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 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!

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)

Well, the content is AI-generated blather, and the site was being systematically spammed by sockpuppet accounts (which have subsequently been blocked as part of a spam farm). MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Finell, the domain cited has since been added to the spam blacklist. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 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)

Wikinegarr. Keep discussion on the article talk page where it belongs. And do not post AI-generated stuff again, you must write in your own words. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

it is not ai generated. Wikinegarr (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that, and neither do AI-detection tools. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi MrOllie, I have started a dispute resolution as discussions have failed on the talk page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Repressed memory NpsychC (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)