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 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 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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Mentioned your name

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_--_can_UFO_activists_be_used_as_a_reliable_source_on_UFO-related_BLPs? Polygnotus (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sole (foot)

Hi there. Fully appreciate why you bounced off of the conversation, but it'd be good to get your feedback on the image choice at Talk:Sole (foot)#Infobox image, as one of the few named editors in that thread, so that we can get a basic biology article out of the misunderstood dead end that it's been pointlessly stuck in since July.

I'm assuming that your cited diffs were just vandalism reverts with no strong view on the image that was previously in place, but wouldn't want to second-guess you when closing the discussion. Belbury (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start discussion about you. Notification

Because of your censorship and Mod abuse i will start discussion on this Page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents this is the required notification on User Talk page DaKocamasra1 (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here Link to topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mod_removing_legitimate_requests_on_Talk_Page_(nsfw) Hope i did it right DaKocamasra1 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because what u do Imposible. Removed reasonable requests, No explainstion, remove even question about reason for removal and accuse of making onther Account when this my First Account of Wikipedia and only. DaKocamasra1 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly wrong initial sentence

You put this sentence at the beginning of the article titled Exponential growth.

Exponential growth is a process that increases quantity over time at an ever-increasing rate.

That is gross malpractice. See my comment on the article's talk page. Obviously there are many things that grow at an ever-increasing rate that do not grow exponentially, and it is widespread false belief among the mathematically illiterate that exponential growth means growth at an ever-increasing rate or means very fast growth. The main concern of the opening sentence needs to be to dispell that misunderstanding. 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I did is revert an IP editor who made the first and second sentences redundant with each other. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion restored the offensive sentence. Also, the two opening sentences were not redundant. The initial sentences should be as non-technical as possible. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Desi Factfinderrr (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIKW - misleading to call him the originator of digital twin

Your claim is totally false. There simply is no support for that claim. There are academic citations after citations that confirm that he did originate the concept of the digital twin. Simply use Google Scholar to verify that. Please put the added material back. NASAprobes88 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was work along that line earlier from others, notably David Gelernter. The term itself was coined later by someone else. The material does not belong in the article you added it - and the claim would indeed be misleading (some would simply say 'false'). MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]