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!

National Gallery movies

OK, what is it this time? (And how do you keep such close track of my edits?) I used the imdb links with you in mind, because they are not ads. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The article in question was on my watchlist. I don't view the imdb link as an improvement - such links are user generated content and very often curated by the people involved. And Wikipedia is not a link directory - we should not be in the business of enabling promotion of a filmmaker's works via any sort of link. I understand from your last message that you like these movies, but that is not a reason to link to them or otherwise mention them on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned that I found Exhibition on Screen films of high quality only because you'd called the Sargent film "nonnotable." That I find them of high quality is certainly not the reason that I want to mention them on Wikipedia. I want to mention them on Wikipedia because I think that they will interest readers. Wikipedia always lists "Further reading" for that purpose, and there is no reason not to list movies as well as books. I suppose that you would find it acceptable to link to solely a movie review, because you did not revert my Sargent edit after I eliminated links other than to a movie review. I will therefore look for reviews of the two National Gallery movies to link to. If you would find acceptable any other method by which to mention a movie, please let me know. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would not find a link to movie review acceptable either, and I still do not believe that the mention should be on the Sargent article either, I am waiting to see if anyone else cares to weigh in there. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You did not tell me whether what method you would find acceptable by which to mention a movie. Since you reject links to movie producers' websites and you reject reviews, does that mean that you reject any mention of a movie? But that wouldn't make sense, because, as I said, to mention a documentary movie serves the same purpose as mentioning a book under "Further reading." Or do you object to the "Further reading" sections in Wikipedia? I am not being sarcastic; I am trying to figure out your reasoning, which you make little effort to explain.

I don't consider a movie producer's (or a book publisher's) website to constitute an ad for purposes of Wikipedia, because I would cite them for the information they contain, not for their promotion of the movie or the book. But I recognize that reasonable people might differ on that point. I cannot, however, see any argument against citing a movie review or a book review as a source for a statement in the text of Wikipedia that such a movie or book exists. But, now that I think about it, when a book is listed under "Further reading," no footnote is provided, presumably because a reader can go to Google Books or the Library of Congress catalog to confirm the existence of the book. So why not list documentary movies with no footnote, because a reader can go to imdb, or can simply google, to confirm the existence of the movie? The problem with that is that the movie would have to be listed in a section other than "External links."

Please articulate your position on how to list documentary movies. In the alternative, put back my listing of the two National Gallery documentary movies. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My position is: They should not be listed at all. If the films had won major awards or were themselves notable (having multiple independent sources), perhaps. But I do not believe such sourcing exists in this case. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your position, but you don't make an attempt to justify it. How is a movie's having won major awards relevant to whether readers of Wikipedia will be interested in it? In "Further reading," we don't list only books that have won major awards. If anything, it might be less justifiable to list a movie that has won major awards, because it is more likely that Wikipedia readers will be aware of it. But I am not suggesting that we not list movies that have won major awards.

I don't know what you mean by "having multiple independent sources." Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing Wikipedia's definition of Notability, which is our criteria for writing an article about a subject. see WP:N. MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Masayoshi Son

Please look at the living person policy for statements such as questioning the sanity of living persons. Thanks. Quiltedcastle73 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just stop edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ho hum

User talk:DMacks#Labelling my blog as "low-value" and "spam". DMacks (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Citation for Palika Bazaar

Hi,

I recently made an addition to the Palika Bazaar article, where I added a reference on the timings and how to get to the place that I was told about. The citation was to my resource Noida Wale - which provides visitors with some of the practical and up-to-date information they need. However, the citation was removed!

I believe my website is a useful resource for the following reasons:

It gives current and accurate details about the place that is not available in the other, and up to date (one of the refrence is 17 years old, all the rest are not specified).

The site is always kept up-to-date with any updates on the hours of visit and the available ways to get to locations, so that the information remains as relevant as possible for those who are reading it.

The information I provided adds valuable context for readers looking to visit the place.

I would appreciate it if we could discuss this further and reconsider the inclusion of my citation.

Thank you,

RohitKumar1527r RohitKumar1527r (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You're adding blatant linkspam. 'Your resource' is not a usable citation for Wikipedia - kindly stop attempting to add it. You received final warnings about this on your previous account, if you keep this up your sites will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)