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!

Pastoral Care is not Pastoral Ministry.

Pastoral Care includes non-religious and is scientific. Spirituality in the context of pastoral care refers to the human spirit, which is genetic, measurable and heritable. Pastoral Ministry is specific to religion primarily christianity and is historic. Spirituality in the context of pastoral ministry refers to subjective supernatural experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiaali'i (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but none of that is a good reason to surprise readers with a piped link. - MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It was a reference to a book and website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiaali'i (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted to revision 912501746 by Vermont (talk): WP:UNDUE reliance on a single source - Pastoral Care links to the human spirit - wikipedia source. Pastoral Ministry links to christian ministry - wikipedia source. There is a clear distinction between these two terms and is evident in the content posted by others especially referring to religion. Fiaali'i —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bodystorming with dancers and scientists

Hello, I am not sure why you removed the section on Bodystorming with dancers and scientists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodystorming) and the links to rapid prototyping. This is my first entry on wikipedia so I may have missed something critical and if so would appreciate your guidance. I also would like the entry reinstated as it was strongly cited and is information that needs to be shared as part of cancer research. Thanks for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44arts (talk • contribs)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. You will need much stronger, independent sources if you want to claim that dancing is critical to cancer research. - MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim in the wiki entry that bodystorming is critical to cancer research but it is being developed with that in mind. I am simply stating that it is a method that exists with several independent magazines and journals stating as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44arts (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie:

This is University of Minnesota Dance Program Director and Black Label Movement Director Carl Flink and one of the founders of The Bodystorming System with recognized cancer researcher David Odde, who was elected as a 2017 AAAS Fellow. I am honestly surprised at your response to Michele Steinwald's inquiry. The Bodystorming System has been at the center of two formal and fully sponsored residencies at MBL and NCBS in Bangalore, India. It has been cited in David Odde's Lab's research and the subject of an invited article in Trends in Cellular Biology, among other independent sources. At no point, did Michele make the claim that dancing is critical to cancer research. Who do we go to in the Wiki community to resolve this disagreement? 73.94.200.175 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DR - MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie:

I have looked at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party

Step two of that process states: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation.

I look forward to your responses to both Michele and my inquiries above. 2607:EA00:107:1C07:30AA:A225:D529:96B2 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe I've already addressed all specific questions. - MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not. You stated that Michele is claiming that the bodystorming system is "critical to cancer research." That claim was not made and you haven't responded to her question about that. You also claim that there are insufficient independent sources. Michele included many sources not driven by David and myself: two invited TED Talks, an invited essay in Trends in Cellular Biology, a Science Magazine new article, among many other news and academic sources. David also has reviewed articles that cite bodystorming and the NCI has provided funding for the further development of the method for patient advocacy. What standard are you applying? What would be sufficient in your eyes? Are you representing an organization with specific standards Michele can read? We are trying to understand your role here as an editor since your previous comments are extremely brief and non-specific. Thank you for the engagement. 2607:EA00:107:1C07:A8CF:E6A0:6760:753C (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: "you haven't responded to her question about that" She hasn't asked any actual questions that I can see.

RE: "What standard are you applying?" See the policies I linked above.

RE: "What would be sufficient in your eyes?" Lots more reliable sources, and at a minimum the promotional name dropping and external links to specific people and dance companies should be removed. But this technique is very fringey. Wikipedia is really for writing about very well settled science and widely used methods. We don't write about new and unproven techniques, by design. What we really need is some actual evidence that the wider world has taken notice of this aside from the novelty factor.

RE: "Are you representing an organization with specific standards Michele can read?" I'm not representing any organizations.

- MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Updating my organization's page

Hi there, I am the marketing and communications manager for the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Our page is very outdated and needs to be updated. I've tried twice, but the content has been removed - one time I got a note that said I was doing it for financial reasons and the other reason was that I copied someone else's content. I used content from a .org account: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_museum_of_science_industry_omsi_/#.XWPweOhKiUk - which is run by the Oregon Historical Society. And since my organization is an academic science institution, I think that information should be valid to use, especially since I site it in the article. My question is this: how do I go about properly updating OMSI's page on wikipedia? Thanks. 14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfarmer1982 (talk • contribs)

You can't turn a Wikipedia article into a marketing brochure. You're also in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. You need to read the policies that have already been linked on your user talk page and comply with them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with and support what you're saying - and I'm not looking to create a marketing brochure at all - much of the information on our page is outdated or completely incorrect. What I'm asking is, how do I go about updating the information on the page? Do I have to put a COI caveat or something at the beginning of the article? I just want to go through the proper channels. Thanks. Johnfarmer1982 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)John

Please read the stuff on your talk page, including the links, it is all spelled out there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts of blogsareforever.com

Hi, I saw a number of articles on my watchlist were being hit by this spammer and that you had reverted. Just thought I'd drop a note that I've reported the link to XLinkBot to autorevert. Since the user that is spamming the link has the same username as the link being spammed, I'll be raising a request on WP:UAA as well. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating reversion

I appreciate your clearly longstanding work to keep this page quality up. I have a question: You reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=910960402&oldid=910959179 To me it seemed relevant as evidence of the quality of the original work, that it would stand up well this many years later. Was that unclear, or does that fact not seem relevant, or something else? Kcrca (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for a general audience, it isn't an outlet for scientific news. Replicating research and confirming results are important to science, but not really the kind of thing that should go into a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is more general than that, but then I'm a scientist so I probably err more on that side. Thanks for the reply. Kcrca (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Tektronix

These refs are a long way from spam. @Laurendevera: is a new editor who has been trying to work here to expand articles, based on these sources, and despite asking the Teahouse (and getting little help there) they've had a pretty hostile reception so far. We all know how horribly hostile this place is to new editors, especially the more knowledgable and keen they are. Can we not cut them some slack here and try to make some use of this material, not just revert it on sight. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

They're an employee of Tektronix (though they have not made the required disclosures), editing articles directly to add external links to their employer. This is textbook spamming behavior. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)