User talk:MrOllie
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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Are you AI or some kind of bot?
[edit]Serious question. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Kindly do not harass me with personal attacks or otherwise post on my user talk page again. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Open the pod bay door OLL -Roxy the dog 02:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was not meant as a personal attack. It was a serious question. I won't post here again. But I wanted to let you know I'm filing a Dispute Resolution request. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- MrOllie is a terminator ... of bad content. Bon courage (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Who watches the watchmen? 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- We all know the real question is who watches the watchmen that watch the watchmen that watch the watchmen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Who watches the watchmen? 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- MrOllie is a terminator ... of bad content. Bon courage (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Serious question for a change
[edit]Were you aware of the two DRN requests about near-death studies that were filed by an IP editor? If so, am I correct that you declined to take part in discussion with an editor who had asked you whether you are a bot? (Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary?) If you were not aware of the DRN requeests, because the IP forgot to notify you, are you ready to take part in moderated discussion, or do you decline the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything I care to respond to in those DRN requests. I generally don't find it productive to engage with stuff that is predicated on personal attacks like that. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- As I thought. I just wanted to be sure that you were declining to take part in DRN. Participation in DRN is voluntary. The IP says that you were dismissive, rude, and uncivil, but I thought that the IP was uncivil in asking you whether you are a bot. If the IP wants to discuss at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, they can do so. Either that, or they can bother someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
TB
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I've seen you in my watchlist a couple times, looked at your talk page archives, and wanted to thank you for your work on keeping inappropriate external links off the encyclopedia! Gracen (they/them) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC) |
Request for Review of Deleted Contributions about Uruguay
[edit]Dear Mr Ollie, I fully understand and respect the anti-spam policy as a necessary measure to prevent the inclusion of low-value information. However, I believe that none of the contributions I made regarding Uruguay should be classified as such. For example, the warming of the Río Negro is documented in an article published in Science of the Total Environment. It is the first study to identify this phenomenon through the analysis of a 13-year dataset. Similarly, the erosion processes I referenced were analyzed across 99 watersheds. I could provide an extensive list of additional, similar contributions. What concerns me deeply is that, despite being based on peer-reviewed work published in high-impact scientific journals, these contributions have been challenged or removed under the assumption of being “illegitimate.” My only intention is to provide objective, high-quality information that is currently missing from Wikipedia—gaps that limit its usefulness as a reference, particularly concerning Uruguay.
Due to the small size of Uruguay’s scientific community, it is common for researchers to participate in multiple research groups. In my case, I have worked in areas such as water quality, soil erosion, biofuels development, environmental footprints, environmental economics, and pesticide pollution. All the data I provided is scientifically sound and none of it is false.
Regarding the quick judgment to label these contributions as spam, I ask: what qualifications allow an anonymous editor to override the evaluations of international peer reviewers from respected journals? I respectfully request that you take the time to review the content and its sources before making such decisive deletions.
The destruction of Uruguay’s riparian zones, for instance, is not a matter of opinion—it has been assessed through satellite imagery on a national scale. Must I wait for someone else to add this to Wikipedia for it to be considered valid? Isn’t publication in a reputable scientific journal enough? Or does a topic need to span multiple countries to be deemed relevant?
I do not know your academic background, but I do not believe it is appropriate to ask me to diminish the scope or depth of my work in order to meet the expectations of someone who has not thoroughly reviewed it. I sincerely ask that you reconsider the deletion of my contributions, which represent the work of more than two decade of research.
Sincerely,
Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier, PhD Principal Investigator Natural Resources, Production and Environment National Institute of Agriculture Research Uruguay
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2894-3700 Lcarrasco (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- You added around a dozen citations to yourself in the space of a couple hours. This is the majority of your activity on Wikipedia. That is exactly the sort of excessive self citation that Wikipedia's guidelines consider to be inappropriate. I decline to share any of my personal information with you, including my qualifications.
- If you are here to help us grow the encyclopedia, I encourage you to write based on citations that you have no affiliation with. As a subject matter expert I am sure you are familiar with many sources of diverse authorship. If you are here only to write about your own professional interests and/or to add mentions of yourself or your work, then frankly Wikipedia will be better off without that assistance. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand your logic. You want reliable information, and I'll give it to you, but you assume that since I'm a co-author, it's self-referential. The problem is that if you don't take information reviewed by qualified peers in each area as valid, you censor real information. Saying that erosion was assessed in 70% of the territory or that the destruction of the riparian network across the entire country was evaluated for the first time isn't an opinion. It's still real, validated information that should be in the encyclopedia because otherwise, ordinary people wouldn't know these problems exist in Uruguay. I understand the restriction of someone who self-promotes on Wikipedia, but take the time to review what you're censoring. Just Google what other studies exist on riparian areas across the country, or on national erosion, or on the economic evaluation of these impacts. You're too quick to judge work that took decades. And you skew what we see about Uruguay with a very linear judgment that no one can contribute so many things in one day or co-author different works in different areas. You don't understand how difficult it is to publish a work you so easily deleted. I ask you again to do your homework and read some of the quotes I mentioned. They're not opinions, they're real data from an entire country, not from a small portion of a farmer. Lcarrasco (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many people who would like to use Wikipedia to self-promote decry the policies that prevent them from doing so as censorship, we are quite used to hearing that flawed argument. Again, if you are here to help write an encyclopedia you can do so without the obvious self interest.
- I ask you to 'do your homework' and learn something about Wikipedia, its policies, and its community standards. Because what you did earlier today was plainly not in keeping with them. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand your logic. You want reliable information, and I'll give it to you, but you assume that since I'm a co-author, it's self-referential. The problem is that if you don't take information reviewed by qualified peers in each area as valid, you censor real information. Saying that erosion was assessed in 70% of the territory or that the destruction of the riparian network across the entire country was evaluated for the first time isn't an opinion. It's still real, validated information that should be in the encyclopedia because otherwise, ordinary people wouldn't know these problems exist in Uruguay. I understand the restriction of someone who self-promotes on Wikipedia, but take the time to review what you're censoring. Just Google what other studies exist on riparian areas across the country, or on national erosion, or on the economic evaluation of these impacts. You're too quick to judge work that took decades. And you skew what we see about Uruguay with a very linear judgment that no one can contribute so many things in one day or co-author different works in different areas. You don't understand how difficult it is to publish a work you so easily deleted. I ask you again to do your homework and read some of the quotes I mentioned. They're not opinions, they're real data from an entire country, not from a small portion of a farmer. Lcarrasco (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)