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!

Wikipedia Bias policy on living persons.

Please refrain from placing opinion based political bias on the tim pool page, thanks! DanMan3395 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Wikipedia doesn't have a 'Bias' policy. Stop deleting chunks of the article. If you have some kind of point to make, make it on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

List of office suites, removed entry

I did not know, that one may only link, that already have a wikipedia article. Is this really a rule??? I checked the notability of course, CryptPad is a long existing project, mentioned in the media and it got public money from funds of EU and is part of open source projects from france and germany. I can try to create a wikipedia article but isn't this usally much harder since new wikipedia articles get removed often? To my understanding wikipedia is about incrementally build knowledge, so this a a catch 22:

• no link without article
• no article without fully complete text with hundereds of references (sorry for the exaggeration), so that no wikipeda admin delte it within seconds
• no chance to incremenentally build something, because it has to be perfect or it gets deleted

Adding something new to wikipedia got hard these days, only extending existing pages is easy. Again sorry for my complaint. Please clarify or link the rule "no link without wikipedia page", this is really new to me and I'm willing to learn. Of course this will not automatically lead to doing so, as my exaggerated explanation above shows how hard this would be IMHO. Thanks. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not know, that one may only link, that already have a wikipedia article. Is this really a rule???

That (and the template you also changed) are lists of suites that have a preexisting Wikipedia article, yes. We need to have some inclusion criteria for the list, and that is the one we use. If you want to incrementally build a new article without concern of deletion, we have a draft space for that. Details are at WP:AFC. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You did not prove your argument. You repeated it, but you did not prove it. To my understanding from the wikipedia rules you are right that for every single item of list the wikipedia rules of notability apply - which I complied to. You are also right that an existing wikipedia page (usally) is a prove of notability, this is self explaining. But you are not right that any list item without a wikipedia page is automatically not notabale. This is stated nowhere to my understanding and you did not provide a link or prove. Of course there may exist lvalid ist items without a wikipedia article. This is seldom, so I see your poitn here, but not impossible.

If I would have added Albert Einstein to a list of noble prize winners, including a reference, but Albert Eisntein woudl have no wikipedia article, then this list item would of course be notable and right and because of the public awareness you would not delete the list item. So again, please explain to me, why or where an existing wikipedia page is requirement. It is a (strong) evidence, one evidence, but not the only one.

Regarding WP:AFC this is no protection of getting deleted in the public wikipedia, it's only a safe space to do a lot of work and then get delted or not upon publishing.

If you show me the prove, ok. But if there is no prove you are actign against your own interests: Extending wikipedia with relevant knowledge. I can image that you have to clear up wikipedia all the times, especially because of lackign notability. But you shpudl also consider if there are edge cases any you are acting, because it does not look good to have a list full of items with wikipedia articles and one without or because you spend so much time and are right almost always.

We can discuss the notability of the case and I can try to prove it. But at the moment the rule of no list items without wikipedia article seems to be a simplification made from you, so this would not be fair - and against the wikipedia rules. Of course, I don't have your wikipedia knowledge, so I apologize if I'm false or if I have hurt you, that's why I asked for link (aka prove) in my initial statement. Thanks again. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm telling you what the inclusion criteria is for the particular list you modified. The points you are making about other lists or about creating new articles are irrelevant to that. My user talk page is not a place to try to 'prove' irrelevancies. If you have further questions along those lines, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You stated: "I'm telling you what the inclusion criteria is for the particular list you modified."

This is not your original statment, this is a new arguement.

Orignally you argued on my user page by the notability guideline - which I complied to.

Now you are arguing by "inclusion criteria for the particular list". So where can I please find them?

Thanks. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything, we're not having a debate. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You messaged me on my discussion page. You also state in general, that you only answer on your discussion page. And the discussion page is for discussions. So this is the right place.

You edited one of my edits. You linked an explanation (WP:notability) which does not apply. So I asked you for the correct rules, which you don't provide.

At the moment this would be an action from you based on rules from you, not from wikipedia. I asked you and ask you politely and civilized for clarfication of this potential misunderstanding. Instead you block the conservation, so that I have to live with your personal decision about my edit.

Rules are applying to all. If one does not apply to a rule, one has to explain which rule it was. A set of transparent rules is the base of democracy. I asked you politely to make the rule transparent, since you initially linked rules that do not apply. In response you justify this with other rules ("inclusion criteria for the particular list") which you don't link or publish.

Thanks in advance. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The message you got on your own user talk page is the standard template text everyone gets when they add something to a list that doesn't meet inclusion criteria. It was a form letter. You seem to have developed an impression that Wikipedia operates on an inflexible system of laws or rules, applied mechanistically across the whole project. But that is not how Wikipedia works at all (see WP:WIKILAWYER).

List article inclusion criteria vary from list to list. You will not find some 'rule' that says every list everywhere follows such and such criteria. One easy way to know that you weren't following the list criteria would be to note that every existing entry on the list linked to a Wikipedia article. Once again, if you have general questions about 'rules' on Wikipedia, take them to WP:TEAHOUSE. You wrote that A set of transparent rules is the base of democracy. - You should have a read of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBURO. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. I would like to point you to some bad behaviour you have made:

1. If you post a standard template text as a justification foru your edit you have to expect that users take your posted standard template for granted and ask questions if it is not applicable.

2. Your explanation of an otherwise infexible system of laws and rules and according linking of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBURO is comprehensible but indistinguishable from rules you may have imagined yourself or rules that apply, because you have a stronger wikipedia position or more possibilities than me.

3. Your stating of "easy way to know" I was not following the rules is impolite, because as we see it is not that easy. Without the word "eays" it would be neutral and I suppose this was emotionally.

4. I don't have general questions about rules on wikipedia, I had questions about your rules on wikipedia, which you finally explained now. Thanks. So please csonider, if you are false when you try to end a discussion on your talk page, although the talk pages are made for this.

So summing up:

• You may be right, you may be wrong, according to your explanations one can not know this. Please consider this for your future talking to users.
• As explained it is difficult to fulfill "the" rule of creating a wikipedia page first. So regarding the motiviation to extend wikipedia it's enough for me for now. This may be be something you wanted, if you suppose WP:COI regarding me, if so tell it to me at first contact, if not you may reconsider your behaviour. If you think you are helping by blocking or acting as guardian for users then the reality is you are and you are not at once.

I'm thanking you for your engagment in wikipedia, but considering me and today you were impolite and of little help. You coudl have reacted much better to my first posting on your talk page.

Regards. 149.172.27.82 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia banning trolls?

I saw you fixing a trolls edit on the “Soul” definition. - does Wikipedia have a report button or anything to flag false edits? 2601:280:5F00:6CA0:C1C4:F365:5B55:B8BE (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie! (on Modern Monetary Theory)

I noticed you recently reverted my edits to the Modern Monetary Theory page. That's reasonable, I was on the talk page just writing a section about my edits, and I'm about to go post to a notice board about it.

I'm not asking you to change anything back, or re-instate my edits. Better if you don't, as I'm reporting the page as having suffered long term vandalism. It's full of things that would factually absurd to anyone who knows about the crux of Modern Monetary Theory, for instance the line that involves "...needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires".... modern monetary theorists don't actually believe taxes pay for things - as per this video (it's very short): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0R9Ye2ovM&list=PLMUzeMKhbl10X-XzH-6q4iU0Ysul7cC4c&index=2

So for Wikipedia to be positing in the first sentence that MMT says money is needed for taxes! Puts forward a false impression about the theory. There are many slip ups in the article, that suggest someone whose against MMT is subtly sabotaging the article. Likewise the involve of "savings desires".... where MMT theorists believe that constructive labor creates economic growth and value... so their aim is not to satisfy "savings desires" whatever that alludes to. Just letting you know, there's massive and systemic issues with the pages representation of the theory. You don't have to trust me, there's plenty of resources for learning about it. 101.115.129.232 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows independent sourcing from reliable publishers. There's nothing we can do with YouTube videos posted by proponents. It is not that someone 'against' MMT is sabotaging the article, it is that MMT is a heterodox theory and Wikipedia follows mainstream thinking. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You're trying to keep one of the people who developed the theory off the page as a source? Don't do that, you should be here to WP:BUILD an encyclopedia, not get in the way or prevent other users from WP:BUILDING an encyclopedia.

From The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College [1]:

L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and the 2022-2023 Teppola Distinguished Visiting Professor at Willamette University, Oregon. He is one of the developers of Modern Money Theory and his newest book on the topic is Making Money Work for Us (Polity, November 2022). [emphasis added]

I merely posted one of his videos to the talk page, so people like you would stop reverting attempts at fixing the page. You should learn the theory if you want to take a position on it. If you don't know what's accurate, you shouldn't be blocking other editors who do. Particularly when they're correcting unsourced content that's been maliciously included on the page as vandalism. 117.102.133.36 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That someone wrote something you (or the developers of MMT) disagree with does not make it 'vandalism'. Please direct any follow up comments to the talk page of the article, where discussion like this belongs. MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

AN

Someone started a thread about you at WP:AN and did not notify you. I figured I'd give you a heads up since they didn't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnson Solid List

If you have any objections to my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Johnson_solids#External_links then can you please put them in the talk page under the section I created? I don't think there needs to be a consensus for such a small edit so if you have a problem with the edit please address it directly. Also the way you have left the page has no external link to any visualisations which is decidedly worse than where it was before you or I edited it. HappyWrap (talk) 1:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You've tried to add that link and been reverted several times. You absolutely need there to be a consensus for that or any other disputed edit, no matter how small. If there is no consensus for any particular link, then there shouldn't be any links on the page. - MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a sockpuppet and harasser

Hi,Sir A sockpuppet is constantly putting unsourced content on the wikipage Uddhav Thackeray,After removing his unsourced edits,he is harassing me on my talk page. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 )

Regards Io5678 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please,can you try on my behalf Io5678 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No. MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am trying,please guide me.

Thanks for the response Io5678 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The instructions at WP:ANI are pretty clear. After notifying the other editor by putting "{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~" on their talk page, you can just repost your account of the problem at WP:ANI, and administrators will take it from there. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcehut

Hi MrOllie, I noticed you removed an already discussed item in the talk section I added called sourcehut. Apologies, I was not aware that it is needed an independent page to be in those tables. Technically, it has more features than many others, as shown in the tables, while others like Phabricator has already ceased its activities.AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a catalog or a link directory, we're not attempting to list every possible service, only the ones which have demonstrated notability in the form of a standalone article. You could proceed by writing a standalone article, if the available sources meet the requirements of WP:N.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you have commented about this in 3 separate places, I will not respond here any more. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Except to note for the future that you altered the above comment after I'd already responded to it. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I was editing it while you wrote me, so I did not read your message before my edit. Apologies. It was too long, and too tecnhical. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I am not yet an expert. You wrote me in my page so I replied you there, but you did not replied me, and other editors request to write in their pages, so I wrote here. Obviously I commented in talk section of the page we are talking about, as it is a logical place to contact with other editors about it. As I was not the only one considering that the table might not be complete. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I have to note that there are tons of tables where entries doesn't have an specific wikipedia page, and others where the entry is pointing to a wrong page of wikipedia. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)