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!

Management consulting

Curious why the shorter addition to the management consulting page is not allowed. It is not name dropping companies any different than the big four and big three (MBB) sections do. The "Tier 2" category is as defined as those two, with plenty of sources. Can you explain why this is different? 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Your edit was unverified. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Added sources -- thank you. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Unreliable sources do not help, see WP:RS. And at any rate, this is still inappropriate name dropping of particular companies. Wikipedia isn't a business directory or otherwise a place to list or promote particular companies. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  How is Big 4 or Big 3 not name dropping? Confused about this. Tier 2 is a very common category in the management consulting industry and there are select few firms considered within this bucket. It is not different than the big 3 or big 4, or even ivy league schools. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Literally in the big 3 section OC&C is name dropped...for what reason? It says they are generally considered a top firm. This is no different but is even more defined as "Tier 2" is an official category of firms. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Big Three (management consultancies) and Big Four accounting firms are independently notable terms, with their own Wikipedia articles and extensive sourcing from highly reliable publishers. Your additions are based on unreliable blogs and career websites. Also: stop adding promotional text to L.E.K. Consulting. Are you associated with one of these companies in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am not, but I was just curious and thought that the category should be added since it is widely considered an official grouping. If you just google it, you will find plenty of reliable sources (at least considered reliable in the consulting/mba community like Management Consulted, Prep Lounge, Vault, Hacking the Case Interview) that consider this to be true. I will stop making the edits, but I still do not see a difference. Especially with the fact that OC&C is named drop as continuing to be prestigious within the big 3 category. This is no different than listing a college as a "top fifty" school because 3 rankings / 5 consider them a top fifty. Just like colleges, these companies are ranked based on multiple factors including revenue, compensation, WLB, prestige, size, etc. It is less so promotional and more so biased to pick and choose professional categories to feature on the Wikipedia page. I will not editing, but I wholeheartedly disagree and you have not provided a decent argument as to why this is invalid. It is not a personal opinion, but one held by the ENTIRE industry. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the typos, but you get the sentiment. My point was it is biased to allow certain categories and groupings of firms and not others when they are all considered to be true by the industry, which you are likely not in yourself. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, reliable sources are what is defined at WP:RS. Blogs and selfpublished career websites do not qualify. OC&C is discussed because a chunk of their business was acquired by one of the big 4. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  " OC&C Strategy Consultants still independently operates 14 offices in over 10 countries, and is commonly referenced as a top consulting firm" and it cites the same sources I cited. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  So why do college pages refer to Niche and USWorldNews rankings? Those are self published blogs and rankings? I sense bias 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Now read the sentence before the one you just quoted.

  US News is not a self published blog. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  And either is Vault? Explain to me how Vault rankings are self publishing blog then? 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, I'm done answering this never-ending stream of questions for the day. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, you're just wrong. Vault is the US News for the industry. It was cited for OC&C "is referenced as a top consulting firm" and that wasn't taken down. You are being biased and it shows. 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Since you can't take the hint, I'll be more clear: Stop posting on my talk page. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My Addition Reverted Issue

Dear Mr Ollie i dont know the Actual reason why you reverted my Addition. i am the Publisher and i am doing addition with spending too much in it and you just came and revert the addition by considering it the spammy or promoting your own website. hence after studying i found that multiple high profile website just like espncricinfo and gsm areana are doing the same thing adding the product and refer it to their own site so why there addition is not consider as spam but my addition is. nor i am doing too much i just add max of two a day, if you look you will find the things i added is missing in the context and added additional and accurate value.I know that wikipedia is a user generated platform not a promoting platform. its provided the accurate and actual information

if i have been doing some mistakes in addition so kindly let me know what i am doin wrong. Thank You Shahkarshah01 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Your mistake is adding spam links to your own website, which is not a usable link or citation for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dissappointed Shahkarshah01 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Possibly unfair revertion?

why did you revert my contribution? No original research was involved, just going off citations listed on the wiki page's note. (the one near the result "Inconclusive") KiddKrazy (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

For the reasons already listed on your own talk page. You should wait for consensus support for your changes on the article talk page (and provide new sourcing), my user talk is the wrong venue for that, also see WP:RESULT MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. No need for the insult/remark though. KiddKrazy (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No need for the insult A standard warning is not an 'insult'. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but your consensus support remark is. (Or at least can be interpreted as such.) KiddKrazy (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think I'm insulting you, feel free to take it to an admin. Or ask them to explain WP:CONSENSUS at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. May have misinterpreted that. KiddKrazy (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Health Insurance page edit

I understand why my citation was reverted in regards to the United States - Short Term Health Insurance section on the Health Insurance page. I do have a question for you regarding the best approach to adding new information.... The duration of Short Term Health Insurance plans was recently changed to a maximum of 3 months (4 month total renewal duration), instead of a maximum of 364 days (36 month total renewal duration). (https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/finalized-federal-rule-reduces-total-duration-of-short-term-health-plans-to-4-months/) Should this information be added as a new paragraph? Or does the whole first paragraph of the Short Term Health Insurance section need to be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.254.122 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The most important thing to take on board is that you should not be using unreliable sales sites like 'healthinsurance.org' as citations. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the feedback. I'll search for an alternative source for the information. The author of the healthinsurance.org article, per her bio, has been writing about health insurance since 2006 so your concern must be with the site as a whole. 50.217.254.122 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Wikipedia does not use self published sites, sales sites, blogs, etc. Stick to newspapers, books from reputable publishers, peer-reviewed journals and so on. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Why revert addition of reference?

Hi MrOllie,

Why did you revert this addition of a reference as spam? This is a question, not a challenge. —Finell 05:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Final Request for Revision – Resolving the Contradiction in the Accounting Definition

hello.

I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to you once again, with a final request regarding the initial sentence in the "Accounting" article on Wikipedia. After reflecting on our previous conversations and reexamining the article, I believe there is a significant contradiction in how the definition of accounting is currently presented, which I’d like to discuss in more detail.

The article, as it stands, introduces "accounting" in its most general sense without any mention of "analysis" in the opening definition. This omission is particularly concerning because later in the same article, when discussing management accounting, it explicitly mentions that management accounting involves analysis. This creates an inherent contradiction: how can one specialized branch of accounting (i.e., management accounting) include analysis while the broader field of accounting, which encompasses all subfields, does not?

This suggests that accounting as a whole is merely about recording transactions, which is a gross oversimplification of the profession. The field of accounting, in reality, is much broader. Accounting not only involves recording financial information but also interpreting, analyzing, and presenting it in ways that assist decision-making for businesses, individuals, and governments alike. To exclude any mention of analysis in the opening definition of the entire field is misleading and diminishes the full scope of what accounting truly entails.

What is even more contradictory is that analysis plays a critical role in all aspects of accounting, not just in management accounting. Financial accounting, for example, requires rigorous analysis to prepare accurate financial statements, interpret company performance, and ensure compliance with standards. Similarly, audit and tax accounting are also grounded in analytical processes that go far beyond simple bookkeeping. In fact, without analysis, accounting information would be of little use to stakeholders, as raw data alone does not inform strategic decisions.

Given that the article later discusses analysis in the context of management accounting, I believe it is essential to reflect this in the broader definition of accounting as well. Not only would this resolve the contradiction, but it would also provide readers with a more accurate and complete understanding of the field from the outset.

I propose a slight but meaningful revision to the opening sentence, which could say something like: "Accounting is the process of recording, analyzing, and reporting financial information." This small addition acknowledges that accounting is not limited to recording transactions but also involves the critical step of analyzing financial data to provide meaningful insights.

I genuinely believe this revision will enhance the accuracy and clarity of the article, and I kindly ask you to reconsider my suggestion. Thank you for your dedication to ensuring that Wikipedia provides high-quality and informative content, and I hope we can collaborate to resolve this issue for the benefit of all readers.

Best regards, Wikinegarr (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)