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!

Question on primary sources

At Talk:Race and intelligence, you said Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, we generally do not report on single studies. I recently tried in vain to convince two editors that a study performed in hospitals of Mexico City is a primary source (Talk:White_Latin_Americans#Mongolian_spot). The examples given at WP:PSTS don't mention biological, genetical or medical studies, although for me it seems clear that they are primary sources. So my question is: Do you know of some old RfC or something like that which puts it more clearly? Or do you have an idea where I could start such an RfC ? Thanks in advance, Rsk6400 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Biomedical sourcing issues are expanded upon at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks a lot. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Restic removed from list of open source backup software

Why did you remove restic? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_backup_software&type=revision&diff=1061410714&oldid=1061410427 Was that accidental? Rotiro (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a list of software with a Wikipedia article. restic has no article. MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says "This is a list of notable backup software ..." Why is having a wikipedia article a requirement? Backup software can be notable without having a wikipedia article. Restic is quite popular and widely used, it has > 15K github stars, more than many others in the list. Rotiro (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what notable means on Wikipedia. Github stars and other gameable social media metrics have no bearing on notability as it is defined here. Wikipedia:Write the article first is a good explanation. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing example for matrix multiplication because it is "original research"

Hi MrOllie, you removed my example for matrix multiplication as "original research". While this example is original itself, the basic calculation and the way of understanding matrices that way is not original at all - this is common in data science. Removing such an entry looks like removing an example for multiplications like "a farmer has three apples, how many apples does another farme have, if he has three times as many" as original research. If that would be true, any example that is not from a textbook would be original research. Could you consider readding my addition, because an intuitive explanation for matrix multiplication is really missing on that page in my humble oppinion! Kind regards, Dr. Kling — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepKling (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your addition contained numerous unsourced claims and betrays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is written and edited. We can't add your original 'intuitive explanation', everything added to Wikipedia must be traceable to a reliable source, this is required by two of our fundamental policies (WP:NOR and WP:V) and we can't simply ignore them. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to take it to the edit warring page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#MrOllie_reported_by_User%3AStix1776_%28Result%3A_%29

I really tried asking you guys if there was a dispute resolution. Stix1776 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think escalating this is going to go the way you seem to think it will. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've requested dispute resolution 4 times. I'm at a loss as to why you think it's ok to keep edits with obvious problems. Stix1776 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I keep telling you to file whatever noticeboard discussion or RFC you like, and you don't do it. Also, as have you have seen on the article talk page, I do not agree that there are obvious problems. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom

@MrOllie: {{subst:arbcom notice|Inappropriate censorship of contribution to page entitled "God"}}. Djhbrown (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. - MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The case request has been removed on confirmation from an arbitrator. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Writing about own work.

@MrOllie: Thank you, got it. Yes, i wanted to write about the work I did. Interpreting the guidelines, I think it is permitted as long as it is not considered excessive. I was careful to keep a neutral style. I will add review articles, and use {{requestedit}} if I want to cite my own work. Alexander M. Wolf Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. An example of 'excessive' might be adding a whole subsection on your work to several articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: OK. I will use secondary sources, or wait until they become available. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Another question for clarification: If I use the >requestedit< process, as you suggested for people with a COI, is the preference for secondary (review) articles/sources dominant over approval by neutral reviewers? The guideline say that secondary sources "should" be used, but it isn't clear if this is an absolute necessity or not. I saw that you also removed an edit I made in December 2021, which was corrected by another review (Boghog). Maybe he didn't see the COI, but the COI is anyway no impediment to editing, if it is clear and I go through the appropriate approval process. If you say several subsections is excessive, ok, but the single subsection from December too? I just wanted to know whether it makes sense to go through the requestedit process as you suggested. I don't want to waste other people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander M. Wolf (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This 'not excessive' language is trying to cover expert editors we have who edit lots of articles, and they'll cite themselves occasionally (like, 10-25% or less of the articles they touch). The Wikipedia community isn't all that enthusiastic about editors who will cite themselves on every article they edit. The primary vs. secondary concerns are specific to medicine, which has more stringent sourcing requirements than most topic areas on Wikipedia. Please read WP:MEDRS thoroughly if you haven't yet. Articles on medicine or human biology almost never cite individual studies or research papers that present theories. Wikipedia largely wants no part of the 'cutting edge' of medicine - we want to cover old, boring settled science, the kind of stuff that almost everybody in the field knows about and agrees with. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. That's maybe not what I wanted to hear, but it is reasonable and makes sense. After all, it is Wikipedia The Free >Encyclopedia<, not Wikipedia where everybody can write his opinion just because it once managed to pass the (now often completely dysfunctional) peer review process. I'll work on improving existing articles then and wait for my own things to become sufficiently "old, boring & settled" to pass WP:MEDRS criteria. I hope it doesn't take decades. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOlie

Hi there, hope you are fine and doing good. Really sorry if you felt I was spamming. Actually, I am the founder of sublimationhome.com it is an online site that is getting authority in the sublimation industry. We are focusing on quality content and research-based content(You can visit the site and see yourself as well).

The purpose I paste my link in the reference section was to help the user if they need any information about sublimation. Yes, I edited multiple times because it was showing me an error and pasting the link in the wrong format that can impact badly on the user.

I hope I cleared myself and you understand my opinion. Best Regards, Sublimation Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan mehmood 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't add your own site to Wikipedia again, please. If you keep it up it will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may damage your SEO efforts. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

your edit reason is false and defending original research

On Goji berries, You had claimed that the Given sources stated that (as of 2018, there are no clinical benefits found from Goji berries).

Except the given sources doesn't say that at all. Did you even read the dates of the sources. They are from 2007 and 2013. How can they make that claim if none of them is even from 2018. It's original research and not a sourced statement And why I removed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068098575

49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)