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!

About Jupeb Program

I referenced an article on a site i came across and found very useful containing updated information about an educational program in Nigeria called JUPEB which secures admission into 200level in Nigerian Universities. But i found out that the citation was removed. I checked wikipedia external link guidelines and i noticed it doesn't violate any policy. I tried replacing this citation https://campuslead.com.ng/list-of-all-examination-bodies-in-nigeria-everything-you-need-to-know/ already on the page in [in Nigeria] to https://shoreloop.com/jupeb-program-all-you-need-to-know/. As the new citation will be more useful to its readers, who would like to know more about Jupeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevten (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You replaced existing links with obvious linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to update the reference link, i shouldn't have removed existing links, my bad. Should i have added the new link instead? Kevten (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't add spam links at all. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the site spam?, doesn't look like one though.. Kevten (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed Philosophy section on Old_Red_Cracker

Hello again, sir (or ma'am). I find it odd that you removed this section. +ORC's primary purpose in publishing material was to propagate his anti-capitalism philosopy. +Fravia's pages on reverse engineering have been the primary source of information regarding +ORC for 25 years and cited in several published works, including books and peer-reviewed journals. Can you explain how this does not belong on wikipedia when the +ORC page goes belong? You may delete the entire page if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:B00:B300:C42B:806E:F103:C811 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't interested in what people say about themselves, we're interested in what independent, reliable sources say. Lengthy quotes by the article subject or by people associated with them don't belong here. We also have to write neutrally, and those additions were decidedly not neutral. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Why then remove these primary sources?

Michael Lee; Sean Pak; Tae Kim; David Lee; Aaron Schapiro; Tamer Francis (1999). "Electronic Commerce, Hackers, and the Search for Legitimacy: A Regulatory Proposal". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 14 (2): 856. doi:10.15779/Z383M4J. JSTOR 24115668. Retrieved 18 May 2022.

Westfeld, Andreas (2001). "Unsichtbare Botschaften: Geheime Nachrichten sicher in Bild, Text und Ton verstecken" (PDF). C't – Magazin für Computertechnik. 9: 172. 2601:282:B00:B300:C42B:806E:F103:C811 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Why Talk About This Specific Plugin

MrOllie Greetings MrOllie, a new section was created on this Wikipedia page for the Classic Editor Plugin, and as is noted in that section, the goal of the Classic Editor Plugin is to give people the Classic Editor experience despite core updating itself to the Gutenberg Editor. The information about the Gutenberg Plugin that was reverted is notable because it was created by WordPress and added to their repository prior to being included in Core. Yet, even though it's been in Core for quite some time now, WordPress is still actively updating this plugin, and there are over 400,000 active installations. The bad ratings for the Gutenberg Plugin (2 stars) specifically speaks to why a Classic Editor Plugin exists, created by independent contributors (not mentioned in the article), whereas the Gutenberg Plug was created by WordPress (the TOPIC of the page). Mention of both Plugins go hand in hand. It's remiss or incomplete to mention one and not the other, as it helps the facts be even fuller and richer when included. Respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphiladelphia (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

about personal selling

hello there, may i know the reason for removing my content? I think its valid and I also made a reference from a trustable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvanesh G (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The text was redundant. MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Candlestick chart revert

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit in Candlestick chart, but didn't provide an explanation. Usually an explanation for a reversion should be given, except perhaps in cases of obvious vandalism, which my edit clearly wasn't. So, what don't you like about my edit? Silver hr (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to me, I'm going to restore my edit. In the future, please provide reasoning when you revert something. Silver hr (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Data Cleansing

Hello. Why is the extra reference removed? It contains a concise description of data cleansing based op research of various sources performed by experts in the field. Please undo the revert.Pndt (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a little counter intuitive, but Wikipedia does not link to most self published or user generated sites, including the vast majority of other wikis. Also, you seem to be affiliated with this organization - you should not be writing about them, their work, or linking to their sites. See WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Data Quality

DAMA-NL has carried out an extensive study of data quality dimensions and has come up with a list of sixty dimensions of harmonised definitions. Why has the reference to this study been removed? In my view, the deletions can no longer be called objective. They seem to take on a personal character. I find the removal behaviour quite aggressive. Deletions should be better justified. Pndt (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)