User talk:MrOllie
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hints: How to reference useful software tools for sensitivity analysis ?
[edit]Dear MrOllie,
Thanks for the last feedback, pointing out the rule that wikipeda is not a link directory. I just thought that, as a young researcher, when I'll be reading something new, I'd be happy to find links that take me to software that I can easily access and do my first experiments with. I wonder if I can quote a reference that contains a list of available softwares (I found an article with a very useful list) ? This would mean that the reader would still have to read the article to find out, rather than simply accessing the most appropriate software via a provided link. Or perhaps, I can create a brand new Wiki page dedicated solely to links to useful tools and software (which I can cite in the original page on sensitivity analysis)?
Please let me know what are your thoughts ? IvanaAlexML (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, lists of 'useful' but nonnotable software or external links are simply off topic here. Quoting such a list is not better, nor is moving it onto another page - this isn't some kind of rigid law that can be worked around with a technicality, that's a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's processes work. A list of recommended local plumbers would probably be useful to people who end up on our articles on Plumbing, but such a list is nonetheless off mission for an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for the explicitation. Indeed, the list contained all the software available to my knowledge (I also drew inspiration from the French Wikipedia, where such a list exists and which I found useful). On the other hand, you're right, this was a links directory, and it may have been a bit too long. So I only added the article/book, that I was mentioning, that could provide a better lead (among the other references in the bibliography) while avoiding listing links.
- Will be looking further to do improvements towards the MOS style.
- Thanks, IvanaAlexML (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The French Wikipedia has different policies than the English one, you will find many things done there that would not be allowed here (and vice versa). You should also be alert for text which has been translated from English to French and subsequently deleted from the English article for various reasons - you would not want to put back a double translated version from the English->French->back to English MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know about the policies, thanks. Sure, that was not my intention. I am happy with the current version, a product from our constructive exchanges. The next modifications in my next spare time, I can try to make improvements and pay attention to “MOS” that you suggested. Have a nice evening! Best, IvanaAlexML (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The French Wikipedia has different policies than the English one, you will find many things done there that would not be allowed here (and vice versa). You should also be alert for text which has been translated from English to French and subsequently deleted from the English article for various reasons - you would not want to put back a double translated version from the English->French->back to English MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
magic?
[edit]hi @MrOllie
can you please tell me why you felt the need to revert the intro paragraph to "magic (supernatural)" page so far back? i understand if i maybe made too many changes in my last round of edits, but the ones i made before lasted about 2 years, which indicates consensus. meanwhile you reverted it back to something from even before then ... reasoning please? 2601:249:8200:9580:E097:B04B:51C1:AE1F (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The version I restored to was the last one that appropriately reflected the sources and which was written in clear and understandable English. Something lasting a while (even a long while) does not mean it necessarily has consensus. MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned your name
[edit]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)
Sole (foot)
[edit]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)