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 and topic subscriptions 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!

MNIST database

Thanks for your work keeping the article clean. Would it be possible to use edit summaries in cases where the removed text isn't obviously problematic, such as here? Enterprisey (talk!) 02:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie! Wanted to reach out regarding my recent contribution to the MNIST database page, wanted to understand what caused the issue, since I'm new to contributing. I do not represent Zalando, but it's one of the most popular datasets and I do know from very extensive experience with open-source datasets that users often confuse it with MNIST, so it felt appropriate to mention, especially since E-MNIST was also mentioned in the text.

If the issue was with linking to [https://docs.activeloop.ai docs.activeloop.ai], please let me know -> it is a link to the documentation for Hub, an [https://github.com/activeloopai/Hub open-source dataset format for AI], and a free to use and (increasingly) popular project.

Thanks a lot! Mikayelh (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

forgot to sign the message hehe ~~~~ Mikayelh (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The self published links as citations were certainly a part of it (see WP:RS, such sites and github pages aren't generally used as sources) we also should not be building a list of datasets that are sort of like MNIST, that is not the purpose of the Wikipedia article, even if their progenitors did decide to give them very confusing names. - MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Legendary Creature Article Dispute

Hey Ollie, I wasn't aware that this was an edit war or anything, I was not deleting or changing others hard work either. I was contributing to the article with my research and I don't appreciate my work being erased because you don't agree with it. If we could work something out, that would be great!

I did not receive any other messages on my talk page that I was doing anything wrong either, so before you delete my work, which I have researched and studied for this article, could you tell me what your problem is with it before you delete only my work please ? Thank you!Ro513R3dxoxo (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Ro513R3dxoxo

Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. Wikipedia isn't a place to host your original research, and all content must be supported by reliable sources - the blogs, user generated content, and Wikipedia clone sites you are using do not qualify. Also, please note that I'm not the only person that removed the material you added. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know, as i'm a new user I didn't know that other people were deleting my work and thought it might just be a site error. I only thought it was you because I didn't receive any other messages saying that I was doing anything wrong, I will go over my research again and find the reliable sources needed. Ro513R3dxoxo (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Ro513R3dxoxo

That's backward. See WP:SYN - you can't stitch together a series of sources to support your conclusions. The conclusions have to already be in the sources, Wikipedia just summarizes. MrOllie (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion from Comparison of free and open-source software licences

"MrOllie moved page Comparison of open licences to Comparison of free and open-source software licences over redirect: yet another undiscussed move"

Hi, I understand your opinion, but read this: "No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging --Avoinlähde (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is about merges, not moves, and in any case it should be obvious at this point that your systematic changes of open-source terminology are in fact controversial. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I was merge those two articles to new name.. Maybe, but the use of the term 'open-source' also depends on the context. I’m aware that when it comes to software, it’s pretty common, but at least in harware, for example, it’s not the most common (see my latest comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open-source_hardware#Requested_move_2_March_2022). I thought it might be good to use the term 'Open software' in software as well, because then the reader would understand more clearly that these are related(openness), and 'open software' is quite used already. --Avoinlähde (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read through Wikipedia:Article titles if you haven't already consistency between topics is only one factor used in naming articles, WP:COMMONNAME is usually considered to be more important. MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Always provide an edit summary

Hello. Your deletions at Precious Plastic [1] were difficult to review, because you gave no explanation. In future, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Socionics sources [1] [2]

Your explanation of "We don't second guess reliable sources in this way" does not address the issue at hand. Both sources upon translation show a complete lack of explanation and reference to any falsifying evidence to corroborate the pseudoscience status; they simply list socionics in an x,y,z format next to other proclaimed pseudoscience.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Please revert the omissions back.

ThanksCirrosky54 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to show their work or explain all their evidence. 'Appeal to authority' is a common objection to Wikipedia's policies, but that is indeed how they are structured: see WP:V and WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears as though Wikipedia does indeed allow such unfortunate styles of claims support. Ultimately the burden of intellectual honesty seems to be placed on the admins of the page. In this case appeal to authority is very blatant and is as bad as claiming socionics to be scientific by merit of an otherwise respected committee claiming it to be such (without referenced falsifying evidence). Cirrosky54 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proxying for banned users.

First of all, thank you for warning me about performing proxy edits at the request of banned users. And second, speaking of banned users, could you please ban this user (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MwiqdohTheThird) and any other user from asking me to perform any more proxy edits? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a wikiquote admin. I believe the place to report that kind of thing is here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

what I have to do to get an agreement ?

Check my contributed history, I have done all I could. Updated everything on the talk page. What should I do when people dont acknowledge that ?