Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:30, 7 January 2025

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Fashion Week edits

Not certain why you would knee jerk remove a couple of links that add information to the Fashion Week page, while leaving something called DN mag, which no one has heard of in this space, links to a schedule that is two years old, i.e. ridiculously outdated, and on top of that is simply a scrape of the official FHCM website that I tried to include. I think this is why people dislike Misplaced Pages, people have a tendency to revert things without knowing anything about the subject 98.173.239.180 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EL. If you think other links are bad, that isn't a reason to add more links that do not agree with Misplaced Pages's policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed DN mag now as well, thanks for pointing that one out. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

edit wars

this user seems to like to support the 'no no reverter' Vincent Lefèvre in 'edit wars', evtl. this is the purpose of this account, could some official pls. warn him to act less aggressive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.225.16 (talk • contribs)

You should consider using talk pages and following Misplaced Pages's core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR, you would get reverted far less often then. - MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaaaa4 103.122.253.26 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This user seems to believe he is the policeman of the Internet. Likes to cite "Misplaced Pages's rules", ignoring that there is interpretation involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a page to communicate with me directly, not to make unfocused personal attacks. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Linear Canonical Transformation

Hello, You undid contribution I made in the article "Linear Canonical Transformation" while these contributions were there for months and are based on the contents of peer reviewed high quality scientific journals as sources. Could you explain what is wrong with the contents (so that it can be corrected properly if necessary)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshon13 (talk • contribs)

For the reasons we discussed at length on your own user talk page. You know this. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The informations contained there, which are scientific fact and knowledege, are from peer reviewed paper. I just report these scientific content which are directly related to the wikipedia article. Where is the problem ? Have I reported something that are falses or wrong ? Rshon13 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

One my talk page I ask you to quote the text where you see a problem and explain clearly where in the text is the problem and you never did this Rshon13 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You have asked the same question several times on your talk page, which I had already answered. When I told you there that I wasn't going to repeat myself that was not an invitation for you to come and repeat your question several times here as well, nor was it an invitation for you to continue adding COI self mentions to the articles in question. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My question is clear here , do you find anything wrong in my contribution in "Linear Canonical Transformation"? that is based on peer reviewed sources. There nothing related to COI here. Is there scientific error in the text or anything else like that ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the issue I explained on your user talk page. There absolutely is a COI issue. I will not respond to this question again. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you at least understand the contents of the text you removed before removing them ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And you are mixing everything. The previous talk is about another article (which is now a draft under review). Here I am talking clearly about the contribution that you removed on "Linear Canonical Transformation" that were there months before . Rshon13 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The same issues have been present in all your edits. That these issues went unnoticed for a while (even a few months) does not somehow mean they can never be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have made other edits with other references. Is there scientific errors in the text you removed ? And as I said they were based on "peer reviewed high quality scientific paper": Do you understand the meaning of this ? Rshon13 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not post on my talk page again, I am not interested in seeing the same stuff over and over. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So Please , next time try to understand the true contents of contributions before removing them. As other people also suggest before, You can also at least comment in the article discussion page before removing if you find something wrong after "serious review of the contents." . Thank you for your understanding Rshon13 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Aggressive, unilateral, territorial behavior

Dear Mr. Ollie, I will report you for vandalism if you continue to remove posts on the Turing Test page that cite the work of Gonçalves. This is substantial peer-reviewed academic work that has appeared in top history, philosophy, and science journals, including Nature, and yet you call it citation spam. You do not seem to care about the content and the subject matter. Apparently you are not here to learn or to help others learn, but to control Misplaced Pages pages, your rented 1m2 of power. Bgonc (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It is even worse, as I've just seen. Now you removed other, years-old citations of the work of Gonçalves. If you remove it again, you will be reported. Bgonc (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm watching the situation and neither of you is covered in glory this morning. Work it out in the talk thread I just created. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD you do realise that the account is adding their own works, am I correct? Doug Weller talk 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of that until the discussion on page talk commenced. BusterD (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My edits are plainly not vandalism. Also, please don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is quite misleading. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment but in the moment I was reacting to the back and forth. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can definitely understand that. I'll move to the article talk page faster next time, rather than getting drawn into back and forth on user talk. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I value your edits and have reason to expect reasonable behavior when I see your date stamp. Thank you. Don't be shy to point out when I'm not seeing a situation clearly. I'd much rather have someone I know in my face than fail to comprehend their need for assistance. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Mindfulness is based on the teachings of the Buddha. Why are you promoting misinformation on Misplaced Pages>

Mindfullness is one part of the eightfold noble path taught by the Buddha. It is not derived from Chan, Guan or tibetan buddhist teachings as the original article claimed. In fact Chan, Guan and tibetan buddhism originate from the teachings of the Buddha in Pali.

You appear to have no knowledge or interest in Buddhism. Why are you removing edits on subjects you have no clue about? Keep- this up and you'll be reported.

https://tricycle.org/article/satipatthana-sutta-mindfulness/ Rottcod (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages we follow what the cited sources say, which in this case are books from major academic publishers. Do not change the article in ways they do not reflect the cited source. Self published blog posts such as you posted here do not undermine those sources. Kindly take this up on the article's associated talk page - not on user talk pages, and not in edit summaries while edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Jinnifer on WikiQuote

Just FYI... I'm not sure how often you check your WikiQuote page but Jinnifer is using an anonymous address to harass you in to making changes for them on Misplaced Pages via your talk page. This was after multiple failed attempts to get me to do it for them. NJZombie (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, they like to waste their time in that way. MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

RosaSubmarine

w:en:Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)