User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

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

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

Thank you!

Archives

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

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

Edit reversions

Hi, MrOllie. I saw you reverted my edits to Qnet earlier this month. As my edits across Wikipedia are specifically to deal with citation issues and templates (as it seems to be a spiraling issue), I would like to get more feedback, as I don't want to be doing anything improperly, and believe my edits were valid.

My criteria on all pages is to remove citations (and where applicable, page contents) based on templated pages, limiting my removals to:

- complete dead links (aka no current active link, and nothing archived)

- archived links that lead to 404s, home pages, or completely different articles

- press releases or promotional citations

I don't believe any of my edits to QNET were out of order - none of the other pages I've made similar edits to recently have been reverted, so I'm not sure where I went astray of editing policies, but wanted to discuss before restoring in case I did make a major error. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dead links is generally unhelpful - because someone might be able to fix the link, if they know a fix is needed. Removing the dead link forecloses that possibility.

Press releases are sometimes usable for noncontroversial information and should not be blanket removed.

QNET specifically has had a lot of talk page discussions about sourcing, and I do not believe that BOLD edits are a good idea on that particular article. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Ollie - I'm sorry for the delayed response, I have been reading more than editing as I try to understand the citation policies a little more clearly. Just a few additional questions about QNET so I can ensure I don't repeat my mistakes:

I am not aware of a mechanism or tool allowing for the restoration of a dead link, where there was no tangible archived link (for example, where every archived version leads to a home page or to 404s, thus making them essentially unrecoverable). How can those dead links be fixed? (also, could you review this edit so I can make sure I am archiving citations correctly?)
The policy around press releases are still a little unclear to me, so if there are additional guidelines or essays to share that would be useful, please share any links you can. My understanding was press releases were promotional (whether promoting positive or negative news), and thus were not allowed in almost all situations, regardless of whether the content was generally considered controversial or not.
I have been reading through the many Talk page discussions, including those both resolved and unresolved, from the employee account "QNetLars". If BOLD edits are not encouraged, how do you recommend I work to resolve the template on the page - and also improve the section's readability, as the language is unwieldy and inconsistently written (both in terms of tense and tone)? CiKing101 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automated mechanism or tool - but that does not mean that someone will not be able to find an updated URL nonetheless. I'm not interested in reviewing your other edits or answering general questions on sourcing on my user talk page. I suggest you ask such questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. If you're asking these kinds of basic questions about use of self published sources, I would recommend that you not attempt to resolve that template at all. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic heliocentrism

@MrOllie I am having few concerns on the Heliocentrism article regarding the claim of Vedic heliocentrism since it states that

Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres"

Since the two reference given below isn't any peer reviewed source and it technically claims that the Vedas knew about heliocentrism before greek astronomer Aristachus of Samos gave me a bit skeptic. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with that article and I take no position on its content. MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted editing

Hi MrOllie I saw you reverted my edits on multiple pages, and I do see my edits on some of them weren't adding any new helpful information. However, I do believe my edits these three pages were helpful, and added new information through visuals: Wedgie Embarrassment School bullying Marcussilio (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your personal photos is not helpful, kindly stop. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie

I don't agree nor understand that, as I said, in some of the pages it made sense, but in the three pages linked above, it does add perspectives visually. An example would be in the Wedgie under the different variations, it makes more sense to include a photo of one of the other variants instead of the photo of a regular, that's currently displayed. Marcussilio (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree with the fact that the photo is more fitting than the current one under variations in the Wedgie page? It would make more sense to use a photo that actually describe one of the other variants mentioned instead of another photo of a regular wedgie. Marcussilio (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree. Kindly stop spamming your personal photos all over Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how come you don't agree? I understand the other pages, but your opinion on the Wedgie page simply doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that you insist on being right on that one more than providing meaningful information and visuals on Wikipedia. And I wouldn't consider it spamming if I only did it once. Marcussilio (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree because you're adding a redundant, low quality image as part of a spamming campaign. You didn't do it once, you did it across many articles, including a cross-wiki campaign of spamming it on other language editions. MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it places i found it to be fitting, not to spam it or get it across the internet as fast as possible. I still think it deserves a spot in the Wedgie page. Would you delete it if I added it under variations on that page? Marcussilio (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed it twice and nothing has changed, so yes, I would remove it again. MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why, it offers more insight, more visuals and more information than the current photo which is of same quality. Marcussilio (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I have already mentioned. I'm not inclined to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out it is a copyright violation. I'll go ahead and tag the file for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I can prove that it's the same person who uploaded it. Both on imgur and deviantart? You really have nothing better to do than taking down photos that shouldn't be? Marcussilio (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really have nothing better to do than keeping things that shouldn't be on Wikipedia off of Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Reverted Neutral text

Dear MrOllie, You reverted my edits on World Film Communities Network. I have tried to make the text neutral but you reverted my all edits explaining that it is a promotion. Can you please clarify which sentence or word is promotional added or edited by me? Adding a logo is promotion? Adding references is promotion? Sufikoin (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added blatant advertising to the article. I cannot provide a specific word - your edits have been promotional from top to bottom. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. I have not added any promotional text. If you think so, please specify which text is promotional. I have added a logo and few citations. Now please let me know what is promotional in this? Sufikoin (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the text you added was blatant promotion. Since we are duplicating comments here and on your own user talk page, I will not respond here again. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am so curious to know the following things done by me in the page and you reverted these too:

1. Adding Logo is promotional?

2. Adding citations is promotion?

3. Replacing Short description from "WFCN is a digital platform for film festival submission, professional networking within the film industry, and self-distribution of films. The platform acts as an online marketplace for film, media, and entertainment industry." to "Film Festival Submission Platform"? Is this also promotion? Sufikoin (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrOllie, Please answer my above queries, It is important to me as a Learner to judge whether these are promotional activities on Wikipedia or not. It will not take your so much time, you have to write only Yes or No. Sufikoin (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the "Sensitivity analysis" page

Hi MrOllie, my name is Ivana Aleksovska and I would like to follow up on the suggestion of User:Snowmanonahoe to submit a revision of the page sensitivity analysis. I tried to rewrite the page in its entirety (see my sandbox) as the page is now rather poorly organized and full of spam - quite some cleaning was needed in my view. I tried this but all my changes have been quickly reverted with motivation 'Same citespam new account'. Please note that I am not a new account, see my profile page User:IvanaAlexML. As per spam in my new version I have de-cluttered the page from lots of accumulated spam; please point me to what part of my revision still contains spam and I will remove it, if this helps to move forward and improve the page. The new page is - I hope - more clean and encyclopedic - no ongoing research, attentive to the possible needs of new readers falling on this page for the first time and trying to understand what sensitivity analysis is about.

Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions on how to improve the current version. I welcome any ideas you may have on how to improve the existing page, and I'd be happy to follow them up and make my modest contribution to the subject.

Many thanks in advance for your help. Best, IvanaAlexML (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a bit of a history on that page (see its associated talk page) of people trying to add mentions of themselves to the article. When they were stymied in that, they recruited colleagues to register new accounts to add the same citations back. Your additions added some of those same citations. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lichen deletion

Hello there MrOllie. Can you please explain this deletion? I see no evidence to support your "COI" edit summary. MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That citation was added recently here, by an IP range (this one). 100% of the IP range's edits are made to add citations to that particular author. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]