User talk:Ollie231213

Ollie231213, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ollie231213! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

just a hint

You might not have noticed, but Said Akl was born in 1912, not 1911. A quick search at google books reveals that he apparently celebrated his 100th birthday when entering the 100th year, which is far from uncommon in Asia an Arabia. I see that you included persons whether or not there is an article about them. So you might also add Yang Jingnian (zh), professor of economics.--Xquenda (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another one: Cecilia Seghizzi, born 5 September 1908, Italian composer and painter.--Xquenda (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wolfgang Fränkel

What about Wolfgang Fränkel, the Attorney General of Germany? [1] He should be old enough for the alltime List.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

Ollie231213 23:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, what exactly is wrong with my page?

Ollie231213 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FAKEARTICLE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And how exactly do you determine whether a user page "looks like an article"?

I simply maintain lists that are more extensive than those featured on main Wikipedia articles and include further information which some people may find interesting/useful.

Why is it an issue if I continue to do so?

Ollie231213 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm DerbyCountyinNZ. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Misao Okawa because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Removal of deletion discussion notice

Please don't remove a deletion discussion notice from a page while the discussion is still in progress, as you did at User:DHanson317. You must have failed to see that the notice said "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." It is a good idea to carefully read any notice you are considering removing, before doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

draft in userspace

Hi Ollie231213. Your main userspace contains a draft/copy of an article. Per WP:HUD this should go in a user subpage. WP:FAKEARTICLE also applies. – JBarta (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at your userspace history, you've had this pseudo article going from the moment you created your userpage almost a year ago. I also see this issue has been brought to your attention a few times. I'm tempted to seek deletion immediately on the grounds of WP:FAKEARTICLE, but am willing to hear from you first explaining why this has not been moved/merged to article space long ago and worked on there by the entire community. – JBarta (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,

This so-called "pseudo article" exists in the manner that it does for several reasons:

1. When I first joined Wikipedia I noticed that many people on Wikipedia used their user page for keeping lists of data and similar things. I therefore chose to keep lists of notable centenarians on my userpage, because Wikipedia has the benefit of auto-updating ages.

2. My list of "oldest living notable people" contains people who have Wikipedia articles in ANY language, not just in English.

3. I have absolutely no idea what a "user subspace" is. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia.

4. The above disagreement with DerbyCountyinNZ was not resolved.

So, maybe you could give me some direction in how to relocate the tables on my page, rather than just "seeking deletion immediately", which is NOT productive and of no help to anyone.

Regards,

Ollie231213 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you made any attempts to incorporate this material into existing articles or create a new article with it? If so, what were the results? – JBarta (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean?

If I find a 100th birthday report for a notable person with an English Wiki article, I will add them to List of living centenarians. But I have not created a new article.

Ollie231213 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean we're here to create an encyclopedia. We all work together creating and improving encyclopedic articles. Those articles are in the article space. Your effort is in the user space... not part of the encyclopedia and not subject to the same scrutiny by other editors that all other articles are subject to. Basically you are engaged in a personal hobby using Wikipedia as a web host.

Even if you were to move the material to user subspace, it would have to be a temporary thing with you actively moving material to article space. User space can be used for article drafts, but it's not a permanent parking spot for material that looks like an article.

The English Wikipedia has many age related articles. I would suggest that you start by going through your list line by line merging anything unique into existing articles and removing what is mere duplication, then we'll examine what's left. Is there any reason why you cannot or will not do this? – JBarta (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I do contribute to longevity-related articles as well as keep these lists on my user page. It's not as if I am purely focussing on my own page.

I look at web host and I see this:

"Personal web pages: Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia."

Why is the content on my page not relevant? And what makes the content on your page relevant?

When you say I should "go through my list line by line, merging anything unique into existing articles and removing what is mere duplication", what exactly do you mean? I could not add centenarians with say, a German Wikipedia article in to the English List of living centenarians article because it would be removed.

One more point I would like to add about "working together": I feel that many more experienced Wikipedians do not work effectively with those who are less experienced. For example, take this recent discussion about the proposed deletion of another user page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DHanson317

All I was trying to do was make reasonable, logical points - but what ended up happening was that I got bombarded by users who were throwing Wikipedia guidelines at me, without giving a decent explanation as to why they disagreed with me. I have often felt that some users have become a little obsessed with power and superiority. Some are more worried about following every guideline to the letter than acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. For example, look at this discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misao_Okawa#Oldest_.22Asian.22_person.

Unfortunately, at times I don't like the way that Wikipedia is run. I created the lists on my user page with the intention to create lists of the oldest notable people (both living and all time), which other people could look at if they wanted. The reason I did not add them to a main article on Wikipedia is because I thought that they would get taken down, because a user like Derby would object to various things, such as including people without a Wiki article.

I hope you can see why I am a little frustrated.

Regards,

Ollie231213 23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is frustrating. Yes indeed. Sometimes it seems like the whole place would be better off with all those other editors gone. But that's how the process works. That's a part of being a Wikipedia editor... editing articles WITH other editors and all too often those editors disagreeing with you. The solution however is not to develop your own personal article in private. The solution is working towards consensus.

You also mention guidelines. Guidelines can be annoying, but without them, there would be complete disorder with everyone doing whatever they want. Not good. Learning about guidelines and working within them is as much a responsibility of a Wikipedia editor as editing articles.

You also mention that some material probably wouldn't be accepted into articles by other editors. That takes us back to consensus. If you can't get a consensus to insert a bit of information into an article, then it can't be inserted. That's how the process works. And again, that doesn't mean you should then set up your own preferred version of the article in your userspace. The guidelines are pretty clear about that.

Part of being a Wikipedia editor is accepting that sometimes you don't get to do what you think is best.

Now, back to the question. Have you accepted that the material should be merged/deleted as I suggested above? – JBarta (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And here is the problem with an encylopedia that "anyone can edit". Just because consensus has been reached does NOT mean that the best action has been taken. What if you have ten "normal" people disagreeing with an expert? Is it most important to listen to the majority, or the person that knows what they're talking about?

In response to your question: I would prefer to do anything that would not result in me losing all of the content which I put a lot of work in to creating. I will raise the issue of notable centenarians with non-English articles on Talk:List of living centenarians.

One reason for creating this list was so that I could effectively take all the "living centenarians" lists from different language Wikipedias and put them all together.

Now, please answer my questions:

1. Why is the content on my page not relevant? 2. Why is the content on your page acceptable? 3. Can I transfer the content to a page like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deaths_in_2013/My_OR_stuff

Ollie231213 11:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

1) Relevancy is not the issue. That it violates Wikipedia policy is the issue. You may have created the greatest content mortal man has ever seen. But you still cannot maintain it as you have on a Wikipedia userpage.

2) My userpage does not violate Wikipedia policy.

3) No, that userpage violates Wikipedia policy as well.

Now, quite honestly you are trying my patience with endless argument. As I said, it is your responsibility to learn and follow Wikipedia guidelines. I've been patient and tried to guide you towards fixing the problem. You're making me wonder if I've wasted my time. The material must be merged and/or deleted. A third option is available to you that will retain all your content and is fairly easy to do... remove the material completely, hire your own web host and upload it there.

Absent a clear signal from you that you're actively bringing your userspace into compliance as suggested, I'm going to nominate it for deletion. – JBarta (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm dreadfully sorry that I'm trying your patience but since I put in a lot of work in to creating the content, I am NOT happy that I am now being forced to remove it all. I was under the illusion that what I have been doing is fine because other people had maintained similar content for SEVERAL YEARS without any campaign to delete them, such as Dhanson317.

I have already had someone back up my suggestion on Talk:List of living centenarians, so at least let me wait to see if we can gain consensus on my idea, because I could then merge my stuff in to that.

Ollie231213 13:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will back off for a while and let you get to work. (Regarding what other people have done, you might find WP:OSE useful.) – JBarta (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Even I can't get consensus, I would at least like some time to copy all the data to somewhere else, eg. a spreadsheet.

Ollie231213 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, at least one user is supportive of such an addition, and I don't see any problem either (other than possibly notability issues). I think you should reply to Michael Bednarek saying you going to go ahead and make some additions. Then do so. If other editors remove your additions, take it to article talk and try to work out the problem. And remember, working with editors who disagree with you can be frustrating... sometimes downright infuriating. Be patient, and make your arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines... not based on your anger and frustration. WP:DISPUTE might also be useful to you. – JBarta (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will do. Thank you for your understanding. I am here with the aim of improving Wikipedia, not to fight with other users and ignore guidelines. I just feel that sometimes, the rules need to be bent slightly. Not doing so can be detrimental to the article, and if a majority are more interested in sticking rigidly to the guidelines, then I see this is as a problem (see Talk:Misao Okawa). Sigh. Nothing much can be done about this, unfortunately.

Ollie231213 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ollie231213

User:Ollie231213, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ollie231213 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ollie231213 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ollie231213, yes, you have discussed this with me, and at the end of our conversation you indicated you were going to merge what you can and delete the rest. I can see you have made some effort to merge some information, but the situation is largely unchanged and you have attracted the attention of others. Here's the situation... almost certainly in a short amount of time (several days?) your userpage will be deleted. Before that happens you are welcome to copy the material and store it on your own personal computer. Then you may take as long as you wish to merge whatever you'd like into existing articles. And after this episode has passed, you should confine your article/list building to Wikipedia articles (new or existing). – JBarta (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

threading

Ollie, I really have to comment about your lack of threading in discussions. In a discussion thread, reply to a post by preceding your comments with colons (:) to indent your comment to the appropriate spot. Look at virtually any discussion thread (other than ones you have participated in) to see how this is done.When you comment without proper indentation, it makes the thread almost impossible to follow. Below is an example of threading (view source to see how it's done)....

Comment.

Reply to comment.

Further reply.

And even more reply.

Comment about something else.

Reply to something else.

It's a simple system actually. Please, for the sake of others trying to follow the discussion, use it.

Thanks. – JBarta (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Better? Ollie231213 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your post above is perfect. ;-) – JBarta (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GRG-related articles

I wanted to let you know that I know that you're looking to improve the encyclopaedia and that I also know that all of this deletion and reliable source/original research stuff seems to be coming out of nowhere and is overwhelming.

Believe it or not, I'm not deliberately setting out to make things difficult for you or the other GRG editors. Wikipedia has a veritable maze of policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the GRG members who edit here didn't know about these policies and so have been doing what they thought was right, which turned out not to be the same as what Wikipedia thinks is the right thing. Now we have a situation where, years later, all of this is coming to light and it's a huge bunch of stuff to deal with all at once. Honestly, I wish all of this had come up a long time ago, too, because there are so many articles affected and it's going to be a lot of (tedious) work to fix them.

Leaving all this alone isn't really an option, because once it's known that these problems exist, they can't be ignored. I hope we can work together instead of being at loggerheads. Ca2james (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that guidelines exist for a reason, and I understand why they are enforced. What is frustrating to me, however, is that these longevity-related articles have been run quite smoothly, by people who are knowledgeable in the field of supercentenarian "tracking". I don't think that contributors are unaware of the guidelines - rather, they are choosing to bend the rules with the intent of improving the encyclopaedia. Everyone involved in supercentenarian study knows that Tessaku Tominaga passed away in October... so, we add him to List of supercentenarians who died in 2014, even if there is no secondary source to back this up.

Verifiability is important, I agree... and really, I cannot present any further logically sound argument in favour of continuing running things the way we do. All I would say is that the encyclopaedia will become less accurate if this does not continue. This is why I've been trying persuade people to use common sense and sometimes bend the rules if necessary. It may not apply to article above, but it certainly does in other situations... see Talk:Misao Okawa#Oldest "Asian" person.

I am happy to collaborate with you as long as the changes made are constructive, rather than destructive. -- Ollie231213 14:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't just a guideline that can be bent or overlooked: it's one of the three core content policies, along with no original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. Knowledge you have of an event is considered original research on Wikipedia and is not acceptable as a reliable source. Because Wikipedia requires reliable sources, some of the information contained in the encyclopaedia is necessarily a bit out of date - that's the tradeoff being made. Waiting to add information until reliable sources are available may impact the short-term accuracy of that information but in the long term the accuracy is unaffected. Also, reporting a person's death isn't the same as saying that the sky is blue or that Japan is part of Asia. The biographies of living persons policy (which includes recently deceased persons) has even stricter sourcing requirements than for other subjects. The people in these tables are not public figures and policy says that we must exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. We can't just say that someone has died; we have to have proof in terms of reliable sources.

I am troubled by your statement that you and the other GRG editors are deliberately ignoring the verifiability and original research policies because to me those policies are intrinsic to the way Wikipedia works. I might be completely wrong about this interpretation so pinging Randykitty, The Blade of the Northern Lights, NE Ent, and Ricky81682 for guidance and advice. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james is absolutely correct on those policies. Not following them is highly disruptive. Note that editors who habitually flaunt these policies can be blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't say for sure what the mindsets of other editors are. Some people may not be aware of these policies. But regardless, people are only concerned with improving the accuracy of the articles. To call it "disruptive" is misleading. -- Ollie231213 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is only disruptive if they would persist after being made aware of the policies. At least for you, you are now aware, perhaps some of the others, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been following the discussions on the project talk page (having ended up there after reading one of the articles in the scope of the project), and I have a question for everyone: what is GRG? (I can tell from context it is an organization.) What are some reliable, secondary sources I could look up to find out more about the organization and how it operates? What are some general published sources outside of Wikipedia that cite that organization for its findings? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please allow me to renew my question here. What reliable, published (not self-published) sources may a reader turn to for information about the Gerontology Research Group and for findings about persons of unusually old age? (I'm especially referring to the kind of sources that are identified in the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medical claims. I'd really like to know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@ WeijiBaikeBianji - I'll try and get back to you later. -- Ollie231213 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@ WeijiBaikeBianji - The GRG's publications have frequently featured in Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Mary Ann Liebert that covers research on rejuvenation and biogerontology. See here. There are also reliable sources for the GRG in areas that you might not first suspect - here, for example. Furthermore, the GRG is recognised as a leading authority on supercentenarian verification by Guinness World Records, and if you do a Google search for supercentenarian-related articles, the GRG is referenced very often. Please see here, here, here, and here for a few examples. Cheers -- Ollie231213 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah, Rejuvenation Research. Why not then just build Wikipedia articles from sources of that nature, rather than using Wikipedia as a place of first publication of GRG preliminary findings, contrary to the statement of what Wikipedia is not? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say "rather than using Wikipedia as a place of first publication of GRG preliminary findings"? -- Ollie231213 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Connie Galea oldest woman ever from Malta?

Hi. Do you know who is oldest verified person ever from Malta? There has been several reports about Maltese centenarians between 102-106 in last years. I've read that oldest woman ever from Malta was Connie Galea who passed away in 2000 at the age of 109. I think that Malta should be added from Oldest people by Nation if possible? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of living centenarians page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Ollie231213 - along with my other editing, I work on conflict of interest issues here in WP. You work on GRG related articles here in Wikipedia and advocate that Wikipedia should rely on the work of that group. I don't see anywhere, that you have made a statement of whether you are part of that group. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the GRG? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk about that a bit. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not part of the group, I just have a good understanding of what it is and how it works. But let me make it clear that I'm not advocating that Wikipedia should rely specifically on this source - I'm just advocating that Wikipedia relies on a trustworthy body that deals with age verification. That could be any reputable organisation similar to the GRG. It just so happens, however, that there simply isn't any other such body. My goal is to make sure that potentially fraudulent longevity claimants are not confused with people whose ages are verifiably genuine, but this seems to often be confused with "promoting" the GRG (which is a nonprofit organisation by the way). Ollie231213 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. OK, advocacy in WP generally arises from two sources - an actual connection (e.g. being a member of the group) or being a "fan". I take it you are the latter yes? Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the word but yes I suppose that's correct. Ollie231213 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I hear you - I put it in quotes on purpose. I didn't respond to your note about nonprofits. My COI work generally is prompted when I see promotional editing or other kinds of advocacy, which leads me to open discussions like this with the editor doing that. i have conversations like this all the time. Around half the time, the folks promoting/advocating are doing so on behalf of a nonprofit, and of those, most often they are overtly doing PR for that organization. Less frequently, they are "fans". For-profit advocacy is just a subset of the larger issue of advocacy; the "nonprofit" aspect is irrelevant - promotional editing and advocacy are what they are, and generally they distort Wikipedia.

But I hear where you are coming from on this age verification thing - there is probably an enormous amount of baloney out there about that and I hear you, that GRG is very useful. In many ways you are like other science-based editors here who want to be very sure that what Wikipedia says is accurate. But my sense is that you are going to have a very uphill battle, arguing that WP should rely only on GRG for age verification.... Anyway.... Thank you again for talking with me! Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou, finally someone sympathises with me! Ollie231213 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do understand. I hope you understand that advocacy sets off all kinds of bells for other editors... Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Koto Okubo

Well it's been a few years anyways so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination). I don't know if there's consensus that just having been the world's oldest person overall is sufficient for notability (at the time she was the oldest woman in Asia and that wasn't sufficient) and I think we have another one on Australia so we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC at WOP talk page

Ollie231213, because you participated in the prior discussions regarding the table structures, I decided to start an RFC here. I think the discussion moved away from the table to the note option but I just want it fleshed out with more than the same people. The attempt at a neutral explanation is probably more mangled than understandable so perhaps you can explain it better but my overall understanding is that you want to make sure that names that aren't sourced by a "validating or verifying agency" (e.g. the GRG) are distinguished in some way (color, a separate column, a separate note or just don't include them at all). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

Repeated posts

In your posts on WT:WOP and elsewhere, your posts are repeatedly covering the same ground. For example, you keep bringing up newspapers with respect to reliable sources, implying that all newspapers are reliable sources for everything or they're reliable for nothing.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] You also keep bringing up the idea that validated entries have to be separated from non-validated entries and that fact has to be separated from fiction.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

You have also said that others, in particular Ricky81682, are making straw-man arguments when your points that all newspapers are reliable for everything (or nothing) and that validated cases have to be separated from non-validated are refuted.[20][21] Make no mistake: both of those points have been refuted.[22][23][24] Those are not straw-man arguments but arguments based in policy - and even suggestions on ways forward, in some cases.

I understand that you think that we're not getting what you're saying but we do, and we have responded to your points with arguments based in Wikipedia policy. These repeated posts aren't going to change anyone's mind and they're becoming disruptive, especially since they tend to be long. If you have something new to add or a different argument to make, by all means do that, but please stop going over this very-well-trodden ground. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"...your points that all newspapers are reliable for everything (or nothing)" ---> What does that mean and when did I say that? This is exactly what I mean. I've had to keep repeating myself because of comments like this and this. My latest comment was directed at Rob, as he may not have seen the other posts. What's more, you seem to keep changing your mind about a "validated by" column... so the discussions are going to be lengthy and I'm going to end up repeating myself, especially when I don't always understand what you're arguing in favour of. Are you in favour of leaving List of the verified oldest people as it is? What changes, if any, do you suggest making to articles like List of oldest living people?

But okay, fine, I've said all I need to say. Why don't we let other editors voice their opinions on this topic. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ollie, can you point to a particular individual listing that's at issue? I haven't added any names but if I do, then we're WP:BRD, and we can discuss them on a name-by-name basis. We can discuss whether the individual newspaper or other sources are appropriate. If it's a listing that "pending" by the GRG, that's more complicated but if it's "not verified" with something by the GRG explaining why they consider the claim as false, that's a reliable source disputing other reliable sources and we can weight them against each other (and I'd probably agree with you that the GRG would probably have more support). My problem is that the GRG just posts tables and removes listings without providing any explanation or reasoning (which is not particularly scientific to me). There's a reason I'm listing the articles about false claims at AFD, namely I don't want them here either but the fact that you make these demands and arguments while ignoring those pages makes it seem like you just want to argue for something else, not about newspapers as a source. Otherwise, on an abstract level, no I won't just "leave the pages alone" as there are other reliable sources that haven't been referenced. This is an abstraction that just takes up space and I agree with Ca2james that all sides have expressed their views: further repeating it does not resolve anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how we can do this on a "case by case basis". Why not have a more general set of guidelines? How are you going to determine if a newspaper report, for example, is reliable enough? And how do you avoid engaging in WP:OR? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OR is a content policy, which means that it applies only to text that's actually written into an article; it has nothing to do with selecting sources. Part of writing an encyclopaedia is to choose the best sources, and that's covered by WP:RS and its extensions (like WP:MEDRS). From WP:RSCONTEXT, which is part of WP:RS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. (emphasis in original). Because reliability is contextual, it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It is true that some sources are thought to be more or less reliable; for example, the Daily Mail and Breitbart tend to be unreliable and the New York Times and the BBC tend to be reliable. However, that's just a starting point because there are exceptions to those tendencies. Breitbart might be reliable for its own opinions, and the BBC might be unreliable for celebrity information. The point is that no matter whether we think something is reliable or unreliable in general, its reliability for a specific statement in a specific article must be evaluated. Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So how would you plan on evaluating the reliability of any given source when it comes to the birth date of a longevity claimant? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's always ok to ask at RSN whether a particular source is reliable for a person's birth date and age for the article in question. BTW did you read this comment of mine where I suggested that the project work with the community to develop a guideline that sets up a bar for reliability? It's clear, after all, that some publications (like small newspapers) are highly unlikely to be reliable sources for supercentenarian ages whereas others (like the New York Times or BBC or Time magazine) are much more likely to be reliable. It's just a thought. Ca2james (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your reply to Rob when I posted the above note. I have been waffling on the subject of whether to indicate validation status but have landed on a view, which I outlined here. I will of course work with the outcome of the RfC. Ca2james (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I already tried to have a discussion at RSN about this but it got immediately slammed as being "WP:POINTy disruption". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence WT:WOP. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. This is in reference to your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism. Ca2james (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gladys Hooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...

for your help correcting my errors.

Thanks also, more generally, for conducting yourself civilly. One of the most important markers of adulthood, as far as I'm concerned, is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I hope you'll consider broadening the scope of your work on Wikipedia. We need sane, civil editors across the board. David in DC (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please...

review and retract here. You've apparently mistaken me for someone else, four out of five times. David in DC (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@David in DC: I didn't mean to say that you had voted "delete" in every single one... I was talking about the group of them collectively. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/153.151.83.197, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Bury F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gillingham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement notice

I've made a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding your conduct at WOP articles and discussions. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Longevity, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Ollie, I've appreciated your edits. I would like to commend you, and also humbly suggest that at some point, no matter how unfair another editor may treat you, it is often better to just walk away. And never sink to their level. Again, thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work! Jacona (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou! I know, I'll try... -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Defender of science

	Or you could argue as a Pastafarian
	The moon is made of green cheese. No, it isn't. But we probably shouldn't take the bait. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Burton Albion F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gillingham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of personal attack.

Hi Ollie. I just wanted to let you know that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians‎, some of your comments were removed and labeled a personal attack. I restored your signature and added the "personal attack removed" template where the comment had been deleted. I hope you find this helpful, if not, feel free to edit it as you wish! Thanks! Jacona (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ollie, I just noticed this. It seems hypocritical and extreme, especially given the behavior of others in this matter. As far as positives go, it does underscore the need to remain civil, even when others seem unreasonable. I don't know much about arbitration and such, and it appears this one is closed. If another one comes up, please notify me so that I am able to comment. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou JaconaFrere. Yes, I completely agree it's ridiculous when I am actually trying to enforce Wikipedia policy by ensuring Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is reflective of scientific consensus and based on the most reliable sources. I will be appealing this topic ban. And since you mention it, there is another similar case here. You are right, however, that I could have been a bit more civil. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For your contributions to golf articles. Keep up the good work! themidget17 | babble 04:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

Your appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement has been declined. The topic ban remains in place with no modifications. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

[25] he does not understand this means not talking about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.51 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

24.114.41.51, this is not a violation of his topic ban. He's certainly allowed to discuss or talk about the subject; we don't censor speech like that. He was discussing it on a user talk page, not an article or article talk page involving longevity which is what the topic ban enforces. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, per my question on your Talk page, topic banned means that talking about the topic anywhere -including user pages - is a violation of the ban. 99.236.126.9 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Peterborough United F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Nichols. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ollie231213. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ollie231213!

Happy New Year!

Ollie231213,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Jacona (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pete Murray (DJ), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eileen Bennett (actress) (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eileen Bennett (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ollie231213. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Eileen Bennett (actress) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eileen Bennett (actress), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017–18 Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penalty kick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eileen Bennett (actress)

Hello, Ollie231213. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eileen Bennett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ollie231213 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’ve no idea what’s happened here but I want to categorically deny that this is a sockpuppet account. I haven’t even heard of this user before now. I’ve read through this discussion where the following reasons appear to have been given for why some administrators believed I was a sockpuppet of AH999/ChocolateRabbit etc: 1. “Both are fans of piping cities/FC, but in different contexts”. 2. “There are some behavioural similarities in talk page communication.” 3. “They share some similar edit summaries and patterns when it comes to reverting” 4. “The thing that I did find striking… is that both accounts were contributors to Deaths in 2017, and with increasing regularity to Deaths in 2018 from the Chocolate Rabbit account”. Please allow me to respond to these one-by-one: 1. My edits to football-related topics are primarily to do with Peterborough United F.C., the team that I support, and also to other teams in the same league (EFL League One), whereas “ChocolateRabbit” appears to focus more on individual Premier League players. Football is very popular and there’s a wide range of topics within it, so I don’t see how you can make a connection on this basis. 2. I’m not sure exactly why you think our talk page communication is similar – this isn’t very specific. 3. I don’t know exactly what you mean here either, since I don’t feel that I do anything particularly unusual when reverting edits that would make you think I was also someone else. 4. I’ve actually contributed to the “Deaths in…” articles since pre-2017 – see these edits from 2016: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. I also dispute that I’m editing the Deaths in 2018 article with any noticeably increasing “regularity”. I made an average of around four edits per month to these articles last year, compared to eight so far this year. However, you’ll notice that, for example, I made 16 edits to the article between May-June 2017 compared to just two in July-August. The admins who blocked me also said that, unlike the other accounts blocked, mine was “a tougher one”, so clearly they had some doubts and have recognised that there are differences between me and the blocked user. If it’s of any use (admins can see IP addresses, right?), I’m a university student, so I therefore make my edits mostly from two different locations (home address and term-time address). These two locations are in Northamptonshire, England (near Peterborough), and Nottingham, England. The last edit I made before being blocked was made in Northamptonshire, but I’m writing this to you now from Nottingham. Finally (and this surely is the most convincing bit of evidence I can offer), I’ve been editing Wikipedia since December 2013, but this account was only blocked in September 2015. How can you create a sockpuppet before the original account was blocked? Compare my account to ChocolateRabbit who only joined in June 2017. I don’t know what else I can say other than to reiterate that this is an error and I hope it can be rectified as soon as possible. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've went through all the evidence again and reviewed your unblock request and compared them to the other unblock requests. While I think it is very odd that there are six accounts on the same range with the same focus, the case you presented here was more well put together than any of the other unblock requests previously submitted by the user, raising enough doubt that you are the same person that I'm not comfortable with the block remaining. I've unblocked the account based on the assumption of good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• For the reviewing admin UTRS appeal #20531 might be helpful. This is a relatively narrow range that had 6 accounts on it where the main focus was football and the two most active accounts also edited the deaths in years list. As I said at the SPI and as GAB also noted, this is stretching the limits of AGF. There are differences, but enough similarities that I felt comfortable blocking when an admin clerk agreed with me that it was unlikely to be a coincidence. Also note that the sockmaster has also vehemently denied new socks even though we know through CU that they have. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I realise that this appears to be an unfortunate coincidence but as I've pointed out, the differences between the edits, the timeline of events (me creating this account before the other was blocked), and the fact that I edit from two different locations should be enough to distinguish me from the other sockpuppets. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with what Mattythewhite said here: the three accounts using different UA's look to be false positives. Berean Hunter never specified the length of the range, maybe it's a large one. Ollie231213's explanation is reasonable and I believe him. "Deaths in (year)" articles are some of the most viewed and popular pages on the English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Annual Top 50 Report. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23, he did specify the length of the range in the UTRS ticket. It is not a large one. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly how small is “not very large”? And do my edits not show up as being from two locations? Ollie231213 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke

Please review WP:NOTBROKEN - FlightTime (open channel) 23:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Dole

I didn't do that, or do I think I did that. MaynardClark (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@MaynardClark I assumed it must have been an accidental revert coming from a well-established editor, although the original edit was vandalism of course. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

yes, a pure booboo. MaynardClark (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ollie231213. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adam Long (golfer) has been accepted

Adam Long (golfer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Deaths edit and comment

Thank you for helping edit better the Argentine writer death, and just one comment, I saw your page and I also support the UK Union :) Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fleur Anderson (December 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bennv3771 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fleur Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fleur Anderson, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bennv3771 (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comparison

Good evening, I would like you to take a look and transfer the cases that are missing at the Gerontology Wiki over to that list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timothy_McGuire#Centenarians_who_almost_made_it_to_110

Thanks for your cooperation 🙂 Timothy McGuire (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey dear Ollie, I appreciate your contributions on the Tina Turner Wiki page very much. I am curious to know, if you are interested in an addtional entry in this page. I am working for a German publisher an we just published an interesting new book on Tina with ISBN number. Would you like to contact me for further details? Rdunker72 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Fleur Anderson concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Fleur Anderson, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fleur Anderson

Hello, Ollie231213. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fleur Anderson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Swash

Multiple dates of birth have been provided, none of which were supported by a reliable source] as is required by policy. Please ensure you include a reliable source if you will be restoring the date in the future. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo Then the date of birth included in the first section needs to be removed. I didn’t realise there was a dispute about his DOB, I just thought it had been omitted from the opening line, hence why I added it. Ollie231213 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I've fixed it now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ritter (actor)

Hi Ollie231213. You might want to re-position your latest comment as it's hidden inside a hatted box. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, thanks for the heads up, but I placed it in the box deliberately as it was in response to another comment that was in the box. Cheers Ollie231213 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. No problem. A funny situation. Not sure why we have that box anyway. Seems someone lost patience with the discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ray Illingworth

Hi Ollie,

I see you’ve edited/ commented the date of Ray’s death being incorrect. It hit the news 25th December but he actually passed 24th December x 78.18.235.116 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi 78.18.235.116, what is the source for this? The Guardian obituary says 25 December. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ray Illingworth 2

Hi Ollie,

Sorry don’t know how to reply to initial thread, I only came on Wikipedia last night. I am the source, I’m his granddaughter. The family and I were reading all the lovely articles/ tributes written about him online last night. We clicked on his Wikipedia and saw there was some information that was incorrect including the date that he passed away so we changed it :) 78.18.235.116 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi 78.18.235.116, thanks for getting touch, and I'm really sorry for your loss. While I personally don't doubt the truth of the information you've provided, Wikipedia requires that all information in its articles is attributable to a reliable source (i.e. news article, obituary etc). Therefore, I would recommend getting in touch with media organisations such as the Guardian and ask them to amend their articles/obituaries so that they state the correct date. Kind regards, Ollie231213 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ollie,

Thanks for the heads up and thank you for your condolences. It’s nice to see people took an interest in his life/career and want information to be correct - will get in touch with them. I hope you had a nice Christmas, thanks again.

Deaths in 2021

I'm reaching out to you regarding this as Rusted AutoParts chose not to reply to my concern. I don't understand the current format for deaths in 2021. If a user were to search "Deaths in 2021" that implies that they are searching for deaths of all of 2021. Since the articles are separated by month, the main page (Deaths in 2021), should be a navigation for all the months. There doesn't seem to be a point of putting December's on the main page, when there is an article specifically for December. If you could explain why this is that would be great. Thank you! Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Mwiqdoh Although I don't really disagree with your reasoning, a couple of things to note:

1. Your edit caused the whole of December's entries to be deleted

2. In order to change the way things are done you need to discuss the issue with other editors and form a consensus. You can't just make an executive decision to change it yourself. Ollie231213 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, I did not delete the December entries, I just cut and pasted them to the corresponding article Deaths in December 2021. You are right and I should of brought this up. Do you mind telling me where would be the appropriate place to bring this topic up? Thanks again, Mwiqdoh (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing it on Talk:Deaths in 2021. Ollie231213 (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)