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!

Simulation links

Hello: I added a simulation to "significant figures" that would be most helpful to many students. Why did you remove it? I have taught numerical methods 70 times. I have no idea who has the final say. The simulation is also open source and distributable. Yes it is my work but it is a means to have broad impact User:Kawautar — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, and per WP:COI you should not be adding links to your own site. Many things are helpful to students but nonetheless have no place on this particular project. If you want to develop teaching materials, try Wikiversity. - MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I have twice deleted this sentence from the Wikipedia article on acupuncture "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.[6]" It has twice been automatically restored by the "MrOllie" bot. I am neither an acupuncturist nor a proponent of acupuncture. But for a source such as Wikipedia to berate not just acupuncture, but all Traditional Chinese Medicine as "unscientific quackery" smacks of racism and anti-Chinese propaganda. The fact that the article then launches immediately into a description of acupuncture as a multi-billion dollar industry further establishes the anti-acupuncture bias of this article. C'mon, Wikipedia, where are your ethics? Pastrychick (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

All the better, MrOllie! Since you are a real human, you can certainly see the bias in this article. Your quick responses and restoration of this highly problematic sentence make you seem like an automated censor. Saying in the edit history that Wikipedia only reflects the position of "the best sources" is in itself a biased statement. You have single-handedly determined that these anti-acupuncture sources are the best representatives for an "objective" article on acupuncture.

This exchange has made clear: Wikipedia writers can make racist statements, with no editorial oversight, since its editors (here, you) uphold racist statements. Pastrychick (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't 'single-handedly' determined anything, that sentence has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page - discussions you seem to be ignoring because you'd rather delete this sentence, apparently because you personally disagree with it. Also, see WP:NPA. Going around calling people racists with no evidence is a good way to be blocked from Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't called anyone a racist—I have called the statements racist. I have not seen the extensive discussion on the article's talk page because I don't know how to find it. You'll see that most edits I've made on Wikipedia are pretty insubstantial (missing commas and the like). I'm clearly going to lose on this one so I'll just go away knowing that Wikipedia does not provide objective information.

And for the record: I have never had acupuncture myself, and have no "dog in this race." I went to the article to learn about acupuncture when someone recommended the technique to me, and was immediately turned off to the procedure by the Wikipedia article. So: it's clearly done its job, while also doing an injustice to all Chinese practitioners. Pastrychick (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jaguar padding by... If you truly needed to learn about acupuncture, Pastrychick, then how could you possibly know/think/theorize/whatever from a single sentence that an injustice to all Chinese practitioners had occurred? Perhaps I'll just go away is for the best. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another example of an overly broad labelling of a practice, or in this case, whole group of different practices as "pseudoscience". Perhaps another violation of NPOV, where minority voices are not given sufficient weight. It says in the article, for instance, that journals in different countries carry a more positive evaluation of acupuncture. Therefore, the opening paragraph should perhaps be a bit more careful and again, nuanced in explaining how acupuncture has not achieved evidence of replicable success in western studies. Instead of 'following the sources' it's promoting certain sources and opinions over others without a clear and consistent attachment to an impartial system. Echidna1000 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CCFL inverter

What makes you emotional?--Neotesla (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles that don't remotely comply with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can understand if you edit this page, but the redirect is too brutal. Neotesla (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If you keep adding original research and incoherent English based on unusable primary sources, what is the alternative? MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You requested peer-review in those reference. If you raise the hurdle to that extent, the number of papers or reports that can be used will be very small. General newspaper article, papers or reports are not peer-reviewed. Wikipedia doesn't need that much rigorous evidence either. --Neotesla (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not my hurdle, but Wikipedia's: WP:NOR, WP:RS. If you cannot include the material you would like while respecting our content policies, it is clear: you should not add the material. And it isn't newspapers you're trying to use, it is legal documents and patents. Those are primary sources and should not be used. I have told you this several times. Please read the Wikipedia policies I have linked, this is clearly laid out there. There is also the problem that much of what you are adding is not in the cited sources at all. That is called original research and needs to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've already explained that legal documents can be separated claim (or opinion) and fact. The opinion part cannot be the source. But descriptions of administrative facts can be sources. Neotesla (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No. That might be what you personally think, but it is not what Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines say. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, Neotesla, that even if you do go on to provide a peer reviewed article that supports your position, he will raise the bar further, saying the journal is too 'low ranked'. What exactly he deems to be a 'high rank' has yet to be clearly communicated. Echidna1000 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Information

It would be more useful to update the information to the most recent news. Autenea (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Restored revision on Green Chemistry page

Hello, thank you for leaving a message and of course I understand the approach you mentioned. For many years of studying chemistry, it is a subject close to my heart. This makes Green Chemistry all the more important to me, as it is now an essential factor towards solving the ecological problems the world is facing. I thought that relating Green Chemistry to industry would be an interesting point of view to expand the available content. Because of the country I live in, I used it as an example and when looking for valuable sources related to the industry, the ones mentioned were the most reliable in my opinion. The repeated links from one organisation may have caused some concern, but these were the two substantive articles I relied on. Because of their similarity I could possibly use only one to avoid multiple links to one company, but in my opinion it is a worthwhile source of knowledge as an example of Green Chemistry development in the chemical industry on an international scale. I would be grateful for a possible re-verification after presenting my point of view. Thanks again for your message! Emmasi90 (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)