User Talk: MrOllie

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = User talk:MrOllie/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{User talk}}
{{Archives}}

Something that may help you out

I can't grant the permission without a request due to the WMF's terms, but you may be interested in applying for the Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer ↗ permission to assist you in identifying related accounts in patrolling or SPI. You definitely have the experience that would warrant granting it. I find it useful myself. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'll think about it. Up till now I haven't really been in the mood to expend the effort to understand the relevant policy on when one is allowed to use it or not. I personally take privacy seriously so I want to give it full consideration. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Narrow scope/origin?

Hi,
Thanks for the re-edit. I was too draconien in mine. I am new to Wikipédia editing.

I like your addition "(primary)". It capture most/part of my concern.

However, it still is a too narrow scope and origin for bioethics. Below, in the W article. we quote Potter, yet the introduction don't recognize it's 1987,1988 papers/books that drastically criticize that narrow vision of bioethics. Moreover, it is from that very perspective of Potter that the IBC at UNESCO have been created, then the broadening of the scope to COMEST towards the Universal Declaration as well quotated, and wonderful contribution to bioethics from Henk ten Have.

Of most, actually on the page, they is no mention regarding Ubuntu or other work in Canadian First Nations that considerably anchored bioethics in a health-environment system, thereby I must recall Potter famous quote: "Leopold was the first bioethics."

Consequently, here the perspective advance recall the Hasting Center perspective, and perhaps some long-standing scholarship in apply ethics perspective, but still remaining anchored in the Hasting biomed perspective of bioethics. For giving to it a bit more neutrality, I will come with some edits to balance a bit this too biomed-focused introduction to bioethics (as if it was a page on biomedical bioethics...).

Happy to discuss and make this wonderful page evolved with you,
Antoine Boudreau LeBlanc (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:The opening paragraphs of the article are meant to be a very short, very neutral summary that is accessible to unfamiliar readers. Dwelling on small details or adding opinion-style text there is not how Wikipedia is generally written. I recommend you start by editing the body of the article first - starting with the top seems logical to many people, but it is actually a common pitfall for new editors since the lead section tends to need special treatment. See MOS:LEAD ↗ for details. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hi @MrOllie

I was hoping to get your advice on something. Brickcompass and Stonekestral keep coming back to the Oracle Database ↗ page and adding content without primary sourcing. I've removed the edits a couple of times, and I noticed you've done the same, but at this point it feels like it's turning into edit warring ↗.

I haven't really run into a situation like this before, so I'd appreciate any guidance on what you'd recommend as the best next step. Thanks! StoneColdAustin (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Secondary sources are preferred, see WP:RSPRIMARY ↗. Using those over primary sourcing is what we're supposed to be doing. MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, that is my mistake, I meant they are only using primary sources and the content lacks secondary sourcing to support it. StoneColdAustin (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Looking at the latest edits, they are in fact using secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I was under the impression that if the author of a source has ties to the company then the source is considered primary. Is that not the case?
::::For your reference, these sources referenced by Stonekestral on Oracle Database ↗ all have authors who are employed or were employed by Oracle at the time of publishing: <<length list of cites redacted>> StoneColdAustin (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC) StoneColdAustin (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Your impression was incorrect. Kindly don't copy and paste long lists of material onto my talk page again. Thanks in advance. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent edit / removal (no Wikipedia page)

Hi MrOllie.

I added Andrea Resmini as an important voice in information architecture recently, and saw that both the mention and his book were removed. I'd like to know if this is a procedural issue or policy issue. Resmini was one of my teachers and he's one of the major contributors to the field, with books, papers, and other roles. So much is missing on this page: I just wanted to make people aware of more recent developments.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

~2026-39107-95 ↗ (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Both. Wikipedia is based on sourcing, and your edit provided none. At a minimum we'd need indepedent sourcing that supports any statement that they are a major contributor. Also, you added the name of a person without an english Wikipedia article - there is nowhere for readers to go for further information. And finally, as someone who is associated with Resmini, you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI ↗). MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply.
::I'll look into the wikipedia definition of 'independent sourcing', as I'm clearly ignorant of what that means. I thought publicly available articles, books, and journals were sources enough. I can see that the only people mentioned in the 'history' section, all Americans, all have an English wikipedia page, something you flagged. Is that a requirement?
::I don't honestly see your final point about a conflict of interest. I was a student of his (I'm not anymore), so I'm just more aware of the impact Resmini had on the field.
::Thans again, appreciate ~2026-39107-95 ↗ (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

hi

WP:TALK says that, where a worthwhile conversation has already started, it may be left open. Since other editors had already engaged with the article issues raised, I do not think the existence of language assistance by itself is a good reason to close off the discussion that followed. '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 20:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:'May be left open' is not 'must'. Other editors disagree, and you should not be reverting them. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)