Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 29 October 2019

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.

Kotlin Page Edits

Hello, in regard to your recent reverting of the Kotlin page, please let me clarify a few points.

1. I was not aware of any Misplaced Pages policy of paid editing, and have no issue in disclosing this and will appropriately update my page to indicate this immediately. In my edit I point out that I work at JetBrains and represent the foundation. There's no ill-intent behind the edit. Also I am not being directly paid for my edits but doing it as part of my role at JetBrains (my employer). 2. The changes are to accurately reflect who is developing Kotlin and who is sponsoring it. In addition it accurately highlights the role of the foundation. The simplification made by the previous change does not reflect this.

Furthermore, the kotlinlang.org site accurately reflects that Kotlin is developed and sponsored by JetBrains. The kotlinfoundation.org site, accurately reflects the role of the foundation which is verbatim what I put in the edit.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs)

Re 1: Ok, now you know to use talk pages instead of editing articles directly from now on. That you're being paid as an employee and not specifically to edit doesn't matter for Misplaced Pages's purposes.

Re 2: It it was (and is) accurate without your edit, which clearly indicated the sponsorship. Your edit just served to make the text more promotional. Misplaced Pages isn't here to be a marketing publication. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie I apologise for my lack of expertise in using Misplaced Pages or this format of exchanging messages, but in regard to the last message on my paint (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hadihariri), I fail to see how the fact that I work for JetBrains has to cause a conflict of interest in me correcting inaccuracies on the Kotlin page. I didn't realise conflict of interest and facts are incompatible. Secondly, I fail to see where my English is hard to understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, professional marketers and salespeople often don't understand why their style of communication is incompatible with building an encyclopedia - luckily, you don't necessarily have to understand, you just have to comply with the policies that were linked on your talk page. I didn't say a word about your English. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, the reference to English was from the other person indicating that is unclear. Just wanted to pre-emptively make sure there's no misunderstanding. The edit in regard to the 2nd point is not accurate because it is interpreted that Kotlin is being sponsored and developed by The Kotlin Foundation via JetBrains and Google. This is not the case. The Kotlin team is entirely employed by JetBrains and it is developed by JetBrains, with contributions by Google and other external contributors. This is once again indicated even on the kotlinfoundation.org site. The foundation is not there to sponsor this and there is no financial support to sponsor the development of Kotlin. In regard to it being about promotion, if indicating who is developing and sponsoring Kotlin is promotion, then so be it. Finally, please do not pass judgement on myself. I'm a developer and not a professional marketer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And yet here you are, adding marketing content to Misplaced Pages about your employer (and not for the first time). Anyway, take it up on Talk:Kotlin with an edit request, if you must. My user talk isn't a good venue. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman edit war

Ive created a dispute regarding this that perhaps you'd like to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman

Additionally, I've reached out to several news organizations to let them know we are seeing some edit wars on a page for a guy caught modifying comments on his site. I also sent them some screenshots of User:16912_Rhiannon from Beutler Ink (paid wikipedia editors) personally selecting opencooper by name to make edits. That individual is the editor I am in the edit war with.

What are your thoughts? Do you think a major news event (Even a negative one) is worthy of a seperate section on Misplaced Pages?

Complete candor I am documenting all of this for a news story about Misplaced Pages accuracy and astroturfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts are: Use the article talk page. Don't edit war. - MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, would you mind please editing out my surname above per WP:PRIVACY? (I have also mentioned this in a previous note to Siihb, so they're aware not to add it elsewhere.) Appreciate it, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

129.15.133.239

Hi:

Just want an information : why did you have reverted this IP as spammer and demanded to block it? I looked at the references it added to different articles and they are genuine Journals' articles in general. They might not be added all at the proper place but they don't seem to me to be spam.

Pierre cb (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

They were adding a paper by the same author to a dozen of articles, in many cases referencing nonsensical content, such as the article's opening word. Textbook case of WP:CITESPAM. Also, I didn't 'demand to block it', I posted the standard user warning templates for the situation on their talk page, that's all. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the information. Pierre cb (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Muso805's edits

Why are you systematically undoing this editor's edits at album articles? The book they're citing each time – All Time Top 1000 Albums – is sufficiently notable, and often quoted by others, as a guide to best pop/rock albums. I don't think it's necessarily worthy of inclusion in the lead each time, as Muso805 has added it, but they definitely should not be removed in a blanket purge. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This is undue weight at best, especially since Muso805 seems set on systematically adding mentions in all 1000 album articles, even restoring them and calling established editors vandals in edit summaries. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That's absolute rubbish. In that link you provide, all of the other best-albums mentions are just as WP:UNDUE, particularly 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, and editors regularly go from article to article using the same source when adding that sort of information. And "established editors"? – since when is there any sort of hierarchy on Misplaced Pages. And Muso805 only said "removed by possible Vandal", anyway. God's sake ... JG66 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What an excellent loophole! If I were to say that your talk page comment was possibly insulting garbage, would that be alright as well? - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so super-sensitive to what someone says when they're referring to something really mindless I've done in article main space. JG66 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ollie. I am adding references from the All-Time Tope 1000 Book to get a fair balance between the Rolling Stone Top Albums published in USA and the All-Time Top 1000 published in the UK with 4editions. I am simply getting the balance right as it is unfair for only the Rolling Stone and other US published sources are mentioned. I need to speak to a senior editor to re instate all these deletions. This is pure vandalism.Muso805 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you really think I'm a vandal, See WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you please answer my last posting regarding 'getting a fair balance' or is there a way of getting this arbitrated as it seems grossly unfair what you are doing/have done.Muso805 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Larkin's book already appears in many album articles, anyway, eg it's been cited in the lead at Revolver (Beatles album) for years. Please respond as other Editor's think what you have done is wrong and must be re instated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I was serious, above. As long as you continue to believe I'm a vandal, no discussion here is going to be accomplish anything useful. Take it up at WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my requests. If your reason for not responding is because of the word vandal, then I will take it back, but I am not going to allow you to make over 100 deletes without having some kind of discussion and arbitration from other Editors. I think what you have done was hasty and you are misinformed about the "citations to research published by a small group of researchers". This book was from the then largest poll of votes (as stated on the cover of the third edition). This book is cited on Wiki many many times over many years. The last book was out in 2000. My main reason for adding reference to this book is to get a fair balance between the Rolling Stone Top 500 and Larkin's Top 1000. There is also many references to 1001 Albums To Listen To before You die -- this book is a collection of albums from a small team of writer/researchers - maybe you are getting Larkin's book mixed up? His book is highly regarded and I think it is important to get the balance right between the USA (Rolling Stone 500) and the UK (Larkin's Book). After all the Rolling Stone book was from writers only -- Larkin's book was a much bigger base of people, including writers, musicians and most importantly the fans like myself. Please enter into sensible dialogue as I hope you will see that what you have done is simply not fairMuso805 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC). PS I have just seen from the cover of the 3rd Edition it states "Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics". That I hope you will agree is not as you state "your primary purpose on Misplaced Pages is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers". I will await your reply and if you are still in dispute then I will seek arbitration. Muso805 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• MrOllie, given this and this, you are behaving like a super-sensitive and irresponsible editor, digging your heels in through what appears to be immaturity and an inability to reflect on the merits of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. You targeted contributions by Muso805, undoing dozens of their edits with no good reason but that the editor should consider using a wider range of sources. It's been explained to you that the book they're using is held in very good standing, and the edits were clearly relevant to the articles in question. JG66 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Intrusion Detection

What was the reason for undoing my edits on Intrusion Detection page? Miklosq (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was more than 2 years ago! I don't really remember, so all I can do is paraphrase my edit summary: You added a bookstore link to an article, we don't do that. - MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluetooth history

I have edited the Bluetooth history section again. Now with references.

The history description has been unchanged for many years at https://sv.wikipedia.org/Bluetooth

This page is of high interest in Sweden since it is a Swedish invention.

The later updated page on the english site has led to articles recently in news which gives a false narrative.

Mats Lindoff who at the time was the person to whom then Bluetooth project reported has also tried to set the record straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Matslindoff

Best Örjan Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orjanjo (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, you probably shouldn't be editing this at all. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)