User talk:MrOllie

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 clicking the plus sign (+), "New section", or "Add topic" at 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!

Coincidence page photo removal

Hi {{{MrOllie}}}, hope you're well. Enquiring about the photo you removed from the Coincidence page and marked as unhelpful. How so? It is a very literal and easy to understand depiction of a coincidence -- two unrelated things occurred in the image with no causal connection. It is a completely random, visually serendipitous moment that was luckily photographed. In terms of laymen understanding concepts, it depicts the topic in a more easily absorbable way than the total eclipse currently on the article (I do not mean that the eclipse ought to be removed, but that it requires a higher reading and science level to be fully appreciated as an example by most). Eclipses, since famously predictable in cycles, may also not be fully accepted as an example of a coincidence at first read, as many may ignore that the coincidence being cited is in relation to the Sun and Moon's sizes.

Request you to keep the average Internet user in mind and widen the scope of what is considered helpful to different audiences. Journyes (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It was an unencyclopedic image and did absolutely nothing to educate the readers. Images are not supposed to simply be examples. It seems more like you are looking for places to house images you happen to have rather than thinking about what is best for articles - I request that you keep the goal of Wikipedia in mind (which is to build an encyclopedia) and stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

rm list entries that do not meet notability requirement

Hi @MrOllie. I just found you removed my contribution about "Nextcloud Deck" to Kanban board. Looked into the matter and seems the source is not credible I Guess? So would a better link to here instead of the project documentation?

I used the "Github Projects" as an example for my contribution, so if my contribution is not seen valid why does this one is allowed? I just added more context by adding rthe link to the original documentation (for user convinience), so maybe the link to the documentation I added is not seen as "independant" enough. I guess may alternative link to the original project page is valid as it shows multiple contributers supporting this Kanban solution.

Kind regards, Sebastiaan Sebastiaanveld (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Another example which is allowed on the list is "Asana (software), with boards", I do not see the difference with my contribution (except from the additional link I added)

Kind regards, Sebastiaan Sebastiaanveld (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

As indicated by the edit summary, the problem is not with the link but with the fact that the entry did not meet the inclusion critiera for the list. See WP:WTAF. If something else is included in error that is something to be fixed, not replicated. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie. Thanks, that makes sense so every reference should have a **unique** page to refer to. That would mean for every feature a solution hold a unique page needs to be created? So you want "me" to clear ~70% (quick estimation) of the references on that page which do not follow this WTPF rule?

Kind regards, Sebastiaan Sebastiaanveld (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't want you to do anything. Also, have a look at WP:POINT (and WP:COI / WP:PAID, which appear to apply to some of your edits). MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It's fair to reference rules, but rest assured I'm not paid and just a user of these solutions. One must have (basic) knowledge to be able to add some relevance to a page I guess.

My question was related to having a unique page was needed to be created as suggested in Wikipedia:Wtaf. I that's what is needed I'll follow that path in the future and take notice of the rules to setup such page. This was obviously (my opinion) not clear on the current page so maybe someone takes the time to correct that at some point.

Thanks for your suggestions. Sebastiaanveld (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

corporation

I don't want to revert without clearing the issue first. What exactly is the problem with the comments that you deleted on the corporation page. The comments 1. identified a problem and 2. had a peer reviewed article supporting the comment so there is no "trolling". What is the reason you are reverting them. If you believe they are trolling, why? I really do not understand. ~2026-32924-21 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You've been trolling on that talk page for a long, long time. You know this, you've been blocked and you are evading that block now. It is time to stop. Hastily slapping on a cite you found on google to the same tired trolling doesn't change anything - you are still misusing the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

1. I have not be "trolling" for a long, long time. I am interested in the topic. I absolutely did not "hastily slap" a cite I found on Google. I know the topic and have other articles, but the one I posted is not paywalled, so I used it.

For example: I have an issue with calling a corporation an "individual" because it implies a natural person, which is a position that some have taken in the past. The literature sides with the view that a corporation is not a natural person because while it has some rights of a citizen it lacks others, such as the right to marry, etc. Therefore, I commented at the request of a previous redditor a problem in the article. Specifically: "A corporation is not a natural person, which is what “individual” ordinarily signifies. Susanna M. Kim, Characteristics of Soulless Persons: The Applicability of the Character Evidence Rule to Corporations, 2000 U. Ill. L. Rev. 763, 784: “A corporation is not a natural person, but it is certainly recognized under the law as a legal person.” ~2026-32924-21 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)"

This comment states my point with a peer reviewed cite with a quote that supports my comment.

I feel I posted a valid comment that identifies a problem with the article. Do you think the comment is not correct? If you do, I have plenty of other sources that show it's right. If you agree with the comment, how is it trolling?

Even if you could prove that the cite was googled and hasty, does it matter if the cite is valid? ~2026-32924-21 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with a block evader. You've been blocked for wasting everyone's time, stop trying to waste mine. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have never been a user. What are you talking about? ~2026-32924-21 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like you are making things up like I have googled a cite hastily, I am trolling, etc. What is going on? ~2026-32924-21 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

What's going on is that no one will fall for your obvious falsehoods. Kindly do not post here again. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Contribution with confidence

Hi there. I’m reaching out because I really need help from a real person (not an automated response) regarding how to contribute to the sections without getting banned. The information I am trying to add is accurate, objective, and definitely worth sharing. I am simply asking for a fair, human review of the substance of my edits, rather than being flagged for other reasons. Thanks in advance for your help. DigitalPatent (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You can contribute to Wikipedia in ways that do not involve inserting spam links to your website. My fair, human review is this: stop trying to spam us. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)