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 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!

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Humanitarian aid[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. Could you please remove the external link to the outdated Reuters site if you don't approve of my replacement. Or should it be there forever? Would https://news.un.org/en/news/topic/humanitarian-aid be an appropriate replacement? Why did you remove my other edit on the GHO 2024? I don't get it. I am new, but I was trying to start improving an article that is not very good and out of date. DanKost (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~ DanKost (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BiglyBT[edit]

Maybe I am wrong, but I can not shake off the feeling that mr. Liu is a re-incarnation of the many former BiglyBT-promotors. And possibly has a COI and a hearing problem (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT). The Banner talk 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea one way or the other. They are not a single purpose editor, though, so unless they disclose it themselves for some reason I don't see how it would make much practical difference. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie's mistakes[edit]

MrOllie, you have deleted my scientific and academic contributions with verified bibliographic references in the links. This is a serious error, because this academic contributions are very important in this scientific discipline. You are not an expert on these topics, but I am. Because of beings like you, Wikipedia is a very bad encyclopedia. I'm going to revert your changes because all the scientific information is correct. There is no cite spam, it's completely fake. Bibliographic links are proof of the veracity of citations. MrOllie, maybe you have to be eliminated from Wikipedia because you are obsolete. Be genuine and apologetic for your mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma'at36 (talk • contribs)

Reverting your self promotion is not a 'mistake'. You should respect Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest and self promotion, which have been linked for you on your own talk page. Empty threats about eliminating me from Wikipedia will not help the situation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uninvolved opinion I think you are confusing wikipedia, that requires WP:SECONDARY referecences, with a scientific publication that allows original-author publication. It does not matter at all how important, numerous, or "verifified" (whatever that means) a publication of a new idea is, it's still WP:PRIMARY research. I agree with MrOllie that your main edit pattern is to cite your own work, name-drop yourself, and edit-war about it. No, that's simply not acceptable here. I've dropped a level-3 warning. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but self-promotion was not my intention, I apologize. However, please I need my contributions to be reversed so I can reduce my citations that are reference handbooks and be able to add citations from other authors.

As I said, WP:SECONDARY is the key, not just "other authors". I do not know enough about the topic at this time to decide whether it is WP:DUE to include it at all, but in given the closeness of your association witht the topic, I would generally advise to make sure any ideas are at at least somewhat mainstream or established in the field rather than cutting-edge or controversial. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sargent movie[edit]

Exactly what aspects of this do you consider advertising? I'd like to put back mention of the movie in a manner that you don't consider advertising.

In 2024, Exhibition on Screen produced a documentary ''John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger'', filmed at the [[Museum of Fine Arts, Boston]] and the [[Tate Britain]], London.<ref>{{Cite web |title=John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger - Exhibition On Screen % |url=https://seventh-art.com/product/john-singer-sargent/ |access-date=2024-05-21 |website=Exhibition On Screen |language=en-US}}</ref> It was based on the Sargent and fashion exhibits at those two museums, linked to below in "External links".<ref>''The Guardian'' review: [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/15/john-singer-sargent-fashion-swagger-review-exhibition-on-screen "John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger review – exploring the artist’s work in style"]</ref> Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is promotion for a nonnotable film. It was added by the filmmaker, and it links to the filmmaker's website, where one can pay to stream the filmmaker's review. The Guardian review spends more time talking about Sargent and the physical exhibition than it does about the film it is ostensibly reviewing. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted the above with a link only to the Guardian review, since you consider the filmmaker's website an ad. I don't know what you mean by "it was added by the filmmaker," as I have no connection with the filmmaker. I also don't know your criteria for notability. I have seen this film and quite a few others produced by Exhibition on Screen, found them all of high quality, and think that they would be of interest to Wikipedia readers who are interested in the artists whose work they are about. I also think that the Guardian review devotes sufficient space to the film, but I don't see the relevance of either your or my opinion of the review. I see no problem with my original post, but I've compromised by editing it in a way that I hope addresses your objections to it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spammed domains on user talk pages[edit]

Hi!

First of all thank you for your work fighting spam!

While fighting spam myself and using spamcheck I saw that you seem to include links to the spammed domain when adding warnings on user talk pages, e.g. here. This is problematic because tools such as spamcheck find those links and display them as unremoved (blue in spamcheck), making it harder to see what links still need removing when doing a systematic purge. I would suggest using {{LinkSummary|spammed.domain.com}} instead if you feel that adding the domain to the warning is necessary. Count Count (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Count Count: The purpose of those links is to track which users have been warned for adding a particular domain - a list can later be generated using Special:Linksearch. The LinkSummary template would not fulfill that purpose. MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the users who have added a domain using spamcheck. That list is much more complete as it records all additions for a domain and thus shows you all users who have added a link to that domain. Count Count (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the process and tools I've been using, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Gallery movies[edit]

OK, what is it this time? (And how do you keep such close track of my edits?) I used the imdb links with you in mind, because they are not ads. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]