If you want to leave a message, please do it at thebottom, as a newsection, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. Anddon't forget tosign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keepdiscussions 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, ifI leave a comment onyour talk page, please respond to itthere. Remember, we can use ourwatchlist andtopic 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!
|
|
|
This page has archives. Topics inactive for48 hours are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than4. |
Removal of reference to Modern Fortran Explained
[edit]Your comment suggests you are reverting a long term spammer, but this is just a reference to a well known and highly regarded reference to the Fortran language.
Am I missing something here?~2025-38450-76 (talk)13:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. You've been spamming this for a long time, as has been discussed before. That the spamming switched from a named account to anonymous editing isn't fooling anyone.MrOllie (talk)13:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. I'm just an anonymous user because I'm using a work PC; I haven't edited this page recently (if at all). Also, this isn't a spam. Seehttps://academic.oup.com/book/56095. Please assume good faith and restore the reference.~2025-38450-76 (talk)14:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't believe that at all, as I have both access to the history of the article in question and a memory of my own. Trying to force in mention of a particular author's work absolutely is spam as Wikipedia defines that term.MrOllie (talk)14:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference tohttps://global.oup.com/academic/product/modern-fortran-explained-9780198876571?cc=gb&lang=en& that you have removed is a mistake. This reference to these author's work is not spam. If you look at the WG5 site you will see that John Reid (UK) was WG5 Convenor from 1999 through 2017. Malcolm Cohen is SO/IEC 1539 Project Manager (formerly called Project Editor):Malcolm Cohen (UK) Malcolm Cohen is also a J3 alternate voting member - seehttps://j3-fortran.org/members.php You need to revert the page to contain a reference tohttps://global.oup.com/academic/product/modern-fortran-explained-9780198876571?cc=gb&lang=en&Cmaapic (talk)16:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it isn't spam, why are sockpuppet accounts and anonymous editors so insistent on spamming it? Spamming is a behavior, and that is 100% what is going on here.MrOllie (talk)17:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time I chime in to this discussion. But I own a copy of that book and I agree with what Cmaapic says. Could you please answer to him and explain why this book is not allowed here? Why is Milan Curcic "building efficient parallel applications" allowed and MFE not? It doesn't make dense.~2025-38509-55 (talk)18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is your first time chiming in to this discussion, how did you run across my user talk page?MrOllie (talk)18:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a discussion at Fortran Discourse. People don't understand your reasoning on why you insist on removing the reference. I bought the book a couple of years ago and I find it exceptionally solid and helpful reference. That is why I write to you. I am only asking you to explain your reasoning. Could you please give us your answer so that we can understand your reasons?~2025-38509-55 (talk)18:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/mfe-removed-from-books-in-current-fortran-wikipedia-page/10529/9?u=eelis
- There is the discussion. Feel free to chime in there too.~2025-38509-55 (talk)18:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If others are being directed here from an external discussion to try to add mentions of this book, that is a clear abuse of Wikipedia and against our rules (SeeWP:CANVASS,WP:MEATPUPPET). I am not going to participate in that.MrOllie (talk)18:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think canvas or meatpuppet is the case here. People are genuinly puzzled why you keep removing the reference. Especially since you don't give any reason for your action. All I am asking most politely: please explain why you keep taking the reference down? Maybe you have a good reason?~2025-38509-55 (talk)18:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You just posted a link to discussion, and stated that you are here because of it. I am genuinely puzzled that you would think that such directly on point rules don't apply to this situation. I have given my reasons, both in this discussion and to previous sockpuppets. Demanding the same answers over and over is not 'asking most politely', it isSealioning.MrOllie (talk)18:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Sorry, maybe I have missed the point you have made earlier? Could you give a link to a place where you explain your reasoning?~2025-38509-55 (talk)18:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I decline to repeat myself any further.MrOllie (talk)18:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me explain it to you Mr. Ollie one more, and hopefully, for the last time, although I believe you (being a Wikipedia bot), lack the ability to comprehend humans. The collective community of Fortran experts with several thousands years of cumulative experience in both creating, evolving, and using Fortran programming standard and language believe this citation is reasonable and should exist on this Wikipedia article. I have no connection with this book or its authors, but as a professional Fortran programmer for over two decades and academic professor in computational sciences, I know its reputation and worthiness very well just as other experts in the field do. You are free to continue undoing and overriding the Fortran community's consensus on this matter and I am free to stop my annual donations to Wikipedia from now on. But rest assured that I will report your misbehavior and abuse of editorial power to the Wikipedia's Administrators' Noticeboard (ANI) and (AN3).Philosopher13 (talk)17:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming to my talk page to call me a bot or to otherwise make personal attacks will not help your position. The 'Fortran community' does not get to dictate what the Wikipedia community should do, we're on Wikipedia, not the Fortran community's website. In fact, the 'Fortran community's externally organized efforts to influence Wikipedia are in blatant violation of Wikipedia's policies. Making empty threats about admin boards won't work either.MrOllie (talk)17:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad to hear that you perceive my action as a threat to your vandalism. But the "threat" you perceived is not empty. Here is the substance:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_on_Fortran_page
- Apparently, the Fortran community is not the only group tired of your one-sided overrides and decisions:https://lightcapai.medium.com/wikipedia-is-not-free-how-mrollie-enforces-algorithmic-censorship-and-how-to-bypass-it-d9b4daefa7c5Philosopher13 (talk)17:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That someone who is banned from Wikipedia for incessantly spamming their self published blog posts is upset is not the badge of shame you seem to think it is.MrOllie (talk)17:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is some of the publication history for Mike Metcalf and John Reid.
- <<lengthy copy and paste removed>>
- The authers are well regarded members of the Fortran community and have been in print for a long time.
- You need to reinstate the reference to the last edition.Cmaapic (talk)13:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't take orders from you, I don't 'need' to do anything. I direct the following to you and every other new or returning editor who is here to post about this book - do not write on my talk page about this topic again.MrOllie (talk)13:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, MrOllie!
[edit] Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Volten001☎03:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FMM applications knowledge
[edit]Can you provide any source (printed or online) containing a list of FMM applications? I would also like to read it myself.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- That is beside this point, which is this: Stop spamming Wikipedia. -MrOllie (talk)21:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an answer to the question.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I decline to answer irrelevant questions.MrOllie (talk)21:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling me a spammer is a personal attack.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it is an accurate description of your behavior and in keeping with Wikipedia's definition atWP:CITESPAM.MrOllie (talk)21:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- If it would really be accurate, it would not be personal attack.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You are indeed spamming Wikipedia, though.MrOllie (talk)21:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Now "Thank" to you is without "spam", but with less objective benefit to readers.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence is incoherent, thus I have no further response.MrOllie (talk)21:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read topic "Removal of reference to Modern Fortran Explained". Confirms everything.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)21:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- And I shall safeguard my reputation.Jerzy.Respondek (talk)22:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Now "thanks" to you is without "spam", but with less objective benefit to readers.
- AND I SHALL SAFEGUARD MY REPUTATION
- https://lightcapai.medium.com/wikipedia-is-not-free-how-mrollie-enforces-algorithmic-censorship-and-how-to-bypass-it-d9b4daefa7c5Jerzy.Respondek (talk)22:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt you can find all manner of spammers complaining about how I would not let them spam - that one was banned from Wikipedia a while ago. That those complaints exist does not make them correct, nor does it mean that they (or you) were correct to spam Wikipedia. It is time to stop posting nonsense on my user talk page now, though - do not post on this talk page again.MrOllie (talk)22:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep reverting the box top thing?
[edit]Do you not like the citation or do you not like the inclusion of the sentence? We could just improve the citation if that is the issue, right?Jerimee (talk)02:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Both. It's trivia, sourced to social media.MrOllie (talk)02:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
