Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 31 August 2021

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.

self citation

Hi Mr. Ollie - I added an academic article which I wrote with a colleague that you subsequently removed citing apparent conflict of interest/self promo. I looked at the wikipedia pages on this and feel that I am correctly following the rules here. Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) says " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This is the case with my addition - there is no financial incentive; only making academic research available to the broader public. As you will see, the journal is a well regarded one. Please reconsider. 2003:F9:C706:4F29:A190:8DA9:7305:69B4 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't mention which article this was, so I have no frame of reference to comment. I will say that COI extends beyond financial motives, some academics do add their own papers in various places just to 'get the word out', and we do consider that to be improper on Misplaced Pages. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. It is the Demilitarisation one that was added & deleted yesterday. Why should it be improper for academics to share their work with the broader community? The piece is of direct relevance to the wiki page, is published by a recognized institution, & clearly contributes to the debate. Have a read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f9:c724:a495:21ea:fac:a296:4be9 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. 'Relevance' isn't sufficient for inclusion. My local plumber is relevant to our article on plumbing, but we don't list his website there. If your motivation for contributing here is to share your work I would suggest starting a blog or a facebook profile. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

He's been doing it for some time.

• 2003:F9:C706:4F29:B46D:FA1:BD3A:77B

  132.229.162.81

  132.229.162.247

You were just the first to catch him. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The reference is not my own plumbing shop, neither a social media post. It is a research article published by an international journal. I am not hiding anything, otherwise I would not start this talk page ("you were the first the catch him?!). My motivation - which is why I wrote the article - is to advance the understanding of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. That is also why a link to it on this page is reasonable, and of interest to readers. If suddenly the article is not allowed a link on wikipedia, and other academic articles are, then you need to include what your criteria for inclusion are. Having published several articles on AQIM (which I have not linked on this page), I think I can can judge whether your criteria & calls are good. I can maybe even suggest other literature for the page. 2003:F9:C724:A495:21EA:FAC:A296:4BE9 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

2003:F9:C724:A495:21EA:FAC:A296:4BE9, No, linking your own work like this is not reasonable. You have a conflict of interest and are too close to the issue to evaluate what is happening here objectively. Misplaced Pages is not for self promotion, and we're not going to submit our policies and/or decision making process for approval by you. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So you are now going to keep deleting a link that was made four years ago. How childish. You could have said: "hey, nice that you have linked to your own work on Al Qaeda. If you (think you) know so much about this topic because you have published on it, why don't you maybe also link to some other authors who have published on this topic? Other academics have surely also written works that are worthy of inclusion on this page?" Then I would have been stumped - and of course added several other pieces of work that are much better than mine. After all, this is what is called a literature review in academia, and it quite objective. But no - it is a conflict of interest, and I am not objective. I never said that I want to approve anything on this page, and if you think you are the sole person who can legitimately and objectively judge what should be on it (and therefore remove links that are not to your liking) - then there is not much I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f9:c724:a495:655e:53a8:7dc9:ab95 (talk • contribs)

I often do make that argument when a new editor does this sort of thing, but this has been going on over a span of years - you have had plenty of time to engage with Misplaced Pages more broadly and evidently have decided not to. In any case, what we would be looking for is not 'also link to some other others' - good edits are not some kind of currency you can pay to also self promote. But if you're here to write an encyclopedia and not just to find another place to see your name in print, feel free to prove me wrong. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to reformulate 'this has been going on for some years' to 'you tried to add a link yesterday, after having added another piece several years back'. I am not particularly keen to see my name in print - otherwise I would have been a journalist. I prefer engagement & dialogue, and would be willing to contribute to the page in a meaningful fashion, but it takes two to tango.

A final note to wrap up this little discussion on self-citation, for reflection for the moderating community (and anyone else who comes across it). While I appreciate that you are probably removing entries on a daily basis by people who want to (re-) write (their own) history, the moderators' reaction here shows that you are missing the trees for the forest. As a researcher I added academic, peer-reviewed works that I wrote under the header ‘further reading’ – twice in around four years. I would not call this spamming, and the Wiki guidelines do not rule this out – although they advise prudence. You attribute my actions to a desire to see my name in print, rather than to make works accessible to a broader readership interested in AQIM. Unless you have done a literature survey of AQIM (which I doubt – otherwise the page would look better), your assertion that I cannot be objective and that you are - displays a worrying lack of understanding how knowledge management and research works. This is unfortunate for a group that manages the greatest encyclopedia in the world. As I do not have the time (or possibly inclination) to update Misplaced Pages in a detailed and regular fashion, and you guys do invest your time in it, engagement would serve all. As discussed, I understand your removal of the recent piece. But the fact that you also decided to remove a link to academic article under ‘Further Reading’ that has been a relevant part of the page for several years now – just because I added the link at that time - shows that you play the man and not the ball. Apparently the goal is not to provide a page that informs the reader on the topic, but to exert your power to exclude those contributors whose motives you distrust. And that is a pity.

Sockpuppets IPs of Dnywish

Hi, User:MrOllie, could you report the following additional IPs as sockpuppets of Dnywish because I am absolutely fed up of dealing with him.

• 72.85.24.48
• 2601:140:50D:5F25:2D1A:6BD5:5E13:CE46 Joshua Shah (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Joshuarshah, Reporting stale IPs won't accomplish much - he's already moved on to other IPs. Just revert them on sight and mention that they're being used for block evasion in your edit summary. If edit warring resumes we can just ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that will keep him from editing the target pages from any IP. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ok np. Thanks for the advice. Joshua Shah (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Water Ionizers

Dear Mr Ollie, you reverted my modification to 'claim to raise ph' stating that a lot of 'them' don't, sadly enough the 'them's' you'd be talking about should not be called water ionizers, if the machine performs electrolysis I assure you that it raises the ph of the designated flow ... how is the wikipedia structure in this regard, that is, what gives you the right to overrule my judgement? T3glossary (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Updates on Dual Fluid Reactor

Hello MrOllie, since January 21, our reactor is no longer driven by the Institute for Solid State Nuclear Physics (IFK), but by the company Dual Fluid Energy Inc. which we founded for this purpose. As far as the fuel is concerned, we have moved away from the salt variant in favor of the metal variant for the first realization. We no longer use the abbreviation "DFR" for our reactor because of the risk of confusion with the (also "DFR"). These are all facts - we would find it appropriate if the Misplaced Pages article contained these facts.Dual Fluid Reaktor (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference

Dear MrOllie,

I hope you are having a great time and thank you so much for your work on Misplaced Pages. I have a question regarding the reliable references on Misplaced Pages. Which type of Reference can be accepted as reliable reference? I can see many low quality references and I do not know that they should be removed or no? Thanks --Mr.Blue.2020 (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You can read about what makes for a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Mr.Blue.2020 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sharing Economy Article

Hey, you reverted my additions to the 'Sharing Economy' Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/Sharing_economy) 5 days ago and I would like to understand why. I added some fashion companies that are doing the Shared economy on the fashion industry (one of the highest polluting industries in the world)- rent clothes, don't buy it. I think it is essential to give this information out there in case someone else wants to research this companies and maybe by a more conscious consumer. I don't work for any of these companies or have any other kind of 'Conflict of Interest'. You can't accuse me of bias because I added the companies that are in the business quite some time, from different countries, and that are trusted by their users. Also you can't accuse me of advertising companies on a Misplaced Pages page when in the same article it is mentioned other examples and companies like: Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, Upwork, and many other. Is this a matter that you need to be a big and international Brand in order to be mentioned on a Misplaced Pages Page? It seems quite unfair when some companies are doing an amazing job. LuisaGoncalves2021 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)User:LuisaGoncalves2021

Not to speak for MrOllie, but you appear to have added a list of company names that have no articles to a section that is already noted for having an excessive amount of companies listed. If anymore names were to be considered for the list, they should at least have their own Misplaced Pages articles to link to and not be red links. NJZombie (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Horror

MrOllie can you please 🥺 just create a 1970–present section to horror film we really just want to get it over with. Hi Dy to to to yo yo tuttid (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)