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!

Writing about own work.

@MrOllie: Thank you, got it. Yes, i wanted to write about the work I did. Interpreting the guidelines, I think it is permitted as long as it is not considered excessive. I was careful to keep a neutral style. I will add review articles, and use {{requestedit}} if I want to cite my own work. Alexander M. Wolf Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. An example of 'excessive' might be adding a whole subsection on your work to several articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: OK. I will use secondary sources, or wait until they become available. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Another question for clarification: If I use the >requestedit< process, as you suggested for people with a COI, is the preference for secondary (review) articles/sources dominant over approval by neutral reviewers? The guideline say that secondary sources "should" be used, but it isn't clear if this is an absolute necessity or not. I saw that you also removed an edit I made in December 2021, which was corrected by another review (Boghog). Maybe he didn't see the COI, but the COI is anyway no impediment to editing, if it is clear and I go through the appropriate approval process. If you say several subsections is excessive, ok, but the single subsection from December too? I just wanted to know whether it makes sense to go through the requestedit process as you suggested. I don't want to waste other people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander M. Wolf (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This 'not excessive' language is trying to cover expert editors we have who edit lots of articles, and they'll cite themselves occasionally (like, 10-25% or less of the articles they touch). The Wikipedia community isn't all that enthusiastic about editors who will cite themselves on every article they edit. The primary vs. secondary concerns are specific to medicine, which has more stringent sourcing requirements than most topic areas on Wikipedia. Please read WP:MEDRS thoroughly if you haven't yet. Articles on medicine or human biology almost never cite individual studies or research papers that present theories. Wikipedia largely wants no part of the 'cutting edge' of medicine - we want to cover old, boring settled science, the kind of stuff that almost everybody in the field knows about and agrees with. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. That's maybe not what I wanted to hear, but it is reasonable and makes sense. After all, it is Wikipedia The Free >Encyclopedia<, not Wikipedia where everybody can write his opinion just because it once managed to pass the (now often completely dysfunctional) peer review process. I'll work on improving existing articles then and wait for my own things to become sufficiently "old, boring & settled" to pass WP:MEDRS criteria. I hope it doesn't take decades. Alexander M. Wolf (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOlie

Hi there, hope you are fine and doing good. Really sorry if you felt I was spamming. Actually, I am the founder of sublimationhome.com it is an online site that is getting authority in the sublimation industry. We are focusing on quality content and research-based content(You can visit the site and see yourself as well).

The purpose I paste my link in the reference section was to help the user if they need any information about sublimation. Yes, I edited multiple times because it was showing me an error and pasting the link in the wrong format that can impact badly on the user.

I hope I cleared myself and you understand my opinion. Best Regards, Sublimation Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan mehmood 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't add your own site to Wikipedia again, please. If you keep it up it will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may damage your SEO efforts. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

your edit reason is false and defending original research

On Goji berries, You had claimed that the Given sources stated that (as of 2018, there are no clinical benefits found from Goji berries).

Except the given sources doesn't say that at all. Did you even read the dates of the sources. They are from 2007 and 2013. How can they make that claim if none of them is even from 2018. It's original research and not a sourced statement And why I removed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068098575

49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep this on the article talk page where it belongs. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Flying eagle method

Hey. Not sure why the easy peasy ebook is on there but mine is not. My ebook is a newer and more concise version of easy peasy with updated science, and it should avoid copyright claims. So not sure why one is allowed for an encyclopedia and not the other. Thanks. CSmith56843 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:ELNO. Do not add links to your own website or write about your book. If someone else has added an inappropriate link, that is not a reason for you to add more. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Firewood edit revert

Hi there @MrOllie, I was just checking out recent changes and saw you reverted one to the page Firewood, stating that it seemed to be a conflict of interest / self-promotion. I don't see how the edit that was made could be interpreted that way. Would you mind explaining it to me? Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

/* January 2022 */ answer

hi @MrOllie, I am not being compensated for my (minor) edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickinsonCollegeFDST (talk • contribs)

Given your promotional username coupled with the promotional edit, I don't really believe that. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to put my IP address. not sure how to do this, first time making an edit. should I change the username? I don't want it to be a "promotional username". not at all.