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 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!

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	Archive 20

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

Nuetrality

Some text was removed and the reason was for copyright violation, but the text was not a violation of copyright so I undid it.

You reverted my changes and said it was not nuetral, I would like to ask how it is not nuetral?

It is discussing the historical origins of aquaponics, the sentence you removed was specifically referring to the evolution of system designs of the flood and drain system.

If it is not nuetral to say that todays flood and drain systems originiated from the work at NCSU, then why is the article allowed to say that the New Alchemy Institute laid the foundations for DWC? Why is it allowed to say that Rakocy's research had led to the adoption of deep water culture hydroponic grow beds? Wiki142B (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For exactly the same reasons we discussed on your user talk page, in the section titled 'May 2024'. Please try to read and follow the relevant policies this time, rather than asking me the same question which will have the same answer. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the issue is with the wording and not the topic being discussed. If I remove the word "pioneering" it will make the statement nuetral.

Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. Wiki142B (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about single words, this is about the consistent tone of your editing - which is exactly what I said last time you asked me this. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "Your writing is full of value-laden wording: examples include 'significant', 'pioneering', 'visionaries', 'significant strides', and so on. Please don't remove just those words and put the edits back - those are examples." I am unsure what you mean by the tone of my editing. The one being discussed now was a direct quote from a non-copyrighted source.

So instead of;

"The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry."

I should replace it with;

"The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not replace it at all - your reworded version is still more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I asked why the references to the New Alchemists and Rakocy were allowed, is it not "puffing" them up too?

It's a factual history of the development of flood and drain systems, it informs the reader of the history, foundation and evolution of that specific system type. It is supported by a reference, it is not an opinion.

An possible alternative would be to say "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in discussing unrelated sources or edits on my user talk page. The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to @User:Wiki142B—If you wish to promote work being done by a scientist a university, being one, and having done such for years, the path is straightforward.

(1) Find a reputable secondary or tertiary scientific source—a review or text are examples—that makes a statement regarding the primary source research that you believe is pioneering. That is, it must be someone else that says this, in a reputable source, and not you or me (i.e., not WP editors). That review or book should not be by the individual on whom the accolade is being bestowed, nor should it by his research group, students, colleagues, collaborators, or university in any fashion (nor anyone else closely associated with him or the work). Otherwise, the individual making the statement has a WP:Conflict of Interest. That is, as we say here, the source needs to be from an independent, third-party source.
(2) If possible, find a second source of the same type that says the same thing.
(3) Etc.
(4) Then, summarise the opinion of the two or more sources, regarding the primary research, and cite the secondary or tertiary sources using this sort of format (at the linked page, see the box at right). Note, if one reliable source says something positive, and another reliable source says something negative, it is standard practice to present both perspectives (e.g., when there are competing claims made with regard to a discovery), unless and until a consensus appears in the secondary and tertiary literature—in which case, it can be said, "Most individuals reviewing this matter conclude that it was the team of Brown and Goldstein (and their collaborators) that made the seminal discovery in this area.[1][2][3]".
(5) After this care is taken, as a courtesy, the primary source that all these sources point to as being important can then be added. And,
(6) As indicated, in making the statement, (a) titles like Dr, Prof, Nobel Laureate, etc. should not be used, (b) English given names are generally omitted (indicating only the last/family name, and leaving the citation to elaborate more fully), and (c) institutions are almost never indicated, because the affiliations of scientists are often complex (involving multiple institutions/departments), it often moreover takes tremendous careful historical work (or involves prohibited WP:OR) to accurately determine with absolute confidence where a particular individual was working when they made a discovery, and/or the courtesy primary source citation just mentioned speaks for itself with regard to the individual's affiliation(s).

That is how we have and would recommend accomplishing the edit that you appear to wish to make. Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very thorough answer, and extremely helpful. Thank you. Wiki142B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contention with regard to original research

You have indicated in a Talk message that you beleive we have added something that violates WP:OR. We believe you to be responding to an automated (bot) assessment, and we contend that it is the bot assessment that is in error, and that we have not added any content that is WP:OR. (Most likely, it is responding to our tagging or moving content that is WP:OR.) This can be said with some confidence, both because we are firmly committed to the policy of WP:VERIFY here, and as original content cannot be traced to a WP:RELIABLE source, we are likewise committed fully to complying with WP:OR. Otherwise, your not having indicated which article and edit is in question, we have to await your further reply. (Here, if possible, because we haven't time or bandwidth to monitor many places. But we will, in response to your kindness in reaching out, monitor your response here.) Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No bots were involved, no. Much of what you added was editorializing and not directly supported by sources. That is WP:OR. Since you don't edit much I suspect you know exactly which addition I'm talking about. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that since this is IP editing, the address is conflating more than a single editor. For you are mistaken at least once in all these cases—for we indeed edit often, we are indeed very experienced, and we do not editorialise (though if another has, we generally do not do bold redactive edits, and so may therefore have moved existing editorial content). So again, I ask. What are we talking about? Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your IP is shared, apparently nothing. Also: Please do not repeatedly make minor changes to comments on other people's talk pages, as you did with the comment in the section above. The user in question gets a notification every single time you do, which is quite irritating. MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not simply state an article page, so we can determine if there is an issue? As for the multiple corrections to the page, thank you for stating that. No one in close two decades took the time to state as much (if such notifications were indeed going on over that whole time). Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your confident, effortless decision stands for the moment, because we know that there is unstated bias against, and that we have no standing. The edit does not lack merit, and should not have been reverted on the whole, as you fail to make any substantive, real case anywhere for editorialising or WP:OR (the latter of which we in fact were first to tag, as it pre-existed). It appears that the care and respect we brought into this discussion was not reciprocated at any level. We end our discussion here. But we will call attention to your decisions at that article. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now this isn't a shared IP? Why do you keep referring to yourself as 'we'? MrOllie (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the CrypTool Article

Hello MrOllie, thank for the information about why my changes have been removed. I liked the structure of the german article about CrypTool better and tried to adapt it. Would you please be so kind to help me figure out how to do this more neutrally? What exactly causes the article to be unneutral?

Best, Canyon9556 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's presented like a product brochure - unsurprising, since most of the sourcing is the project's own website. The best way to write a neutral article is to find independent sources and summarize what they have to say, rather than repeating a group's self-descriptions. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know this editor

Some of the citations seem RS, others have no source and are just text. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain ring of familiarity, but I don't think I know them, no. Articles on pseudosciences attract a lot of that kind of writing. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of companies of Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Star.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi Dear, I have made the valid contribution in Poonam Pandey wiki page, please review it again and revert the valid contribution from my side. She is an pornographic film actress. I have also added a valid cite too. Thank you. Eram7 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and kindly do not rewrite the article based on tabloid sources again. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dear.

h

t Eram7 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Happy Holidays, and here's to the new year! Plasticwonder (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]