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!

Ancient Greek Lyre - Nowadays part

All links used in the chapter "The ancient Greek seven - string Lyre nowadays" are not promo, as stated, but a proof of evidence supporting the article. More specifically all links are proving that:

- A solist of the instrument that has a huge contribution of it's revival (Dr. Nikos Xanthoulis) exists.

- Academic studies on learning how to play the ancient Greek seven - string Lyre exist (conservatory of Nikaia and Democritus University of Thrace).

- A complete learning method of the instrument.

- Growing repertoire written specificaly for this instrument.

All above are vital parts in order to revive the ancient Greek lyre and must be included in the wikipedia article to provide information to any user interested on the topic. Διήων (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It is blatant promo, including inappropriate external links. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not the place to 'spread the word' about such developments, certainly not based on primary sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How exactly academic studies on the top of the ancient Greek lyre, the existence of a learning method after almost two millennia and the revival of the instrument is blatant promo? Διήων (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The text was plainly added to promote Dr. Xanthoulis and the program in question 100% of the sourcing comes from those entities. Wikipedia needs independent, secondary sources - materials written by people entirely unassociated with Xanthoulis or the University in question. You appear to be associated with this program yourself - you are likely in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as explained at WP:PAID and WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean the university in question? Do you say that the university is a not existing foundation or you are assuming that the research provided as a verification of the article via academia is not an acceptable source??? I think you underestimate the importance of the revival of the instrument after 1600 years. Διήων (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do not understand what a primary source is, or if you have other questions about Wikipedia in general, please consult WP:RSPRIMARY and/or follow up at WP:TEAHOUSE. But first, you must address your WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To begin with there is no conflict of interest here. You are using the term wrong. my only interest on the subject is as a musician and i recentrly discovered the existence of such academic curiculum and I find it exremely important for the instrument and it's story that's why i made the addition. According to WP:COI article that you were kind enough to share what i posted is not violating anything. No financial or any other benefits are coming from the publication of the existence after 1600 years of academic studies on the ancient Greek Lyre and the story behind it. I really don't get why you keep editing and removing such an important part of the article, even though several links of verification have been provided. You say that the article is promoting the work of Dr. Xanthoulis but it is not doing such a thing, it only recognise his contribution on the revision of an ancient instrument. If you took some minutes to review the links assosiate with this part of the article you could see yourself that they are coming from different sources and all verify the informations i posted. Please consider what I said above before re-editing the article. The revival of this instrument is big news in the musical world. Διήων (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is no conflict of interest, how did you come to take the photographs you uploaded at File:Firstcirclegraduatesdelphi.jpg, and File:NikosXanthoulisLyreBlackBackground.jpg, both of which you tagged as your own work? MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I found them from facebook posts in a group about the Greek lyre, I asked permission to post them here and I got it. I did not take the pictures myself. Διήων (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll tag them as copyright violations, then, since you uploaded them in error. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No copyright violation, they are posted publically and I have the permision to post them from the owner. Διήων (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Being posted publically is irrelevant. That you have permission is nice, but they need to give Wikipedia permission, you may not freely license images on someone else's behalf. Process for that can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if this is 'big news in the musical world' that does not explain your use of primary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to spread 'big news', see WP:NOTNEWS. You're simply trying to get Wikipedia to do something it is not designed to do. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a personal reason for not wanting the informations regarding the ancient Greek lyre in the modern world to be on wikipedia... It is interesting information and there is no reason to not have them in the article. Διήων (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You got me, I have been editing Wikipedia for years in preparation for this moment, keeping your promotion of somebody's musical career and classes off of Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also interesting that you keep bringing up this view on the matter. The edit was about the revival of the ancient Greek lyre. We did not know absolutetly anything about the instrument apart from archaelogical finds. A recreation of the instrument was made possible due to the reaserch work of Mr Xanthoulis (I provided the links from academia with his pappers on the subject as verified proof) and I will say it once more.... after 1600 of silence the ancient Greek lyre is now sounding again and this should be part of the article too. Now regarding the "classes" its an academic program and know that in Greece several universites are public, like the Dimocritus University of Thrace, and they are non-profit institutions. Your arguments are invalid and extremely curious. Διήων (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They might seem curious if you completely fail to engage with their substance - which is that adding material like this based on primary sources is counter to Wikipedia's content policies. It isn't just me - other editors have noticed the same thing, and you are edit warring with them as well to try to force this into Wikipedia. It simply does not belong here. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just googled your wiki name and several articles and post came up saying you are really into edit wars and some even said you are a "paid contributor". The fact that you are bold enough to say that the revival of the ancient greek lyre, the fact that people are again studying it, music is composed for it and even academic studies on the subject exist proves that you are either stubborn or serve your own agenda. I already answered to several accusations of yours and there are no evidence to your claims. My edit is truthful and I have documented it enough to support it. 2A02:1388:14A:DB17:D8CB:40FF:FEA3:4371 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't believe every bit of nonsense you find on google. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ain't THAT the truth. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your name seems to appear repeatedly throughout my time on Huggle, the abuse filter log, and just about anywhere disruption occurs. Hats off to you, good sir. Synorem (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello Mr. Ollie!

I seen that you removed my added text from the article "Smoothie King" for the reason of not encompassing a neutral point of view. I'm not looking to conflict with your reasoning, but from the actions you've taken on my edits, I will take your feedback into consideration and revise my changes! To avoid this in the future from other editors, if not yourself, any recommendations you don't mind giving to a neophyte, such as myself, for editing articles on Wikipedia? I have a definitive understanding for some of the required principles (sources, respectable tone, research) for editing on Wikipedia, but now is when I am actually applying them, hoping to avoid extremities! Thanks Mr. Ollie!

~~~~Kelly Carolinian Kelly Carolinian (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My recommendation is to use only independent, secondary sources. Don't use press releases or press-release churnalism articles, and particularly do not import wording from press releases into Wikipedia. When you start with promotional sources you are going to end up with promotional results, and that doesn't meet WP:NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Strikethrough 201.227.221.154 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not spread misinformation

Chris Messina was not the first person to apply usage of a hashtag on the Twitter platform, I cited the source which was Sylvain Carle in Montreal, Canada from his Twitter account. If you don't like my change, at least remove that Chris Messina used the first hashtag on Twitter, which is completely FALSE. Perspicaciousonion (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You added a link to a search, which is not a usable citation on Wikipedia, and which doesn't actually show what you seem to think it shows - not unusual, since twitter search links are notoriously unreliable and show different results for different users. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

So which source do you think is most reliable to disprove that he did not in fact, send out the first hashtag onto that platform? Perspicaciousonion (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a well researched topic, I would expect you can find something like a peer-reviewed article or a book on the history of computing or social media. Also have a look at WP:RS, which explains sourcing standards for Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)