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!

Why did you revert my edit on JK Rowling politics?

My edit made the lead more factually accurate. 2001:569:7E69:DF00:7CEC:4090:DE5B:618E (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOR MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting my edits

Please don't keep reverting my edits on Finnish Generals. Dodecahedronclass (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the above user for 24 hours for violation 3RR. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: This is almost certainly the same person as indef blocked User:Karajan1488 MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. SPI filed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Tulip

The edits you removed were actually a pretty big copyright violation. That text was word for word from the reference 13 feb provided. They did the same thing at LED lamp and it somehow went unnoticed even though they have racked up warnings about copyright. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What to do about ruined RfC?

User:MrOllie has made substantial edits to the lead of this page while that same lead is under discussion in an RfC he is currently participating in. This has made the RfC untenable; not only have other participants who were already involved said that they will no longer participate if the lead keeps getting changed, but anyone new will not easily be able to judge what was originally under discussion. I have asked MrOllie to revert their edits, just above, and he has refused.

What makes the edits especially disruptive is that the MrOllie has added a new statement that purports to make claims about the state of academic literature based on one source that is NOT a systematic review paper that would qualify under WP:RS in this circumstance.There are 400 peer-reviewed papers on the opposite side of this author. A discussion of the merits of substantially changing the content of the lead should be happening in the RfC, not with unilateral edits.

Also, since I know MrOllie will make an issue of it, I want to point out that further down in the page, in the body of the article, I removed unsourced statements about medical treatments, which I thought would be completely uncontroversial and thus allowed under WP:COIU. (I have declared what I think is a weak COI - this page is about a widely published academic theory and I work for an institute that studies the theory.) MrOllie restored the lengthy paragraphs I removed - even though they obviously fail WP:MEDRS (and coatracking, as the page is about an academic theory concerning basic neurobiology, not medical treatments). Since MrOllie has objected, it’s now a contentious matter under COIU and I won’t edit these paragraphs again. I’ll just request to have them removed through a COI edit request.

At this point, I don’t know what to do about the RfC itself, since the disruptive behavior of MrOllie has derailed the discussion. I don’t want to post it again and start everything over. Maybe it should be restored to its original condition and the RfC relisted? Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My user talk page is not a place to talk about me or register third person complaints. If you really want to pursue this, take it to WP:ANI, but read WP:BOOMERANG first. If you keep this up I will probably request that you be topic banned since you are obviously WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Foreskin. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)