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!

False statement in Epoch Times article

You reverted my edit to the first paragraph of the Epoch Times article, without a mention of the very reliable source that I used. I started a new topic on the Epoch Times talk page addressing this. Other Choices (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't post on my talk page again unless you're showing up because you've finally read the whole article and are coming to apologize. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

SIMDEC

As a long time practitioners of sensitivity analysis and Wikipedia contributor I respectfully disagree with the removing the SIMDEC insertion. I think the insertion is relevant. Please refer to the talk page of SIMDEC where I motivate the creation of this page. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎‎Saltean (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourself or your work. Please read our guidelines on conflict of interest (already linked on your own talk page) and follow them from now on. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Pascal triangle

Some user had added the unreferenced claim of meru prasanda and pingala Pascal triangle again on the page . Leveinhockerkerala (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Influenced and influences in infobox

Why are you removing the influences and influenced tab of the infobox? Instead of deleting it, the text should go somewhere, if the problem is with the infobox element. These tabs are quite useful. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The fields are not functional. Nothing is being displayed. Including non-displaying fields is an error. MrOllie (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But in all of philosophers pages? I was web scraping and using it for my research. The information from the infobox is simply deleted, rather than placed somewhere else. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion and it was decided to remove it from all the infoboxes. Edit warring ineffectually on one article or another will not reverse that. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Where was this discussion placed? I literally am using these texts to my research. 2804:14C:5BD8:5070:F7CC:DCF1:6F7A:8EA5 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slxsis (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring Polyvagal theory article during RfC

User:MrOllie Since there is an RfC still going on about Polyvagal Theory, I’d request that you please revert the lead of the article to its original state before the RfC began. I know you weren’t the first one to edit it during the RfC discussion, but after reverting those changes you then made edits yourself to the lead while it remained under discussion. User:Qflib and Drthorgithecorgi have both objected. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Survey and Discussion As it says in WP:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC, “Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring.”) I understand that you and I have very different opinions on what should or should not be in the lead, but that’s what the RfC is for, and until that’s done neither of us should be making changes to the lead while there’s still discussion going on. You should suggest your new sentence in the RfC discussion, then alert others, including Qfib and Drthorgithecorgi , that the lead is back to where it started so the discussion can resume. As to my edits to the page (outside the lead) that you reverted, I thought removing unsourced claims about medical treatments could not possibly be controversial, and thus permitted under WP:COIU. It’s an odd choice to restore unsourced claims about medical treatments, contrary to the standards of WP:MEDRS, but I certainly won’t edit these passages again now that you’ve objected. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)