I respectfully request your consideration in reviewing my revised exposition and potentially facilitating its proper editorial integration. My sincere aspiration is that this contribution might serve pedagogical purposes within supplementary educational materials, stimulating interest in discrete mathematics or combinatorial mathematics among younger learners. I reiterate my appreciation for your scholarly dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's academic integrity. Zixian Yang (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just read the message on your own user talk page, including clicking on the links. Wikipedia isn't a place to add mentions of yourself or your work. MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempting to update the page and generally improve the description of At Home. All attempts have been removed.

Adding New CEO details. Unsure why this is considered promotional since the page already has CEO content.

Adding New Store Openings. Company has new locations and is useful information.

Removing false statements about chapter 11. The references does not provide any information on chapter 11. None can be found anywhere other than on this wiki page. 2600:1700:7B76:6010:F594:CDA1:F8EE:AFDB (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You've been whitewashing the page and attempting to turn it into an advertisement, which is strictly against Wikipedia's policies, and very likely a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as given in WP:PAID. You should stop. The citation attached to the text clearly supports the chapter 11 information. Stop removing it. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide what citation you are talking about? 2600:1700:7B76:6010:F594:CDA1:F8EE:AFDB (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you retract your legal threat? Do you work for At Home? DACartman (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, & yes retracted. Libel is just a word to describe a false statement. Not a lawyer, and not a threat. 2600:1700:7B76:6010:F594:CDA1:F8EE:AFDB (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are an employee of At Home, you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use, see WP:PAID. The citation you are asking about is the one you have been deleting from the article. Click on the little number at the end of the sentence. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

scalefusion.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

URL requested to be removed from blacklist: scalefusion.com

Greetings team

I recently attempted to add our name to the List of MDM Software Wikipedia page as a recognized MDM provider in the market. However, I later discovered that our edits were removed, and our organization's URL had been banned.

Upon further research and discussions with experienced Wikipedia contributors, I learned that, in the past, individuals from my organization repeatedly added our direct website link without adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Unfortunately, this led to the banning of our URL a few years ago. I now fully understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding external links, references, and appropriate citations.

I sincerely request the removal of the URL ban. I assure you that we will strictly follow Wikipedia's guidelines and will not engage in any inappropriate link additions. Our goal is only to contribute relevant and verifiable information to the Wikipedia community.

I appreciate your time and consideration and would be grateful for your support in resolving this matter. Please let me know if any additional steps are required from my side. Sakshi Singh Das (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero says this request is 100% written by an AI. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi @MrOllie, I appreciate you reaching out and supporting me as I'm learning the ropes here on Wikipedia and working on my page around Artificial intelligence optimization. I saw that this page didn't exist and worked to develop the content since it is a space that is growing rapidly alongside SEO and AI. I did have LLM support as I was doing the research for the article and adding relevant references and citations. However, I've gone through every line to verify that the information is accurate and fits the standards of Wikipedia. Thank you again for your support, I'm learning a lot from editors and community members like you and I appreciate your time. LincolnFreehand (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, please pardon me if this is not the right place to ask about this. On the Race and Intelligence page, Test Scores section, the part about the UK Test Scores was evidently taken from an article by Zambian writer, Chanda Chisala. He was the first to point out that when you divide black African groups by nationality, and even further, by tribe, there were many groups outperforming British whites in school. The sources he cited for this did not make any argument challenging the hereditarian hypothesis, as they were collecting this data for a completely unrelated purpose. Isn't it fair to mention the person who first noticed the relevance of this data to the IQ debate and presented a series of articles over the years on it? Besides, many scholars on the hereditarian side, including Charles Murray, acknowledged the challenge that Chisala had presented to their hereditarian hypothesis (see Murray's tweets here and here).

Thank you for your kind guidance.

---

@Boar2009 Boar2009 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

For a more authoritative publication citing Chisala's work on this, please see these pages in Wilfred Reilly's book, Taboo.

Do you think this should be noted on that section of the article where his work is used?

Thanks. Boar2009 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on your question.

I will say that Race and Intelligence is an extremely contentious topic, subject to special editing restrictions on Wikipedia, and the topic is plagued by sockpuppetry. My best advice is that new editors should keep their distance. MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Adding Nah. WP:BOLD to my quotebook rn. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I edited the page of Catering and expanded the lead section, which you undid. SInce it's a learning process for me, can you please elaborate on what was wrong or why you undid it, so I can learn for future posts?

Thanks :-). Sablc4747 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the diligence in your review of the Automation article.  Please reconsider returning the comment and reference as the author is a legitimate expert in the field, and this is reliable source.

Thank you for your consideration. 

See below

Self-published works however can be referenced as reliable sources.

From Wikipedia

1. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, are usually not acceptable as sources. These can include newsletters, personal websites, press releases, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets. However, if an author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that particular topic.

Nolan, Tom (July 2019). "Automate Operating Discipline and Dynamic Alarm Management with State-Based Control". Chemical Engineering Progress. 115 (7): 48–53.

Nolan, Tom (January 2019) "Select the Right Nonlinear Control Technique | AIChE". Chemical Engineering Progress. 115(1) : 37-42.

Nolan & Persak, T & K (2020). "Change Your Board Operator to a Process Manager with State Based Control" (PDF). Emerson.

Nolan, Tom (September 2020). "State Based Control and the Value Delivered from the Initial Design Through the Operating Life of the Facility" (PDF).

Operating Discipline and Dynamic Alarm Management

The author is a member of the ISA-106 Procedure Automation for Continuous Process Operations, that writes the standards for State-Based Control

Operating Discipline and Dynamic Alarm Management

ProcessControlEng (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you this book's author? MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie

Thank you for following up.

I sure am, and the sources are reliable.

As mentioned before I am an established expert in the field.  Even recognized by Emerson on May 18, 2021 as a "State Based Control Engineering Expert".  I also held the role of Principle State Based Control Consultant for Emerson, and published with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Chemical Engineering Progress, and Emerson. I am the real deal.

From Wikipedia.

“Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, are usually not acceptable as sources. These can include newsletters, personal websites, press releases, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets. However, if an author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that particular topic.”

From < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners>

 

There is not much out there yet on State Based Control. See the excerpt from the article below.

"State Based Control is among a spectrum of automation styles within ISA106, Procedure Automation for Continuous Process Operations. It’s origins date back to the 1960's rooted in a desire to achieve operational excellence through operating discipline. It was however until recently not widely practiced outside of a few companies. "

From < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-Based_Control>

In particular "until recently not widely practiced outside of a few companies."  It is relatively new outside of the few companies that had used it, so there is not much published about it.  The book I wrote is to my knowledge the only one written about State Based Control to date.

State Based Control has been my life's work. If there are other publications, I would love to read them and improve the article with references to them. But currently, there is not much out there.

So, yes, the sources are reliable. ProcessControlEng (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You should have a look at WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. You should not be adding mentions of yourself (including in citations) to Wikipedia in this way, and you definitely should not be citing self published books. If no other citations exist, that is a strong indication that this material should not be in Wikipedia at all, not a reason to compromise on sourcing standards. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: Don't paste lengthy quotes onto people's talk pages, it makes discussion difficult to read and is generally unhelpful. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the WP.COI and WP.REFSPAM. I will read through them carefully. ProcessControlEng (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources about Kundalini? Polygnotus (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Many. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there one you would recommend to someone who knows nothing about the topic (except what is currently in the Wikipedia article)? Polygnotus (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who really knows nothing at all would be best served by starting with a book on comparative religion. Eastern Ways of Being Religious by Kessler is OK. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Ordered it. Polygnotus (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to insert a section into PG Wodehouse's page about the importance of the village of Emsworth to him. On your advice I've cited a reliable source which is from Robert McCrum's acclaimed biography. But I seem to have done something wrong because I've received this message: "Please stop trying to force this unsourced in; it would be best to use the talk page to discuss." But surely my paragraph isn't unsourced if I'm citing Robert McCrum's book. What should I do? Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You should use the talk page to discuss, just like the message said. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do I have to do exactly to get my contribution accepted? Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Get other people to agree that it is a good idea on the article's associated talk page, by discussing it there. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've gone on the article's talk page to say why I think my text should be included. But who decides whether the edit goes in? How long is the process? 2A00:23C8:3E86:5501:35D3:C365:D1BF:ED5A (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who happens to show up. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so there is no predefined duration here. If you have further questions about Wikipedia or how it operates, you should ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE rather than at my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

I added some lead scoring methods to contribute to the lead generation page.

I think it will be useful for the users. And I can present you the source if needed of the information I just added on the page. Would you mind undoing the removal? 49.36.67.209 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Inline source citations are required for additions to Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:RS, and Help:Citing sources for details. MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Until yesterday, I also believed that image generation was not part of Generative AI. I started looking into the issue, and I found out that things might be changing (see for example this paper). What do you think? Thanks! LazyRabbitBlue (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that an unpublished arxiv preprint isn't a usable source, and even if it were it wouldn't justify putting a sentence in the lead section of an article as you did. More generally, using generative AI to train a computer vision model results in a vision model that only works well on fake images. MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. I will think about it and maybe add a reference to Gen AI in a more discrete location. To be fair, Gen AI can be used to improve the quality of real image and thus help the following image processing steps. Examples include super resolution. LazyRabbitBlue (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Artificially increasing the resolution of an image before you feed it into a vision system just makes the vision system run slower. MrOllie (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

True, but speed is not the only criterium applicable when designing a computer vision system. Sometimes you just have a few images, so increasing the quality of the initial information might be a good idea. LazyRabbitBlue (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Those algorithms don't actually increase the quality, though. They look better to human eyes but not to a vision system. But this is all irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, people are starting to talk of Gen AI in CV. Somehow, this should be included in the page. I will do my best to do it. I know this is debatable but the change is happening, and I think readers should have some material on the topic. LazyRabbitBlue (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to tell people about the latest happenings or bleeding edge research (see WP:NOT). This stuff only belongs on an encyclopedia when it is old, boring, settled science. Once that happens, if you have reliable sources you should follow up at the article's associated talk page rather than my user talk. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

• 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).

  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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

OK. You removed my addition of "Joe" to the list of advertising icons on the Cheerios page. Is this solely because I neglected to provide a reference? Or is there some other reason?

An ad containing Joe can be seen for example in the 1945-04-22 Washington Evening Star (image 88), https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1945-04-22/ed-1/seq-88 .

Granted, the concept of "Original Research" at wikipedia has always confused me. Or perhaps it's just the term that confuses me. I found a series of ads in period newspapers, and noticed they were no mentioned in the wikipedia article. In common english usage, that would be original research. Why would that be prohibited? It's clearly a fact (assuming, of course, that I provide a reference).

In continuing my search of cheerios ads, I then found that the wikipedia page is not quite correct in its date range for Cheeri O'Leary. That character did disappear from ads around 1944, but reappeared in 1946 in ads that were mostly about Joe. It was when I returned to edit the page again (this time to include references) that I discovered my previous edit had been discarded. 2601:98A:4100:1620:20D8:C6F9:63D2:F950 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think if you provide an actual source that can easily be found then that isnt original research. Link it in where you put it. Jayson (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jayson. I've recovered my previous edit, added a source cite there. I've also added a sentence to the Cheeri O'Leary section, complete with a source cite. 2601:98A:4100:1620:1109:7776:722E:9B18 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the main photo is a personal photo -- I'd be open to the latest caption that user had added in the gallery. Overall the whole thing needs t obe cleaned up. Drew Stanley (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, looks like there is may be a proponent of MPD, recovered memories, ISSTD [13]. Might be worth keeping an eye out because some of these are a little fringey IMO, and I know you edit these articles already. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert my recent additions? They updated the article and added more useful and properly sourced information. 64.250.232.17 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Because they were promotional in tone and even if that were cleaned up would have been trivia. The article is a better one without the addition. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you going back through all of my edits are reverting them? It seems like you have decided to wage a campaign against me. I'm only a very occasional contributor here and aim to help improve Wikipedia when I can and don't want to be the subject of personal attacks. 64.250.232.17 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It is common practice when one sees a problem edit to look to see if the same error has been replicated elsewhere - in this case it was. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the case. You reverted edits to articles that brought them more fully up to date with useful and properly referenced material. This looks like vengeful reverse editing intend to punish someone you disagree with rather than for the benefit of Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss these issues with you and find a solution we can both agree on. 64.250.232.17 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Pushing promotional text about people and organizations associated with Bigelow is not 'useful and properly referenced material', it is unencyclopedic fringe editing. It makes the encyclopedia worse, and therefore reverts are 'for the benefit of Wikipedia'. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that you have been violating Wikipedia's terms of use as given at WP:PAID. You should stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I've not. I've replied to you on my talk page about this. 64.250.232.17 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Everyone can see who your IP is registered to. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This is to inform that I left a message for you at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fiber-optic_communication. I'm not inclined to continue the discussion any further, especially if you make a conscious choice to leave more unfair comments like the one you made there to me, but I do want you to read it nonetheless. Regards, 188.66.34.224 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

TLDR. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

please tell me why you say there is not a distinction?is that function mathematically equal to value? Jeese Bloom (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

See Distinction without a difference. For the purposes of that sentence such a distinction is irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

well.you are right.but it is misleading.Don't you think so? Jeese Bloom (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No. That's why I reverted. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{{MrOllie}}}, it appears you removed content without discussing it on the article talk page. I find your reason for removing it as almost a subtle jibe "Overemphasis..." Please restore my contribution. 79.33.222.178 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on you to get support for your addition, see WP:BRD. No one is required to go to a talk page in advance. I will not put your text back, as I do not believe it improved the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

On what criteria do you think it does not improve the article? Maybe too many neologisms only FOR YOU. 79.33.222.178 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. Direct any follow-up to the article's associated talk page, where such discussion belongs. MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie! I noticed that you moved my article from the mainspace to draft form, specifically mentioning that I am "dodging the AFC process".

I just wanted to state that I have no intention to dodge the AFC process, and nor have I done so. However, I was strongly confident with the article I wrote that I had after I made a few revisions and a few suggestions from fellow editors, I believed that it was best to directly move the article to the mainspace.

I also am in receipt of the conflict of interest notice that you posted on my talk page, and I just wanted to also clarify that I am not connected to the subject. I previously intended to write about Arjun Sharda (person closely connected to this article/TLEEM), however after feedback from editors, I was told that it would be best to not write about the person due to the person being a minor (WP:CHILD), so I decided to write about TLEEM.

Just wanted to ask, however - is there any specific reason that you moved the article from the mainspace back to its original state (a draft)? I'm more than okay with doing an AfC process for the article, but just wanted to know if you had any opinion or tips on the article itself. I'm a new editor, so i'd love to receive some feedback. I hope I don't come off as offensive, just want to learn and improve for next time. Liahuu (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That article was not ready for the mainspace and I think it is likely it would be deleted if it remained there. What you have now is a bunch of local newspapers doing human interest stories, not the sustained, in-depth press coverage needed to support an article. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I can see why the article would not be suitable/sustainable for the mainspace yet. I appreciate your feedback & help. Just wanted to ask two questions:

1) Are local newspapers discouraged or not admissible for an Wikipedia article?

2) What would you define as "sustained" coverage? Liahuu (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

so you just like to delete all of my good faith work?

69.181.17.113 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Read and follow Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines (as given at WP:RS) rather than filling pages with random links to photos and webstores, and you shouldn't have any further issues. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

1. The edit you reverted with cause: you put the word "feminist" in what I assume are scare-quotes but the researchers in question were feminist. In short, I disagree with your rationale; the scientific researchers in question are, in fact, feminist. That's not my point of view — they chose to publish in a journal that uses the adjective feminist to describe itself before any other in its own journal description.
2. You also reverted my other edit, but I also believe that "research scientists" is a more precise term than "topic experts" in this context. You reverted both my edits rather than just the revision you took issue with in your summary. therefore, you didn't adequately explain your rationale for reverting my second edit. 1101 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

   Keep discussion on article talk pages where it belongs - that sentence has been discussed extensively on the talk page and you will need to demonstrate a robust consensus to change it - and I strongly doubt you will get consensus to phrase it in the way you did. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you have to revert all my good edits!? 2603:6080:5940:22:84DA:CE31:8273:C8FE (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

They're not good edits. Also, stop evading your many blocks, which you received for the same disruption you are continuing now. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

We will leave it up to the Checkusers to decide whether those IPs are being used by that puppeteer. I have more reason to believe your judgment that to believe the IPs, but we will wait and see. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't necessary, they admitted it: [14] MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Some blocked users are stupid, or treat the community as though the community is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You removed a cited source from Feeling. It's not in any way covered by WP:ELNO, the author of the linked work is a recognized expert in the field, and the website itself is well established as reliable. In fact, the Study Buddhism website was chosen in 2011 to be archived as part of the Bodleian Electronic Archives and Manuscripts collection of the University of Oxford. Skyerise (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Archived_version Thanks for notifying me about the commentary on website status… …but I still don't get where you said that I "big chunk of an article for no apparent reason..." because I can't remember doing so. I also checked my Wiki history incase if it was a mistake but couldn't find it also. G4Wikis (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You clearly deleted almost 10K of article content. [15]. MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

😮

Thanks for sharing this information also.

I will try to improve on my mistakes. G4Wikis (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

would it be oki for you, to change the edit, at a way it comfers you and others who are also not in plessure, reading grammaticall edits which are way too or quite over nested in its structure, so it is your turn as more experienced wikipedianer, and I can emphasize to not having too much pleasure reading such a style in the most professionall, and awesomly beside, most inclusionall encyclopädic here on this planet, If you say though no at all, or you do not answer here anyways, I won't commit reposting my edit, I promise!🤗✌️ Yet, If you would gave your ok about it, I can try to rewrite my edit with quick, precising, non-literationall english? In the question of how legit my edit is, I could defend myself, that it is just a simple way to generate, I will write further of this, nevertheless, I do wish you a great day😄🤗✌️ 2001:9E8:9090:8800:F2CD:F5E:7B5A:F8CF (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate (on the article or here), so no, I cannot help you. If you are going to try to work on the English language Wikipedia you will need to work on your English skills first, I am afraid. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, MrOllie. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! RPE ✍️ 📚 03:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, MrOllie, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Valorrr (lets chat) 16:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

When you revert other users' contributions, especially when they are not egregiously breaking the rules as you did in Butter, I think you should supply a clear rationale. In this case you wrote, "Spam as cite"; I'm an English speaker and a longtime editor, and I can't tell quite what that is supposed to mean. Further, in looking at the reverted editor's history, it appears that they are an inexperienced, possibly misguided user, but not obviously malicious. I think this amounts to "biting a newcomer". Ike9898 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

They're adding spam links as citations across several articles. They've been previously warned about that, but then started doing it again anyway. 'Do not bite the newcomers' does not mean ignore conduct that plainly violates policy. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, a series of accounts have done nothing but add content, often copyright violations, taken from kenresearch.com. The content is usually inserted with little regard for relevance, in that case putting a deep dive into Indian butter production in the middle of an overview of worldwide production. They all cite kenresearch in the same distinctive way. I've been wondering whether to start at WP:RSN by questioning whether kenresearch's reports are reliable or to be deprecated as boilerplate or AI slop, but maybe that's beside the point and I should simply assemble a report for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam with a view to blacklisting. Any thoughts? NebY (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I usually start considering a blacklist request when the sockpuppet count is around a half-dozen. It looks like we've reached that in this case. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I may have obtained copyvio revdel, reverted or edited that many myself; I can dig in my contributions history (after RL, sleep ...). I've not tried to decide if they're socks of a blocked user or plain sequential accounts. Hmm. NebY (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The spamcheck tool is good for this: [16] MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that is useful - not least for making me reconsider how often it's happening. Thank you. NebY (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Femke,

I noticed that Václav Smil's book, Natural Gas: Fuel for the 21st Century, has been removed from the bibliography. I would like to explain why I think it is useful and necessary to keep it as a source.

Author authority: Smil is a recognized expert in the field of energy, and is an authoritative source for understanding the role of natural gas in the global energy context.

Relevance of content: The book covers a crucial topic for the energy transition, in line with current global discussions on the future of energy.

Contribution to the literature: The work contributes significantly to the scientific and economic understanding of natural gas, a key topic for the energy sector.

Compliance with guidelines: The book is an academic and relevant source in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I hope you can review the decision and consider reinstating this book. If necessary, I can also provide a citation that conforms to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely 79.41.35.95 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

hi. I'm quite new. In fact, this was my first edit. You reverted it. I wanted to learn what was wrong with it, and now I could improve.

It was suggested i post on the page in question's talk, so I did. But I'm told i didn't put enough details into it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Master_and_Margarita

This is a link (I believe) to the talk page. The edit was adding a performance in Under the adaptations section for this book. Can you help me understand, and hopefully improve? Even make sure I post properly? Jimstarkband (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There were no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain an indiscriminate list of every performance or adaptation. The text was also very promotional. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

i was under the impression the two reviews from independent sources counted as reliable sources. In the case of these types of adaptations, what is a reliable source? Also, i don't understand what you mean by promotional here? Jimstarkband (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

following up here. Should these questions be directed elsewhere? Jimstarkband (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

13% of Scotland does not have red hair this is a misconception that has now been disproven by research. Dr. Jim Wilson conducted the largest study on red hair and found the number of people in Scotland with the hair colour to be only 6% which is backed up by an older study from 1907 which had over half a million participants making it by far the largest study on hair colour in Scottish history and found the number of Scottish redheads to be 5.3% I think it's far more accurate to state 6% of Scotland is red haired as oppose to 13% as that figure is purely just an estimation and has no bases in an actual fact Billybob the third1244 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. You have been reverted by more than one person and they will not participate in discussion here. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

how do I take it to the article page? Billybob the third1244 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

in what way am i suppose to take it to the article page? sorry my Wikipedia editing knowledge is not the best I'm genuinely asking Billybob the third1244 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Talk pages. You need to get support from other editors to proceed with your edits by convincing them on the article's associated talk page. Simply repeating the same edits again will not work, and is considered edit warring. Edit warring is prohibited by policy here. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

could I just edit that both Ireland and Scotland have high percentages of red hair without saying one has a greater number than the other Billybob the third1244 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You must get support from others on the talk page to continue. Not my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a very experienced editor and don't know how to access or use the talk page could you please help me out on this Billybob the third1244 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to use the talk page I'm not an experienced editor so could you please help me out. thanks Billybob the third1244 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Using talk pages is required if you want to edit Wikipedia, I cannot do this for you. Please direct any follow up questions to WP:TEAHOUSE, I will not respond here any further. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, With regard to your recent reverts, I don't want to be rude, may I ask do you have any conflict of interest? Like, are you a surgeon, or someone related to a hospital or medical equipment providers, etc? 183.178.113.38 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop with the profringe stuff and false accusations, you aren't fooling anyone. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any conflict of interest. Why do you follow me to different articles and reverting and adding the undisclosed paid tag? I suggest you assume good faith.

You haven't replied to my question: do you have any COI? 183.178.113.38 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

'Assume good faith' doesn't mean 'ignore vandalism by obvious sock accounts'. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my proven accurate information? Corketta (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Corketta: It seems that your addition was improperly sourced. Any improperly sourced or unsourced material may be removed at any time. Please read WP:REFB to learn how to properly cite sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! @MrOllie resorted to threats. Corketta (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn’t @MrOllie, it was @scottishfinnishraddish Corketta (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Corketta, warnings by administrators aren't "threats". You probably wouldn't like it if you were blocked without warning, would you? Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC).

I recently tried to add a reference to a legal analysis of lease contracts and insurance costs from Elsabbah Law Firm. I believe it provides region-specific insight and adds value to the sentence comparing costs. It's not promotional by anymeans and any external link from Wikipedia is a no follow link so I am not gaining anything I truly felt it would be of value Dr. Elsabbah (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It was a clearly inappropriate link to your own site. Wikipedia is not a venue to place links to your law firm. Don't add anything like that again. MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Yes it is a link to my site but the content really adds value please take a minute to read it and i hope that you will like it:

First of all, we would like to emphasize that insurance in lease contracts is very important for protecting your investments, Unlike homeowners' insurance, which covers both the building and its contents, renters' insurance (or insurance tied to lease contracts) typically covers only the tenant’s personal belongings and liability. This makes it significantly less expensive for tenants compared to full homeowners' policies. However, before diving into explaining the meaning of insurance and its importance, we must point out another important point that we would like to highlight for property owners to achieve the maximum benefit from renting their properties and to ensure obtaining high and regular revenues for a long period.

This point is how to select tenants and set guidelines for this matter. For example, owners must choose tenants for their properties who have a positive history and stability in rental relationships. This can only be achieved if these tenants have stable and reasonable income or revenues, successful investments, and a good reputation in the community where they live.

In addition to the above, after selecting the appropriate tenant and at the beginning of the rental relationship, a security deposit must be paid. The meaning of a security deposit in the rental relationship is an amount of money paid by the tenant to the property owner at the beginning of the rental relationship. This amount is determined by agreement between the parties and may be a percentage of the rent (5% or 10%) or, for example, the value of two months' rent.

The importance of this security deposit is that it guarantees the owner, to some extent, coverage of damages incurred due to the tenant's breach of contractual obligations, such as not paying the agreed-upon rent or delaying payment, or not paying electricity, water, gas bills, or taxes, etc., which the tenant did not pay at the end of the rental relationship. Or it covers the tenant's financial obligations resulting from damages or deterioration caused by the tenant to the rented place during the period of use. Finally, it represents pressure on the tenant not to breach their contractual obligations with the owner.

The security deposit must be paid at the beginning of the rental relationship and during the conclusion of the lease contract. It should be documented in the lease contract, distinguishing it from rent installments, and should be proven by a separate receipt distinct from the rental value specified in the contract so that there is no confusion in the future between it and the rental value, and to avoid future disputes between the parties.

It's worth noting here that if the tenant complies with the terms of the contract and does not breach any contractual obligations, and delivers the rented place in the condition it was at the beginning of the lease without any debts or bills, then in this case, the owner must legally return the security deposit to the tenant and may not deduct anything from it. If the owner violates this and seizes the security deposit or any part of it without legal justification, the tenant has the right to resort to the judiciary, requesting that the owner be obligated to return the full security deposit with legal compensation.

i that hope you found it valuable and i am sorry if i wasted your time have a nice day. Dr. Elsabbah (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was suspicious of the new account 'Rationalwikian' and went and took at look around RatWiki. The IP address user Special:Contributions/77.103.122.213 nominated a Hanania related page for deletion there [17], so I strongly suspect the IP and 'Rationalwikian' are simply the same person trolling. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, seems like an attempt to make some kind of point. MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned WP:NOT, but WP:NOT only forbids what are only listings of links, not lists where items have contextual explanation. So you said that this was the basis of reverting my edit, i added contextual explanations, so this was no more the basis. You then reverted my edit again, mentioning an edit war, which i therefore didn't start. You may have another reason to revert my edit, but you didn't clearly say this, "none of it belongs here", why not? Tkorrovi (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding a sentence as a fig leaf does not change that the list of external links is inappropriate, or that you are reverting two other editors. You should not return the links again without getting consensus support at the article's associated talk page, where such discussion belongs. My user talk is not the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that these sentences were fig leaf, and the reason the other editor provided, that these links are "outdated and irrelevant", most are theoretically important today, this does not outdate. Sorry, if you insist, you don't leve me other options. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The article talk page. Not here. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you think i'm dirt, can you say honestly, yes or no? A simple answer, either no, or not no means yes. Thank you for your answer. --Tkorrovi (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

My opinion of you is irrelevant. Don't post on my user talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Serious question. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not harass me with personal attacks or otherwise post on my user talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Open the pod bay door OLL -Roxy the dog 02:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not meant as a personal attack. It was a serious question. I won't post here again. But I wanted to let you know I'm filing a Dispute Resolution request. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie is a terminator ... of bad content. Bon courage (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Who watches the watchmen? 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We all know the real question is who watches the watchmen that watch the watchmen that watch the watchmen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Were you aware of the two DRN requests about near-death studies that were filed by an IP editor? If so, am I correct that you declined to take part in discussion with an editor who had asked you whether you are a bot? (Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary?) If you were not aware of the DRN requeests, because the IP forgot to notify you, are you ready to take part in moderated discussion, or do you decline the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything I care to respond to in those DRN requests. I generally don't find it productive to engage with stuff that is predicated on personal attacks like that. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

As I thought. I just wanted to be sure that you were declining to take part in DRN. Participation in DRN is voluntary. The IP says that you were dismissive, rude, and uncivil, but I thought that the IP was uncivil in asking you whether you are a bot. If the IP wants to discuss at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, they can do so. Either that, or they can bother someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I've seen you in my watchlist a couple times, looked at your talk page archives, and wanted to thank you for your work on keeping inappropriate external links off the encyclopedia! Gracen (they/them) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Please refrain from deleting entries without a Wikipedia article. Subjects can be notable but still not warrant an article, as there is too little to be written about it, and instead be included in another closely related article or – as in this case – a list. Notable subjects might also simply not yet have had an article created. Also concerning @Praxidicae and Grandberry0:. Regards. --Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That is the inclusion criteria for that particular list, so no, I will not stop maintaining it in that way. On Wikipedia notable is synonymous with warrants an article, see WP:N. MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ollie, I fully understand and respect the anti-spam policy as a necessary measure to prevent the inclusion of low-value information. However, I believe that none of the contributions I made regarding Uruguay should be classified as such. For example, the warming of the Río Negro is documented in an article published in Science of the Total Environment. It is the first study to identify this phenomenon through the analysis of a 13-year dataset. Similarly, the erosion processes I referenced were analyzed across 99 watersheds. I could provide an extensive list of additional, similar contributions. What concerns me deeply is that, despite being based on peer-reviewed work published in high-impact scientific journals, these contributions have been challenged or removed under the assumption of being “illegitimate.” My only intention is to provide objective, high-quality information that is currently missing from Wikipedia—gaps that limit its usefulness as a reference, particularly concerning Uruguay.

Due to the small size of Uruguay’s scientific community, it is common for researchers to participate in multiple research groups. In my case, I have worked in areas such as water quality, soil erosion, biofuels development, environmental footprints, environmental economics, and pesticide pollution. All the data I provided is scientifically sound and none of it is false.

Regarding the quick judgment to label these contributions as spam, I ask: what qualifications allow an anonymous editor to override the evaluations of international peer reviewers from respected journals? I respectfully request that you take the time to review the content and its sources before making such decisive deletions.

The destruction of Uruguay’s riparian zones, for instance, is not a matter of opinion—it has been assessed through satellite imagery on a national scale. Must I wait for someone else to add this to Wikipedia for it to be considered valid? Isn’t publication in a reputable scientific journal enough? Or does a topic need to span multiple countries to be deemed relevant?

I do not know your academic background, but I do not believe it is appropriate to ask me to diminish the scope or depth of my work in order to meet the expectations of someone who has not thoroughly reviewed it. I sincerely ask that you reconsider the deletion of my contributions, which represent the work of more than two decade of research.

Sincerely,

Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier, PhD Principal Investigator Natural Resources, Production and Environment National Institute of Agriculture Research Uruguay

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2894-3700 Lcarrasco (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You added around a dozen citations to yourself in the space of a couple hours. This is the majority of your activity on Wikipedia. That is exactly the sort of excessive self citation that Wikipedia's guidelines consider to be inappropriate. I decline to share any of my personal information with you, including my qualifications.

If you are here to help us grow the encyclopedia, I encourage you to write based on citations that you have no affiliation with. As a subject matter expert I am sure you are familiar with many sources of diverse authorship. If you are here only to write about your own professional interests and/or to add mentions of yourself or your work, then frankly Wikipedia will be better off without that assistance. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. You want reliable information, and I'll give it to you, but you assume that since I'm a co-author, it's self-referential. The problem is that if you don't take information reviewed by qualified peers in each area as valid, you censor real information. Saying that erosion was assessed in 70% of the territory or that the destruction of the riparian network across the entire country was evaluated for the first time isn't an opinion. It's still real, validated information that should be in the encyclopedia because otherwise, ordinary people wouldn't know these problems exist in Uruguay. I understand the restriction of someone who self-promotes on Wikipedia, but take the time to review what you're censoring. Just Google what other studies exist on riparian areas across the country, or on national erosion, or on the economic evaluation of these impacts. You're too quick to judge work that took decades. And you skew what we see about Uruguay with a very linear judgment that no one can contribute so many things in one day or co-author different works in different areas. You don't understand how difficult it is to publish a work you so easily deleted. I ask you again to do your homework and read some of the quotes I mentioned. They're not opinions, they're real data from an entire country, not from a small portion of a farmer. Lcarrasco (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many people who would like to use Wikipedia to self-promote decry the policies that prevent them from doing so as censorship, we are quite used to hearing that flawed argument. Again, if you are here to help write an encyclopedia you can do so without the obvious self interest.

I ask you to 'do your homework' and learn something about Wikipedia, its policies, and its community standards. Because what you did earlier today was plainly not in keeping with them. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I insist that you carried out indiscriminate censorship. You assumed I added unreliable or meaningless references about me. I added references to important topics. I will demonstrate this with an open-ended question to an AI on three topics: water pollution from agriculture, destruction of riparian zones, pollution from bees, and market loss. How can you add references on these topics if you deleted the information because you assume it is self-promotion? How can I add this reliable information just because you assume malicious intent from the outset? With your censorship, you provide biased and erroneous information. Uruguay has the third or fourth highest cancer rate globally, is second in the rate of antidepressant use (highly correlated with pesticide exposure), and, according to FAOStat, has the highest levels of pesticide use per hectare. I will give you some examples of information on three topics using AI-powered information collection. Let's see if you still insist on thinking your censorship was correct. And I regret that simply being a co-author on all the articles leads to such a flawed decision. Publishing all articles in first-quarter journals isn't easy from a non-English-speaking country, where reviewers discriminate against us, just as you do in this situation. If you insist on this censorship, I request that this exchange be referred to a third-party editor, as it clearly has other kinds of biases.

<<Copy and paste removed>>

Lcarrasco (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocking your efforts to add mentions of yourself to Wikipedia is not 'censorship'. You have no right to be mentioned on this site. And don't copy and paste AI-generated blather onto my talk page again, it will not help. If you think that I am violating Wikipedia's policies, you can report that at WP:ANI. I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG first, though. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You have accused me twice: (1) of writing the entry about myself when I cleared explained what happened; and (2) of edit warring.

Please read the explanation I gave, which I reproduce for your convenience:

"Two people have disputed the fact that the whole section is mainly using self-references (i.e., using the authors' papers as references, like it is done in academia). I believe the reason is that somebody took the only review available on the construct, which is my pre-print "Modern Literature on Polymathy: A brief review" and used that to create an initial version on Wikipedia. Later, some non-research people like were added. Why are you acting like that? Do you have anything against me? DrMikeAraki (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You are clearly edit warring - if you keep it up you will be blocked for it. And by edit warring to try to force in material about yourself, you take ownership of the content and are therefore writing about yourself.

That said, we do not need a third talk page conversation about this. Kindly do not post on this page about this again. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just going to ask you to assess the website posted at The Pirate Bay, as they have spammed it across several articles. And here we are, already done just as I started typing. Thank you! Knitsey (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have several piracy related articles on my watchlist, they get a bit more spam activity than most. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Jainrahul.knowmax (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC) I hope this message finds you well. I recently noticed that the article on Knowledge Management references a link to an archived page from the University of North Carolina (UNC) that is no longer available on their website. The link in question is: https://web.archive.org/web/20070319233812/http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html The page has been removed from the UNC website, and the archived version, while still accessible, may not represent the most up-to-date or accurate information available on the topic today. To ensure the article provides users with the most current and relevant information, I have updated the link to a more recent and reliable resource, which can be found here: https://knowmax.ai/knowledge-management/ The updated article is designed to offer contemporary insights on Knowledge Management, aligning with current trends and best practices. It would be great if this link could replace the outdated one to provide readers with accurate and up-to-date knowledge. Thank you for your time and for considering this request. I appreciate the effort you put into maintaining the integrity and accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Jainrahul.knowmax (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You replaced an existing citation with obvious linkspam. A archived link is not an opportunity for you to link your own site. - MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie! I noticed that a couple days ago, you reverted some edits I’d made, apparently because of my bias, or pov pushing. As you might have seen, I’m pretty new to Wikipedia, and I was wondering what specifically was biased in my edits, as I had thought they were fairly objective. Any feedback would help!

- Freepotatoes Freepotatoes (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The overall aim was to push an anticircumcision viewpoint. We've seen that many times before, discussions on various circumcision related articles have already rejected much of the stuff you tried to add. (deaths 'relatively rare' based on weak sourcing, attempting to undercut the medical consensus on HIV prevention, advertising the Foregen company's products, etc). Direct any follow up messages to the article's associated talk page, my user talk is not the correct place for this sort of thing as other editors will doubtless want to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie, Do you know him? Mark Schierbecker "are you" him? 0xAlfSyn (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on cosine similarity, the most similar editors to MrOllie are: Astuishin: 98.7% Verbistheword: 97.3% Katydidit: 96.3% Jackie Koerner: 90.4% 0xAlfSyn (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Just stop spamming us, and stop evading the blocks you have already received on your IP addresses. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you flagged my page "GameSnacks" for speedy deletion. This page isn't promotional, and I'm not affiliated whatsoever with this topic. I love the software, wanted some background, saw Wikipedia didn't have a page (yet), and made one myself. Please bring this page back, I really worked hard on it. EasyEditorSIMPLIFIED (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you aren't affiliated, but you certainly did produce a promotional article and it absolutely should have been deleted. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Also that and that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that issue with the meta-analysis article!

Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I already said I wasn't going to reply at his user talk page again largely because he threatened to take me to AN/I over two reverts. Do you want to tell him it's required to disclose what his old account was? Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

He'll find out at ANI, but I personally doubt there really is an old account to report. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) ScholarLoop (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm disclosing this is cognita-camlin account. Yes changed to ScholarLoop. Always trying to use policy as a weapon instead of simply being a reasonable editor. ScholarLoop (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Do not use my user talk page to post attacks on other editors or to make baseless allegations. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment.

After posting a suggested edit on a Wikipedia page with many editors, you joined an editor who singled me out and followed me, your target, from place to place on Wikipedia and deleted / reverted my entire content history.  This is known as WP:FOLLOWING, WP:HOUNDING and WP:VAND

After routine revision of the first article due to vandalism, you participated as a WP:MEATPUPPET as a proxy to avoid being flagged for WP:EDITWAR while knowingly engaged in WP:HOUNDING

This disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Wikihounding generally receive a warning and consider this a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours.

This is Good Faith WP:DISPUTE. Please knock off your hounding as is bothering me. Thanks ScholarLoop (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked ScholarLoop for 31 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I was out of town for the weekend to attend a concert. Glad to see things have been going well in my absence. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I am not sure if I’m even that risky, but I’m so worried that I may cause further disruption to my further ban. 97.129.82.207 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

What a strange sentence--you're worried about yourself? But far from disrupting your ban (block), you're likely strengthening it. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square Routine calculations Shortcut

   WP:CALC

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

The squares solved via algebra that I added (1x1) ... (6x6) are easily checked with basic math. Please at least look at the results. John Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.74.113 (talk • contribs)

A routine calculation is 2+2 = 4. What you added was quite a bit beyond that. You'll need to cite a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. That would apply in this case, as magic squares are absolutely mathematical. 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet Wikipedia is built on reliable sourcing. You will not be able to just wave your hand, say 'Mathematical literacy', and add whatever you like. Cite sources or leave it out. - MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever.

It was something that was easily verifiable and was of value to the topic.

I was not adding just "whatever I like". I added something that was based on mathematics and factually correct.

Cheers... 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

That works for some place like stackexchange, but Wikipedia needs sources. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright,

Would it be ok to just post the 6x6 square, as is?

In other words, for example, "Here is a 6x6 magic square: [ ... ]".

That would be a simple factual statement, easily verified.

I won't say anything about how I derived it, thus no "original research". 12.188.175.154 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

That would still require a citation. MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence#Mathematics 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet you will still have to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello and very sorry about this. We've got an assignment in our uni class to pick a page and update it on wikipedia and I chose the topic artificial intelligence. I certainly don't know what any of the affiliations are but I found some papers about AI and thought I would try to update the AI page with it. Sorry for the trouble! Briankirkundson (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I know you've not exactly new here but just be mindful of the potential of the appearance of an edit war -- it might be worth it to warn them and/or report rather than revert continually. —tony^{st (talk)} 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism and or WP:LTAs is an exemption from edit warring rules. They're reported as well. - MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Aah, apologies, didn't realize the LTA. Take care! —tony^{st (talk)} 02:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of my recent edit for the article Platform as a Service.
Would you care to explain why?

The correct spelling of the phrase "Platform as a Service" (abbreviated as PaaS) is exactly like this, because when it comes to abbreviations, it is common to capitalize letters from the words that make up the phrase being abbreviated.
Thus your revert was basically inappropriate. But it would be interesting to hear your motivation. informatik01 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's manual of style directs us to use sentence case, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. The style you are describing is commonly used - by other style guidelines, not this site's. MrOllie (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is a really sad choice of styling. Wikipedia is primarily an educational resource, and as such, it should provide correct terminology that is common in relevant fields of study and industries. Here is a good (and correct) example of the use and spelling of professional terminology by Amazon AWS: 👉 Types of Cloud Computing.

It is really strange that Wikipedia's internal spelling guidelines seem to conflict with established professional terminology. informatik01 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want to change the style guidelines, you can submit a proposal about that, but my talk page isn't the venue. Even if I wanted to change it I wouldn't have the authority. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to start this off by thanking you for your contributions to the Wikipedia community. I've reviewed some of your work.

Before adding additional content to the San Francisco Zoo Wikipedia page, I wanted to respectfully address your decision to revert my previous edits. As someone who grew up in the Bay Area, has created and maintained multiple Wikipedia articles (under an academic account), and has formal training in research ethics and writing for public knowledge platforms (one specifically being Wikipedia), I approached my contribution with care and neutrality.

I understand your concerns, but I disagree with the characterization of my addition as promotional. The section was fact-based, neutrally written, and grounded in verifiable sources, including media coverage and official recognitions from city leadership. Highlighting the professional background and leadership impact of the Zoo's Executive Director is relevant, particularly given the documented influence of that role on the institution’s direction.

Given that the Wikipedia article includes detailed criticisms of the Director, it seems reasonable—and necessary for balance—to also include sourced information about her accomplishments. Omitting such context may unintentionally skew the narrative which is currently what is happening. My intention is not to advocate, but to ensure the article reflects a more complete and fair representation of leadership at the Zoo. Do you not agree?

I'm happy to collaborate further to find a version that aligns with Wikipedia standards while maintaining informational integrity.

~~~~ Heyhellolalalame (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It was indeed blatantly promotional. Are you an employee of the Zoo or otherwise associated with it? MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If you need talk page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

···sardonism · t · c 17:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for looking out. MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I've requested protection for your talk page, if you feel this is unnecessary, feel free to remove it. Annh07 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. They'll run out of proxy IPs sooner or later. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've drawn all this undue attention from ip addresses today, but you must be doing something right. Such vandals are afraid/unable to more persuasively criticize your good faith actions on their merits. Stay well, friend. A little hummus, a little baba, some pepper sauce... BusterD (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You have been listed as a party to a dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard regarding the article Traditional Chinese medicine. The discussion is located here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dispute over TCM lead section: NPOV, RS, and DUE balance. Thank you. YellowFlag (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You have deleted my section on relativistic interpretation of centrifugal force. Would you like to explain why? The purpose of that addition was mainly to highlight Sciama's concept of Inertial Induction, which gives an important insight into the question of whether centrigugal force is fictitious or not (answer: in relativity, it is not fictitious, and is an aspect of gravity). Sciama was one of the UK's greatest scientists in his own right, never mind the fact he was Stephen Hawking's PhD supervisor. So on what grounds do you think his insights on centrifugal force are not worthy of adding to Wikipedia? I will look forward to your reply. Prof John Peacock (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Much of what you added was not present in the cited sources. Given your message here, you might also have a look at WP:SOAPBOX, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to highlight anyone (or anyone's concepts) in particular. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also note that what you added was misplaced in that article - it was not about centrifugal force in specific but inertial forces in general, and inertial forces under relativity are already discussed at the articles that are about those topics. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be specific about what you feel is not in the references; these can always be improved. As for Soapbox, the aim of Wikipedia is to promote understanding - it's not a question of where or from who an idea originates. One cannot have a proper understanding of centrifugal force without considering it from the point of view of relativity, and Mach's Principle and Sciama's Inertial Induction are central concepts in that discussion. Your second point is fair enough, and I did consider whether the existing article of inertial force was sufficient. But the fact was that the centrifugal force article had no connection to this discussion, and that to me seemed unacceptable. It is important that there is some relativistic illumination of the nature of centrifugal force in this article, and I attempted to supply it. It would have been better if you had tried to improve what I wrote, rather than simply deleting it. Prof John Peacock (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not important to have information in the encyclopedia multiple times. That is obviously redundant, increases the burden of maintenance, and degrades quality. That is why the article has links - so readers can navigate to the information they are looking for. Deleting that section was improving the encyclopedia, that is why I did it. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I have requested conflict resolution on our dispute in the article circumcision. Chaptagai (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I made a RFC on is question question. Chaptagai (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Uniquesuprise (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? What canvassing have I supposedly engaged in? - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is about the conflicting sentence I tried to ameliorate. I believe we had consensus it was a hanging paragraph and it should be removed. To my dismay it was added to another unrelated paragraph that contradicted its subject matter and then I was banned. I am new to editing so believe this is the correct way to go about this. Uniquesuprise (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You definitely did not have consensus to delete anything. But that is beside the point: You left a warning about canvassing, which is defined clearly above. Again, what canvassing have I supposedly engaged in? MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems you left a warning on my page and others about my edit. I thought the consensus was the sentence I mentioned should be removed it did not explain the subject matter and its statements were contradictory. This was confirmed by an edit moving it to another paragraph. It was in fact a hanging paragraph. However the sentence was moved to a completely different paragraph with unrelated subject matter. You then proceeded to edit warring me and had me banned. Uniquesuprise (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't change the subject - either provide evidence about this supposed canvassing, or retract this false accusation and apologize. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly and continuously been shutting down any edits or sources that describe negative sexual outcomes which is objective and human rights perspectives around circumcision ( Though this area is not my concern as it is subjective). So much so to use ever technically at your disposal to circumvent and type of dissent.

In This revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=prev, a editor added wording about scientific disagreement on sexual outcomes, citing a well reviewed source, and it was immediately reverted as it was claimed not meeting WP:MEDRS yet other reviews with positive views.

Another comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=prev where well cited sources mentioning loss of sexual sensitivity were called “cherry-picking from abstracts,” yet other cited sources quotes are fine if they say there’s no harm.

Also here in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=prev , a editor tried to use the Council of europe and the royal Ddutch medical association as a cited source but those were dismissed also under another technicality WP:NOABSTRACT and WP:FALSEBALANCE, without much information.

I do believe this is the correct notice type. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie, it would be a favor to me to not respond to this, in a last-ditch effort to stop this from spiralling further. You do not need to defend yourself against canvassing accusations, it is clear to everyone you did not do that. I have told US to leave you alone. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am curious to know the reasoning behind your recent reversion of a section on polarization use in robotic vision. Personally I would have let it pass, and I would like to understand why that section is considered inappropriate. You can reply here. Thanks. AJim (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It was added by a user who has been systematically adding that academic's work across Wikipedia. They've stated elsewhere that they've been directed to do so by their boss - there's a section about it on the Admin's noticeboard. It's also a primary source and a niche application, so including it on the articles in question would be undue weight. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now. AJim (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want to learn about how air horns are used in golf, go to YouTube and search “golf course air horn.” You will see video after video of air horns being used in golf. The air horn operator hides in the bushes and, when a golfer reaches the highest point of the backswing, the air horn is sounded. This makes for a more challenging game.

75.215.217.148 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not interested in whatever funny videos you might have seen on Youtube. Just stop trolling. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

And no, it is not vandalism or trolling to mention this use of air horns on the article about air horns. 2600:1002:B1A1:29FB:9F:C299:1606:DD70 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If you continue you can expect your ip(s) will be blocked and/or the article will be protected from editing. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No it isn’t, dumbass. I was listing a legitimate use of airhorns horns, so how dare you falsely accuse me of vandalism! 2600:1002:B1A1:29FB:9F:C299:1606:DD70 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I edited the waste management in India with some updated data as the data there was old but mr OLLIE removed it Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

and fan i also know why have you removed waste management market in India Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

fan is mistyped it is can Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What you are adding to the article is not present in the cited sources. See WP:NOR, and WP:V. MrOllie (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

um I am not able to update cited sources Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

cause i am you can say dmb Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

but data was correct

cause I googled it Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

'I googled it' is not a citation. If you do not have newer sources to cite, you don't change the article. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

it was an AI search so I wasn't able to give links on the other if we think Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

AI generated responses are not reliable, they often return incorrect information. Do not edit Wikipedia based on AI-generated information. - MrOllie (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

oh thank you for giving a satisfactory response Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

by the way why did you removed that mathematically interesting context to show how big of a number 62 million tonnes is Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

for that i don't need cite cause it is mathmatics Blackmightydeath (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It was redundant and badly written. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

could you also tell me why whole Waste management market was removed Blackmightydeath (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

could you help me in editing a topic called"hunzib language" Blackmightydeath (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in that topic. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

ok Blackmightydeath (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Alistair Moffat does not reveal how he got his findings and is contradicted by every actual study on the topic such as the 1907 largest study on hair colour in Scotland's history, so why are you so determined to keep using his unreliable and unsupported estimation? I'm not nearly as experienced at editing as you are but I'm trying my best to present what is most likely the truth given the limited information that we got about this subject Billybob the third1244 (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We've been over this before. Other people have not supported your changes on the article's associated talk page. That has to happen first. Do not proceed without agreement from others. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

if i get people to agree with me may i have permission to edit it again? I will not edit it today or for the next few days as I am only one away from getting banned but if I get people on my side will you agree not to revert it Billybob the third1244 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals. This will be my last reply on this matter here. Just use the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. I have a question about the criteria for adding a Sudbury school to the "Sudbury School List" page. I've seen others have their submissions removed.

What needs to happen before a Sudbury school is added to the list? Iso2013 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a list of schools with preexisting standalone Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If I wanted to add Alpine Valley School, which has been a Sudbury school in Colorado since 1997. I would have to create a Wikipedia page for it? Iso2013 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have access to lyngsat? this site has all types of localization for each version of the channel in a particular region

I just don't understand why you canceled my edit Harljedscina (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently added a section about Paula Duncan extensive ambassadorships and you removed it for no reason. Can you please stop falsely removing facts and relevant information from articles. I know you think you're doing the right thing but you're literally just deleted cited facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltrilogycare (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You added more blatant advertising. Just stop, that is a misuse of Wikipedia. We're not here to promote your business. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Michaeltrilogycare hes got no idea, did the same to us Alexoforkforce (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I've done the same thing to a lot of linkspammers over the years. MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Power's gone to your head MrOllie, seek some help Alexoforkforce (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

HI:

Why is that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weather_radar&oldid=prev&diff=1298109463 ? Find me a reason that prohibit "See Also" to contain the related articles and external links.

Pierre cb (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This is covered at MOS:APPENDIX. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I Have corrected momo Wikipedia which was using momos which was wrong.Its national dish of Nepal and Tibet.so it's name is momo not momos but you are going with wrong name .I get it some people around Delhi area uses momos which is wrong but you are helping to spread this misunderstanding by labeling momo as momos in Wikipedia. Please I humbly request you to use momo which is itself plural. It's like rice is plural of rice itself not rices. Bsalgy (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You must secure agreement from other editors on the article talk page to make this change, which has been extensively discussed before. My user talk page is not the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

you just removed my edit on the paradromics page. Given I was one of the founders of the company, please don't edit my corrections. 64.110.48.129 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires citations. We can't just take the word of an anonymous person on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, sorry to reopen this page after you archived it but I never received a clear answer on my question.

For a school to be added to the Sudbury schools list, would I have to create a Wikipedia page for that school for the edit to not be removed? Iso2013 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what the message which has been sitting on your own user talk page (for years) says. You can rephrase and repeat the question, but the answer remains the same. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You could've told me that in the first message. But nevertheless. I'll do exactly that, thanks for your help. Iso2013 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I did. It's been on your user talk page for years at this point. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

No need to be rude, I don't live on Wikipedia and simply forgot. Why you gave a half answer before and deleted my thread, when you could've directed me to my talk page when I first posted here is beyond me.

Putting that aside, I have the information I need and will review Wikis notability guidelines to determine if a new article entry is appropriate.

That's all, thanks for your help. Iso2013 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the customer service department, I'm not a place for you to ask repetitive questions. I find your demanding attitude rather rude as well. Kindly do not post on my user talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If you revert edits on a page, can you please specify why? Venudxb (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:WTAF. Articles on software topics should not end up being lists of nonnotable implementations. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I will create the articles in the coming weeks Venudxb (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop filling this page up with promo of particular businesses, it is a misuse of Wikipedia - I am not promoting these businesses, I am sharing the history of hiphop with the readers of Wikipedia. Why is it so hard to believe that someone like myself can be a real hiphop enthusiast/journalist and not a marketer? I am adding links not for DOFOLLOW value, but so that people could find those resources. I am not an SEO crook, you are literally offending me with all of your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs)

We don't need the same discussion in three places. Keep this on the article talk page where it belongs. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Lionsgate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § Lionsgate until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you drop me an email please? Hjmwiki at gmail dot com. Nothing to worry about, just want to share something with you that I can't post on the wiki. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My personal policy is to keep all communications about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If you can't post it here I probably don't need to see it. If someone needs to see it, I suppose you can send it to arbcom or something? MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, I just accepted Vacuum-induced uterine tamponade from AfC, and now I see you suspect its author as a sock. Can you give me some context here? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: I believe that is a sock of Focuspph, who was here to promote a recently created medical device - that is the 'Jada System' promoted in the draft you approved. After it was made clear to the last account that we cannot write about this topic without sourcing that meets WP:MEDRS requirements, they said they would not post any more - but it seems that what they really did was move to another account to try to make the same edits. Since MEDRS-grade sourcing does not exist for the topic in question, I would suggest either moving it back to draft, or converting it into a redirect to Postpartum bleeding, which is where we already cover treatments for the relevant condition. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I see. is DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004138 not a MEDRS? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's a paper about a single primary study. Those don't meet the MEDRS bar. I see that they did add a systematic review this time around, but it doesn't appear to actually support the content they want to add. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I see. I will draftify. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits for no reason, MrOllie! 2605:8D80:5B41:2539:C1CE:BC4F:8BC4:7C1 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing and switching IP addresses to evade your blocks. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop it! You went too far by reverting my edits for no reason! 2605:8D80:5B41:2539:C1CE:BC4F:8BC4:7C1 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, one of the pages this user here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WhoIsDD

Edited, that you reverted as COI/spam, was on my watchlist. I was curious what they were doing or spamming, but each seemed to be different sites, to different papers on seemingly related sciences from all seemingly different authors and sites. What was the COI/spam? They seemed like good faith edits? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

They're not different authors. Every cite they've added lists Ricardo A. Marques Lameirinhas as author. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

How the heck did you even notice that when they're all multiple author papers? I'm not really invested, just curious. Is it possible because this guy seems to be heavily cited in this space? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That they already had a warning from User:Jay8g helped. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie,

I was wondering if you could elaborate on why you reverted my addition of the external link to the RIPE-823 document. It seems highly relevant to the article, so I’d be interested to understand your reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_recursive_name_server&diff=1299865146&oldid=1298136680

Thank you.

-- Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavids (talk • contribs)

Please, can you help me check whether I summited the draft:Sam Maris University properly. 9aija (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

YOU sir, are engaging in edit warring, not to mention outright gaslighting on the content of Google News sources. I am asking you to stop with your incivility and effective article ownership. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Following me to my user talk to post more attacks is not acceptable. Do not post here again. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., products, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive.

Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style. ElsieHewitt (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything at all. Why do you keep following up on disputes with completely irrelevant copy and pastes? Also, you've been blocked on several accounts. Please stop socking. Go back to your original account and file an unblock request. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can be deleted for reasons, including advertising or promotional content. Articles primarily intended to advertise a product or service, are often deleted. ElsieHewitt (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop with the irrelevant nonsense, please. MrOllie (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers personal attacks, when used in place of discussing article content, to be a violation of core policies. ElsieHewitt (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

ElsieHewitt seems to respond to everything with a remark about the price of tea in China. Frustrating!

You accuse them of socking. Whose sock do you reckon they are, please? Feel free to e-mail me if your reply requires discretion. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC).

@Bishonen The case is laid out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamamomo kakijiroo. Checkuser has been run and it is awaiting evaluation of Behavioural evidence. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked, and put a note at the SPI. Bishonen | tålk 14:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC).

On may 20th, 2022, I made my first edit to Wikipedia. However, it was a good faith edit and it was unconstructive. You reverted that edit. I am a younger editor and I have always remembered that day. Thank you. Jayson (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Thank you for the helpful edits you made on the draft article about me, Kevin J. Davey. I wanted to disclose that I am the subject of that article, so I have a conflict of interest and feel it is inappropriate (and I know it is generally discouraged) to submit it to the main namespace myself.

The draft was initially structured with the assistance of ChatGPT, but I personally sourced and verified every reference to ensure accuracy. None of the citations are fabricated or “hallucinated” - of course, you can verify that. All references are from independent, verifiable sources, including The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, multiple book reviews, academic citations, and paywalled Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities interviews (which I can provide as PDFs under fair use).

Since you’ve already contributed edits, would you consider “adopting” the draft and submitting it through Articles for Creation as a neutral editor? I believe it meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and author criteria (WP:AUTHOR) based on independent coverage and scholarly citations, but I’d greatly value your independent judgment.

If you’re willing to take on this role, I can also provide the TASC PDFs for verification to include as fair-use citations, and also the link for the investing.com review. If you agree to adopt the draft, would you also be willing to upload those as non-free references? I can provide the files and the fair-use rationales - whatever you feel is needed.

Thank you again for your earlier work on the draft and for considering this request.

—kevinkd (COI Disclosure: I am Kevin J. Davey, the article subject)

Kevinkd (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the subject does meet notability requirements, so I would not submit it to the AFC queue. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and your feedback. Is it OK if I ask you one question? Kevinkd (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Private money has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 11 years. This is not a commonly used term. It's an essay that would require an entire re-write to be an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop threatening users and removing valid edits. You do not provide any citation for the sentence that biblical Sodom is "legendary". This is also a weasel word. "Biblical Sodom" is perfectly sufficient. 2605:8D80:6C2B:BAA7:69B6:819F:25A4:251C (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring to open space for fringe theories is not 'valid' editing. You have seen that others object, so take it up on the article talk page - not my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not enter a "fringe theory". You again show your true intent of abusing privileges to remove content you dislike. You considering something as "fringe" is also entirely subjective and unsupported.

I merely added content of what is specifically stated by the sources. I then removed content that was uncited or gave a claim not specifically or even implied by the sources. You have no citation that biblical Sodom is only "legendary". Sodom being semi-legendary or historical is not "fringe", and are possibilitws discusses by most scholars. "Fringe" is a term that is too often abused and misapplied for subjects where there is no significant consensus, are disputed or have minority and majority theories. Minority theories are also not the same as fringe theories.

You are the one objecting here, and as per your instruction on my talk page, I am supposed to contact you to arrive at a consensus. 2605:8D80:6C2B:BAA7:69B6:819F:25A4:251C (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You've threatened to make a report to the admins - it is time to do that now. I'm not going to debate this with you (and again, this is the wrong place) while you're simultaneously making empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a valid place to discuss. Your own post on my talk page says to contact your talk page to seek consensus. Also, you violated 3RR. 2605:8D80:6C2B:BAA7:69B6:819F:25A4:251C (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

False on all counts. Do not post on this page again until you have either made that report, or alternatively retracted your threat and apologized. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, just to let you know the RfC on Talk:Acupuncture that you’ve seen has now also been posted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with a link also available atWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to invite broader policy-based input. You’re welcome to join those discussions if you like: LINK_TO_RFC

Chanoah (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the latest changes at Brainspotting? You seem to be good at detecting BS. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

They look like an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. WP:FRINGE/N is also a good place to bring this sort of thing. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The empire was probably established by the Zaghawa people, pastoralists from the Ennedi Plateau,[10][21] but grew to encompass several other ethnic groups, such as the Toubou people in the north.[10] The empire consisted of various groups, including nomadic pastoralists, agriculturalists, and people accustomed to iron-working and horsemanship.[4] The different groups eventually gave rise to the Kanembu people, who speak the Nilo-Saharan Kanembu language.[4] The early empire grew wealthy and powerful through the export of slaves in exchange for horses, and the raiding of its neighbors.[22]

this fake 100% i am Toubou, Toubou was funded kanen Bornu i will take legal action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewrite (talk • contribs)

Threatening people like that will only get you blocked, see WP:NLT. - MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It approves one or more of the edits by me have been removed. 174.128.153.62 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

No. I don't believe those templates should have been added in the first place, so I will not restore them. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on the recent situation, do you think I'm in a position where I should be declaring COI on my user page? I am confident that I make good edits, but I am making many edits on pages about an industry I work in, along with other disciplines I'm adjacent to. I see this as similar to a zookeeper making edits about zoos, animals, etc (weird metaphor but it makes sense to me), but maybe I do need to call it out more clearly so that I don't find myself in this situation again. Dflovett (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

No, not unless you plan to write about your own company or about things that directly impact your business. There's a big difference between writing about an industry in general and trying to seed interest in a neologism one has personally developed. In your example the zookeeper is fine unless they start editing the page about the zoo they work at. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV. I did add something to my user page earlier to try to prevent anyone else from pulling an attempted "gotcha" on me. Dflovett (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it is a reasonable thing to put on your user page, but if you deal with a lot of COI editors you'll find they make that sort of accusation all the time, reasonably or not. Psychological projection, I suppose. MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, the discussion is running in circles, the protection will expire, could one of you – and you at least know how to do it neutrally – please start an RfC? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I'd be happy to do so in a couple days, but I think doing it now while so many meatpuppets are active would not give the discussion any clarity. Extend protection until Monday, maybe? MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Deal. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to clarify the adding of "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" tag at the current RfC. I assume that, while "no other edits" clearly doesn't apply, it's a standard formula. Could you please specify what constitutes "few edits"? White Spider Shadow (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

In your case, about half of your edit count pertains to this topic. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

What would be the optimal ratio? White Spider Shadow (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no such codified ratio, we wouldn't want to create an avenue for gaming the system. It is just an informational tag, commonly applied in situations such as the one on that talk page. Don't worry about it. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Understood, just wanted to have a general idea. Thank you for explaining. White Spider Shadow (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Another Zak Smith question: what was his original account that was blocked. I suspect a visit to WP:SPI might be wise. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: That would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive. There have been a number of socks but my understanding is that the data is stale now. - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see. I suspect he's back in one of these new accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like I'm late to the party on that one. With thanks to @ToBeFree and @Sariel Xilo for their prompt actions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI I mentioned you in the AN/I thread about Slacker13. Here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Six (complete) reversions within three minutes? Please read my (entire) talk page and advise. Thanks. BunkyPops (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you advise - if you delete and reformat stuff with no explanation you should expect to be reverted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The citation links to a random Wired article that isn't even available anymore. In addition, deeper searching shows that even that article doesn't use hyperopia in the same way as asserted on the Wiki page. See below: "The article titled “Don't Work All the Time — You'll Live to Regret It.” It's dated July 2009 and explores the concept of hyperopia (being overly farsighted in planning) and long-term regret. You can read it here: Don’t Work All the Time — You’ll Live to Regret It, Wired, July 2009 — accessible via Wired.com WIRED+1. Key Highlights In the article, researcher Ran Kivetz explains that people often prioritize work and responsibility over pleasure—only to look back years later with regret. This mindset is described using the term hyperopia, meaning an "excess of farsightedness." 2604:3D08:7C80:B1B0:418:55A9:4DBB:50D0 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place - you should bring this up on the article's talk page, not my user talk - you have been reverted by multiple people and they will not find the discussion here. But thank you for discussing rather than continuing to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Noted, learning the ropes of editing still. One of those reversions was myself (since I realized there's a reason box that I didn't fill out as I was pressing submit) and the other was a reversion because of exactly that. 2604:3D08:7C80:B1B0:418:55A9:4DBB:50D0 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to tell the reason behind reverting the edit? Because vague summaries like "deprecated source or blog" does not make sense when the actual source used are from reliable sources. You have reverted 2 times without explaining much, that counts. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You should already know which cites you are adding are blogs and which aren't. You've read them all, right? MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean NYtimes, Wired are blogs?

I read them, but have you read the OpenAI o3 own article own Wikipedia and what sources are used? I am asking you if you think there is other way to cite these sources other than what WP:RS says. Are you sure you have stopped doing fentanyl? Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, I know you must have seen the Openai blog, which is obviously blog. But can you tell why it is used there even though Wikipedia does not trust it? Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that all sources are unreliable? All that I have seen you do is go around calling sources "unreliable" and reverting edits. Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that blogs and preprints are unreliable, but so does the rest of the Wikipedia community. See WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Maria Jorge (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MrOllie I would like to raise a concern about the tone and content of your recent comments. In your message of 29 August you stated that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with" and that such editing is a violation of policy. This is a very serious accusation. It questions a person’s ethics and integrity. According to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks), such claims should only be made with clear evidence and after careful consideration. I have explicitly asked you to provide links (diffs) showing where I allegedly inserted citations to myself. To date, no such diffs or clear evidence have been provided, despite repeated requests. Simply asserting “the history of the article” is insufficient. Wikipedia requires verifiability and specificity, especially when alleging a WP:COI or WP:REFSPAM violation. Please also note: the fact that this is a relatively new account does not imply lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies or of general rights as a contributor. New accounts should not be treated with suspicion without basis. WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith) is a core principle of this community. I fully understand and respect the need for careful moderation and curation of sources on Wikipedia. However, making unsupported allegations of unethical conduct goes against the collaborative spirit of this project, and risks discouraging participation. Users should feel welcome and treated fairly, especially when they ask for clarification and evidence. I kindly ask you again to either provide the specific diffs and sources you allege are problematic, or to withdraw the claim.

— Maria Jorge (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Don't post AI-generated nonsense on my talk page again. Thanks! - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no AI-generated content in my messages. The only tool I used was a translator from my mother language (Portuguese) into English, which is explicitly allowed on Wikipedia.

Your conduct, however, has been unnecessarily (and very, very) offensive and aggressive. I understand that anyone can have bad days but that does not give you the right to direct me such words or attitudes. Please keep interactions civil and respectful, in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

— Maria Jorge (talk) Maria Jorge (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that at all. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tbanned by parties involved in the underlying dispute. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Slacker13 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie Hello, I am a new editor. I recently tried to add a citation to this article, which was reverted. I'd like to propose it here on the talk page for discussion, as suggested.

Full disclosure: I am affiliated with the website that published the proposed source, voicetonotes.ai. I understand the rules around Conflict of Interest, which is why I am proposing it here for an independent editor to review and add it ONLY if they find it appropriate.

The article currently contains the following uncited sentence: Some recent papers reported superior performance levels using transformer models for speech recognition, but these models usually require large scale training datasets to reach high performance levels.

This is a factual claim that requires a source. I would like to suggest the following article as a potential source to support this claim: https://voicetonotes.ai/blog/state-of-ai-transcription-accuracy/

The suggested source is a detailed, data-driven analysis of ASR accuracy in 2025. It specifically discusses Transformer models and their performance benchmarks (including Word Error Rate), which directly addresses the claim in the uncited sentence. The article is educational and non-promotional in tone.

Would another editor be willing to review this source? If you agree that it is reliable and appropriate, I would appreciate it if you could add it to the article. Thank you. Satyammaurya4455 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not use marketing materials such as vendor blogs or spam websites as citations. MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MrOllie, Thank you for the quick reply and for clarifying the policy on vendor blogs. As a new editor, I am still learning the specific guidelines. I understand now why my suggested source was not appropriate due to its origin, even though the content itself was intended to be factual. I respect the decision and will not propose this link again. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I'll be more mindful of the independent source guidelines in the future. Best regards. Satyammaurya4455 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen your message. And I want to say thank you for advising me. But about the bands I included before, could you tell me how could I make the information more solid when I write something? Thank you. Metal Knight 2004 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You should read WP:RS carefully and find sources that meet those criteria. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations. You are now a member of the club of editors who have been named as parties in frivolous or vexatious cases filed with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Can you enable email please so I can send you an email? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This probably goes without saying, but don't use your real email account. Polygnotus (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I don't mean to be rude or difficult, but my personal policy is to keep all communications about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered a new career as a software tester? I can't send you that on here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm? Polygnotus (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

My personal policy is not to use email for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie. I am hoping you could revisit the discussion at Draft talk:Sectigo. I have made source improvements and added information about the company's early history to the draft, in an attempt to show nobility and to clarify the relationships between Comodo CA, Comodo Group, and Xcitium. Your feedback would be helpful as I consider re-submitting the draft at Articles for Creation. Thank you! 181montreal (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)