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 and topic subscriptions 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!

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Reporting a sockpuppet and harasser

Hi,Sir A sockpuppet is constantly putting unsourced content on the wikipage Uddhav Thackeray,After removing his unsourced edits,he is harassing me on my talk page. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 )

Regards Io5678 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please,can you try on my behalf Io5678 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying,please guide me.

Thanks for the response Io5678 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The instructions at WP:ANI are pretty clear. After notifying the other editor by putting "{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~" on their talk page, you can just repost your account of the problem at WP:ANI, and administrators will take it from there. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcehut

Hi MrOllie, I noticed you removed an already discussed item in the talk section I added called sourcehut. Apologies, I was not aware that it is needed an independent page to be in those tables. Technically, it has more features than many others, as shown in the tables, while others like Phabricator has already ceased its activities.AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a catalog or a link directory, we're not attempting to list every possible service, only the ones which have demonstrated notability in the form of a standalone article. You could proceed by writing a standalone article, if the available sources meet the requirements of WP:N.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have commented about this in 3 separate places, I will not respond here any more. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except to note for the future that you altered the above comment after I'd already responded to it. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing it while you wrote me, so I did not read your message before my edit. Apologies. It was too long, and too tecnhical. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I am not yet an expert. You wrote me in my page so I replied you there, but you did not replied me, and other editors request to write in their pages, so I wrote here. Obviously I commented in talk section of the page we are talking about, as it is a logical place to contact with other editors about it. As I was not the only one considering that the table might not be complete. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I have to note that there are tons of tables where entries doesn't have an specific wikipedia page, and others where the entry is pointing to a wrong page of wikipedia. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Twin

Hi MrOllie. Just saw your latest removal. Not sure I understand. This comes from an Academic journal as source. If for whatever reason you do not like the fact that Michael Grieves is associated with the concept and known for it, I suggest you also remove the illustration on the page which bears his name (and I did not contribute this). That way the page would be consistent albeit not reflecting the history of the concept. In any case, I will no longer add to this page. Boltor (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Frame

Recent proposed addition of reference to aluminium picture frames. There was no selling services it is a link to a blog from an authoritative company in the framing industry specifically referencing aluminium picture frames and how they are using in the industry - there are no links in the blog to sell any products or services. Please explain the irrelevancy? 82.44.247.176 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatant advertising for a web store. Wikipedia doesn't use advertising as citations. We don't use self published blogs in general, in fact. But especially not blogs that were set up to drive traffic to a web store. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, every site sells something whether it be indirectly through ads or a service. The issue is wikipedia don't want links to directly sell something i.e. links directly to promote a product or service otherwise almost every link should be taken down - a blog post merely describing a relevant part of a wikipedia article simply compliments the content.

For example these three which must also be "blatantly selling" - now explain further?

Citation 1 Jones, Ralph (August 20, 2024). "Why Is Custom Framing So Expensive? One Man Investigates". The New York Times. Framers say they aren't getting rich protecting some of your most precious memories and art, but they know you have sticker shock.

citation 11 (https://www.arnoldwiggins.com/notes/2016/11/23/fire-judge-frames)

citation 13 ( "Picture Frame" (SHTML). Crafty Ideas. KinderArt. Retrieved 2009-03-21.) 82.44.247.176 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well what the issue is. The NY Times is not in the same ballpark as a spam blog hosted on a web store for picture frames. MrOllie (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blog? Who do you think you are believing that all paid sponsored posts on NY Times is acceptable as links? Any idiot can buy a post on NY Times 82.44.247.176 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get anywhere on Wikipedia equating major newspapers with webstore blogs. MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I equating a webstore blog to a major newspaper? Never once said this, all I said was why accept a paid sponsored post with links to a product and service which in my opinion is the exact definition of breaking the rules but a "webstore blog" that has no links in it only content. You are essentially saying because it has ny times on it then it is instantly acceptable no matter the content. Upon drawing this conclusion you don't read the linked content and only go by the domain that it is linked from. I don't see this as a prerequisite in the Wikipedia rules.

You shoot off a low blow by saying spam blog, the rules state you are supposed to talk in a civil manor - you have not done so. Don't be rude it gets you nowhere 82.44.247.176 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rules don't say that I can't call an obvious spam blog a spam blog. They do say (see WP:RS) that the NY times is a fine source. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I suggest you read that link carefully and use only reliable sources from now on (and yes, that includes the NY times). MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least I find some solace in your situation @82.44.247.176 . I thought that MrOllie is just rude to me, but nice to know that instead of having a decent conversation, where the objective is to inform and build consensus and collaborate, it is their habit that they just resort to rudeness indiscriminately.

Something similar happened to me, they deleted an edit - a link I posted which I believed enriched the article as well as followed the wikipedia guidelines on external links - and then I requested more information on which part of the policy have I violated. Instead of a decent conversation, where they simply put down the violations, they started beating about the bush and then downright resorted to threatening to blacklist the website. Personfromthepast (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie is 100% correct here. Telling a spammer to stop spamming is not rude. It is both entirely correct and necessary. All forms of promotional editing are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, without exception. Cullen328 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cullen 328, I could not agree more that telling a spammer not to spam is just a fact and something that is needed to be done, but if done so in the right way.

As an editor it is the responsibility of the all editors here, to justify their decision in open and transparent fashion -that is why the talk function is there- quoting the policy of wikipedia and how the said edit violates the policy and what are the nuances and edge cases etc. Now I think we can agree that if that is the question being asked about the policy, and the person responds with a threats or beats about the bush or refuses to responds to the question and goes on tangents, it is insulting and rude.

Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that MrOllie dedicates their time to Wikipedia to keep it running. The only issue that I have is their refusal to answer the questions for the sake of transparency and resorting to threats instead of simply answering the questions. I would have wanted them to transparently explain the reasoning behind their decision, and if as per my understanding that is not the case, discuss it further.

I know it could get stressful and if they have been doing it for long, some stuff could be plain and obvious to them which may not be clear to other people with less experience. And sometimes the situation aligns so that through their experience they can simply tell intuitively what is which crosses that fine line and what not. But that still is not a replacement for due process. Personfromthepast (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personfromthepast, MrOllie has explained their actions clearly, directly and accurately. No editor is obigated to respond ad nauseum to spammmers who refuse to get the message. You are now straying into the territory of tendentious editing, and I encourage you to refrain from that behaviour and go improve an encyclopedia article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think improving the encyclopedia is as important as what its editors are doing! So the time that I am spending here, to argue my point is as important as anything else at wikipedia. As the quotation goes The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so in our case wikipedia is only as authentic as the transparency and openness of its editors.

Here, for your ease let me give you what a polite, transparent and open answer could have looked like (chatgpt helps!)...

Hello. I understand you'd like to add a link, but I've removed it as it seems to be promotional in nature. Wikipedia has strict guidelines about external links and what we consider reliable sources.

Specifically, Wikipedia:External links discourages links that are primarily intended to sell products or services, stating that they "should be avoided when they are: 1. Commercial in nature."

Additionally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally advises against using self-published sources like blogs, especially those with a conflict of interest, noting that "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."

This blog appears to be affiliated with a web store selling picture frames, which raises concerns about its objectivity and if you can point to a third party published source which establishes the authenticity of authority that can establish the person who wrote it as an expert, then we can have further conversation.

While the blog post itself may contain some relevant information, its connection to a web store makes it unsuitable as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

Could you perhaps provide other sources that discuss the use of aluminum picture frames in the industry? We want to ensure that the information we include is neutral and comes from reliable, independent sources. Personfromthepast (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]