User talk:MrOllie

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'm writing regarding the recent reverts of my edits to this article and the addition of the "Undisclosed paid" tag. I want to clarify a few points and open a discussion about how we can improve this article.

Clarification on my status

First, I want to state clearly that I am not a paid editor. I am an independent Wikipedia contributor who has been editing for about two years, usually once or twice a month. My edits to this article were made in good faith, with the intention of improving its content. If necessary, I am willing to provide evidence of my independent status.

About my recent edits

On August 15 and 24, 2024, I added information about five books written by Arindam Bhattacharya (Politician). This information was sourced from various online resources, including details about the publishers and ISBN numbers. My intention was to add value to the article by including this verifiable information.

Request for discussion

I understand that my edits were reverted due to concerns about promotional content. I'd like to discuss how we can incorporate this information in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Specifically:

Are the books relevant to the subject's notability?

How can we present this information in a neutral, non-promotional manner?

What additional sources or verification would be needed to include this content?

Moving forward

I'm open to feedback and suggestions on how to improve these additions. If the community feels that some or all of this information should be included, I'm happy to work collaboratively to integrate it properly. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to a constructive discussion on how we can enhance this article. Francisca.news24 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been using AI software to write messages like this one? MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100%, MrOllie. It's so unbelievably passive-aggressive. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why the shorter addition to the management consulting page is not allowed. It is not name dropping companies any different than the big four and big three (MBB) sections do. The "Tier 2" category is as defined as those two, with plenty of sources. Can you explain why this is different? 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit was unverified. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added sources -- thank you. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unreliable sources do not help, see WP:RS. And at any rate, this is still inappropriate name dropping of particular companies. Wikipedia isn't a business directory or otherwise a place to list or promote particular companies. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is Big 4 or Big 3 not name dropping? Confused about this. Tier 2 is a very common category in the management consulting industry and there are select few firms considered within this bucket. It is not different than the big 3 or big 4, or even ivy league schools. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally in the big 3 section OC&C is name dropped...for what reason? It says they are generally considered a top firm. This is no different but is even more defined as "Tier 2" is an official category of firms. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Big Three (management consultancies) and Big Four accounting firms are independently notable terms, with their own Wikipedia articles and extensive sourcing from highly reliable publishers. Your additions are based on unreliable blogs and career websites. Also: stop adding promotional text to L.E.K. Consulting. Are you associated with one of these companies in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not, but I was just curious and thought that the category should be added since it is widely considered an official grouping. If you just google it, you will find plenty of reliable sources (at least considered reliable in the consulting/mba community like Management Consulted, Prep Lounge, Vault, Hacking the Case Interview) that consider this to be true. I will stop making the edits, but I still do not see a difference. Especially with the fact that OC&C is named drop as continuing to be prestigious within the big 3 category. This is no different than listing a college as a "top fifty" school because 3 rankings / 5 consider them a top fifty. Just like colleges, these companies are ranked based on multiple factors including revenue, compensation, WLB, prestige, size, etc. It is less so promotional and more so biased to pick and choose professional categories to feature on the Wikipedia page. I will not editing, but I wholeheartedly disagree and you have not provided a decent argument as to why this is invalid. It is not a personal opinion, but one held by the ENTIRE industry. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the typos, but you get the sentiment. My point was it is biased to allow certain categories and groupings of firms and not others when they are all considered to be true by the industry, which you are likely not in yourself. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On Wikipedia, reliable sources are what is defined at WP:RS. Blogs and selfpublished career websites do not qualify. OC&C is discussed because a chunk of their business was acquired by one of the big 4. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  " OC&C Strategy Consultants still independently operates 14 offices in over 10 countries, and is commonly referenced as a top consulting firm" and it cites the same sources I cited. 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So why do college pages refer to Niche and USWorldNews rankings? Those are self published blogs and rankings? I sense bias 130.64.64.38 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now read the sentence before the one you just quoted.

  US News is not a self published blog. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And either is Vault? Explain to me how Vault rankings are self publishing blog then? 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, I'm done answering this never-ending stream of questions for the day. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, you're just wrong. Vault is the US News for the industry. It was cited for OC&C "is referenced as a top consulting firm" and that wasn't taken down. You are being biased and it shows. 38.104.7.174 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you can't take the hint, I'll be more clear: Stop posting on my talk page. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Ollie i dont know the Actual reason why you reverted my Addition. i am the Publisher and i am doing addition with spending too much in it and you just came and revert the addition by considering it the spammy or promoting your own website. hence after studying i found that multiple high profile website just like espncricinfo and gsm areana are doing the same thing adding the product and refer it to their own site so why there addition is not consider as spam but my addition is. nor i am doing too much i just add max of two a day, if you look you will find the things i added is missing in the context and added additional and accurate value.I know that wikipedia is a user generated platform not a promoting platform. its provided the accurate and actual information

if i have been doing some mistakes in addition so kindly let me know what i am doin wrong. Thank You Shahkarshah01 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake is adding spam links to your own website, which is not a usable link or citation for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dissappointed Shahkarshah01 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my contribution? No original research was involved, just going off citations listed on the wiki page's note. (the one near the result "Inconclusive") KiddKrazy (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons already listed on your own talk page. You should wait for consensus support for your changes on the article talk page (and provide new sourcing), my user talk is the wrong venue for that, also see WP:RESULT MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No need for the insult/remark though. KiddKrazy (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the insult A standard warning is not an 'insult'. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but your consensus support remark is. (Or at least can be interpreted as such.) KiddKrazy (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm insulting you, feel free to take it to an admin. Or ask them to explain WP:CONSENSUS at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. May have misinterpreted that. KiddKrazy (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]