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!

Edits on Place Branding wiki

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Yesterday I contributed to the Place Branding page. It seems that you did not accept any of the edits I made, is that right? I was surprised that not a single one of my suggestions was accepted. Could you please explain your role? And could you be so kind to explain whether there was a specific reason why my suggestions were not accepted? How could I improve my contributions? With kind regards, Jasper Eshuis Jas Eshuis (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:NOR. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources on these topics. Please cite some that have not been written by yourself or by any associates. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Digital Twin for Logistics

do you have any scientific based arguments and references for canceling the text ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmjakob (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to self-promote. Try basing your additions on sources that have been written by people unrelated to yourself or your own work. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Smart_city#Gdynia

Dear MrOllie, I'm trying to add Gdynia to Smart city. I took your advice and reedited the text to make it neutral - facts only, no opinions. The text is written by me, so there is no problem with copyright violation. Can you please explain what was the problem? Regards, Moje Miasto Gdynia (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moje Miasto Gdynia (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moje Miasto Gdynia, You're still plagiarizing something, as you have cited no sources in your latest versions. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Named entity

Dear MrOllie, I don't really understand your removal on the "named entity" page, as it's just about pointing out there's a debate about what can be considered as an entity. Knowing that "President of the United States" corresponds to a Wikipedia page (and is therefore an entity in Google and major search engines Knowledge Graphs). There are so many mistakes done about named entities that I'm still convinced my update was important. Maybe I'm wrong, but then, it would be worth correcting the assertion itself (i.e. "President of the United States" IS an entity) Let me know what you think, Thanks FredLaurent — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredLaurent (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't use blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer. I've checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability where it's stated that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I've checked the author bio for the source, and he's a renowned expert in the field. Can you have a look ? Thanks, Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredLaurent (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FredLaurent, That exception is for people like Eugene Volokh, professors who regularly publish in peer reviewed publications and who also have a blog, not for SEO folks who write guest posts in other people's self published blogs. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I have to conclude that you prefer to maintain errors in WIkipedia rather than correcting them, because the format of a reference does not suit you? This is simply counterproductive in my opinion. I think that you didn't bother to check the author's references either. It's a shame.

CBIR entry

Hey I saw you reverted adding an entry to the list of content-based image retrieval engines. Wondering why? Thanks for the info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhamilton723 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

CT scan

Dear Mr.Ollie, I have extend the CT scan article by short information about robotic CT which is a new CT scanning technology. You have rejected the extension. Could you please explain your reasons?

Thank you, Josef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef.uher (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Your addition was not properly sourced, and appeared to be promotional. Either of which is a reason to remove the content. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It is a very new area of CT and not many teams are working on this and it is in my opinion worthy to spread the information about this entirely new CT segment. I'll improve the text according to your comments. Josef.uher (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize secondary sources, not to 'get the word out' about new developments and products. Especially on medical content/technologies, Wikipedia deliberately lags far behind the curve. See WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, as I mentioned I will add sources and improve the formulaiton. Yet, wikipedia contains many articles about "hot" topics that are just being explored. An example might be Long COVID. The robotic CT is under development for at least 6 or 7 years, so it has already some place in the field. Josef.uher (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Please also see WP:COI and WP:PAID, it appears that you are in violation of those policies and Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, if a scientists contributes to Wikipedia about his/her field of study, is it a conflict of interest? I understand that adding contribution in sense of "buy our product because it is the best" is simply wrong. However, is it wrong to describe a new general approach to CT? Without promotion of any particular device? In other words, for example, is description of the CBCT approach promotion of CBCT manufacturers? This is not clear to me. Josef.uher (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Have you ever heard the phrase A rising tide lifts all boats? Promoting the field also promotes all the companies in it, particularly when (as you just mentioned) the industry is very small. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, yes, certainly. Does that mean that Wikipedia should talk only about topics that involve large industries? Nevertheless, it is not clear to me why the CT scan article contains section "Manufacturers". Why these ones are OK to be mentioned and not the hundreds of others? Josef.uher (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, No, but it does mean that a company CTO / founder should not be making undisclosed edits about his (tiny) industry. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits on human resource management system

Yesterday I added a section to human resource management system entitled Employee Experience Platform. This has since been removed and I wondered why? Prue535 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits rejected on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training"

Hi,

I edited this page, on the section of "Occupational skills training" and it was rejected. I have been a fan of Wikipedia for over a decade, and donated to Wikipedia many times. Now, is this immediate rejection a new policy? I added a source to my text from an article from a well-known journal in ergonomics. It was a comprehensive literature review as suggested by Wikipedia to include literature reviews. Why was it rejected?

14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Zarathustra55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarathustra55 (talk • contribs)