User talk:MrOllie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:04, 3 January 2022

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	Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Please for God Don’t say Alzimers is not a disease It’s natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.133.10 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer (Vehicle) Page

MrOllie, I received your message about not adding certain external links. So in my change to the utility trailers section of vehicle trailers, I omitted the links and then you still removed the helpful information. Why?Eimpactjoel (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New content should cite a reliable source, see WP:RS for what qualifies. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum description length

Hi! I couldn't see why the paragraph you just removed is COI or citespam; could you please give a hint? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by an editor (Afternoonfriend) who exclusively adds citations to Proença and/or van Leeuwen. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. Thanks for your quick answer. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survival tree page

Please note that "Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models" presents a vary narrow summary of the topic survival tree. Here I have presented the current status of the topic. Initially, I attempted to update Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models, but that was reverted back. Either let it be a separate page, or put this under "Survival analysis#Tree-structured survival models". If you read the page, then you will see it is not meant to promote any method, rather presents the current status of the topic. Is there anyway, I can escalate this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the two options you have presented and prefer option 3) - remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines on self promotion and conflict of interest editing, which have already been left on your talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct you - survival tree is not my method. It is proposed by Segal, that is already highlighted. So how does it satisfy self-promotion criteria. I have only SurvCART algorithm to construct the survival and so does the other algorithms - I have mentioned all the algorithms. However, if you see any part relevant self promotion, just flag that part only. Don't remove the entire content. I am trying to help you understand, but given your response above, I don't expect any rational thing from you. That's why I said, Is there anyway, I can escalate this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs)

I can't flag 'that part only' because the whole thing was full of primary sources. It's just not how we write and source things on Wikipedia. You're probably used to writing for academic journals - but writing on Wikipedia is different, with its own standards and practices. I am trying to help you understand that you're coming into an established community that does things a certain way and you're ignoring that in favor of your own way. You have to learn about and respect how things are done here if you want your writing to remain here. You can read about how to properly draw the attention of other editors in the policy links which are already located on your own talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

A cookie for you! Webuser123 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malone vs McCullough

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

Hi Ollie, I noticed that you have participated on both of these talk pages. I am a longtime anon IP whom will never register.

The tone of the two pages linked above is remarkably different. That should not be the case. The problem lies on the McCullough page being largely nothing but a hit piece while the Malone page is a decently collated encyclopedic page. The difference is unmistakable and should be rectified. The non majority POV pushers on the McCullough page are doing a disservice to the project. ie McCullough spread falsehoods in addition to misinformation, Malone receives criticism for XYZ, while McCullough is wrong about XYZ based on CNN etc.....2601:46:C801:B1F0:15B4:CBCF:47A8:1187 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the reliable sources, and the reliable sources treat these two differently. There's not a lot that can be done about that while following Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the unregistered editor will have at least as much privacy after registering a pseudonym and greater ability to take part in discussion in a non-ninja-like manner, but some unregistered editors are stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external link

Hello MrOllie, I am here to appeal you to not to remove that link which I had placed in fantasy sports page. As I put it as an example of a sports fantasy application. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Dhruvsoni9818 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious link spam. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links to capture software solutions

Dear MrOllie, thank you very much for reviewing my edit! I am new to Wikipedia and would like to learn, why you took down the link, I added. The link was reported as advertisement spam, but I did not intend it that way. For document capture solutions, I think it would be very helpful to real solutions directly in the article. What´s your take, on how to achieve that, without taking my link out? Thank you so much in advance! Claasbot (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Claas[reply]

We don't link to software vendors, nor will we mention 'real solutions', as Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to advertise. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages relating to AI and self-replicating machines

Dear MrOllie,

As you have seen, I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last couple of weeks editing various pages relating to self-replicating machines, AI takeover and closely related topics.

I am an expert in these areas, having done a PhD on the topic in the 1990s and having spent the last 6 years or so researching and writing a book on the topic, which was published by Springer. I am also a board member of the International Society for Artificial Life. I am passionate about sharing knowledge beyond the confines of academia, and wanted to use my specialist knowledge to improve these pages. This has included correcting some factual errors that existed in some of the existing versions of the pages, and adding new relevant information. It is true that most of my edits included a citation to my book, but given that my book is the first to concentrate specifically on the early history of self-replicating and evolving machines, that is not entirely surprising. I also added new references to other recent works by other authors on some of the pages too, where appropriate.

My heart sank when I saw that you have today systematically deleted all of my recent edits within the space of a few minutes. You say in your comment that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers", but this is an (incorrect) assumption on your part. You refer to the WP:SELFCITE rules, which I have read, but I do not agree that I have placed undue emphasis on my work. I accept that this is a subjective call, though.

I do appreciate the work you are doing in policing the editing of Wikipedia. What I would say though is that I would have appreciated a discussion about these edits before you removed them wholesale. By removing the edits and reverting to earlier revisions you have reintroduced some factual errors into the articles, and removed some relevant extra information.

With best wishes,

DrTimTaylor (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 As you have seen, I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last couple of weeks editing various pages relating to self-replicating machines, AI takeover and closely related topics.
-I am an expert in these areas, having done a PhD on the topic in the 1990s and having spent the last 6 years or so researching and writing a book on the topic, which was publishing by Springer. I am also a board member of the International Society for Artificial Life. I am passionate about sharing knowledge beyond the confines of academia, and wanted to use my specialist knowledge to improve these pages. This has included correcting some factual errors that existed in some of the existing versions of the pages, and adding new relevant information. It is true that most of my edits included a citation to my book, but given that my book is the first to concentrate specifically on the early history of self-replicating and evolving machines, that is not entirely surprising. I also added new references to other recent works by other authors on some of the pages too, where appropriate.
+I am an expert in these areas, having done a PhD on the topic in the 1990s and having spent the last 6 years or so researching and writing a book on the topic, which was published by Springer. I am also a board member of the International Society for Artificial Life. I am passionate about sharing knowledge beyond the confines of academia, and wanted to use my specialist knowledge to improve these pages. This has included correcting some factual errors that existed in some of the existing versions of the pages, and adding new relevant information. It is true that most of my edits included a citation to my book, but given that my book is the first to concentrate specifically on the early history of self-replicating and evolving machines, that is not entirely surprising. I also added new references to other recent works by other authors on some of the pages too, where appropriate.
 My heart sank when I saw that you have today systematically deleted all of my recent edits within the space of a few minutes. You say in your comment that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers", but this is an (incorrect) assumption on your part. You refer to the [[WP:SELFCITE]] rules, which I have read, but I do not agree that I have placed undue emphasis on my work. I accept that this is a subjective call, though.