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!

Revert or my edits

Hi! You reverted my changes (within 2 minutes? Confirm your are not a robot, please=) to the infobox about brackets, but your "undo" comment presents reasoning that, as I see it, does not have factual ground. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bracket&action=history) Please, revert your reversion or elaborate.

Also, did you have a look at Infobox guidelines about citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes)?

Also, my change improved structure and readability, which you also reverted. Gregory108 (talk)

Your edit summary claimed to be removing 'SEO' citations but what you actually did was remove citations to a book by Routledge, a respected academic press, and added a link to 'editorsmanual.com', something which is plainly not a WP:RS. You should not have done either of those things, thus I reverted. Your change deleted information without improving 'structure and readability'. I'm not sure what you think you did to the article, but your description here does not match the changes that were actually made. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

PS: Accusing people of being 'a robot' is frightfully rude. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if you perceived "robot" question as rude. I have never seen 2-minute reaction to edit on Wikipedia - hence, the question. Did not intend to do offend. There was a smile for the human=)

1) "what you actually did was remove citations to a book by Routledge" -- I did not removed citation from the article, only from the Infobox. I did that because:

1.a) 3 citations in the infobox are cluttering (and looks like refsmap/SEO by someone interested)

1.b) As I said, I followed Infobox recommendations. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes)

1.c) Though Routledge looks reputable indeed, the cited content is behind paywall(s) and not verifiable in the human sense (!= verifiability in the terms of Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Wikipedia asks for "verifiability of reliability"; I was looking for verifiability of information). Hence ->

2) -> without removing reference to Routledge I added another source that looked reputable and clearly elaborated on the topic. But, yes, its reliability might be debatable, though its information does not contradict what is claimed to be said in Routledge.

So, I hope, I proved that your perception of my edit as "Your change deleted information" is not correct.

3) "without improving 'structure and readability'" -- my change to structure&readability of the infobox was easy to miss in rushed <2-min revert

Your description of the reasons to revert (quote, "Rv edi that seems to be carrying out the opposite of the edit summary") is still not well-understood. Besides, summary!=edit essence is not a reason to revert an improving edit. I hope I can show the value or the edit again. Reliability argument is understandable.

I suggest I will do the edit to the infobox again:

- without referencing "editorsmanual"

- WITH removal of excessive citation from the infobox Gregory108 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if you perceived A classic example of a Non-apology apology. You have misunderstood the guidelines on using citations in info boxes. If you feel strongly about it, you should try to gather support for your changes - on the article talk page, not here on my user talk. And no, you absolutely did delete information. You should not do the edit to the infobox again without agreement from other editors - which might be found on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bro, you called me a paid poster multiple times without even knowing who I was or that I changed two completely Different articles. That was pretty rude. No apologies from you.

And you also violated that don’t bite the newcomers rules. So I think you’re hardly the person chastised him for not giving you apology you wanted.

You were so unfriendly and unhelpful I decided not to participate on this website anymore.

Again, hardly the person to give others crap about being rude.

Cheers, LiteFrozen (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

When several people come to such a conclusion, most people might consider whether others are the problem or they themselves are. If I might make an observation, you will find it easier to not to participate on this website anymore by not scanning my talk page for reasons to take offense, as you have apparently been doing in the 4 months since you quit. You should not post on this talk page again. Thanks in advance! MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted tool within minutes of adding it

I just added the tool N2A. Six minutes later it was deleted for lacking a Wikipedia page. Perhaps you would consider instead allowing some time for me to compose an appropriate page for it. Frothga (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not really how things work here - the page needs to be there first, and I do not think it is likely that the topic would meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements (given at Wikipedia:Notability) in any event. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Neal Barnard BLP NPOV

Can I try a revised edit that makes a better case for why it is important to note that Dr. Barnard has conducted federally funded diabetes research that has been influential in the medical community and will be of interest to readers. Details like this are important so that the page adheres to Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, particularly the neutral point of view. NewzNerd (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You must gather support for your proposed changes on the article's associated talk page at this point. Repeating the same edit (even in slightly different variations) is edit warring. The way Wikipedians decide what is 'important' is by following independent, secondary sources that meet WP:RS. You're not citing a source at all. MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Yasuke page

"You are just bias" - 2003:DF:A72F:9F00:C11B:2E24:1152:C660 (and several other from this user, a day-one account who is misquoting wikipedia policies)

"but you Resetera chuds are trying to paint a reality where he likely was a Samurai" - 178.24.248.195

"you fucking rats" - 103.6.150.184

"The Crowd had their hands on it, and The Message must be protected at all costs." - MWFwiki

"Repeating a lie won't make it reality." - 2A02:2788:1094:8D:E80E:3BD1:F77E:67F6

"So, no, you ARE indeed trying to rewrite history." - 2A0C:5A80:3C04:F400:4001:D069:D6A:8C0F

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have never posted on that page, why are you telling me? MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)