User talk:Ollj

Welcome message
The same VERY late instructing welcome message seriously confused me, too. --Ollj 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. I only noticed you had no welcome so I wanted to welcome you even if late.  Sorry for the late welcome.  My purpose is not to warn people or stop them from doing anything wrong, but to encourage involvement even if they are vandals.  I encourage even vandals to learn and practice where their edits won't be considered vandalism.  I leave the warnings and other treatments, such as blocking, up to other members. And again, I'm not saying you are vandalising or anything like that, I just came across your name as someone who didn't have a welcome :) --ElectricEye 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

clarify
You made the comment "'pseudiscience' is a subcategory of 'paranormal' (trying to use scientific methods on paranormals) BUT 'paranormal' is NOT a a subcategory of 'pseudoscience': not all PS is PN)". You say that pseudoscience is a subcategory of paranormal, but at the end you say that not all pseudoscience is paranormal.  Is that what you intended to say?  Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I messed up that comment, wanted to write "not all Paranormal is Pseudoscience.", simple shortcut typos.
 * I just wanted a logic correlation between Pseudoscience and Paranormal for categorization of "paranormal" articles so I simply defined "pseudoscience" as attempt of applying scientific methods (or similar methology) to paranormal content as far as possible. That was generally speaking wrong due to a lack of definitions in some cases, so i am fine with the reverts. More general definitions needed! Scientific argument is: if does not include all scientific methods it is JUST NOT SCIENCE per definition of science. Paranormal stuff most times defies Control (meaning controlled circumstances to exclude opportunism and bias), reproducibility, intersubjective verifiability or Falsifiability. Controversity shows me that the definition "pseudoscience being half-science half-paranormal and thus all pseudoscience contains paranormal stuff" was just too narrow.


 * I thought that you probably made an error in the comment. I have not reverted any of your changes. There are a lot of people who object to certain things being called pseudoscience.  Also, at the Pseudoscience article, they have been fighting over what is and is not pseudoscience for a long time.  You might want to check out that article.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal
Your definition of paranormal at the beginning of the Bermuda Triangle page would place the Pioneer Anomaly, and those who believe it has uncovered a "new physics," under such a heading, and if there's ever been a mystery thoroughly grounded in science, it's that one. Paranormal literally means "other than normal," which is what science is all about uncovering and understanding, is it not? --Chr.K. 00:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * a better definition for paranormal is "any phenomenon that ... exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.". So Paranormal phenomenon are either impossible or some scientiffic assumptions are wrong. Scientiffic assumptions get tested all the time and stand the tests (or get abandoned) while Paranormal stuff defies testing or fails testing.
 * I wasnt defining paranormal stuff in the bermuda triangle, just listing them. I was only fixing NPOV from the previous versions by making it a "list of paranormal claims". Previous version used biased phrases with the same claims. Its up to you to link Pioneer Anomaly to Bermuda Triangle.

Spontaneous human combustion merge
Thanks for carrying the merge. However, in the future, could you please try to check for duplicated sections when merging articles like this? At least half of the content that got merged was already present in nearly unchanged form in the main article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I did that bad.

Logic
I wasn't refuting your Logic section on Correlation implies causation. If you look back on your edits, they simply don't make sense. Chris53516 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you were not refuting to my Logic section on 'Correlation implies causation', you are refuting to void, because I ONLY added the logic section, there is nothing left to refute to if not to that. Just added that "cum hoc means: a correlates to B, therefore a causes B" in a short LOGIC statement. --Ollj 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific on which void? Just kidding. Your new edits are fine, but the old one didn't make sense. First, what you added was poorly worded and didn't make sense; second, an entire section for just a couple of words is not merited. Chris53516 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold doesn't mean Bull in China Shop
The Wikipedia encouragement to be bold doesn't mean to behave like a bull in a china shop. When you want to make huge changes with large repercussions, like you did when you blanked and redirected Logical fallacy, you must discuss it and get consensus first, if you want to succeed. Note: new commentary on Talk pages goes at the end, not the front. Hu 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * huge changes? come on it was a small article getting merged into a bigger one that contained most of the small articles content as duplicate.
 * ad absurdum Note: Discussion to merge Logical fallacy with fallacy started in Talk:Fallacy 23:14, 22 May 2005 with 2 "for merge" (with arguments) and continued 17 monts later with +1 (me) "for merge" (with arguments) and +1 (Rtrev) for "not so hastly, allow more time for discussion" and +1 (Hu) "do not blank and redirect, discuss first" (invalid counter arguments). You got to be kidding me, how much discussion do you want within 17 months?
 * This is NOT a bull in China shop, this is 3 snails on a volcano. Say merged, not blanked and redirected, you're biased.
 * I always mess up the to-bottom part due to lack of clearification till now.
 * It is funny how my statement that the "logical fallacy article is a fallacy itself because of its ambiguous definition" still stands unchallenged.
 * It is funny how you reply here as a Bull in China Shop, ad hominem, instead of taking part in the discussion that you promote here but do not take part in. --Ollj 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted a note here, because you have also made a number of other problematic edits that have been reverted as well. I think you need to cool down a bit.  My point stands:  When you want to make huge changes with large repercussions, you must discuss it and get consensus first, if you want to succeed.  You did not get consensus. And the net result is that you have clobbered and obliterated all the edit summary history of the page.  And yes, it was a huge change. Hu 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring all my arguments. You didn't change any other problematic edits by Hu. You don't even give an example of what edit is problematic and why. Your argument of "huge changes with large repercussions" does not apply just because you say so repediately. I did not get consensus, noone did for 17 months, so how is this with large repercussions again? So I acted because noone seems to care, got attention, lets roll. All your other arguments, including the argument why you post here, are logical fallacies, you win a price if you find out whose are which. Untill then all you wrote here is based on invalid arguments and not getting consensus is only valid since some people care. How do I ban people from posting on my private page? --Ollj 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring your arguments, I've refuted them. Deleting 110 lines of material from the Logical Fallacy article, as you did, does qualify as a huge change with large repercussions.
 * deletion != merge. And much of the content was duplicated on the article it got merget to before. Read and compare the articles, do not just count the words for exaggertated statistics. I copied everything from 'logical fallacy' into 'fallacy', marked as merge, this is still unchallenged, therefore logical fallacy is now just a duplicate. I just thought a (almost) duplicate article redirect would count as small change. --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What the heck does "deletion != merge" mean?? It doesn't matter if YOU think the content is a duplicate, but that OTHERS also agree. Hu's point was that you marked it as a "minor edit" and that it was definitely NOT a minor edit. Chris53516 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring your arguments, I've refuted them. By the way, deleting 110 lines of material from the Logical Fallacy article, as you did, does qualify as a huge change with large repercussions.  Since you want some examples of your problematic edits, here are some, including one I changed, despite your denial that I changed any. (Your statement, You didn't change any other problematic edits by Hu, makes little sense since we are discussing your problematic edits.)  Sunk cost is not a logical fallacy.  I reverted your edit there.  Your edit on For The Children (politics) is problematic, since it it is speculative or original research.  Your use of profanity in this edit on Logical fallacy is inappropriate.  You merged from Perinormal to Paranormal but marked both edits Minor Edit. Just about every edit you make you mark as Minor Edit.  By the way, I think you should know that only your User page is yours to control exclusively (with a few limits).  User Talk pages, within reasonable limits, are places for communication and discussion.  I think you need to learn a little more about how Wikipedia operates so that you can get along better.  Hu 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hu. Those edits are very problematic, and using the "minor edit" feature is almost an abuse. Please take the time to learn more about Wikipedia policy. Chris53516 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * just had to break up your reply to comment on everyone... --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sunk cost is not a logical fallacy. I reverted your edit there.
 * Fallacy has a link to sunk cost named 'sunk cost fallacy'. I read sunk cost, including its 'Loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy' section, and agreed that it definitely belongs in this category, or split up to 'sunk cost (fallacy)', which i did not want to for small articles and "deleting content". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollj (talk • contribs)
 * Just because it is linked to an article doesn't mean it's related. One section in it doesn't warrant moving it or recategorizing it. Chris53516 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit on For The Children (politics) is problematic, since it is speculative or original research.
 * I am aware that anyone can reason fo 'inaccurate' 'npov' or 'speculative' somehow simply because it is another attempt to start an article that is not being vanadalized, closed due to controversity, like similar ones before, think of the children for example. An early "new attempt for an article" is still better than ignorance of a deleted article about logical fallacies. The articles new main argument is that "for the children" does not speak directly to the children, and is therefore a fallacy if related to politics instead of thinks directly done for the children (by excluding voting). Also because appeal to emotion links to it. This waits to be discussed/callenged. Sory I have problems with people that deny common sense with the argument from ignorance. --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your use of profanity in this edit on Logical fallacy is inappropriate.
 * I was expressing anger about the citing procedure, especially syntax. Got reverted anyways for other "reasons". You better not use the straw man of inappropriate or profanity to rv cited definitions as "nonsense". --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Profanity is not acceptable, at all, anywhere on Wikipedia. Chris53516 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You merged from Perinormal to Paranormal but marked both edits Minor Edit.
 * Because both words mean exactly the same and the article was "young and inaccurate" back then anyways. Here's something important to say against conspiracies, back up your story with actuall stuff instead of relying in old selected vague facts about young and therefore logically possibly inaccurate wiki articles.
 * Hu's point is that you marked it as a Minor Edit, NOT that your move was a bad idea. Merging, moving, or removing content are behaviors that are NOT minor. Chris53516 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just about every edit you make you mark as Minor Edit. 
 * That is just not true. True is that I make many "just a few words changed" edits in many different articles as well as I do not care as much for "minor or mayor edits", mostly accidental (thats a bad excuse). That may mess up your (prejudiced) statistical point of view. --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think you should know that only your User page is yours to control exclusively (with a few limits). User Talk pages, within reasonable limits, are places for communication and discussion.  I think you need to learn a little more about how Wikipedia operates so that you can get along better.
 * Sneaking an "only" into that sentence after so much false arguments of yours, as if I would claim exclusive rights on wikipedia articles, shame on you! Bottom line: Stop the trolling! Evidence > Statistics. Bring it!


 * I agree with Hu. Those edits are very problematic, and using the "minor edit" feature is almost an abuse. Please take the time to learn more about Wikipedia policy. Chris53516 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should ban the minor edit feature alltogether, since using it is an abuse. You missed an important verb or reference in your argument. --Ollj 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave no suggestion that the "minor edit" feature be banned. You need to use it better. If anyone's doing any trolling, you are. You didn't even link to the right troll article. Would you mind just taking some advice and not being so volatile? One of Wikipedia's policies is to assume good faith. Chris53516 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, your own edit to this page was NOT a minor edit. You made many remarks, and they were not small. Therefore, using "minor edit" was incorrect. Chris53516 15:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit warning
Please see Help:Minor edit for how to use minor edits appropriately. Chris53516 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit user's comments.
Another thing about the Wikipedia way: Do not chop into user's comments. Quote them in italics or refer to them in some way. I had to restore the integrity of my comments. Hu 17:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Decimal separation
I really do wish you would have discussed your edits of List of Pokémon on the talk page, because we've actually been trying to simplify the table, and we in the past already threw out the possibility of listing height/length in favor of listing the names and Dex numbers. I'm going to bring this up at the article's talk page, but the real reason I'm posting here is to tell you about number conventions on Wikipedia. According to the Manual of Style, under Numbers, you need to use periods (".") to separate the integer part from the fractional part (so Abomasnow would be 2.2 meters tall). Using commas might just confuse people. Thanks for your time. --Brandon Dilbeck 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Skeptic multimedia
Category:Skeptic multimedia, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Voronoise
Hi, I'm PamD. Ollj, thanks for creating Voronoise!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add context to make this article more useful for the encyclopedia, and provide more than one reference. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Pam D  08:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Voronoise


The article Voronoise has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable: based on a blog post, and a search turns up nothing better. The article also fails to say what the method is or does, so anyone wanting to understand it has to visit the linked blog post, which is not how articles are meant to work."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)