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 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!

Magic squares

[edit]

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square Routine calculations Shortcut 

   WP:CALC

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

The squares solved via algebra that I added (1x1) ... (6x6) are easily checked with basic math. Please at least look at the results. John Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.74.113 (talk • contribs)

A routine calculation is 2+2 = 4. What you added was quite a bit beyond that. You'll need to cite a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. That would apply in this case, as magic squares are absolutely mathematical. 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Wikipedia is built on reliable sourcing. You will not be able to just wave your hand, say 'Mathematical literacy', and add whatever you like. Cite sources or leave it out. - MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever.
It was something that was easily verifiable and was of value to the topic.
I was not adding just "whatever I like". I added something that was based on mathematics and factually correct.
Cheers... 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works for some place like stackexchange, but Wikipedia needs sources. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright,
Would it be ok to just post the 6x6 square, as is?
In other words, for example, "Here is a 6x6 magic square: [ ... ]".
That would be a simple factual statement, easily verified.
I won't say anything about how I derived it, thus no "original research". 12.188.175.154 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would still require a citation. MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence#Mathematics 208.104.74.113 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you will still have to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble

[edit]

Hello and very sorry about this. We've got an assignment in our uni class to pick a page and update it on wikipedia and I chose the topic artificial intelligence. I certainly don't know what any of the affiliations are but I found some papers about AI and thought I would try to update the AI page with it. Sorry for the trouble! Briankirkundson (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Night, Deadly Night

[edit]

I know you've not exactly new here but just be mindful of the potential of the appearance of an edit war -- it might be worth it to warn them and/or report rather than revert continually. —tonyst (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism and or WP:LTAs is an exemption from edit warring rules. They're reported as well. - MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, apologies, didn't realize the LTA. Take care! —tonyst (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for reverting my edit?

[edit]

Regarding your revert of my recent edit for the article Platform as a Service.
Would you care to explain why?

The correct spelling of the phrase "Platform as a Service" (abbreviated as PaaS) is exactly like this, because when it comes to abbreviations, it is common to capitalize letters from the words that make up the phrase being abbreviated.
Thus your revert was basically inappropriate. But it would be interesting to hear your motivation. informatik01 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's manual of style directs us to use sentence case, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. The style you are describing is commonly used - by other style guidelines, not this site's. MrOllie (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a really sad choice of styling. Wikipedia is primarily an educational resource, and as such, it should provide correct terminology that is common in relevant fields of study and industries. Here is a good (and correct) example of the use and spelling of professional terminology by Amazon AWS: 👉 Types of Cloud Computing.
It is really strange that Wikipedia's internal spelling guidelines seem to conflict with established professional terminology. informatik01 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the style guidelines, you can submit a proposal about that, but my talk page isn't the venue. Even if I wanted to change it I wouldn't have the authority. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&oldid=1293736034"