MrOllie
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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
November 2024
editHello 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)
Strikethrough201.227.221.154 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Do not spread misinformation
editChris 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)
- 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)
hey
editgREAT TO SEE YOU
Relisting Polyvagal Theory RfC
editI began this RfC on 6/14/24: [1] The RfC template was removed by bot on 7/1/24: [2]. I attempted to restart the RfC on 7/25/24 in hope of drawing more participants to the discussion but I put the code in the wrong spot, and the RfC template never appeared:[3]. So it wasn’t actually restarted. I have also checked the all RfCs page and could not find this one listed. When I noticed, I fixed the placement of the code on 8/23/24 - restarting the RfC for the first time: [4]. Eleven minutes later, you reverted my action, effectively stymieing further participation. Your rationale was: “nope, we don't keep relisting these indefinately.(sic)” [5]. So, this RfC has never been relisted, not even once. I therefore wish to relist it, but before doing so, I wanted to explain the circumstances and be sure you were not going to revert it again. .
By the way, even if it was relisted once, it has now been 4 months since then. According to WP:RFC, discussions can relisted so long as they aren’t closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC. There is no policy prohibiting more than one relisting.
Please let me know if you intend to delete the relisting again, in which case I would rather discuss it here first. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ian, you did in fact relist the RFC once. You then relisted it again a month later - RFCs are not meant to be relisted again and again - this is not something you can keep open until you get the result you want. Even relisting it once was inappropriate, given your COI. It is time to stop starting RFCs over and over, and then relisting RFCs over and over. That is an abuse of the process. Instead, it is time to accept that the Wikipedia article will not be what you or your employer would like it to be. I definitely will revert if you continue to try to relist the RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)