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!

Raw Feeding

Why is an article with interviews and quotes by Dr. Ian Billinghurst spam? The whole section is about his model and his take on raw feeding. The video interview and written work are also there. He is the creator of this model, so why is he spam?Jaystee97 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Even setting aside the fact that this is a site that is set up trying to sell pet food telling you why their pet food is great, We have specific requirements for such things, which you can find at WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. But I know this isn't about that, because 100% of your edits are attempts to add inappropriate links to Wikipedia. And I note that all these sites use the same marketing firm. What a coincidence! MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Improper deletion of my add of information.

I plainly stated that decades of painstaking research has been done on this human rights issue. Why did you summarily delete it without any cogent or meaningful explanation? This is so wrong, you are suppressing information concerning vile and illegal government slave-trafficking in the USA. How could you do this? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because, as MrOllie said in his edsum, it is unsourced. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unsourced"? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2000 decision in Apprendi was plainly cited. The provisions of the thirteenth amendment were also referened. The fact that this particular painstakingly researched issue is presently "unresolved" by the courts was also plainly stated. How could anyone seriously claim this is "unsourced" information? Antislaveryman (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

How to I appeal this decision to delete the information I added? Antislaveryman (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

By 'unsourced', we mean that you didn't cite any sources. Citing your sources is required. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Note in particular that you can't reference the 13th amendment and just give your opinion based on that - everything has to come from a cited source. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Portable water purification cut

I'm curious why you cut the example products section from the Portable water purification page. Did it violate any policy?

All the products that were there I thought were interesting because they were developed to solve third world clean water issues. Had I known someone would cut the entire section, not sure I would have added what I had added.

FWIW - I have no affiliation with the product I added, just discovered it today while researching water disinfection techniques. Also discovered this page today as well, and thought it was a worthy improvement. I disagree that any of the products in that section would be considered SPAM.

I also happen to be someone who gets much of their drinking water from untreated sources, so the topic is important to me.

Is there anything I could do to persuade you to revert this cut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongfa (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added a resourceful link but not approved

Hi, I'm really concerned about why the link I inserted here is not approved! Whether it is very informative, containing huge List of Bangla newspaper. I think the link is ideal for List of newspapers in Bangladesh page as a reference. Please, have a look on the link Ahmadul (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory. See WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please for your kind information, I've pasted the link as a references not like link building Ahmadul (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Wikipedia isn't a place to list your website, which does not meet requirements for sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

you guys are one eyed! Ahmadul (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Who are you calling "guys?" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverts on Nurse Practitioner

Hi @MrOllie - just following up about the reverts of a student of mine on Nurse Practitioner so that I can assist them. Your talk page message didn't specify which of their changes required consensus, and you didn't link to any policy supporting your reverts. Can you clarify DarthVetter (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Matthewvetter: There have been lots of discussions about the mid level practitioner stuff. There is a NP professional org that really, really hates the term and would very much like it removed, but the reliable sources are otherwise fairly unanimous that that is what they are. Recent changes also were from an overwhelmingly US perspective - for example talking about 'The Nurse Practice Act of each state'. It's a global topic so it should be a global article. I'm also not in love with the use of search results pages as citations. - 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection of word cloud page undo

Hi, @MrOllie. I noticed that you have undone my several revisions of the item "Tag_cloud" with the reason "Your github isn't a reliable source". I have some doubts in my mind.

First, I find there are many references to personal blog and website in the same page, such as:

• Lamantia, Joe. "Text Clouds: A New Form of Tag Cloud?". [https:655/http://www.joelamantia.com/blog/archives/tag_clouds/text_clouds_a_new_form_of_tag_cloud.html Archived] from the original on 2008-09-10. Retrieved 2008-09-11. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): Check |archive-url= value (help)
• Mehta, Chirag. "US Presidential Speeches Tag Cloud". Archived from the original on 2007-10-19. Retrieved 2008-09-11.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Word_population_tagcloud_2011.png A data cloud showing the population of each of the world's countries. Created in R with the wordcloud package

And there are more references of this kind. Why are they reliable? Your undoing makes me quite confused.

Second, my source code is a word cloud implementation. It's open. It's reproducible. It's an entity, not an opinion or information. Believe it or not, it DOES exist. All the pictures I added DO exist on my personal page. How can they be fake pictures?

For the above two concerns, I hope you could give me further explanations. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuoYongzhi (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited. The presence of other sources that don't meet the guidelines is a reason to replace those citations with proper sources, not to add your own self published material as well. Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a newbie, and I just followed others on the same page to make a quick contribution. But don't you think we really need a picture to illustrate the large paragraph of the [Visual appearance] section? With your permission, I can remove the link and leave only the picture, just as many other pictures on that page do. I just want to make this entry better. Original images are not considered original research. Is my understanding right? I'm afraid there are not so many resources in newspapers or published books for such a non serious entry. And maybe that's why there are so many unreliable sources on that page. Or, if leaving only the picture is still conflicts with the policy, I think I can volunteer to help you to undo other unreliable sources on that page. Thank you for your contribution. GuoYongzhi (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Solitaire

How can you consider the references I just made on Spider Solitaire not relevant? There is no source for the specific claim and I'm adding a source. KarlJohan108 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You were adding an unreliable source, apparently for promotional purposes. Don't do it again, please. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)