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!

Regarding reverting edits (External Links) of Mechanical Engineering page.

Hey MrOllie, Thank you so much for responding to my edits titled " Industry Oriented Mechanical Engineering Blog". I respect Wikipedia guidelines and will go by your suggestions. But the whole point of adding the link in the mechanical engineering page is to let users learn more about practical mechanical engineering rather than what we learned from college. Practical mechanical engineering is way different than the theoretical engineering and the link has many articles on that. My thought is that the blog would more value for Wikipedia readers to learn practical engineering.

But once again, I respect your decision and if you feel that the link should not be there, then I am fine with this. But I would appreciate if you reconsider the reason that I mentioned.

Thanks Bytegeeky (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO point 11. Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs, with very limited exceptions. - MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits (Citation Link) of Business process re-engineering page.

Thank You MrOllie, I respect Wikipedia guidelines and I updated only natural informative proper resources in the citation section. But its revert, can you please guide me, how can i add an informational and natural [citation needed] source. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartomeu bernat (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't add linkspam from multiple accounts, for starters. - MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author) edits

This page currently refers to a source that has been discredited: Dittrich, Luke (August 2013). "The Prophet: An Investigation of Eben ALexander, Author of the Blockbuster "Proof of Heaven"". Esquire. All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. At a minimum, Wikipedia readers should be aware of the serious flaws in it elucidated by the Robert Mays article. Most importantly, this article includes links to primary source references, like the video of Alexander and the Dalai Lama, that readers can check for themselves, supporting the factual nature of its conclusions. Wikipedia users deserve this access to primary source material to make up their own minds. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause"-- these are the facts to be clarified by dismissing the Dittrich article.

The evidence discrediting Dittrich comes from this article: Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts. Available from: The article is detailed and worth reading to clarify this claim. Here is their conclusion: "To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures: failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama). And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused."

Dittrich was previously an award-winning journalist, yet this Esquire piece is one of the last major articles published by him. His curious disappearance is likely related to the publishing industry being aware of his inability to write factual articles without sensationalizing them through distortions of fact. Wikipedia users should be aware of these facts about Dittrich, if you insist on keeping the reference in the article.

Another example of Dittrich's unreliability concerns the criticism he received after posting an excerpt of his book Patient HM in the New York Times. Over 200 scientists related to MIT sent the following article concerning his distortion of facts: Please let me know if you have other questions about this request for a more factual accounting of the subject. Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case. Thanks for your editorial efforts to improve Wikipedia.Ealexander3 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The Esquire source has not been discredited, as has been explained to you a few times now (most recently in the two BLP Noticeboard discussions you opened). - MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Mays article makes excellent points criticizing Dittrich's sensationalist writing (for Esquire's experiment with a $1.99 paywall, no less, all in an attempt to profit from the distortions of such sensational writing in trying to debunk a book that was #2 for the year 2013 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, published in over 40 languages). Wikipedia users should not be fooled by Dittrich's fiction - they can make up their own minds, given that Mays includes primary source links, like the Alexander-Dalai Lama video, that completely rebuts Dittrich's erroneous interpretation of the events. In the interest of getting closer to truth, Wikipedia should provide the Mays information to them - let them make up their own minds based on all of the facts, not just a one-sided, corrupt version. Thanks for your attention and time.Ealexander3 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to have this debate again on my talk page, this has been explained at length in the noticeboard discussions. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian porcelain

The problem with this stuff is not that it has an unreliable source, in which case you should have just tagged it (it seems accurate enough in fact), but that it is a cut n'paste copyvio from the website reffed at the end. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the username it seems likely the user posting it did have the ability to license it to us. (But of course we might not want it either way) - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting contribution

Sir. We're still awaiting for your kind answer as to why Peiris Dear's contribution was deleted, apparently with no good reason. We would also appreciate if you enlighten us on how to improve that contribution, above all considering that it was fundamental for understanding the topic. Yours Peiris Dear (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edit broke the rendering of the page, and added a duplicitive definition with no real justification for why a second definition was needed, based on a primary source - which appeared to be undue weight. Is the author you are citing related to the 'collective' of researchers referenced on your user page? If so, see WP:COI. In any case, usernames must not be shared so all members of your group should register individual accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...I have added more references than the previously deleted version and the article has more added material also. The mistakes have been improved from the previous article --YashPratap1912(CONT.) 12:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

New message from YashPratap1912

Hello, MrOllie. You have new messages at Talk:Shamsher Singh (Indian Journalist).
Message added 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my response YashPratap1912(CONT.) 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits and Citations Chris Piche

Deletion of proper cited Legal Public Database sources and legal cases which are in context of the original article where legal cases are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't cite articles (especially BLPs) to 'Legal Public Database sources'. You were also cutting and pasting from those sources, which is a copyright violation / plagiarism. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your response shows ignorance of...

1. BLP's and Wiki's BLP's terms allow Lawsuits to be added, cited and copied as a reference...

(i) Neutral point of view (NPOV) - You revert to a NON Neutral (Diannaa whose edits suggest a paid contributor) version which violates Wiki's terms on Non Neutral BLP's therefore you are in violation,

(ii) Verifiability (V) - You removed a properly cited and allowable source as per wiki's description the Official Law Publication "Canlii" - Canlii - a verifiable source used by courts - Public accessible therefore a PUBLIC RECORD - whose Terms EXPLICITLY ALLOW Copying and Linking as the Source! This in itself makes you a violator of wiki's terms of use.

(iii) Wiki's terms/publishing standards specifically for Law Suits and legal citations allow me to add this complying with Wiki's "Reporter" citation for Legal citations- "The abbreviated term for whatever reporter is being referenced; i.e., "U.S." for the U.S. Supreme Court's "United States Reports". Important: "reporter" in this context means an official law publication, not a journalist. This presently cannot be specified as work, which is inconsistent with other citation templates. Do not wikilink."

Your ignorance basic copyright law (you never verified the source just deleted it making you in violation of wiki terms) - it is not a "copyright violation" nor is it 'plagiarism" which is Defamatory. What was cited was Canlii in "reporter" context as described by wiki for legal citations (see above) - a Legal Public Database - whose terms explicitly ALLOW citation and copying. See this direct from Canlii - a Legal Public Database...

"...legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document."

Since you insist improperly on being the sole arbiter Judge, Jury and Executioner on this I may have to take this up the chain in wiki "MrOllie" LOL. DragonFireWar (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just about everything you just said is incorrect. I suggest you read all those policies you're quoting again. If you feel the need to 'take this up the chain', WP:ANI is where, but I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

False your statement that a properly cited Official Legal source is "Copyright Violation" is patently False. Furthermore CURRENT BLP's on WIKI especially of high profile individuals HAVE THE SAME LEGAL COPY IN THEIR BLP's across WIKI making your claims FALSE showing that you have zero clue about Legal Citations and Copyright law as is pertains to Legal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs)

1) Copy and pasting is plagarism either way. You must write in your own words. And 2) On Wikipedia we do not make negative statements about biography subjects based on primary sources. Direct any further discussion about this to the admin noticeboards or to the article's talk page where other users can weigh in, this doesn't belong on my user talk. It is impossible to evaluate your claims about other articles without specifics, but in general if you have found policy violations on other articles that is a reason to fix those articles, not to add more primary sourced junk. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

FALSE - Whose "We" do you own Wiki or are you Wiki's Official Spokesperson? LOL

Wiki specifically allows Primary Legal sources to be copied and/or cited and yes in a BLP there are multiple CURRENT High Profile BLP's on Wiki with these types of Legal citations and Copies of a Legal Summary! The President his ex-Lawyer and many many others.

It is not and has never been an "article" is was a direct legal citation allowed by both the Primary Legal Source and Wiki. You appear to be an uninformed wiki editor attempting to the sole arbiter and final decision maker as if you own wiki. I'll note Journalist asking you questions about why their contributions are being deleted by you as well on other wiki pages.

You failed to delete the other Law suit cited in the BLP but saw fit to delete the ones I added which shows your bias and/or ignorance.

Facts are facts (From Wiki's BLP Guidelines Page :) If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject.

Chetniks

The historians that accept their crimes as genocide are just Croats and Bosniaks, or have some of their ancestry. They did war crimes of course, ethnic cleansing, massacres, but you can not call it as genocide, even the headline is not referring to genocide. Their crimes targeted Croats and Bosniaks that supported and that were during that time in the Ustase. Ustase crimes were 100% genocidal, even foreign historians are referring to them as genocidal. To put the word genocide with chetniks is not really accurate, they were killing muslims and Croats, that during that time did worse crimes than nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kradja333 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)