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!

reverted / deleted my edit

Hi, I see you reverted/deleted a section that I added to AI, artificial intelligence? I'm simply adding in some sales functionality related to AI. It's a valid function of AI and is being used in the industry by multiple CRM companies. Browardauthor (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It was unsourced. Per WP:V / WP:RS, unsourced content will be deleted. If you've got a reliable source that can support this (something like an academic textbook or a journal article), please feel free to rewrite it to match the source and re-add. Note that what vendors might or might not be using it is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for the quick response. I'll get the sources. Browardauthor (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

forgive me if I ask too many questions.

I do have a great source, https://people.ai/blog/6-ways-companies-are-using-ai-for-sales-to-become-more-efficient/#:~:text=in%20sales%20first.-,What%20Is%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20In%20Sales%3F,efficiently%20and%20close%20more%20deals.

I just wanted to make sure it was a good enough article. Browardauthor (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. With few exceptions (which do not apply here) blog posts are not acceptible sources on Wikipedia. Especially not blog posts like that one - which are really advertising material for a company that is trying to sell a product. If you have more questions about sourcing or Wikipedia in general, WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is τλ:δρ

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is τλ:δρ. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Home Care In the United States

Hello,

I am a home care expert without a commercial interest, and I decided to make some edits to the page. In my initial round of edits, I cited sources and added references to make robust changes that were supported by government and established industry organizations. Those edits were removed due to "irrelevant" external links, which would be factually incorrect. Because the original version was restored for that reason, I went back through and added my edits without the links and those edits were removed because the information I added wasn't supported by references or links, so quite frankly, I'm at a loss for words. I'm simply trying to help families make an informed decision and can't win whether you spit facts (with resources) or not.

Please advise,

thanks! JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the content you added was unsourced - you can't use your personal knowledge for writing here, everything must be based on reliable sources. You also added a list of commercial vendors, which isn't appropriate with or without external links. MrOllie (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I cited so many sources in the initial round of edits, but I'm sorry, you probably didn't see those as the version was instantly removed. Please continue to revert to the original version that contains a lot of misinformation. One I'd like to cite in particular is the wages for caregivers. The source is citing 2012 data, and I was trying to update that with 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics data (with a citation), and you took that down. You do realize that you can partially edit my version as well? You can help me out a little bit. JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the list of commercial vendors, the section was "Home health software." It's appropriate to let people know what software programs are out there, especially for new business owners, they need to know what their options are. And now if I wanted to add my edits back, I'd have to start all over in grabbing the links and references. What a waste of time. JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You added one citation, which did not cover most of the added content, and you added a set of inline external links, which simply isn't done on Wikipedia. You also added a few mentions of organizations with citation-formatted stuff that was really just a link to their home page. Wikipedia isn't a link directory, don't do that. Wikipedia also isn't a catalog, don't list commercial software here. Wikipedia is not designed to be a buying guide for new business owners, so the fact that they can't find their software options here is actually a good thing. Are you associated in any way with any of those companies? If so please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the wage information back with a citation, is that appropriate? JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, and wanted to clarify for my own account safety that I am in no way affiliated with any of those businesses. I am trying to help families make an informed decision when trying to find home care for a loved one. Thanks! JenniferLagemann (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for reversion of edits?

Hi, I see you reverted/deleted an edit to biographical page on Saurabh Bagchi. This had mention of cybersecurity of critical infrastructures and referred to a third-party source from a reputed publication that covers government and cybersecurity regulation.

https://www.govinfosecurity.com/should-public-utilities-get-paid-to-secure-power-grid-a-20216

Can I request you to allow this addition?

Techphile (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles that quote a person are not independent biographies of that person. What is your connection to Bagchi? Nearly all of your Wikipedia activity revolves around this person. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles that represent scientific work done by a person is valid for a person's Wikipedia entry. I am going to put that material back there.

There are many single purpose editors on Wikipedia. So I hope that is not reason enough to reject my objective edits. Techphile (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)