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!

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mbs6446. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

Northern line signalling

I don't understand your revert to Northern line. The reason you gave is "Rv thales spam IP" which makes no sense. The reference was to Thales Group web site which sources the information in the article. Before I undo your reversion I wanted to check I'd not misunderstood anything. Regards, Bazza (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Check the IP's contribs. They've been repetitively adding that same content to dozens of articles (including a photo of a train in Singapore no matter where the train line actually is), trying to remove mentions of controversies involving Thales from various places. Typical undisclosed paid editing stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had come across the same on another page, and removed the odd photo from this one. However, the actual reference information is good, so I shall aim to reinstate it, reword the mention of Thales, and add another non-Thales reference alongside once I've found one. Bazza (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you know about Mehndi?

I don't understand about your knowledge about Mehndi. You do not know about Indian culture and what people really love to know. You removed Informative Reference which one is loved by people. I don't understand who authorized you to edit the unrelated topics by you. I strongly object your Un Ethic act and an unwanted message left for me. Please be in your limit. venkat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatam (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cluing me in

I'm still new and didn't realize those links I added weren't helpful. Is there a style guide or something similar that I can consult to give me more info on what kinds of additions to pages are actually helpful/preferred? ThanksE6slidefilm (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You can find the guideline specific to external links at Wikipedia:External links. For which kinds of sources we prefer, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There are lots and lots of policies, so don't feel overwhelmed, no one expects you to know everything right away. The best simple introduction with links to more detail is probably Wikipedia:Five pillars. There's also a tutorial kind of thing you can do at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Franc Roddam

Hello.

I think that was a good reference you deleted from the Franc Roddam Page. Could It Be reverted? CardinalK9 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Linkspam_citing_Eoghan_Lyng..._Filter? - MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Open Data

Can you tell me why my revision was reverted in Open data? - SylviaPage (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It was factually incorrect (Wikipedia is prose text, not data), it had incorrect grammar, and example lists don't belong in lead article sections. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

RefSpam question

I noticed that you appear to be removing references citing pieces by Michael Simkovic, including this edit. Am I missing something? Some of the references using him are indeed to questionable sources, but this one is to a fairly high-level law review. bd2412 T 16:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed a real law professor, and he does indeed publish in real outlets. It also appears that he has been adding references to his work from a series of sockpuppets for years. I noticed User:Mbs6446 today, which got me looking further. The one who originally added the edit you cite was User:TaxMaven99 used over a span of a few months a few years ago - there are more accounts. I'm in the process of collecting a full list for a WP:COIN post. This also caught some external attention here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it does seem reasonable to minimize his footprint here more or less on WP:DENY grounds, although I would suggest focusing on the referenced "Risk-Based Student Loans" piece, and take a lighter touch with other publications in more reputable sources. Perhaps we could initially flag those for review, rather than removing them right away? bd2412 T 17:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization

Dear MrOllie,

You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis. I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored. My explanation is below. I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus. I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.

The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions. One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012. Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.

In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:

″are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.″"

You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education.

It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans <ref>{{cite news |title=Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/repetitive-and-avoidable-mistakes.html |publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/11/simkovic-mcintyres-the-economic-value-of-a-law-degree.html|publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"...}}</ref> --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.<ref>{{cite news |title="Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202617450833/?slreturn=20190231121410 |publisher=The American Lawyer |date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>

Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."

Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on [[2]]

I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources. If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so. I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance. --Mbs6446 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you Michael Simkovic? Have you edited Wikipedia previously under a different account? - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your specific substantive reason for each of the deletions you have made as it pertains to the particular article, ::source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how do you believe that you are improving the quality of the underlying article ::by making those deletions. Mbs6446 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on real names

Dear Mr.Ollie,

Please see Wikipedia's policy on use of use of real names and on Wikipedia:Harassment and be more careful in your comments. Respond on substance and not with ad hominem attacks, in compliance with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎‎Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain the relevance of the policies you just linked? They seem completely off topic to me. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia policy on real names:

"Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase ::the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas. . . . Users may use their stage name, pen ::name, or other nickname as their username"

Thus your request for the identity of editors is inappropriate.

From the Wikipedia policy on Harassment:

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a ::specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the ::outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Thus your specific targeting of a particular individual on Wikipedia and deleting citations en masse based on the author of the ::material rather than the underlying substance and wikipedia's policies for reliable sources could be construed as a form of ::harassment.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits ::constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are ::subject to blocking.

Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct ::communication takes place."

You specifically reverted edits which improved wikipedia articles by providing reliable sources. Your edits were justified only by an off-wiki attack on the author of an academic article, not based on the individual substance of particular articles and how those sources enhance that article.

This could be construed as harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If you believe you are being harassed, I believe the proper venue is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your specific substantive reason for each of the deletions you have made as it pertains to the particular article, ::source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how do you believe that you are improving the quality of the underlying article ::by making those deletions. Mbs6446 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

Hey buddy, how about you slow down on the batch deletions of citations to sources and wait till we get this conflict of interest vs. harassment thing worked out. The page on Conflicts of interest clearly states:

"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline."Mbs6446 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Before each deletion, explain on the talk page, on substance, how your edits are improving the substance of wikipedia. Do not engage in Wikipedia:Harassment or edit warring. We're supposed to reach consensus on substance, which we clearly have not yet.

Please undo your edits until consensus on this issue can be reached.

bd2412 agrees that you're overdoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

Again, If you believe you are being harassed, I believe the proper venue is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I obviously disagree, so raising it over and over on my talk page isn't going to get you anywhere. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have administrative priviledges so I cannot file a report. Please see the policy against attempting to out editors. It is per se harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and kindly stop altering my comments. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see pages on outing which is per se harassment and stop attempting to out other editors. When you do so, your comments are supposed to be deleted immediately, per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is really such a problem an admin will take care of it. As an involved party, and someone whose experience on Wikipedia goes back all of a few hours, it would be better for your case if you left it to someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Dude, that could take weeks or months. The policy is clear. You're not supposed to attempt to out editors even when discussing a potential conflict of interest. And in any case, citing reliable academic sources is not a conflict of interest, it's improving wikipedia. While we're waiting for the Wheels of Wikipedia justice to turn, would you please tell me on substance one-by-one what is wrong with each of the citations you've deleted over the last few hours? My sense is that the sources are reliable, the material is relevant and on point, and the articles were often under-sourced beforehand. If some of the citations are appropriate and others are not, will you at least restore the appropriate ones instead of shooting first and sorting it all out later?Mbs6446 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: 'citing reliable academic sources is not a conflict of interest' no, not always. Re 'would you please tell me on substance one-by-one' No, I'm not going to begin a lengthy point by point discussion with someone who is actively pursuing a claim that I'm harrassing them. Someone neutral will come along soon enough. You started talk page discussions on the affected articles, which is what you should have done in the first place. Let the process work. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Two Envelope Problem

Dear MrOllie, Dear Nic,

Why did you remove the reference Bruss (1996) from the wikipage Two Envelopes Problem. It is relevant for two reasons (1.easy to see the error, 2. error in the formal probability space.) It has been on the Page since around 2009 until Feb 2019, and it is necessary there, I think.

What is your reason, please?

Sincerely, 109.133.170.208 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Thomas Bruss

Deletion of page

Ollie you deleted the page faizan athar jamali which was created by me. That page deserved to be on wikipedia. can you restore it?