| Revision as of 22:09, 18 June 2022 editMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers237,851 edits →Insert a newer image (linguistic map) in the articles "Mineiro (dialect)" and "Brazilian Portuguese": ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:04, 14 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:MrOllie/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |algo = old(48h) | |algo = old(48h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:MrOllie/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:MrOllie/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| <!--- New sections go at the BOTTOM of the page ---> | <!--- New sections go at the BOTTOM of the page ---> | ||
| == IP editor == | |||
| == You are biased and reverting correctly cited statements. == | |||
| I think they can be reported for edit warring on Biology and SO, now. ] (]) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You keep reverting my edits with no regard to accuracy. You use your personal opinion to justify the censorship of facts the public deserves to know. I suggest that you reference my citations before reverting my edits. It’s better to make a decision being informed. Subjective opinion is not a suitable basis for reverting any edit or post. ] (]) 00:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Probably. But no 3RR vio and they are at least talking, even if what they're saying isn't backed up by the sources. ] (]) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ::Alright, let's see. ] (]) 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Seems they calmed down. I normally don't engage in big back and forth with editors, but sometimes they genuinely just don't "get it". ] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::It's nice to see discussion work for a change, that's for sure! ] (]) 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ::::{{ping|Zenomonoz}} Looks like I had to make that report after all. ] (]) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :::::And the same stuff is being added at ], by the by. ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I have reverted. Looks like a troll pretending to act in good faith. ] (]) 02:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Other comment ==== | |||
| You make no effort to verify whether my claims are supported in historical literature and research on the matter. I can assure you I am completely correct. You sir are a racist and a bigot! ] (]) 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, thanks for your efforts on ] and its talk page. I'd like to do a major overhaul of ] soon, since it seems to give too much credence to a very fringe camp in psychiatry. ] (]) 12:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==A post from an IP== | |||
| :You will need to get a consensus of other editors to get your edits to remain in the article. Namecalling is not a good way to get people to support you. - ] (]) 00:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the importance of maintaining Misplaced Pages’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and avoiding promotional behavior. I would like to clarify that the addition I made is not promotional but instead contributes meaningfully to the topic by referencing a novel concept published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal indexed by Web of Science. | |||
| The cited source represents a reliable academic reference that aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on verifiability and reliability. It introduces a unique perspective that enhances the quality of the entry by broadening the scholarly debate. Furthermore, I believe that the inclusion of diverse academic views is critical to upholding Misplaced Pages's mission of being a balanced and comprehensive repository of knowledge. | |||
| == ] - IPs == | |||
| If there are counterarguments or alternative perspectives, I welcome those contributions as they can further enrich the entry. However, outright removal of the information without considering its academic merit may inadvertently reflect bias and go against the principles of scholarly debate and Misplaced Pages’s collaborative ethos. | |||
| Not sure what went on here before, but it seems an IP with no previous edits has immediately returned after the protection expired and done a similar act. Might want to take a look. ] <sub>(])</sub> 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| To address potential concerns, I propose the following: | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| The source and its relevance to the entry can be discussed on the article's talk page to ensure transparency and community review. | |||
| == "Illegible" map? (Brazilian Portuguese) == | |||
| If additional verification is required, I am open to providing further supporting evidence for the validity of the reference. | |||
| I look forward to collaborating to ensure the entry remains accurate, balanced, and reflective of ongoing academic discourse. | |||
| Best regards, <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Your comment appears to have been written by a chatbot. If you have something to say, please write your own comment. ] (]) 14:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == A cookie for you! == | |||
| :It is incomprehensible. It is full of smudges, even when expanded to maximum size. The legend is not helpful - it is long and full of irrelevant details. This is an article that is already crowded with images - it is better without this additional one. - ] (]) 20:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);" | |||
| == ] == | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for checking my links! Have a cookie :) ] (]) 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Biryani == | |||
| Hi, when you come across an IP with a long track record and previous block log like that, you can safely report them to AIV straight away or let the previous blocking admin know the block is due for renewal. Best, ] | ] 21:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| i wanna assume whether you've got a clue what ur doin?? I hope so. ] (]) 17:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's obviously an unreliable source. Feel free to seek confirmation at ]. ] (]) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Why was this genuine change reverted? == | |||
| Hello, why was this genuine change reverted which added NSUCRYPTO olympiad https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=International_Science_Olympiad&oldid=prev&diff=1071226188&diffmode=source ? | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Meesho Article deletion == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| My page ] deleted, because there is draft for it before so, I want to know if there is any other way to publish it again or to contact the person who created the article before. | |||
| It is translated in a detailed way from Hindi language to English language and I believe it must be published again because it is an important topic but, I don't know exactly what to do. | |||
| So, If you can advise me in this thing. | |||
| Thanks in advance! ] (]) 12:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :It was discussed at AFD very recently and the community found that it does not meet the requirements of the English language Misplaced Pages. You should respect that decision and stop trying to add it. ] (]) 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Sine curve arc length == | |||
| Hi. What was the reason for this removal of content? If I understand correctly, it was removed in the past because of self-promotion, but I'm not an Adlaj sock. I think that ''Notices of the American Mathematical Society'' is a reliable source. ] (]) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :]. It is an alternate way to do the same calculation, sure, but the 'very rapidly' is unjustified - it doesn't converge any faster than more common ways of doing it. ] (]) 16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree. The convergence of the ] iterations is quadratic (very fast). ] (]) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::And the article didn't even state that it "converges ''faster'' than more common ways of doing it". ] (]) 17:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::And why do you think it goes against ]? According to ], "''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.''" What is the ''more widely held view'' here? Mentioning that an algorithm is fast does not contradict anything in the article. ] (]) 18:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is commonly used to exclude things that aren't commonly referred to by others. The more widely held view is that Adlaj's formula isn't worth writing about. Especially given that people like published better ways to calculate incomplete elliptic integrals before Adlaj's paper, it isn't surprising that there isn't a lot of notice taken. ] (]) 19:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Carlson's method is not "better" because it needs <math>M(1,1/\sqrt{2})</math> (or <math>M(1,\sqrt{2})</math>) '''and''' an infinite summation term. But there's no infinite summation term in <math>L=2M(1,\sqrt{2})+2\pi /M(1,\sqrt{2})</math>. See ]. | |||
| ::::"''] is commonly used to exclude things that aren't commonly referred to by others''" – this sort of stuff is nowhere in ]. | |||
| ::::"''The more widely held view is that Adlaj's formula isn't worth writing about''" – whose view is that? Can you support this with a reliable source? ] (]) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is self evident from the way that no one writes about it. The citations that paper has are trivial mentions in lists of prior work on ellipses. ] (]) 20:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was published in a reliable source, ''Notices of the American Mathematical Society'', this is sufficient for a mention on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That is required, but not sufficient. Misplaced Pages is ] an indiscriminate collection of all information that can be sourced. ] (]) 20:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are at least two papers citing the article in question. It is not insufficient. ] (]) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Insert a newer image (linguistic map) in the articles "Mineiro (dialect)" and "Brazilian Portuguese" == | |||
| Can you add this image, please? It is a newer, better one, with self-explanation (legend). I cannot edit visually anymore both articles. | |||
| https://pt.wikipedia.org/Dialeto_mineiro#/media/Ficheiro:Isoglossas_no_estado_de_Minas_Gerais._EALMG,_UFJF,_1977.png | |||
| ] (]) 22:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
Latest revision as of 18:04, 14 January 2025
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
IP editor
I think they can be reported for edit warring on Biology and SO, now. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Probably. But no 3RR vio and they are at least talking, even if what they're saying isn't backed up by the sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, let's see. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems they calmed down. I normally don't engage in big back and forth with editors, but sometimes they genuinely just don't "get it". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nice to see discussion work for a change, that's for sure! MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zenomonoz: Looks like I had to make that report after all. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the same stuff is being added at Genome-wide association study, by the by. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reverted. Looks like a troll pretending to act in good faith. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the same stuff is being added at Genome-wide association study, by the by. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zenomonoz: Looks like I had to make that report after all. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nice to see discussion work for a change, that's for sure! MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Other comment
By the way, thanks for your efforts on Repressed memory and its talk page. I'd like to do a major overhaul of Dissociative identity disorder soon, since it seems to give too much credence to a very fringe camp in psychiatry. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A post from an IP
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the importance of maintaining Misplaced Pages’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and avoiding promotional behavior. I would like to clarify that the addition I made is not promotional but instead contributes meaningfully to the topic by referencing a novel concept published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal indexed by Web of Science.
The cited source represents a reliable academic reference that aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on verifiability and reliability. It introduces a unique perspective that enhances the quality of the entry by broadening the scholarly debate. Furthermore, I believe that the inclusion of diverse academic views is critical to upholding Misplaced Pages's mission of being a balanced and comprehensive repository of knowledge.
If there are counterarguments or alternative perspectives, I welcome those contributions as they can further enrich the entry. However, outright removal of the information without considering its academic merit may inadvertently reflect bias and go against the principles of scholarly debate and Misplaced Pages’s collaborative ethos.
To address potential concerns, I propose the following:
The source and its relevance to the entry can be discussed on the article's talk page to ensure transparency and community review. If additional verification is required, I am open to providing further supporting evidence for the validity of the reference. I look forward to collaborating to ensure the entry remains accurate, balanced, and reflective of ongoing academic discourse.
Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.146.51.112 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your comment appears to have been written by a chatbot. If you have something to say, please write your own comment. Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thanks for checking my links! Have a cookie :) Thunderblood101 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
Biryani
i wanna assume whether you've got a clue what ur doin?? I hope so. Rayan241 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's obviously an unreliable source. Feel free to seek confirmation at WP:RSN. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)