User talk:MrOllie/Archive 18

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

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Abusing multiple accounts?

Hi, MrOllie. I've blocked Rockingbeats for 31 hours for this attack, but perhaps I ought to dig deeper. What editing pattern is it you refer to here, please? Bishonen | tålk 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

Rockingbeats has long been the primary editor of New York City Breakers, an article they have recently stated a COI with. I trimmed the article back since it was largely unsourced and was excessively promotional. A mostly dormant account and a brand new editor each showed up to revert the promotional stuff back in. I lean towards thinking this is more likely on the 'offline coorindation' side, but I suppose the new account might be the same person. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is equal to WP:SOCK, so it doesn't matter if it is off line coordination or the same person. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I see the two editors you are talking about. I'll file an SPI. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And I see you did, and it's all over. Thanks, MrOllie and UtherSRG. Bishonen | tålk 20:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I hope I didn't disappoint that you didn't have to bring out Bishzilla! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

[Bishzilla eyes the little UtherSRG. She is actually a little disappointed.] Bishzilla friendly helpful monster nowadays! But does enjoy being brought out for occasional nameless carnage also! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

Kangaroos that aren't there

If you throw a boomerang at a kangaroo that isn't there, it comes back to you. It looks like you got called to WP:ANI for two snipe hunts for kangaroos that weren't there. It wasn't clear to me: Were they edit-warring different articles, or the same article? How many humans were involved? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Two totally different people angry about different things so far as I can tell. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, well. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I will say that the latest stupid reports and how they ended are evidence that the English Wikipedia administrators at least sometimes are doing their job of controlling disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI really loves a good boomerang. I find that outcomes are generally good when a disruptive user opens the section them self - the evidence is right there, no need to even click on a diff. It is a bit more mixed when you've got to lay out an actual case. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Rev/del request please

the Thank you Knitsey (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ffs, sorry lol. Knitsey (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

....

Bro I'm not engaging in a edit war like I explained. Can you fix the things you messed up in the Crowder article. 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to get the article changed, you have to go to the articles talk page (not my user talk page) and convince others to agree with your changes. There is no other way to do this. Making the same edit repeatedly will not work. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you reverted my changes to the SQL page

Dear @MrOllie:, I saw that you have reverted my additions of SQL language implementations. May I ask why? Have I done something wrong or that was not desired? I see a comment about "table of external links", is that the issue? Gvenzl (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted it because it contained little information other than external links, and because Wikipedia articles should avoid making lists of products or vendors in general. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! So you see no value add in listing technologies that have implemented SQL on this page? I followed the same layout of "Procedural extensions", except that I did add a reference to the actual technology's implementation documentation. Gvenzl (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. I believe that's what I just said. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then how come it's ok for Procedural extensions that is even just part of SQL but not for implementation of the SQL language itself? Gvenzl (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not, IMO. I removed that as well. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, at least it stays consistent! Gvenzl (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Crowder article

Bro why was my edit undone? It's bad when you say queer is just a gay slur. It's a word hurtful to my whole community. Also MrOllie, I know articles say "homophobic and racist slurs" but why do I have to quote the sources linked word for word. The whole point of editing Wikipedia is to change articles, usually Wikipedia articles don't have to quote articles word for word. So why do I have to now to be able to edit? If I say "anti-LGBTQ" slurs instead of "homophobic slurs" what's the problem? Most Wikipedia articles don't quote articles word for word so why do I have to all of a sudden? 2607:FB91:964:15BE:A8C2:5CFF:FE48:F8AB (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I just edit the crowder article? What's the big deal? Why do you care so much if a word or sentence gets changed?, Im just using different words that usually means the same thing because I think it'll improve the article instead of just saying "homophobic slurs". 2607:FB91:964:15BE:A8C2:5CFF:FE48:F8AB (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'big deal' is your failure to follow basic Wikipedia policy. Your proposals were rejected on the article talk page. That means it is time to walk away and find something else to do. MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please give us newbies on Wikipedia a chance to add our knowledge

Dear MrOllie,

please give newbies on Wikipedia (like me) a chance to add their expert knowledge in potentially niche areas. It takes time for us to understand the norms and rules of this place (of which there are many). Simply reverting changes that took hours or days to write can be very frustrating and discouraging. For days now I've been trying my best to summarise an extremely difficult, emerging research area. We're doing our best here and, of course, we make mistakes along the way. Please be kind when correcting these mistakes.

Thank you! - applebananasmoothie Applebananasmoothie (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You were given links to the rules in a message on your user talk page, a message which you chose to delete. Reverting improper changes is correcting your mistakes. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I had already read your message and tried to work accordingly. Writing a Wikipedia article is quite different from writing a research article. It still takes me some time to get used to that.

I did not know that personal talk pages should not be deleted. It's the old habit of deleting emails after reading them (it's still sticking from back when email clients would quickly run out of space :-)).

Finding the balanced exposition of a small research field when it maybe has 20ish people working on it, is quite tricky.

And of course, thank you for reverting improper changes.

- Best Applebananasmoothie (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing a citation you didn't bother to read

@MrOllie: I would like to remind you that you are a Wikipedia editor just like everyone of us. You are not privileged. You don't have the right to revert edits just by judging a source as unreliable 5 minutes after the edit, a source that you didn't bother to read. The source has nothing to do with promotion or marketing and it cites reliable literature.116.123.114.153 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a self published blog and web store. Obviously unreliable, especially for medical claims, which have special sourcing requirements which you can find at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

this Ollie person has agenda that are self bias and driven by other people interest, I can see he's a Wikipedia for hire for what purpose? this should be a academic page where all research and citations references should be heard written free from harassment if cited right.. Rockingbeats (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My only agenda is to ensure that Wikipedia content policies are followed. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You also deleted my contributions to Cyberwarfare, didn't you read it, it took me days to polish my work and it was perfect and you just came over and deleted it. VaisahPeter (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced text, as has already been explained on your talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ollie is jack of all trades. He knows about cyber security to astronomy. He is the God only who has the responsibility to keep eye on all the information. He can even delete necessary citations even if they are relevant, high-quality (published in Nature, Sciene, or Lancet), because he own Wikipedia and he just wants it. A typical IT guy who knows everything. Eventually what will happen? It would be delayed but finally those papers would be cited to those exactly same locations by someone else because those edited discoveries are important to human mankind and not spams. I wish Mr. Ollie could have better things to do in life, or could have generate those valuable information himself and contributed to mankind.

@Mr. Ollie, your agenda won now, but that won't last forever. Good luck :-) Majavic (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, adding promotional spam to Wikipedia is very important to you. I would suggest that you are the one who should have better things to do in life. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that the user @MrOllie is extremely biased and reverts cited scientific data based on irrelevant biased Western politics. He reverted my edit with the justification "Mainstream science defines race as a social construct" when i have provided actual scientific data on the genetic diversity of modern humans. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted based on obvious failure to follow Wikipedia's content policies. Direct any followup to the article's talk page, where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Never mind the bollocks. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Link removed

Dear MrOllie,

I replaced a broken link. Previously someone put a wrong link to an inappropriate resource, so I replaced it with a similar link to the same topic. If you think it is not relevant and users need no reference link, please, explain. Otherwise, I propose to return the one

Thanks OneKanobi (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You replaced a broken link with unreliable blog spam. That is not an improvement. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me understand the way of thinking, please. According to you, no reason what article says, either it explains the meaning of the word or not. If there is a tag or folder "blog" it means spam, is that right?

Thanks OneKanobi (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not all blogs are spam. The one you added is, though. MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this because I have a new account? How can I determine that the blog is not spam? Please, advice OneKanobi (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is because you added spam to an article. We don't use corporate advertising as sources or add links to it on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, for bothering, but I really trying to understand. I know that Wiki against corporate ads and this is not the topic of discussion.

So, if the article placed on let's say New York Times or Forbes - it is not a Spam, but if it is on website of the company that has blog and the article looks like a marketing content and not press release - it is a spam. Is that right? OneKanobi (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not that simple, no. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works in general, you can direct those to WP:TEAHOUSE rather than my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be a "pain in the ***". But I did, and still it is not clear for me. The link I've shared describes:

- Who is Product Owner

- What his role & differences between Product Owner & Product Manager

- What frameworks he/she are using

- and main duties

That's it.

Possibly, you were in the rush and removed it?

https://blog.urlaunched.com/top-responsibilities-of-product-owner/

If you are sure it is a wrong link, possibly, I need to find another link that will describe only fixed statement "what is Product Owner"? - Without comparison, frameworks they are using, etc?

Thank you OneKanobi (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that is marketing and not a usable source. I was not 'in a rush' and did not make a mistake. You should have gathered that from the conversation we just had. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to find another link.

Thank you OneKanobi (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No, don't find another link. If you want to repair a broken link, just switch to the new URL (as I just did) or to a wayback machine link. One or both will nearly always be available. Do not substitute some different site that doesn't support the same content. MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove my revision to Kmart?

The store closure I reported wasn't speculated- it was confirmed by a real news source, NBC Philadelphia. There's no speculation there; the store is going to be closed. Wishlish (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Wishlish

See Talk:Kmart, where this has been discussed several times. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet another revert war from this user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alec_Holowka#Doesn%27t_mention_that_the_allegations_were_false Like others have experienced, this user violated WP:NPOV and WP:EW, instantly reverting while refusing to use the talk page. The speed with which he edited content he apparently didn't want to hear showed he didn't bother reading the two citations I linked. Looking at this talk page, it's clear it's part of a larger pattern with you, where you are politically biased and are abusing Wikipedia rules to try and get your way. 100DashSix (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I get a lot of complaints from people who are trying to abuse Wikipedia, for instance by adding spam. I'm rather proud of them. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You're abusing Wikipedia.

I've been here since 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=3518224

I figured someone might take issue with my attempt to add context to an article I was reading and found deficient, so I prepared a reply. After I finally got this user to actually use the Talk page, he did so in an uncivil manner and started bragging about how he pisses people off with reverts. He insulted my reply and didn't engage in any of the points. He's calling me a linkspammer and similar for daring to revert his revert, which already means that the edit goes to the Talk page because of the 3 reverts in 24 hours rule. 100DashSix (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you talking about me in the third person? This is my user talk page. Are you confused? MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To try and avoid sounding confrontational and increase the chances you'll address my central points. I consider "are you confused" an insult too. 100DashSix (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your 'central points' seem to consist of misquoting me and then getting offended by the misquotes. If you thought using an incorrect pronoun would make that less confrontational or convincing you definitely are confused. MrOllie (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Using an incorrect pronoun" is a completely inaccurate description (sounds like I tried to misgender you or something) and you're pulling this into the weeds, while asking your friend (with a number of overlapping comments on both of your talk pages) to come and revert in your preferred favor. Is this one of the options you were discussing above? WP:EW requires WP:3O, not your friend who you chat with on each others' chat pages about edits and users to engage with.

I didn't use pronouns, I used a third person passive voice to attempt to keep things civil and not sound like a personal attack. Again NP:AGF. 100DashSix (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

'he' in place of you is indeed a case of using an incorrect pronoun. As to the rest, you are throughly mistaken both about the role of 3O as well as this collusion you imagine is going on. Enjoy your enforced time off, I hope you take the time to read and understand our policies, particularly the ones about personal attacks and reliable sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

"Fuelled by marketing hype" is absolutely the use of weasel words. See talk page. Enix150 (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Proof by assertion doesn't really work, especially when the assertion is obviously wrong. Keep future discussion on article talk pages where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Proof by assertion would imply more than one use. You are simply failing an attempt at misdirection. The source provided does not back up your assertion in any way. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you seem to have missed it, I'll be more clear: Don't post on this user talk page again. Use the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlantis

Why can’t I state my argument that Atlantis was a real place? I didn’t understand it. Can you please explain it to me again? Thanks. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Eminem page.

How am I weasel wording? I'm trying to reduce bias on the page. BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, Elon musk, and many others criticized Wikipedia for being biased, because of editors like you. BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

How is weasel wording saying "Eminem's lyrics were criticized by the LGBTQ community and their allies?" I'm just being more specific on the article. And how is saying "it's Eminem's opinion that he matured" weasel wording. He literally changed his political views on homosexuality from conservative to left-wing. So you're saying it's a fact that he matured instead of an opinion, so basically you're saying that changing from a conservative is maturing. That's literally political bias so many people criticized Wikipedia for BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Everytime I edit something about the LGBTQ community, when it's not even negative at all (like the crowder article) you revert it. Your literally so sensitive about the topic when I didn't even say anything bad. You tell me to follow the rules of wikipedia, how about you follow the rules too? Your not privileged on this website and you can't do whatever you want. Your not above the rules BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Coming to my talk page and making personal attacks is not going to convince anyone to support your changes. Over attributing a position is a form of weasel wording (see MOS:WEASEL). You keep adding commentary to articles which is not found in the cited sources - when you insert stuff you've come up with yourself like this it is called original research on Wikipedia, and it is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia's content policies. You have been fundamentally misunderstanding what Wikipedia is and how it is written. You must read, understand, and follow our content policies. MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

look up the definition of personal. I'm not making personal attacks. Also the source that says Eminem was criticized for homophobia and banned from Australia, that source is broken, yet the sentence where it says Eminem's lyrics were criticized for homophobic is still there. So doesn't that violate Wikipedia's policy BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

also if criticizing you is personal attacks and calling you biased, you also made personal attacks to me by calling me biased when you reverted my edit. So if I violated the personal attacks violation, you did too, of course they're not going to send you a warning because they're probably unfortunately biased too. BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You have clearly been making personal attacks. Your literally so sensitive about the topic The only definition that matters is this one: WP:NPA. On the other hand, at no point have I made any statement that you are biased. Is English your first language? Perhaps there is some sort of communication barrier here. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

English isn't my first language. And I moved to the United States in 2018, but even tho English isn't my first language, I think I'm really good at it, especially when it comes to spelling. Also if you look on the Eminem edit history when you reverted my edit for the second time, you said "this weasel wording is biased." So yeah, isn't that also a personal attack to call me biased. BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a misquote, what I wrote was Weasel wording does not reduce bias, it increases it. A statement that weasel wording increases bias is not the same thing as calling a person biased. I think you will have fewer problems if you contribute to the Wikipedia in the language you know best - you clearly have not been understanding what you have been told by multiple people about avoiding original research, and this is causing you trouble on most of the articles you have attempted to edit. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

But there's a lot of English articles that need fixing. BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not 'fixing' articles. By adding WP:OR, you are doing the opposite. MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing Content Without Explaining Why

Sometimes, "See also and External links" have information that seems "irrelevant" to the topic itself, and it can be confusing. In some cases, the information may be outdated and/or "not found" when trying to look for it. When I do my own searches, I sometimes run into "snags," meaning it might take a while for me to find whatever it is I'm looking for. Websites themselves can "break" and/or be taken down, along with the specific articles they publish. MOST people make changes from time to time with their online information, and it's NOT always easy trying to keep up! 2600:8805:9017:EE00:88EC:9B8C:E3D4:F8F9 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the see also section is to link to stuff that is not otherwise linked in the article (that is, stuff that is less relevant). Wiping out that list and replacing it with stuff that is already linked in the article is not helpful. MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah FYI this is a trademark of this user and has been for many, many years. Graham87 02:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Inappropriate Links"

I NEVER add "inappropriate" links! Just visit the websites, and you'll see what I mean! 2600:8805:9017:EE00:88EC:9B8C:E3D4:F8F9 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're obviously confused, I said nothing to you about inappropriate links. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignore them. Long-term range-blocked for long-term abuse. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

social service, rehabilitation service job coaching

You removed content Without explaining why. It's the neglect and violation of professional ethics in Wikpedia.

Latest comment: 17 David1886 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely did explain why - twice now, in fact. You should stop adding unsourced content. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Number of the Beast as calculated - Do I have permission to add this?

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe-srv/pdbechem/chemicalCompound/show/HHH

The molecule is called Hetain (Heian in Chinese means darkness), the shortform name is X, and the molecule is bound by the 'Holy Holy Holy' from revelations. This mark is the mark of the double crosser - the betrayer. The Chi Rho becomes Chi To, the Broken Cane, the Broken Stalk, and also the Marked Cross, or Swallowed T; 2 strokes and 2 gashes.

The mark is to be void of all color.

The sum of Het and Aleph in Hebrew gematria is the straight husk bowing to husk; this is 555+111 = 666.

If God can be represented as Trinity test, Hiroshima and Nagasaki type bombs, you can calculate the number of the Bride;

U235+Pu239+Pu239 + 60 (Head of Grain, Samech, Bride) + 4 (Cleaned Body, Dalet, Big Celebration 大礼 in Chinese) = 777

Even 235+239+239 / 239*3 = 0.994421199 as 'was, is and is to come', or Chinese as 'forever, dead, yet, is, forever' 180.150.64.82 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, this does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Such things are expressly forbidden by a core policy: Wikipedia:No original research MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Welp, guess the secret of the number of beast is never going to be told ;-; 180.150.64.82 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you need another source to proof the existence of a working url in twitter?

I just added a revision saying you need another source. Why is that? There is a link that proofs the existence of the content. Can you please explain more why do you need that? What do you mean by "we"? Htmllife (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I already explained this on your talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't explain why you say the URL to such content, a physical proof of such content is not enough. You don't say who is "we". It feels like you meant "I". Htmllife (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. We have sourcing requirements, you must meet them. We don't use social media postings as sources like that. 'We' is the Wikipedia community in general. Please direct any further follow up about this to the article's associated talk page. My user talk is not the place to debate this. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I won't bother you again, sorry for that, this is the last time im writting. It was you that started using my page.

But you see, it is frustrating that format is more important that what is really true.

I have links that prove that I did in fact start using hashtags months sooner that what the current version states.

I am using the same source that is used for messina tweet, twitter, there is no better source for this. I am not sharing a thumbnail but a tweet that is older that the one wikipedia says is the first one.

Instead of helping a new fact to be shared you are just making things hard for me, classic bully movement with newbies.

I expected more from the wikipedia community, since you say you represent it. Htmllife (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're writing about yourself, additionally see WP:COI - you should not be doing that. I'll drop a full message about that at your talk page. Coming to my talk page and making personal attacks is not going to help you get your preferred content into the article - it is more likely it will help get your account blocked from Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't use social media to document the use of something in social media? In this case it's the use of a hashtag, he's pointing to the post (in social media) that used the hashtag. Why would you need some other source to tell you "Hey, this URL used a hashtag". Back then, tweets couldn't be edited, so a tweet using a hashtag should be more than enough proof that hashtags were used in Twitter, right? Jjmerelo (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn'tt use primary sources to undercut reliable secondary sources. We especially don't allow COI editors to use their own social media posts for such things. This is basic policy stuff. MrOllie (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Larnaux

Larnaux is also surely involved with thevou, and probably paid, not just generically promoting it. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A little bit of googling confirms that, but per WP:OUTING I wouldn't want to say more. MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Russia & Shawarma

Colleague, shawarma is also very popular in Russia, and I confirmed this with sources and indicated in the article that this dish is also popular outside of Islamic countries. There is not a word about this in the article. And you didn't specify which source you consider "terrible". There are other sources. https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/06/22/russian-demand-for-shawarma-more-than-doubled-over-the-last-year-experts-cite-its-low-price https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/08/25/shawurma-shawerma-what-do-you-call-the-scent-of-russian-summer-a58762 https://news.itmo.ru/en/features/life_in_russia/news/8421/ Arinbard (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's popular in dozens of countries, there is no reason to mention Russia specifically. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not an argument to undo my edit. I wrote specifically about Russia, where this dish is as popular as in Islamic countries. This deserves a mention and reflects the popularity of the dish. As for other countries, this WP:WIP.

If you have no more arguments, I will revert the fix you reverted. Arinbard (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to single out Russia. It's popular world-wide. It'd be like putting 'It is also popular in Russia' in the lead section of Bread. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Omni man wiki

Hey thanks you for the message and I believe the the information I gave was clear and I dont understand the point you gave of incoherent. I would like you to clarify that and I want make points stand and stay in the edits Taran532Dhillon (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Incoherent is defined as 'expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.' Your grammar is incorrect - so incorrect that leaving your text in makes the article incomprehensible. Is English your first language? Perhaps you will be more successful on the Wikipedia project that is written in your native tongue. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Also I am aware of the meaning. English is technically my second language however I understand it completely fine and I can write it as well but with a few errors. And I believe that you could helped me and fixed the grammar stand point of the information I added. Taran532Dhillon (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not 'a few errors'. And no one has a responsibility to guess at what you are trying to communicate and fix your edits for you. - MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverting

Refrain from reverting my edits which you choose to describe as 'unconstructive'. British English does not describe a chocolate chip cookie as a chocolate chip biscuit. Please have proper knowledge of the topic you are moderating when choosing to moderate another edits, you marshmallow. Thank you. Rando321

(talk page stalker) I have a pack of chocolate chip biscuits in my hand made by Moores. Chocolate chip biscuits are commonly called cookies these days, but manufacturers do still call the biscuits. Off to eat half a pack and immediately feel guilty. Knitsey (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article is about cookies (biscuits) in general. Nearly every type of cookie is called a biscuit in the UK. Knitsey (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so much so that I wonder whether MrOllie is being trolled.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As soon as I sent the message I had the thought that this is trolling. And now I've eaten half a pack of biccies just to prove a point. Knitsey (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking one for the team, Knitsey.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Eight. I took eight for the team. Knitsey (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like trolling to me: MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the Spidey page

File:Amazing Fantasy 15.jpg	The web-tastic award
	Thanks for editing the Spider man article!! I saw you removed a bunch of random things and made the page cleaner!! glad to see people like you helping Wikipedia!! have this special Web-slinger award of honor!! Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

External Linking to Self Published Sites

Hi Ollie,

Thanks for your clarification regarding external links. I am fairly new here and while I feel my edits are improving in quality I am still learning. Thank you. Jroibal1 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Shawarma Page

Hey! I was wondering why you undid my contribution on the Shawarma page? I am a food writer and have been studying shawarma and other middle eastern dishes for years. I simply added more on the variation found in Bahrain. Respectfully, do not undo my contribution. You can follow me on Instagram (same user name) to view my food work. Thank you. Plainonlycheese (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It was not written in encyclopedic style. See WP:YOU for starters. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

ok. there's no need to keep deleting it. I fixed the language. it's my first contribution here. I'm just trying to spread some info. Plainonlycheese (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

it was literally one word. would've been easier for you to fix it or leave me a comment rather than just deleting it, don't you think?! Plainonlycheese (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You should expect to get reverted when you make an article worse - and by changing it to excessively informal language that is what you did. Nothing personal, that's just how we do things here. MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

make it worse? excessively informal language? what are you even on about?

just say you're lazy and unwilling to fix a simple error. you only just noticed the link from the previous contributor on this topic, and used it as an excuse to delete the whole thing. I fixed it now, let's see what new reason you come up with to delete it. Plainonlycheese (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We also don't allow personal attacks. If you keep on like this you won't be successful on this site. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah yeah. this site is full of errors and misinformation and you're just deleting my stuff cos I wrote "you'll". go do something useful will you? plain. (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wonder why you reverted my uploaded images?

I could just wonder all in the title. Thanks from Technobladex (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to host advertising, including in screenshots and images. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Does that seem advertising? Technobladex (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I just said. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

And one more question: What could I upload a random file to Miniclip (all types of it)?. Thanks! Technobladex (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a persistance, what kinds of the file are allowed to send in Miniclip? Technobladex (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying. Is English your first language? You will probably have an easier time in the version of Wikipedia that is written in your native tongue. MrOllie (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, truthfully it isn't. It is my second language, but I doubt I'm fully transparently fluent in making English sounds. Technobladex (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I am here and just want to mean about kinds of file allowed to upload. Technobladex (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You're a sockpuppet account who is evading a block. You need to stop editing and request a block appeal from your original account. MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying to clean up Anirudh Devgan article

Hi @MrOllie, I tried to clean up the Anirudh Devgan article by adding refs, converting prior ELs to refs, and adding the most important awards. As I explained in the Talk page, Devgan's being an IEEE Fellow explicitly satisfies one of the stated sufficient conditions for notability of scientists. Moreover, his Phil Kaufman Award and election to the US National Academy of Engineering are exceptional and confirm his weighty contributions to the field. There should be no doubts about his notability. Also, best-paper awards at two top conferences in the field (DAC and ICCAD) are notable awards, as far as I can tell. Furthermore, given my heavy edits and various prior edits, I don't see the need for the CoI banner on this page. Just in case, I have no CoI with Devgan. Thank you for looking into this. B030510 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources?

Have you read the most recent AfD? There's sources, but they're all trivial mentions (and that wasn't me or someone against Rational-Wiki saying that). Do you have thing for Rational-Wiki or something? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have thing for Rational-Wiki or something? I might ask you the same thing. Maintenance templates are not a badge of shame for you to affix to article subjects you dislike. Direct any follow up comments to the article's talk page, where such discussion belongs. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The matter has already been discussed, hence the maintenance tag. It's not a matter of liking or disliking Rational-Wiki, it's a matter of its notability being questioned (by myself and others). I don't try and get the articles of all subjects I dislike deleted (I'm actually an inclusionist), but on the other hand it means a great deal to them to keep that article on Wikipedia because it legitimizes them. I was going to look for a link for an example, but to be frank it's not worth my time right now; if I'm going to invest time and brain cells into that site it's going to be to gather evidence to send to their host to have it shut down for AUP violation like KiwiFarms. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said: Direct any follow up comments to the article's talk page, where such discussion belongs. Don't post on my user talk about this again. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You are evil!

The dark mode source for Snapchat is legit real, then you decided to take it away. STOP! MordegonDQXI (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite sources that comply with WP:RS. Coming to my talk page to make personal attacks will not change that. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: Customer communications management

From your previous updates to the Customer communications management article, I utilized what I believe to be more reliable sources in using the below for the following reasons. Please help me understand why these sources are not reliable. ScottMulkey (talk)

1. DOCUMENT Strategy Media, https://www.documentmedia.com/flex-277-Digital-Magazines.htm, magazine publication with an editorial board https://www.documentmedia.com//flex-298-Editorial-Guidelines.html and an annual industry conference https://www.documentstrategyforum.com/
2. A Guide to the Electronic Document Body of Knowledge, book published in 2014 by Xplor International. ISBN: 978-1-893347-05-2. The book had six editors and 23 content contributors. https://wiki.xplor.org/index.php?title=A_Guide_to_the_Electronic_Document_Body_of_Knowledge
3. WhatTheyThink https://whattheythink.com/, a printing industry digital magazine with the mission to inform, educate, and inspire the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMulkey (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Opinion articles and/or sponsored content (or content published 'in partnership with' commercial firms) aren't reliable sources - for example the two Aspire media pieces you cite here. The Xplor book is selfpublished (well, they used a vanity press, but same difference). You also appear to have a conflict of interest with Xplor and should not be citing or linking them. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

More generally, you're writing like you're writing a corporate brochure - Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to used loaded language or express the opinions of their authors (WP:NPOV), and they should be written for laypersons, not loaded up with Corporate jargon. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. This is a business related article, and some business terminologies and corporate jargon is to be expected. As an article on a business term, the target audience is business professionals. Thus I would argue the use of these terminologies is applicable. Otherwise the value of the article will continue to be minimal to those seeking information on the topic. Where applicable, I linked other Wikipedia articles instead of restating existing content.

I did not site Aspire, I sited Document Strategy Media, the publishers of Document Strategy Magazine. The author may have been from Aspire CCS, but the piece was reviewed by the editorial board before it was published in the magazine. There are very limited sources within this topic outside of trade groups, software companies, and service providers supporting this industry. I agree with the need for reliable sources, but if the Wikipedia community seeks exclusively sources with zero bias or agenda, we couldn't even site Wikipedia as even this site seeks contributions from users.

Xplor: I have disclosed my ties to Xplor and note that I am a volunteer simply seeking to contribute to the advancement for the industry. Does Wikipedia seeks content contributions only from non professionals? I would think the quality of the contributions can improve by using knowledgeable contributors. The characterization that a self-published book can not have quality content is an opinion (WP:NOR) and ignores the fact that so many industry professionals (though open collaboration, like Wikipedia), unpaid volunteers (community of volunteers, like Wikipedia), to support the sharing and distribute industry knowledge (like an encyclopedia).

My first pass at updating this article removed much of what I believed caused the WP:NOT essay-like label. I may not have caught every improvement needed to achieve perfection, but I believe it was going in the correct direction in a manor that increased the quality of the content. I have been reviewing your edit contributions in an attempt to identify where you have contributed to content so I may learn from your writing style examples. But they are hard to find among the pages of Reverted.

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. ~Vince Lombardi

~ScottMulkey ScottMulkey (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

the target audience is business professionals No, it isn't. Wikipedia is written for a general audience. Business professionals either don't need this article or have better resources already. The author may have been from Aspire CCS, but the piece was reviewed by the editorial board before it was published in the magazine. - Yes, that is what sponsored content is. We still don't use it on Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia seeks content contributions only from non professionals? True professionals and subject matter experts are familiar with a diverse range of sources and do not need to cite things they have a conflict with. The characterization that a self-published book can not have quality content is an opinion You might think so, but this is basic Wikipedia sourcing policy. We don't use self published stuff.

I have been reviewing your edit contributions in an attempt to identify where you have contributed to content so I may learn from your writing style examples. But they are hard to find among the pages of Reverted. - Taking this as a serious question and not the very thinly veiled personal attack it appears to be, if you want writing samples have a look at anything in Wikipedia:Featured articles, which showcases the best articles on Wikipedia.

Look, if you have come to my talk page to ask questions, I am happy to accommodate. If you have come to my talk page to debate policies or to opine that Wikipedia does things the wrong way, this is really not the venue for that. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologize for staying into what may be more debate, that is not my intent. As you have been reviewing my content submissions, I am seeking to continue to improve my understanding of the critique criteria to ensure my contributions are acceptable.

I feel like I keep learning about a previously unknown Wikipedia policy. But really it's simply an editors opinion to a policy. As an example , Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works states Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".

The Customer communications management article has existed for some time, but has been seriously outdated. The existence of even these articles tied to projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business justify their existence within Wikipedia. ScottMulkey (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There are some exceptions where self published sources are acceptable. One good example is Eugene Volokh. He's a world renowned legal scholar, who also has a blog. We might cite his blog as a reliable source from time to time. This sort of exception does not apply to Xplor - and, frankly, given your COI you really should not continue pushing this. Wikipedians have a broad understanding of COI and historically have a very low level of patience for those who are seen to have it. You will be much, much more successful here if you stay far away from anything you are associated with in your professional life, particularly when you are a new editor. That isn't policy - that is my advice, derived from watching many expert editors flame out over the years. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to Re-add Removed Links on Wikipedia

Dear MrOllie

Thank you for your message and for maintaining Wikipedia's quality standards. I appreciate your dedication to keeping the platform free from inappropriate external links and ensuring that it remains a reliable source of information for users around the world.

I fully understand and respect the guidelines concerning inappropriate links, and I have no intention of adding any such links to Wikipedia. I aim to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate and impartial knowledge to its users. If you have any concerns or come across any content that may not adhere to these guidelines, please do not hesitate to bring it to my attention or report it through the appropriate channels.

SO, please allow me to contribute toward Wikipedia, and also allow me to re-add it.

Please re-add the links that you have removed. It is my humble request to you.

Thank you

Best Regards

Manav5585sharma (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You hijacked an existing citation and replaced it with a link to a fake news website. I will not re-add the links. If you keep up that sort of thing, you can expect that your account will be blocked, MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and for bringing this matter to my attention. I want to sincerely apologize for the citation replacement issue that occurred. It was certainly not my intention to contribute misleading information to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining the platform's integrity.

I take your concerns seriously, and I assure you that such an error will not happen again. Your guidance is invaluable in helping me understand and respect Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Please know that I am committed to contributing responsibly and positively to the Wikipedia community.

If there are any further steps I can take to rectify this situation or any other concerns you may have, please don't hesitate to let me know. I am here to learn and grow as a responsible contributor to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Best regards, Manav5585sharma (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

..!

Recently,in the "Time (magazine)" article page;Some username "ButcherDoom" made some edit as vandalism..But ,you mentioned me as a vandalizer ,but I done none of that , or further edits on wikipedia to the future...Spbvj (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hope MrOllie doesn't mind me stepping in here. You need to read the edit again. MrOllie reverted the edits by Butcher and reinstated your edits. Thats what the edit says, restored your version. Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

sry my bad🤝🤝 I didn't intend to threaten;I misunderstood... Spbvj (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie

Please, don't remove useful links. Probably, this article does not matter to you and the information is enough. But for some people who are really interested in this topic and potential new people, is a convenient to have links to the tools and resources list in the one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.31.29 (talk • contribs)

Your github site is not a useful link. You have been getting warnings about this on your talk page for years at this point. Please respect Wikipedia and its policies and stop trying to stuff links to your websites into the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem, you can move these links elsewhere and keep them up to date, but don't remove this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.31.29 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that would be a clear violation of our external links guideline. If you add this again you can expect a block and/or for your github to be added to the spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what the point did I violate?

I think it doesn't matter who owns or creates a site as long as it contains useful information on a topic.

It's stupid to delete a list with links to many products and resources useful for specialists.

You make articles less informative and less useful, removing this information.

And, as I said, you can make separate page with comparison, for example, but you prefer to have the list of several commercial products on this page. 80.92.31.29 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The point that says you shouldn't spam your self published website onto Wikipedia. I'm not going to debate this with you on my talk page, you've been warned. You can keep going and see what happens, or not. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to play with you in the "edits war". But this is silly.

If I created another Github (or not) account, that you don't link to me and post link on this, would that be ok?

This is "rule for the rule". Not rule for the users convenience. 80.92.31.29 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Spam is spam, even on a new account. Stop posting on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I want to discuss an improvement in the article. I think that, if controversial, the article Conspiracy theory must not be in "paranormal".

2.138.48.111 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it isn't, so job done. MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

False statement in Epoch Times article

You reverted my edit to the first paragraph of the Epoch Times article, without a mention of the very reliable source that I used. I started a new topic on the Epoch Times talk page addressing this. Other Choices (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't post on my talk page again unless you're showing up because you've finally read the whole article and are coming to apologize. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

SIMDEC

As a long time practitioners of sensitivity analysis and Wikipedia contributor I respectfully disagree with the removing the SIMDEC insertion. I think the insertion is relevant. Please refer to the talk page of SIMDEC where I motivate the creation of this page. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎‎Saltean (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourself or your work. Please read our guidelines on conflict of interest (already linked on your own talk page) and follow them from now on. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Pascal triangle

Some user had added the unreferenced claim of meru prasanda and pingala Pascal triangle again on the page . Leveinhockerkerala (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Influenced and influences in infobox

Why are you removing the influences and influenced tab of the infobox? Instead of deleting it, the text should go somewhere, if the problem is with the infobox element. These tabs are quite useful. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The fields are not functional. Nothing is being displayed. Including non-displaying fields is an error. MrOllie (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But in all of philosophers pages? I was web scraping and using it for my research. The information from the infobox is simply deleted, rather than placed somewhere else. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion and it was decided to remove it from all the infoboxes. Edit warring ineffectually on one article or another will not reverse that. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Where was this discussion placed? I literally am using these texts to my research. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slxsis (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring Polyvagal theory article during RfC

User:MrOllie Since there is an RfC still going on about Polyvagal Theory, I’d request that you please revert the lead of the article to its original state before the RfC began. I know you weren’t the first one to edit it during the RfC discussion, but after reverting those changes you then made edits yourself to the lead while it remained under discussion. User:Qflib and Drthorgithecorgi have both objected. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Survey and Discussion As it says in WP:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC, “Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring.”) I understand that you and I have very different opinions on what should or should not be in the lead, but that’s what the RfC is for, and until that’s done neither of us should be making changes to the lead while there’s still discussion going on. You should suggest your new sentence in the RfC discussion, then alert others, including Qfib and Drthorgithecorgi , that the lead is back to where it started so the discussion can resume. As to my edits to the page (outside the lead) that you reverted, I thought removing unsourced claims about medical treatments could not possibly be controversial, and thus permitted under WP:COIU. It’s an odd choice to restore unsourced claims about medical treatments, contrary to the standards of WP:MEDRS, but I certainly won’t edit these passages again now that you’ve objected. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This request is based on a misunderstanding of what RFCs are and how they work. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to "Briar (software)"?

I added some important useful information to the article "Briar (software)" and you just removed it. Those were two important references that cited sources to back up what the article said about Operating Systems that the Briar software supports. Those reference cite what software Briar supports by pointing to Briar web pages which specifically say those Operating Systems are supported, therefore they are a relevant citation. They also help people that are trying to find the software. I don't see any reason for you deleting them. Why did you do this? Jacob81 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The information was already sourced well enough - what you did was add redundant links to their download page. Wikipedia isn't a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. There not the same URLs but the domain is the same as the one that is already cited in the article. OK. I understand. Jacob81 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain shamelessly deleting my question on a talk page?

I added a question to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Friendship , which you then subsequently reverted (together with someone else's comment. There should be no reason to delete someone else's questions, even if in your opinion they are either dumb or irrelevant. Instead, leave a comment. I do not want this to turn into an edit war but I will restore my comment if you don't give me a proper reason. This is unacceptable. Kharakhov (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. We do in fact remove comments that are irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Willing to have explanation

Hi, you reverted my edit about the main source of tourism in the Philippines which is natural attractions. What should I do to make it neutral? Isn't neutral about saying natural attraction as main source of tourism in the country which is a fact or should i rephrase it to make it more neutral? Willing to hear your response. Thanks a lot! CalGenuinePro98 (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

List of platform-independent GUI libraries

If I'd write articles on the GUI libraries currently without such would you file RfDs on them? Kind regards, U. M. Owen (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If they do not meet WP:GNG, yes, I probably would start deletion processes. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

MKS Toolkit is a porting toolkit, not supporting more than 1 target platform. Would you revert me removing it?--U. M. Owen (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on JK Rowling politics?

My edit made the lead more factually accurate. 2001:569:7E69:DF00:7CEC:4090:DE5B:618E (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOR MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting my edits

Please don't keep reverting my edits on Finnish Generals. Dodecahedronclass (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the above user for 24 hours for violation 3RR. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: This is almost certainly the same person as indef blocked User:Karajan1488 MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. SPI filed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Tulip

The edits you removed were actually a pretty big copyright violation. That text was word for word from the reference 13 feb provided. They did the same thing at LED lamp and it somehow went unnoticed even though they have racked up warnings about copyright. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What to do about ruined RfC?

User:MrOllie has made substantial edits to the lead of this page while that same lead is under discussion in an RfC he is currently participating in. This has made the RfC untenable; not only have other participants who were already involved said that they will no longer participate if the lead keeps getting changed, but anyone new will not easily be able to judge what was originally under discussion. I have asked MrOllie to revert their edits, just above, and he has refused.

What makes the edits especially disruptive is that the MrOllie has added a new statement that purports to make claims about the state of academic literature based on one source that is NOT a systematic review paper that would qualify under WP:RS in this circumstance.There are 400 peer-reviewed papers on the opposite side of this author. A discussion of the merits of substantially changing the content of the lead should be happening in the RfC, not with unilateral edits.

Also, since I know MrOllie will make an issue of it, I want to point out that further down in the page, in the body of the article, I removed unsourced statements about medical treatments, which I thought would be completely uncontroversial and thus allowed under WP:COIU. (I have declared what I think is a weak COI - this page is about a widely published academic theory and I work for an institute that studies the theory.) MrOllie restored the lengthy paragraphs I removed - even though they obviously fail WP:MEDRS (and coatracking, as the page is about an academic theory concerning basic neurobiology, not medical treatments). Since MrOllie has objected, it’s now a contentious matter under COIU and I won’t edit these paragraphs again. I’ll just request to have them removed through a COI edit request.

At this point, I don’t know what to do about the RfC itself, since the disruptive behavior of MrOllie has derailed the discussion. I don’t want to post it again and start everything over. Maybe it should be restored to its original condition and the RfC relisted? Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My user talk page is not a place to talk about me or register third person complaints. If you really want to pursue this, take it to WP:ANI, but read WP:BOOMERANG first. If you keep this up I will probably request that you be topic banned since you are obviously WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

I don't think so You need to revert edits, which you don't know about. stop the nuisance. Parth Arj (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Will series

Hello, ive got Edward Hayter approved and is an article and has proof ,why did you removed it? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It never should have been approved. I'll begin a deletion discussion when I have time. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Then talk with Cabrils, Spinster300 and Drmies . They all approved it Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

they are reviewers and worked hard to proves his notability. Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how the process works. Also, don't spam my talk page about this. MrOllie (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was EarthMC deleted?

The server is one of the largest towny earth servers on minecraft and thus deserves a wiki page Rtqz (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You presented absolutely no credible claim of importance or reliable, independent supporting sources. one of the largest towny earth servers on minecraft isn't a criterion for inclusion here. You can read about the criteria we do use at Wikipedia:Notability. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks. That vandal fooled me right away. Thanks for having the back :") The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Citations for efficiency of Fuel Cell vs ICE

Hello, The original article was asking for citations on the claim made in the article stating the a Fuel Cell engine is more efficient than an ICE. It turns out that I know something about this space and I added two citations (one by the US Government and one by the government of the State of California). Why did you remove them? Writingking (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

1) You added external links to the article, not citations. And 2) The links you added were about fuel cells in general. That article is specifically about the Toyota Mirai and Toyota's fuel cell systems. Citations must be specifically about Toyota's implementation, not fuel cells in general - see WP:SYN. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. there is a quick remedy to your #1 point but thanks for pointing out WP:SYN (I don't know how to make it a hyperlink as you did!) Writingking (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

IEEE book added as a refernce to Artificial Neural Network page

I just added a book published by the IEEE as a reference to the application of ANNs. You deleted that and yet you let stand all the primary source references in that section of the article. The references 155 to 188 are ALL primary source references and even worse some of those references are conference papers which have not gone through any formal peer-review process! It appears that you prefer to keep those in and reject a book published by the largest engineering institution in the word which provides comprehensive review. What is the reason for this? Writingking (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to write encyclopedia articles, not to take note that books happen to exist. You are very focused on getting particular citations and books into Wikipedia, but that is simply not what an encyclopedia is for. I have not reviewed every citation in the article so I take no position on your other comment. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion "You are very focused on getting particular citations...” That is a biased, unsubstantiated and unnecessary assertion on your part. Wikipedia is constantly asking for money to be able to support itself. With my limited time, I have tried to help and contribute in the fields I happen to know something about. If you are an editor, you are not being unbiased, non-partial and non-prejudicial. The book I have cited is probably the best comprehensive single reference in this field. I request to let my edit stand and do something about 10+ of primary source and unvetted references in that article, as I mentioned. Writingking (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Heaping personal attacks on me will not help, and will not convince me to let your edits stand. You must learn how things are done here and comply with our policies and standards. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You have not given one single reasons why 10+ unvetted single source references can stay but the one book I cited from the IEEE must be deleted. Nor have you stated any of your policies that supports this. Writingking (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I explained. That you don't like the answer does not mean one wasn't given. I decline to repeat myself, because I stop the newbie-level explanations when the personal attacks start. Take your complaints elsewhere. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Writingking (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh

Hello bro, let me tell you that the external link which you have removed by naming it as a scam link is not in any way a link on this page of Wikipedia. This link has been placed only for the users. We have edited the page to keep track of its history. You removed this link without even checking,

You did not remove any changed or edited information that we have posted on this page, but you have removed this link by calling it a scam. You have done wrong. This is only for the benefit of the users and the external website to which the link has been placed. Right now it is working just like Wikipedia. It is not monetized in any way and is working only for the users. We have done a lot of research and have posted this link.

I have made a lot of changes in the language of both Hindi and English for this page. You name it as a scam only after checking its complete history. I will wait for your reply. If this is a scam, then I will link this link with my own hands. I will pick it up from

I take at least 2 to 3 days to edit any page and only then make a lot of changes in it. I don't change anything without doing anything like this. AshokSainiar (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't use random blogs as citations, see WP:RS. Adding this same blog across multiple articles is linkspamming. - MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

It is just expanding on the points mentioned. I have just detailed it for simplicity. FreemanPhysiatrist (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is required by core Wikipedia policy, see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh

Can you remove Artsakh from List countries and dependencies by area ever since it doesn't exist anymore and it will be offically ceased to exist by 1st of January 2024? Mehmetberkgung (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Eric H. Cline

I agree with some of your deletion, but not all. I know quite a bit about Cline, and he is certainly a lecturer. Ok, this is his website, but if you need other sources I'm sure they exist. He was part of this lecture program, gave these 4 lectures. These lectures. etc.

I'm not sure how we source "best known' for his Late Bronze Age work, but it is very accurate. Mentioned here[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvgiaOuNM4&list=PLxr_WkZJLZdHwZ-1zgNamJ_Lq2N8i2eGX&index=4&ab_channel=PSWScience. It's a bit "blue sky" for those who know anything about that period. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned about the POV language, the advertising of upcoming books, and the promotion of his youtube channel. There's been a log of single purpose editing on that bio, just making sure they know where the line is. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Async/await

I added the official Python Enhancement Proposals (PEP) link. I also added some basic terminology and succinctly explained what the Python code means. I believe it forms a good starting point for anyone looking into this. Moreover, the Python section suffers from a lack of details beyond the PEP name and author.

Why did you revert? Wikiforra (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, the text was redundant and it embedded external links into the article text - Wikipedia doesn't do that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand about the external links. What part of the explanation is redundant? I will fix that. Wikiforra (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added a new source article that is related to the dead link

Hello sir, why didn't the article I edited change? The article I edited is this one blockchain. You said, "Crypto blogs are not usable sources." So, what kind of source is needed? Wouldn't it be better to have something rather than a dead link? Underratedman (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS for guidelines about sourcing and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies for special restrictions on blockchain editing and sourcing. It is not better to replace a higher quality source with an unusable one, even if the higher quality source is a dead link - for one thing it forestalls the possibility that someone might simply fix the link to the higher quality source. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for helping out with the action figure image on the Action figure's talk page!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 13:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)