User talk:MrOllie: Difference between revisions

By /

Line 76: Line 76:

I used NHS.

I used NHS.

[[Special:Contributions/91.153.111.4|91.153.111.4]] ([[User talk:91.153.111.4|talk]]) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/91.153.111.4|91.153.111.4]] ([[User talk:91.153.111.4|talk]]) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

:No, you used webmd and a finnish food authority website. Stop edit warring about this, please. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie#top|talk]]) 22:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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!

Hi

I noticed you’ve undone some factual additions I added to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_software_development.

Is this because of the issues with my IP, or because the change I made was somehow wrong?

I was on an employer machine before, now I’ve switched to a different machine and logged on. Your guidance is appreciated Bmp103 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong. There is no widely accepted ‘8th waste’. We cannot rely on a primary source to say that there is – if we did we would end up listing quite a lot of ‘8th wastes’. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to review my changes and those of others.
It does seem that at one point someone suggested the 8th waste should be a different one: “goods and services that do not meet the customer’s needs”, though the paper does recognise that others added the 8th as: “underutilization of people”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200657172_Lean_Thinking_Banish_Waste_and_Create_Wealth_in_Your_Corporation
It does seem that since then, the 8th waste has settled as “underutilization of people/talent”, however it’s not a hill I’ll die on. At some point I may consider a way to more clearly and factually reference the 8th waste in the article, but I’ll leave it for now. For the sake of posterity, here’s some of the further research on the subject:
I’ve found 2 book references to the 8th waste of under-utilised talent/people in lean software:
– https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Art_of_Lean_Software_Development/0VsK9cVZauQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover&bsq=eighth%20waste
– https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Lean_Software_Development_in_Action/HDlpBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover&bsq=sold%20due%20to%20defects
I’ve not seen any adoption by the Poppendiecks of the 8th waste in any documentation.
The 8th waste does seem to be widely adopted in Lean Manufacturing though. Here are a number of fairly authoritative manufacturing lean references in sites to the 8th waste being un-utilised talent/people:
– https://theleanway.net/The-8-Wastes-of-Lean
– https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/the-eight-wastes-of-lean/
– https://goleansixsigma.com/8-wastes/?srsltid=AfmBOorbgxMZmSO3IyKBWJ4MesWABDmlRQYnzFY6tU7Za8NtCnwoKiEd
– https://www.gembaacademy.com/gemba-insights/what-about-the-8th-waste
– https://www.6sigma.us/lean-six-sigma-articles/lean-the-8-wastes/ Bmp103 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie – Please assist me in properly adding the medical case report on my medical records to the Near Death Experience section on the page covering me: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/09/Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf Ealexander3 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve discussed this many, many times. Your source is not usable. If you have questions, read the old discussions over again. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
geezer was on fentanyl and wondered why he was hallucinating? 147.161.143.33 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrOllie

You rejected my 3 changes within the text about cord blood banks:

  1. I removed Italy (as this is not true that it is “one’s own cord blood is unlawful in Italy and France” – there is nor reference to that and actualy this is not true in relation to Italy.
  2. I imnserted the text from EU Resolution: Here is references for that:: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012IP0320
  3. I also corrected the name of American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists – there is nothing like that. There is College not Congress American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

I will continue editing that page as it contains many informations which are medically and factually outdated.

Tomport (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block evading sock accounts have been editing that article in an attempt to whitewash the reputation of the private cord blood banking industry for quite a while, using the same tactics of WP:SYN as were on display in your edit. They always claim the page is ‘medically and factually outdated’. – MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided 3 facts which are 100% true. They do not change the past reputation of cord blood banking industry – it is as it is, I am about facts. I did not corrected the negative opinions which exist in the article. How you came to that conclusion? Because I corrected Congress to College ? I just see that page is outdated and incorrect – see first reference – leading to nothing, Most references are more than 10 years old. It is an era in medicine. Tomport (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking statements as you did from the EU is classic WP:SYN, and doing so to whitewash the article will not work. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You reverted my edit on 100,000 about the number of prime numbers with distinct digits that was sourced to the OEIS, a trusted source for decades on mathematical trivia, so removing without explanation just feels arbitrary. Apologies if this was an automatic / bot decision, but a little context would be nice 🤗 2A00:23CC:F81F:BD01:B14B:2DA1:7C13:D081 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) .
Direct quote: tatements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

I used NHS.
91.153.111.4 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you used webmd and a finnish food authority website. Stop edit warring about this, please. MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top