User talk:MrOllie
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Microblading
Hello Mr. Ollie,
I want to get in touch about the reversal of changes I have made on the microblading page. I understand that spam links are not allowed. However, the links I have provided to replace broken links are highly relevant, informative and educational. They are by no means commercial pages, in fact, they are from the most comprehensive platform related to the content. I ask you to review the links once again, as well as the content I had added to expand the page. The changes had been previously accepted by another moderator. Please note that reverting the changes means that multiple broken links are now listed as references once again, which is, you will agree, not helpful to the readers and makes this page less reliable.
~~~~Wewannagetlisted Wewannagetlisted (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, you were clearly replacing citations with linkspam. It is better to leave dead links alone (so they may be replaced properly, with archive links or similar). The links were not 'accepted by another moderator' (that is not something that really happens on Wikipedia). MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Set theory (music)
Hello Mr.Ollie,
Thanks for your edit and comment - I only added my own site to the External Links section (without a link to my homepage) because most of the links I checked there were not working, and my own pitch-class set calculator works. Not trying to blow my own horn or anything. If you would consider undoing your edit I would appreciate it, but if you keep it off I won't argue, I very rarely edit anything on Wikipedia more significant than minor grammatical errors. In fact I'm not even sure I'm doing this comment correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staylor71 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
National stock exchange
I add only BSE official website link to Wikipedia because that is very important and related to NSE why you removed it Pavanpadghan (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is a separate organization. It has a link on its own Wikipedia article, and only there. MrOllie (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I understand but why Wikipedia add external link of NSE to it Pavanpadghan (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- An organization gets a link to its own official site on its Wikipedia article. Please read WP:EL to understand when links should or should not be added. MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Independent
Mr. Ollie, why are you erasing the important language on the meaning of the term "independent"? I provided sources for my edit and yet you keep undoing it without justification. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a place to share your own opinions, and you cannot cite a bunch of dictionary definitions to stitch them into an argument that is not explicitly made in any one of the sources. That is the essence of WP:NOR, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't opinion. This is definition of the term and it's legal application. Do you need me to source the concept of authorship in the arts? It has a long history and is complicated to source.
- It is relevant. It feels like you are editing it out due to personal opinions. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, the dictionary was one citation and it was important to simplify the concept of artist independence. There is a reason why people have to sign over their rights for "independent" labels. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOR carefully - the whole page. Pay special attention to the section titled 'Synthesis of published material'. Sources must directly support the material you are adding. Your sources clearly did not. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- My sources including defining the term "Independent creation" by a government entity. Can you explain why that is not relevant here? Copyright law is also a few decades ahead of the 1920s, which the sources of that line are both completely broken. Can you explain why it is fine to keep that line? Again, there is a reason why artists have to sign away rights to these labels. Can you explain why this is opinion and not offering readers more insight to the nuances of the term? MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sources used to define 'independent music' must specifically be about 'independent music'. Not random other citations you have found that happen to include the word independent. Your opinion is that the definition of this term has something to do with copyright. That position is not supported by the sources, at all. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Music is a creation. Music legally falls under this umbrella. The description of creation includes music. Legally, they are one in the same. This is like saying I have to cite sources to say Stevie Nicks is a human. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is your original research - you are setting up axioms and combining them to make arguments. We don't do that on Wikipedia. You also have not established that the definition you have come up with has been used by anyone else. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- If I DO provide more sources would you accept the edit? I am staring at a few now that describe independent music as music made by musicians who are not signed to any label. The question is what kind of source will you accept? Because you seem to be ok with a broken link on another but not ok with the US government on my edits. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not 'more sources'. Reliable sources that exactly make the same point. Reliable is defined WP:RS here. In a nutshell, they should come from major, reputable publishers. No blogs or suchlike. In any case, my user talk page is not the place to argue about this. If you require the last word here, feel free to take it now - I'm done responding to this here. If you need more help with understanding the WP:OR policy, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just said what the sources said. Is that not enough? If I use similar language of a provide source will you accept it? MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not 'more sources'. Reliable sources that exactly make the same point. Reliable is defined WP:RS here. In a nutshell, they should come from major, reputable publishers. No blogs or suchlike. In any case, my user talk page is not the place to argue about this. If you require the last word here, feel free to take it now - I'm done responding to this here. If you need more help with understanding the WP:OR policy, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Music is a creation. Music legally falls under this umbrella. The description of creation includes music. Legally, they are one in the same. This is like saying I have to cite sources to say Stevie Nicks is a human. MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sources used to define 'independent music' must specifically be about 'independent music'. Not random other citations you have found that happen to include the word independent. Your opinion is that the definition of this term has something to do with copyright. That position is not supported by the sources, at all. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- My sources including defining the term "Independent creation" by a government entity. Can you explain why that is not relevant here? Copyright law is also a few decades ahead of the 1920s, which the sources of that line are both completely broken. Can you explain why it is fine to keep that line? Again, there is a reason why artists have to sign away rights to these labels. Can you explain why this is opinion and not offering readers more insight to the nuances of the term? MrsBaker1 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOR carefully - the whole page. Pay special attention to the section titled 'Synthesis of published material'. Sources must directly support the material you are adding. Your sources clearly did not. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
electric fence deleting
dear Mr. Ollie, can I ask you, why you deleted my contribution at electric fencee article? ewerything i descibed was based on an articles that contain true informations confirmed by users experiences. I thought it could be interesting to introduce people, that there are new possibilities of using electric fences.