User talk:MrOllie

We're not the register of the Chamber of Commerce. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

tgeorgescu is welcome to comment here. Don't try to exclude others from my user talk, I will handle that if needed. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Once again, you don't want to put it back, I'll still sue you. Turner Alpha (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No one needs your permission to revert badly sourced content or promotional writing. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Turner Alpha - if you don't retract this comment (and the other comment above) with your threats to sue within the next few minutes, I'm going to block you for making legal threats. Remove the comments or strike them out. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Whelp, this user is blocked as a sockpuppet. That explains the similar edits and behavior... :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Retractor note: sockpuppets don't even get the right to have their edits be seen. Removed without leaving anything. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I manage technology association for kiosks and self-service. We work with US Access Board and also ETSI (as well as India and Korea). We are planning on presenting our idea for global regulatory framework which includes ADA, EAA, HIPAA, UL, ANSI and others. We are member of ANSI. We have a new COP Code of Practice for Audio and Voice in Self Service. First proposed in 2019 and now modified (given influx of conversational AI). Can I create entry for this initiative? We also have produced harmonized US ADA and Europe EAA regulations. Is it useful for Wikipedia to have resources for Conversational AI in self-service? We strictly educate and inform.

Maybe you can advise me on protocol

Craig Craigkeefner-pm (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Writing an article about yourself or your initiative is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Self published materials on any subject including this one are not useful for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am looking at ADA and it is totally useless and out of date. It is misleading in fact. EAA accessibility is better but it doesn't map to ADA 2010 or ACAA which are the current in-place standards for US. Closest Wikipedia comes is 1990 laws (obsolete).

I suppose I could update 1990 entry to mention that it was eclipsed in 2010. Should I create a page for 2010 legislation?

The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical — for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities,

Craig Craigkeefner-pm (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would strongly suggest you not create a new page on any topic. Focus on updating existing pages, and then only with the very best independently published secondary sources per WP:RS. No consultant pages, no vendors, no citing the standards documents directly. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

For reference you can read our "content" in the published standards for EV that ANSI released last year. ANSI published out content. We are referenced and quoted by US Access Board. For reference the wikipeda page on ADA 1990 is only largely accurate. All tertiary without the regulatory text.

I thought I would take another look at wikipedia before I retire (and shut up). I have 50 years in technology experience and just wanted to pass it on. I"ll use the AIs. Less stress. Have a nice day. Craigkeefner-pm (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

We consider the 'regulatory text' to be primary sourced. What we want are secondary sources - books that independent people have written, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc. MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Books that independent people have written.... Sounds good. Magazines, newspapers, government websites (many no longer available now). Books are very minor percentage. Books cited: 36 — The Disability Rights Movement: from Charity to Confrontation (Temple University Press, 2001) -- The Hollywood Economist: The Hidden Financial Reality Behind the Movies (Melville House, 2012) — Workers' Rights (Marshall Cavendish, 2007)

None of those are peer reviewed fyi*

Magazines cited:Christianity Today, Congressional Digest (two separate issues), The National Review, Reason, Regulation (Cato Institute), Monitor on Psychology (APA), Time, ABA Journal

None of those peer reviewed. Seem to have libertarian slant (Cato e.g.)

It's just noteworthy to hear a lot of "don't do this or that" but meanwhile, its easily seen being done "MrOllie". Especially with ADA and Disabilities.

I'll let you go and end the discourse. Life is short. Not meant to criticize so much as discern the work behind the words. ~2026-41991-28 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Craig. Let's keep the story short:

Can I create entry for this initiative?

No. Not on Wikipedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are probably correct. It doesn't fix the inaccurate info on ADA.. Wikipedia got stuck on 1990 and completely missed 2010 which has been in effect for 16 years. The US Access Board created an updated 2025 document but the administration issued legal directives to "not release". Wikipedia is beginning to remind me of the Usenet groups (I moderated comp.infosystems.kiosks) Craigkeefner-pm (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

TA did not notify you after starting a thread..

[画像:Information icon] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated removal of sourced Egyptian inventors by MrOllie. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the heads up. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply