Jump to content

User talk:MrOllie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:MrOllie/Archive 17) (bot
→‎Chatbot: new section
Tags: Reverted New topic
Line 36: Line 36:
:Notability has an established meaning on Wikipedia, which you can find at [[WP:N]]. We generally do not build lists of scholars that do not meet that standard. We also do not tend to write about neologisms that have not reached (very) wide use in unaffiliated sources. Are you associated with one or more of these authors in some way? [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie#top|talk]]) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:Notability has an established meaning on Wikipedia, which you can find at [[WP:N]]. We generally do not build lists of scholars that do not meet that standard. We also do not tend to write about neologisms that have not reached (very) wide use in unaffiliated sources. Are you associated with one or more of these authors in some way? [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie#top|talk]]) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, yes I realize that established meaning. I assumed the neologism, coined in 2010 by Marcel Danesi -- and the subject of dozens of articles, several special issues and edited volumes, and a handbook -- met this established meaning. I am not associated with or know the authors; simply a contributor to a related field in education that has drawn from these resources/theoretical frameworks in separate work. [[User:Dr. Sebeotic|Dr. Sebeotic]] ([[User talk:Dr. Sebeotic|talk]]) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, yes I realize that established meaning. I assumed the neologism, coined in 2010 by Marcel Danesi -- and the subject of dozens of articles, several special issues and edited volumes, and a handbook -- met this established meaning. I am not associated with or know the authors; simply a contributor to a related field in education that has drawn from these resources/theoretical frameworks in separate work. [[User:Dr. Sebeotic|Dr. Sebeotic]] ([[User talk:Dr. Sebeotic|talk]]) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

== Chatbot ==

Please explain the criteria you have used for the deletion of information from the page 'Chatbot'. There is certainly no conflict of interest and the source is from a valid publication. [[User:Todd Unctious|Todd Unctious]] ([[User talk:Todd Unctious|talk]]) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:39, 14 March 2023

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!

Bullwhip effect

Thank for checking my edits. You removed a reference to a peer-reviewed paper on demand smoothing, with a comment "Apparent COI". The sentence referencing the paper only contains what is mentioned in the article - please feel free to check the source and reinstate the edit. Thanks. Opsprof553 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting promotional edits to C-V2X (again)

I noticed that Cellular V2X is full of unprofessional, unencyclopedic marketing fluff, promotional nonsense, puffery, and the like, all added by one user. I also saw that you reverted three of this same user's edits back in November. (Thank you for that.) After your revert, though, they added it all back in a minute later, and I think the same person logged back in later that same day from an anonymous IP and added more junk. I wanted to add the Advert template to the article but thought that I would first give you the opportunity to (once again) revert their edits. SixSix (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. MrOllie (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the Ms. Gsptlsnz page

I'm so sorry about editing the page like that. I thought Comic Vine is an appropriate link. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same mistakes about external links. You were also damaging the article by changing it in ways that did not match the cited sources (but added incorrect spellings). Your editing is making Wikipedia worse, and you must stop. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Comic Vine and how could I add incorrect spellings? Sundropie (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to continue answering your repetitive questions (see WP:IDHT). You have claimed to understand the policies and guidelines several times before. You were either lying then, or you are deliberately violating the guidelines. Which is it? MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete my talk page posts again. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edusemiotics as notable subfield of semiotics

In adding edusemiotics as a subfield of semiotics, I tried to refer to the main authors in this field, highlighting the work of founders Inna Semetsky and Andrew Stables, all major academic publications with significant citations. Can you explain why you question the notoriety of these sources and contributors? In my estimation, the range of volumes and review articles on edusemiotics suggests the need for this entry (see: Stables & Semetsky, 2015; Semetsky, 2016 (ed.); Deely & Semetsky, 2017) Dr. Sebeotic (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has an established meaning on Wikipedia, which you can find at WP:N. We generally do not build lists of scholars that do not meet that standard. We also do not tend to write about neologisms that have not reached (very) wide use in unaffiliated sources. Are you associated with one or more of these authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I realize that established meaning. I assumed the neologism, coined in 2010 by Marcel Danesi -- and the subject of dozens of articles, several special issues and edited volumes, and a handbook -- met this established meaning. I am not associated with or know the authors; simply a contributor to a related field in education that has drawn from these resources/theoretical frameworks in separate work. Dr. Sebeotic (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbot

Please explain the criteria you have used for the deletion of information from the page 'Chatbot'. There is certainly no conflict of interest and the source is from a valid publication. Todd Unctious (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]