User talk:MrOllie

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

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!

October 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: Huh? If I went over 3RR or something somewhere I'm not aware of it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you both. I'm going to reduce the block to just the article. Take a pause. have a calm discussion on the talk page. Call in WP:3O or some other assistance. Don't elevate the issue to a full blown war. You aren't a newb; you know better. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say 'both' but the IP was being reverted by 3 different people. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who reverted the IP multiple times. Show some restraint and make use of the other avenue of resolving the issue. It's ok if something erroneous stays up shortly while you go get proper assistance. And it didn't seem like you were reading their edit summaries or the references as they had changed them based on your pointer to MEDRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a reference that doesn't actually support the content it is citing. Ah, well. I suppose someone else will hopefully read the cite and see what is going on. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss it on the article talk page. Quote the cite. Show that it doesn't support. While 3RR is the standard, don't run to that line and almost stumble over it. There are better ways to handle it. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2RR is not running to the line. But I suppose we are done here - I think what I think, and you think what you think. I'll just take the article off my watchlist, I am not inclined to continue after a block. MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quote from NHS: "Liquorice is safe to eat. But you should avoid liquorice root." The article is about the plant, thus the latter applies perfectly. However, the NHS guideline do not reflect the problem; both contain glycyrrhizin and the safe level is unknown. 91.153.111.4 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what the source says. That is not what the text you attached it to in the article says. But I am washing my hands of this, so there is no reason to discuss here on my user talk page any longer. MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I just hope that instead of immediate removal, you could use tags like [better source needed]. This is not article about living person nor my edit was inflammatory in anyway. 91.153.111.4 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Continuous removals

[edit]

You are removing text people have seen a lot of trouble to write, because of lack of citations or you are not happy with the used sources. Instead you should ask for citations, not remove the whole text. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Unsourced_Material 91.153.111.4 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might or might not be interested

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#UtherSRG. As you've been mentioned a few times, I thought it appropriate to let you know. Knitsey (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can do about the block I issued, as it has now long since expired, but I apologize for it nonetheless. I was out of line. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the infos about Keynote NF in the article "Keynote" (note taking program)

[edit]

Dear MrOllie, you deleted the information about Keynote NF from the article about "Keynote". You wrote as comment - as I understood it - that the information about Keynote NF should not be part of this article. I understand that argument, wanting to clearly separate two articles, but there are the following problems to that argument: ◆1. There is no article about "Keynote NF". So if you want a clean separation of these two topics, you should instead of deleting, move the "Keynote NF" to a new article and then counter-link these two articles together. ◆2. The article "Keynote" has a Marker put on it, that questions its notability. "Keynote" (the original software) is no longer developed. So an article about "Keynote" is in fact rather a historical information (even though the software is still perfectly usable). But if we add the information about the successor software "Keynote NF" which is actively developed and offers massive improvements, then this article is of a practical use for a reader, meaning the notability of this article is increased. ◆3. Outlining software is not a widely known type of software, yet it is a type of software that could be beneficial for a wide array of people, as is allows a very different and creative type of storing informations. Therefore it makes sense to not only keep the article about the original software, but to also add infos about the improved successor.

I am looking forward to read your constructive suggestions about the Keynote-Article. With friendly greetings, AT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.12.130.62 (talk)

It does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements, (see WP:N), so it cannot be a new article. And we do not advertise later day forks without the required sourcing. Wikipedia policy requires that this be left out. - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt answer, dear MrOllie.
Now following your argumentation, if the additional information is considered by a policy as useless, then the notability of the base-article is not improved, so
why do you not also delete the "Keynote"-Article?
I am looking forward to read your constructive suggestions. With friendly greetings, AT. 185.12.130.62 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it ought to be deleted you are welcome to nominate it for that. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]