User talk:MrOllie/Archive 4

Square root revision

Please, can you tell me why do you think the external link that you removed the last octuber 11 is not correct?. It has been working 2 months and I think it is very interesting and it is related with the issue. If you think the old link www.raizcuadrada.es:8880 is better than www.raizcuadrada.es/squareroot.html, please, let me know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jllompi (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, If you have no problem tomorrow I will add the external link, please, let me know, thanks. Regards --Jllompi (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

link to Segreg: a practical Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) of Mendelism and Classical Genetics by means of Multimedia Based Learning

Hello, I thought that the open content to a practical Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) of Mendelism and Classical Genetics by means of Multimedia Based Learning which includes several Activities related to the identification of Meiosis Phases and Chromosomes might be useful to the readers of an encyclopedia who might want to put into practice the knowledge gained by reading as to solve excercises and consolidate concepts. Take a look at Segrega, in case you think it is the case the link was:

Sciteneg Genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMarioFratini (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read over our guidelines on external linking and conflict of interest. As a commercial site which requires external software to be functional, listing this link on Wikipedia does not agree with our guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I understand, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.183.77 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

why?

why have you deleted my reference to Bigoni's book in the shear band wiki page and buckling, rigid line inclusion etc...?

I can not understand why you have done that.

I have inserted again the reference in the shear band page, please leave it as it is.

If something is wrong, please let me know directly.

SSMG-ITALY (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you address Dragons flight's point that...

Quite possibly not [1] though I've asked for clarification [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Star Game (computer version)

I noticed you removed the entire reference to the computer version of the Star Game (along with the linked Wordpress page under WP:ELNO). I nevertheless think this is relevant to the history of this obscure board game, as although it was invented in 1975, it recently had its first software implementation (free and for multiple platforms).

Mequa (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any third party reliable sources that establish that discussion the software version is due weight for the article? - MrOllie (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Such sources are scanty at this stage, as sources pertaining to Order of Nine Angles are largely limited to blogs, and this is new software so hasn't yet been referenced in academic literature. Related to the discussions on the Order of Nine Angles, the project was referenced on http://ona.soup.io/post/196016282/Virtual-Version-of-The-Star-Game and on http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=62162#Post62162 , and was included on the links section of http://onanxs.wordpress.com/ . Another reference to this game is at http://community.thegamecrafter.com/forums/testimonials/not-happy/10/re:-not-happy?pn=1 . (Note that some links on these pages are now dead.)

Nevertheless, to claim that a short mention of the existence of a software version is "undue weight", given the history of this game, does seem to require further argument.

Compare the Wikipedia article on Star_Trek_Tri-Dimensional_Chess and the mention of the computer version "Parmen", which does not seem undue weight. Mequa (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Parmen, I have removed that as well. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyber-mobbing

MrOllie, I see that you reverted my edit to the mobbing page, but did not indicate a reason for the reversion. Would it work for you, if I source it? Thanks. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My reason (as mentioned in the edit summary) is that it was unsourced. So yes, source it properly and I would have no objection. - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

list of Open Access Publishers

Can you explain me, why the list of Open Access Publishers had been deleted```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1144 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided and Wikipedia is not a directory specify that such lists of links are inappropriate for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

so,you say,if i remove the links it is acceptable...```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1144 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a directory and that article should not be used to host a list of publishers. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many wiki pages ,which contains lists.Then why can't the same thing be applied here Eg:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1144 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not a directory,I specified few Open Access publishers.If you feel this as a list,what about the links which i mentioned in my previous talk postJack1144 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

disabled links

why did you disable my links and delete my information on Christianity. The subject was christiaity criticism so I posted a couple of links to the main christian detractors online and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brnly123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided any third party reliable sourcing showing the relative prominence of those viewpoints. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding removal of link

Dear Mr Ollie,

Thanks for your email notification. However I'm surprised that you took down the link.

I had added the link as the website contains a lot of relevant new information published by a variety of experts and scholars as well as up-to-date legislative info that could be very useful for somebody researching the entire subject of Shale Gas, natural gas, the methods, statistics of gas usage in Europe, the pro's and cons, etc.

I hope you will reconsider adding the link.

Best,

PelicanDream (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

You deleted my quotes on the globalization page I was wondering if you could reinstate it without the hyperlinks, it is an honest mistake as I did not know hyperlinks are not allowed, the quotes I have provided are from a leading political journal according to the third party reference I provided. Please accept the honest mistake and reinstate the quote without the hyperlink. Globo564 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Globo564Globo564 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Which third party reference was that? - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a review of the political journal from a third party source: [3]Globo564 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Globo564Globo564 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a review. That looks more like a blog aggregator reposting a self written profile - it is a barely rephrased version of newcivilization's own about page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The eurasia review is a former publication of the famous Jamestown Foundation, this is enough to show its status and that of its review. [4] These are their partners: http://www.eurasiareview.com/authors/

It doesn't matter if it is similar to their own page, have you not thought that maybe they recognise what new civilisation says about themselves hence why they say the same.

Its not a blog aggregator all they have done is post give a glowing review, even though they are against islamism they gave the new civilisation political journal a good review. Globo564 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Globo564Globo564 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No. The Eurasia review is website operating in Spain. The Jamestown Foundation is an unrelated entity in DC that used to publish a similarly named publication. Either way, a partner profile on the site is neither a review nor is it independent. MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say they are partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.171.164 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You, above, 'these are their partners' followed by a link to a list new civ is on. MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Business Model Canvas

Hi MrOllie,

On the talkpage I just restored the criticism section, you removed from the article. I agree with the motives for removal. On the other end I think it is a shame if that text entirely is removed. Or at least no longer on line available. If you think this is unacceptable, please let me know. -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pascal Triangle nuclear sources

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i25/e252502

th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol40/pdf/v40p0731.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/1117062/Atomic_structure_and_The_Pascal_Triangle (self-published, not journal, but shows that more than one person has found the same thing).

www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1963/mayer-lecture.pdf

http://oeis.org/A018226 (mathematical sequence directory, page on the stronger magic numbers, the higher of which is the series of double tetrahedrals minus the double triangulars above them in the apex-centered Pascal Triangle depiction- see formula section)

I'm sure I could pull up more refs, dunno if all meet Wiki criteria for publications, probably many do, but I have no access to a lot of them (pay sites).

If this is enough, or if enough for discussion, lets talk. I don't have a copy of the piece I posted here (am still a bit shaky on how to create citations), but obviously its still stored in the system.

I HAVE done extrapolation of the published observations into deformed nuclei, so that IS original research, but the findings show that these just fall out of the originals by the other folks, based on the math. They just didn't see it.

To see the graphic of the Nilsson chart I used: http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/images/thumb/6/66/Shape_deformations_5.jpg/450px-Shape_deformations_5.jpg, in the piece http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Shape_deformations_in_atomic_nuclei, which is another online publication (I know Wiki is iffy about those).

Just for your own edification (I know you can't use that to make your decision) look at the central column in Fig. 9 (the pic link just above), the harmonic oscillator full shell set for spherical nuclei. You see that they are all double tetrahedral numbers, yes? And of course those are composed of double triangulars (and these by double naturals). Now look at the line of numbers to the right (prolates) with axial ratio 2:1. No obvious relation to double tetrahedrals, right, at least on the surface. But if you start with 0, you see that each added interval is a double triangular number and that these occur twice each time.

I'm currently finishing a characterization of the entire idealized Nilsson system in Pascal terms- it is only double tetrahedral at the very center, many of the side values are double triangular sums of various combinations, but some of the sequences that start to get complex at higher energies look like the only way to view them is as combinations of double naturals. So there is a hierarchy to the whole system. Unfortunately for reasons beyond my understanding nobody is returning emails, despite long standing exchanges with folks with professional interest in the atomic system- and of course now I have to worry that my results will show up uncited in someone else's publications.

Let me know if you need to edit out my research- the rest is still good. Thanks.

69.121.117.192 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate External Links

Sir is it not correct to identify the source of the information submitted? After viewing the extent of removals you have performed this makes one wonder why you selectively allow external links to some sites which are blatantly affiliate sites and others not. The most concerning is the quality/accuracy of info these sites have submitted and the quality/accuracy of info you have decided to remove. Do you have personal interest in protecting these sites??? 93.109.202.129 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Parmen EL @ 3D Chess

Hi MrOllie, I'm wondering if I can understand better, the basis we can't have link to Parmen as an EL in Three-dimensional chess. (The site is not a commercial site, no products or services, no advertising, it simply provides for free download of PARMEN software. The site has been stable over a number of years, and doesn't seek to promote anything, not even itself; just providing the free download and related info.) I do understand (I think!) the removal of the reference to Parmen in the article body. But the link in EL itself, I think provides a unique resource to the article, and carries value. (It is stable software developed over a number of years, has always been free, and there's really nothing comparable to it, there is no software I'm aware that even approaches what Parmen can do vis-a-vis the Tri-D chess variant discussed in the article.) I've read the 20 listed reasons at WP:ELNO, and I'm writing here since I'm not sure what part of it applies in this case. I have no objection and agree the other deletions you made in the article edit were appropriate, but I don't understand the Parmen EL. It is a great resource, and I'd like to retain it in EL section, without the blurb in article body (which you already removed as mentioned). Can the Parmen EL perhaps be reconsidered? If not can I understand this better? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

MrOllie, just so you know, my plan will be to restore the above EL to the article, if no dialogue on the matter. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to Parmen, MrOllie has also removed the link to the software version of The Star Game. Mequa (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That game is not a chess variant. It doesn't belong in Three-dimensional chess (even as a "See also" item). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Torture

The political scientist has a profile on al jazeera and is a docter from the london school of economics where he teaches, I'm not advertising new civilisation rather posting his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandlove12345 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

waiting for reply....................................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandlove12345 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Covered at User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_4#Globalization - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your confusing me, was the aljazeera link not good enough, do you want me to link with london school of economics where he works and has written research papers related to the topics, the individual has been a political prisoner himnself and been tortured alongside his doctorate so I don't see how his quote is not valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandlove12345 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No. As I told your other account, an author profile doesn't mean anything. FYI, this will be my last reply on this subject unless/until you decide on one account to post your newcivilization stuff from and stick with it. - MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I did an undo to the link you undid (Monty Hall Problem)

Mr. Ollie,

Rather than rehash what I already wrote to someone else who undid my link, here is the link to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rick_Block#I_re-added_a_simulator_link_to_Monty_Hall_page

Further, I have seen the guidelines and there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest that my link is inappropriate.

Reid Reidme (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again per WP:COI, and WP:ELNO points 10 and 11. Please refrain from adding links to your own sites. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie,

I re-added it. Have you been to the web pages in question? The issues you raise seem pro forma and uninformed. There is no advertising on those pages nor self promotion. If you want my name off of the Wiki page, that is fine; I was just following form in that regard. If you dispute the relative usefulness of the link, then say so. If you are saying the merit of the content of the pages I link to is lacking, say so. Let's remember the reason for rules is to serve the community and not for the community to server the rules. Look a the merits of the web pages - have you even done that?

Reid

You have your anwser, and two different people have removed your link. If you want to debate the merits of the link the place is the article talk page - see if anyone there agrees with you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Chateau Marmont page

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I had some questions about the edits you have made. Is there a way to add more famous guest stories to the Chateau Marmont page without overstepping guidelines. The stories were cited and I'm wondering why this makes it sound like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteriov86 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

why did you remove the links I added?

why did you remove the links I added I put very grounded and useful links up, that represent the latest on the subject matter, I work as a journalist and was asked to be part of wikipedia by good friends.

Did you do your research properly? did you get the book we linked to? have you seen the vatican research

I'm not spamming anything, and put one link I find your actions frustrations and may explain why so much on wikipedia, is misleading, biased and not complete

please apologise

This is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmichelle247 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We're very particular about sources on Wikipedia. Links to sales websites for self published books such as that one do not belong here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

/* Common applications */ Section about sapphire windows added

I have over the years written many journal and conference papers and am starting to be more confused than ever about how referencing should be done in an article on wikipedia. A few of my references was removed together with needed corrections to the article. A few minutes after my content was removed it was added again by a new author with reference to work done by comapny B instead of company Am that I referenced. Am I better to leave out the source of the information than to include it if I want to add much needed information to an article? LaSa68 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the addition and the correction to the sapphire article and would like you to turn it back on. The manufacuring method described in the current version describes how to make wafers (used for substrated for e.g. LED growth but not windows. Windows is the biggest use of sapphire and i belive that that should be reflected in the article.

"Sapphire "glass" (although being crystalline) is made from pure sapphire boules by slicing off and polishing thin wafers"

The text below better reflects the real process of window manufacturing process than the current version.

"Sapphire glass windows (although being crystalline) is made from pure sapphire boules that has been grown in an application specific crystal orientation, typically along the optical axis, the c-axis, for standard optical windows for minimum birefringence. The boules are sliced up into the desired window thickness and finally polished to the desired surface finish. Sapphire optical windows can be polished to a wide range surface finishes due to it crystal structure and it hardness. The surface finishes of Optical Windows are normally called out by the Scratch-Dig specifications in accordance with the globally adopted MIL-O-13830 specification"

The text below is the reasons why sdapphire windows has become such a popular type of window and is currently not reflected in the article.

"The key benefits of sapphire windows are[34] :

Very wide optical transmission band from UV to near-infrared, (0.15-5.5µm)
Significantly stronger than other optical materials/standard glass windows
Hardest natural substance next to diamond.
Highly resistant to scratching and abrasion (9 Mohs scale)
Extremely high melt temperature (2030°C)
Totally unaffected by all chemicals except some very hot caustics."

Thus I conclude that the the current text should be corrected by turning my additions back on. Thanks LaSa68 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you add the information you'd like without referencing any specific vendors. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

critical thinking page

I am wondering if you have removed my additions to the critical thinking page. I have been trying to edit it but my changes are not going through Nancyorschel (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Nancy OrschelNancyorschel (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I did remove them. They broke formatting on the page, which caused other text to become undisplayed. They also added POV text and were grammatically incorrect in several places. I suggest you try out edits on the sandbox page before carrying out more edits on live articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Phyllotaxis

Hello Mr. Ollie. Initially I placed a link to a page that offers free software regarding the mathematical simulation of Phyllotaxis, you removed the link stating that no programs using external sources etc. should be placed... Now I have placed a new link to a comprehensive text regarding the mathematical simulation of spiral Apex growth intended to explain the relation to mathematical, genetic and biochemical aspects..., it is only text and I use in my undergraduate courses, why is the link inappropriate??? Regards, Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.138.109 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding links to your own web site. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevada Brothels

Hello Mr. Ollie,

The link to the historical map of Nevada brothels that has been on the Prostitution in Nevada page no longer works (including the one from web archive). I have added it back 3 or 4 times now located on a different website and each time you have deleted it. This very same map has been on this wiki for years. For what reason do you continue to delete the replacement since the original no longer shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emergeinternet (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO points 1, 4, 5, and 11. The 'different website' that you are linking is an escort service, I assume one represented by your SEO company. We're not going to link it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Username Change

Hi Mr. Ollie.

I created my account not knowing that usernames were not allowed to reference anything.

I can't find a way to change it. Can you help?

Thanks in advance, Oceanus.ch (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pixar

I noticed your recent reversion of a series of edits at Pixar. I was reviewing this myself; the info comes from a new editor, and there is a book cited somewhere in there, and I've asked the editor to provide some additional details on the book by using the {{cite book}} template to add in footnotes instead of their parenthetical cites. I think we need to give this editor a chance to improve what they've added, as some critical commentary of Pixar, if reliably sourced, would be good.

That said, I am not familiar with the work they're citing. If you are, and if it's a gossip/tell-all book, then I think you would be right. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, to open up the floor to all interested parties. Thank you again for looking at this. --McDoobAU93 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Name dropping and promotional tone

I wrote earlier about you removing much of my edits to Chateau Marmont's wikipedia page due to excessive namedropping. The guests are cited and part of the hotels history. I have researched other hotels on wikipedia such a Sunset Towers and Beverly Wilshire which both have a strong celebrity history and they too have a roster of famous guests at the hotel. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for edits, to make inserting these stories into Chateau's page possible. Maybe a list toward the end of the page could work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteriov86 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Norwell, Mass., page

You just removed an external link I made to this page with a generic "what is not allowed" statement. If you had viewed the link, you would have found that the link did not meet any single exclusion listed. I trust you will return the link since its removal is no conflict and adds to the wiki page. WRoxDrew (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO points 12, 4, 10, and 11. You've added nearly 30 links to this site, and on your user page you identify the pages on that site as your work: kindly stop adding these links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. My user page does say who I am, but I have tried to understand who you are that has deleted my edits. Your user page leaves you anonymous. It is true I was the main contributor to the pages I linked to, but since it is a wiki it may not remain that way.
My reason for adding the link here is because they add to data I could not find on Wikipedia that is online and in more detail -- and most of all neutral. I must admit I am confused by the deletion of my link while a link to a town's police department would be deemed more appropriate. Regarding your citations to the points for removal:
Point 12 -Links to open wikis, except ... this is the point that can be debated on both sides, but the point further says "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I would strongly argue this wiki falls under that category.
Point 4 - The is a slippery slope statement. Any link to anything can be argued as promoting it, so to extend that thought, there could not be any external links. The site itself does not sell anything except facts on various subjects just like Wikipedia (in fact, including Wikipedia).
Point 10 - This does not apply as the site is not a social networking site, chat group, twitter feed, or news group.
Point 11 - This does not apply either as the site is not a blog, personal web page, or fansite.
Mr. Ollie, is there a way to link to a site that does not promote it by the very link itself? Regarding Point 12, how do you define "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? I look forward to your insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRoxDrew (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: promotion, it generally helps if the person adding the link has nothing to do with the site linked, and if there isn't a pattern of repetitive link addition. RE: substantial number of editors, past discussions on the talk page of the external linking policy indicate they're looking for something in the hundreds at a minimum. There's also the issue that a genealogy wiki is at best indirectly related to an article about the town. You seem to be an expert on genealogy, you are no doubt familiar with lots of sources. I suggest that you improve articles themselves with citations to material that you haven't personally written, rather than adding external links by rote, it would be much more helpful. - MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be hundreds of thousands of these pages on the genealogy wiki, not just the pages I have done, but this will be reported back up and none will be linked to Wikipedia. It is sad to think that these two wikis will not be linked together (actually the genealogy wiki will be linked to yours because we see the shared value -- sort of the discussion on one of Wikipedia's how-to pages I read yesterday said that sometimes it is best to break our (i.e. Wikipedia's) rules when a new opportunity comes along that was unforeseen). Genealogy is history, history is a part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's historical content is generally weak. There is rarely a single thing I have found on Wikipedia to help my pages. One wiki talks about the town now and the other about it "then." Both talk about the town to give a complete picture.
I am saddened I could not convince you of the mutual benefit, but so be it. I am not sure why you would think I (and others like me) would put in all our time on the genealogy wiki where it is encouraged and then turn around and do the same thing on Wikipedia (where it seems to be discouraged) a second time -- doubling the work. Linking them was the perfect marriage. You mentioned several times that this is material I have personally written. If I added it to Wikipedia, it would be no different. The bulk of it is just facts and figures (like Wikipedia), not essays or analysis (except for what to include or not as it would be on Wikipedia).
I am sorry to have bothered you on this matter.

WRoxDrew (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

PDF creators

You omit PDFpen and I use it daily on my iPhone, Mac and iPad. I simply added the links — how is that spam. They don't have a 'wikipedia' page themselves, so there is no method for me to add them.

However these are well known products that are widely used in the Mac community — your omission makes the PDF page incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One1step1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

List of articles are navigation aids to Wikipedia articles. If there is no Wikipedia article, there should be no list entry. The list is incomplete by design. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Entanglement - Concept - Effects travel at thousands of times the speed of light

The reason I removed the statement about effects travelling at the speed of light was mentioned in the talk page for the article. More generally, QM theory does not support the notion that there is an effect that travels from the first measurement event to the second. Indeed, the point about the lack of order in space-like separated measurement events means that one cannot in all cases determine which is the first measurement from which the effect would have to travel. The second reference cited work which dealt with a hypothetical preferred frame, but there is, as yet, no evidence that such a frame exists.

Sylvia (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Herpes Simplex - Ayurveda - A valid medical tradition

Why is it that you keep removing the additions done to herpes simplex with regards to Hypericum Mysorense and Ayurveda? Do you have something against natural medicine or Ayurveda? In the last edit you mentioned the references were not done properly. I then studied referencing and took the exact references from the Hypericum Mysorense page and added them to the herpes page in a neutral manner. If hypericum mysorense is the traditional remedy for herpes and has modern studies done on it there is no reason whatsoever that it does not belong to the "alternative medicine" section of the herpes page regardless of your personal opinions. People the world over have the right to know about and choose between natural and chemical forms of medicine. I will reinstate my changes and if you have an issue with them please seek wikipedia dispute resolution. Thanks

Jehnavi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to get agreement from other editors on the talk page first. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, the bar for listing 'traditional remedies' on medical pages is quite high: you have not met it yet. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

PH7 Engine (Embedded PHP Engine)

I've noticed that you've requested to delete this article Ph7 engine. The PH7 Engine is a relatively new open source project, and I'm one of the contributor to the project. I've added the freecode.com entry for the project and contact the lead developer to confirm the unverified contents (which is deleted now). So, before requesting a deletion, please make a google search first and don't kill this open source project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The freecode entry is not an acceptable source as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll be sending the article to WP:AFD now. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, what do you want, the complete source code is available free to download and their licensing page is confirming that http://ph7.symisc.net/licensing.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We need independently written sources that meet our guidelines that establish some degree of notability of the article subject. Magazines, newspaper articles, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

AMOS (programming language)

I've noticed that you've deleted the references to Alvyn BASIC and XAMOS (the latter one my project) for AMOS (programming language).

Neither of these were added by myself, so there is no question of COI by myself here. I think references need to be included to the existence of 3 open-source alpha reimplementations of AMOS: Alvyn BASIC, Mattathias BASIC, and j/XAMOS.

Mequa (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That article is about the original progamming language, not about people's reimplmentantations. If we had credible, independent sources that established the relative importance of these reimplmentations, that would be a different story, but I looked and could find none. Forums and blog posts are inappropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

XAMOS was featured in Amiga Future magazine: http://www.commodoreamiga.net/index.php?topic=91.0 Amiga Future website: http://www.amigafuture.de The printed review covers the relative importance of such reimplementations, including on next-generation Amigas. Mequa (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Social Anxiety

Hello, I'm new and I'm doing a project for my Child Developmental Class on Social Anxiety. I just wanted to make sure I added everything correctly. It's okay if you deleted things, I'm just not sure if I'm even adding what I am wanting, just because you deleted it so quickly. I just need to make sure it was added to the page in order for my professor to see what I have done. Thank you :) Smckeo3 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cloud computing

I suspect we'll see more obvious socks of DrJoe. Please let me or someone know if they pop up. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient explanation

Which of the 20 criteria under WP:ELNO applies to this deletion? You can't just point to the existence of the page on External links as a justification for deleting one. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've made a whole string of deletions that linked to individual transcriptions on that site. I don't know whether you considered the transcription redundant (that is, adequate or superior transcriptions may have already been offered in the EL section), or what. Do you just delete external links anytime someone had added a series of links to the same site to a number of articles? That isn't prohibited if the site linked to is a legitimate informative resource that supplements what we can offer on Wikipedia. This is not the first time I've seen you delete stuff like this when it isn't apparent that you've made an informed decision about the content of the site. I would strongly advise you to slow down when you're dealing with scholarly material that may be outside your area of expertise, and gather some informed opinions on article or project talk pages before deleting. Otherwise it just seems like you're shooting for fun. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a hobbyist site that's been systematically spammed across dozens of articles by a single person. So, 4, 11, 13. It's also been duplicitive of a more reliable link on every page I've seen it on. I'll also note that this is the second time you've come on my talk page and told me what I 'can't do' or that I 'need to start explaining myself'. Please try to moderate your tone in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting information that protects people from being scammed

Hi Hollie,

The Binary Options field, which I assume you are not knowledgeable of, is run by firms which lead individuals to "invest" in a gamble mathematically set to have the "investor" lose all his/her money. Of course, the fact that the comments you deleted mention this, or point to the fact that these "brokers" have been outlawed in the USA and other countries is irrelevant to you, because an external link was posted to corroborate this information. You might be surprised to know, but relevant information can be kept while external links are deleted. What is the point of deleting the entire addition if it gives valuable information? Oh, I forget, it is done so that you may feel empowered and important. That has value too. Anyhow, if you, or someone close to your heart, if such a thing exists, would have lost money to these brokers, perhaps you would have thought about leaving the information and deleting the links. Thankfully, this is not the case. Good luck finding a more reliable site with information about Binary Options. Of course, the site I linked to was very suspicious, given that it has no adds, no publicity material, no call for action, and is purely informative. Not that you would care. But, alas, it's a site that informs about Binary Options, so it is suspect. Perhaps you also believe I might be working for Forbes, since you deleted the link to their online magazine article as well. If it helps you feel more secure in any way, as I am sure you have self assurance issues, I do not work for Forbes, unfortunately. I tried to figure a reason why you deleted that one too, all I could come up with was: bitter. Lastly, it's ok if you don't answer, really. I have looked at your page and when I see that all your answers are such in which you explain to others why you are always right and they are always wrong, I can only imagine I will not be the first one to get a different answer from you. Hmmm...why is it that you are always right? Well, you are lucky that way, most of us do make mistakes. Mine was to think I could use Wikipedia to alert people about the Binary Options field. I guess I wasn't counting on Holey. Shauljaim (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to return the information if you can do it while referencing sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I removed the information along with the link because if I had not, it would have been unreferenced. If no 'more reliable site' exists, as you imply above, that sadly means that wikipedia should not contain the information at all. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools

You have deleted the information about BPM inspire/ INSPIRE. We didnt use any promotional information, just key facts about our BPMN-Tool. The information of the other BPMN-Tools are identical to ours. I look forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÖSZ Inspire (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The other BPMN tools have independent sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of revision

Hello Mr. Ollie,

I am unsure why my revisions were deleted by you.

I would like to include a blurb about the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare as it is an important, new organization for Social Workers.

Was there something wrong with my post that made you delete it? Please let me know if you can provide any insight as to how I can get this information onto this page without it being deleted.

Thanks in advance for your feeback!

17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoWk24 (talk • contribs)

We typically do not mention new organizations such as this one without some indication of independent sourcing that meets our guidelines. It's an important way to keep articles covering things in proper proportion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Links on Internal Medicine

Do Not Understand Your Logic,

I assume you believe this link, http://www.soundphysicians.com/physician-careers/employment-openings.aspx/, which is a 404 page (yet currently linked inside the Internal Medicine page) is more plausible than mind on the internal medicine page?

And, of course, you're telling me this link isn't 'self promotional'? http://www.henryfordinternalmedicine.com/

The link I added was an actual Internal Medicine facility which has nothing for sale. I'd assume you need to get your fact-checking skills looked at because I've identified two non-conforming links and you deleted one viable source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.117.91 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are inappropriate links on the article, that is a reason to remove those links, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		For your hard work and efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Faith Edit

Thanks for assuming that the edit was made in good faith. I simply missed the quotation in the article when I searched for it -- it was an honest mistake. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

panamintcity.com

This editor named MrOllie is using harassment and biased editing on Wikipedia and is being reported. Attention anyone else who has had problems with receiving harassment by this person, please report him. I am submitting several complaint reports about his harassment. He should definitely be banned from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklomax (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest the administrator's noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You removed a section that was part of the article since it was created in 2008!

I think you may have been a bit heavy-handed in your edit of the article on NITF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Imagery_Transmission_Format&diff=prev&oldid=521885414

You removed a huge amount of information, including list of what what software (both commercial and free) supports the reading of these files. One of the lists you removed was a major portion of the article going all the way back to 2008, when the article was created.

Software file formats and software packages go hand in hand, so it is very useful to a reader to know what software can be leveraged to read a particular file format. For example, if someone is given NITF data and wishes to learn what to do with it, it might be interesting for them to read about the history of the format, but the data remains useless to him until he can find a software package to view them in. You have robbed the GIS community of an important resource. I myself have used similar Wikipedia articles to find what software I should look at to use data that I have received in an unknown format. Especially brazen is your removal of the list of free packages that support NITF. Sadly, because of your actions, future users on this wiki page will lose out on critical information.

69.205.219.14 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately 'useful' is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. There are lots of categories of useful information that wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to host. One of those categories is lists of vendors and/or products. - MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

proxy list

more at talk... WP:ELNO point 13 Zzenitt (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary to post on my user talk page every time you post on an article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my entry.

Hello MrOllie. Nice to meet you. However, I recieved a message saying you deleted one of my entries. Would you be so kind as to tell me which one? Please post it one my talk page. I'm "Dragonborn11". Thank You!Dragonborn11 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonborn11 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the deletions?

I added a link to the ABPMR and it was deleted. As this is the certifying board for PM&R it seems relevant.

Stating that Physical medicine and rehabilitation in "old," "outdated," and "redundant" are opinions and don't belong on an informational site. Many large hospitals including the Mayo clinic have departments of PM&R, there are journals dedicated to it, there is a certifying board under the American Board of Medical Specialties that certifies physicians in other medical specialties such as family medicine, anesthesiology, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology, etc. Are all of those specialties redundant and outdated also? If you don't beleive that they are, but I do, may I persistently change the pages dedicated to those specialties and state that they are illegitimate?

Shouldn't Wiki users be able to get information about this topic without biased and unsubstantiated commentary? Kpkumar1966 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree on your points about 'outdated' and 'redundant' - that is why I removed those words. - MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it "old" if there are current PM&R professional associations, journals, certifying boards with over 10,000 current certificants working in the field, departments in hospitals, etc.? I wish I could understand why you have a vendetta against one particular field of medicine? Why not also edit the pages of, for example, the American Board of Medical Specialties (to note that they include member boards such as the ABPMR that certify physicians in "old" specialities) or the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation? Why just target this one page? I truly don't understand. Kpkumar1966 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Uniontown, Pennsylvania - Birthplace of the Big Mac

Why did you delete this entry? "Uniontown is the birthplace of the McDonald's Big Mac sandwich."

The reference link is from the McDonald's website http://www.mcpennsylvania.com/3115/3812/Big-Mac-Facts/ Here is a news release that was put out by McDonald's: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mcdonaldsr-celebrates-40-years-serving-twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbunr-58510247.html Also, here are pictures taken at the McDonald's Big Mac Museum confirming the birthplace: http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/BigMacUniontown.jpg http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/BigMac.html http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=big+mac+museum+photos+uniontown&view=detail&id=BBC196F7FE964C83D8342D69C6CD534ECD632743&first=1

Do you want me to include all of these references? McDonald's is not disputing the Big Mac's birthplace. Jc parttime (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Phyllotaxy Towers

Dear sir/madam, Have you read entire of the article's references including five 300-pages books and 10 scientific papers? Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As was said on the AFD (where this question belongs) the references do not properly support the article topic. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean by changing the topic and choosing a better one the problem will disappear?--2.187.111.34 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that we have lots of articles about completely different subjects that don't have such problems. No, in the sense that renaming or slightly modifying the article about Phyllotaxy towers will not result in a policy compliant article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How can I change the topic of the article? It seems it's not possible to edit an article's topic. Should I write a new one?--2.187.111.34 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you should not write a new one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

so what should I do?--2.187.106.119 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Provide sources that directly address the idea of Phyllotaxis in architecture at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllotaxy towers. To be very clear - if an article on this same concept is recreated after the AFD closes at the same or another page title, it's going to be summarily deleted without going through another debate. If you have these sources, you need to provide them now. - MrOllie (talk)

What will happen if some years later someone uses the same idea and phrase without my permission? You will be responsible for that. wont you?2.187.113.29 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If they are written about in independent, reliable sources we will probably write an article about their usage. If they are not written about in such sources, we will delete the article again. Wikipedia is not a place to protect your intellectual property. If you are concerned about that, you should contact your local trademark office. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If Leonardo da Vinci was a user a Wikipedia he would be mad!!!--2.187.113.29 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true, because Wikipedia is not the place to publish new thoughts. Wikipedia is here to summarize what other people have written about new developments. That is the crucial second step that is missing here: Inventor invents -> Newspapermen report on invention -> Wikipedia summarizes newspapers. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

improve instead of undo

hi mrollie, in the light of WP:WER it would be very nice if you could improve what is not good instead of just undoing it, e.g. remove the links from mongoose on Comparison of lightweight web servers. for most people it seems very motivating if others build on the work, and frustrating if it just gets undone. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I just removed the links, we would still have a nonnotable entry in the list. All list entries should have existing Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

the list linked to mongrel, which does not exist any more. fixed now. it links to iiexpress, which has no article, but 3 lines in another article. it links to http file server, which is basically non existing. it links to boa, which is died out and never reached version 1.0 seven years ago. if you (1) do not understand the software described there, and (2) do not want to invest a little bit more time in this article, i'd be very glad if you would not disturb others making it better. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the edit notice on the article, which you no doubt have read the several times you've performed edits there : 'STOP: Please do NOT add entries to this list that do not have their own separate articles (and thus, are notable).' If you find other inappropriate list entries, please remove them, but their existance is not a reason to add more. Also, see WP:NPA. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

i fixed the mongrel article by merging the current mongrel2 contents into it and moving mongrel into history. so the line should stay there, what you think? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the merge was a good call, and a link to Mongel and/or Mongrel 2 definately belong on that list. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail art

In undoing my alterations yesterday, you restored the inappropriate references to marketing (Mail Art is clearly not about marketing) 'hairmail' and astroturf, which I presume you didn't intend to do. Most of the External Links had been in place since we wrote the entry and have provided useful additional sources of research. To delete all but the Open Directory link seems excessive and inconsistent, can we at least restore some of the most useful? In November 2010 you only objected to the most blog-like links like the Artistamp Museum, Mailart Forum and Lutz Wohlrab's site, and allowed the others to stand. They've stood for two years, we'd appreciate restoring at least some of them! Keith Bates and Vittore Baroni Keithbates51 (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a good point about hairmail, thank you for removing it. 2010 was a few years ago, now I think the previous listing of ELs was excessive. External links are meant to be a very limited list of only the best links. In a case like mail art where there are apparently a lot of good links, it is our standard practice to remove them and instead publish a link to DMoz, where they are set up to manage large directories of links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the old list was excessive, though the Dada page has 10 external links, Abstract Expressionism has 18, so the Mail art page wasn't hugely over the top? However, while keeping your comments in mind, I'd like to add some of what Vittore and I see as the most important and educational external links. I trust that will be acceptable? Keithbates51 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you propose any particular links you want on the article talk page. Other folks (Hu12, maybe) might want to comment. - MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree the most useful and important links with Vittore and propose a maximum of 10 on the article talk page. Thanks. Keithbates51 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mimi So

While I'm new to Wikipedia, looking at the criteria for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11 States: Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.

I was diligent to maintain a neutral point of view and include encyclopedic references for every aspect of the article. I respectfully ask that you review the article and remove the excessive G11 tag and the associated jeopardy quickly.Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on this one now. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the kind input from two experienced WP admins, DGG and teb728 mainly here, there seems to be a consensus that this article was in fact salvageable. Obviously you disagreed. As a first time but highly motivated new contributor, I want to tell you that your action nearly resulted in my permanent retreat from Wikipedia. Sure, I did not understand the process, but the lack of feedback and censorship of discussion that Speedy Deletion entails was extremely hurtful to me. I doubt that was what you intended, so it is food for thought. A properly reduced article seems likely to survive now, evidence that Speedy G11 was unwarranted.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the speedy tagging was hurtful to you, but it is a routine process here at Wikipedia that was entirely justified in this case, as was acknowledged in the deletion review discussion you linked. Many of the problems referenced in that discussion are still present in the article as well, because I have been giving DGG a chance to address them, but some of the remaining content will have to be removed sooner or later. I suggest you prepare yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Big Data definition

As you may know, "Big Data" is a very hot topic in the technology industry. The definition section of the Big Data entry does not accurately how the definition has evolved and is very unbalanced. For example, Gartner sources are cited in the definition of Big Data as the 3 V's. Then, more recently another Gartner reference is added adding a fourth V. The author could be a client or surrogate of Gartner.

I appreciated the concerns about bias and conflict of interest. However, the Gartner-only references to the definition of Big Data are already biased by the author - especially when additional Gartner references are added. Gartner has contributed to the definition, but just search Google or Twitter for Big Data and you will see that the current Wikipedia definition of Big Data is not complete enough.

Is it possible to analyze my entry based on the value it has to the definition. A term as important as Big Data should not be owned by any one technology analyst firm. Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.220.244 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Work Time Studio

Hello. I'm wondering if you can explain why the page I create is considered a conflict of interest, when it is no different from the following pages which have been on Wikipedia for quite some time.

• AceProject
• Clarizen
• Chrometa
• Grindstone
• Wrike
• Xpert-Timer
• Fanurio

These are only a few examples, but I could list many more. I have spent a few hours of my time creating that page so it would be in the format as all of the others, and after donating money to Wikipedia in the past, I find it very frustrating that someone would just delete a page I worked on without even giving me the opportunity to defend my position is very unfair.

Please explain why my page represents a conflict of interest, when the other pages listed above do not. I will also be bring this topic up with some of the other administrators, since I think you acted very unjustly, and possibly out of self interest.

Thank you,

Mitcheljh (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: the conflict of interest - are you suggesting that you're not the Mitchel Haas who created Work Time Studio? Re: the other articles you've listed, they are not written in the same heavily promotional tone that the Work Time Studio article was written in. They also have citations to independently written and published sources that meet our guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You claim that I wrote the article in a heavily promoted tone, but you fail to cite the differences between the pages I listed above to the page that I submitted. Please tell me how the page for Work Time Studio was any different than the ones that are listed above. I feel that it is very unfair to simply delete the whole page if there are just a few violations, without giving me a chance to make any needed corrections. Mitcheljh (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

I'll be adding back the cited and accurate information to the sex club page soon...I can keep it up as long as you can. I would have done it sooner but more important things came up...Grow up wikinazi and get a hobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitcheljh, it's what he does Cosand (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war, you will just be blocked again. - MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Web Service Frameworks

I just noticed that you have deleted a number of web service frameworks from the List of web service frameworks. My question is: What is the difference between the frameworks you deleted and the frameworks that are still in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadne99 (talk • contribs)

The ones that are still in the list meet our notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that referencing the notability guidelines is not an adequate answer to my question. Please point out which of the guidelines are violated by listing the web service frameworks that you have deleted. Furthermore, in the notability guidelines is a section titled Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. What you did is limiting the content of an article, so these guidelines do not apply. Apart from that I don't see any justification why some of the frameworks should be removed. Even worse: I see a fundamental principle of Wikipedia violated here: ‪Wikipedia:Neutral point of view‬. My understanding of that principle is that either ALL web service frameworks should be listed in the article or the article has to be deleted completely. The article as it is now lists a minority of frameworks which are selected by your personal view on the subject, so you have lowered the notability of the complete article. Which criteria did you use to specify whether a framework should be listed here or not? What is your definition of a web service framework? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.34.86 (talk • contribs)

See the guideline on stand alone lists. Satisfying the general notability guideline is a common list criteria. The edit notice on this list, which you no doubt saw when you edited the list, specifies that this list follows that criteria. Your reading of the the neutral point of view policy is incorrect. That policy requires us to represent things in proportion to how they are represented by sources that meet our guidelines. If a given product is not mentioned by sources, then Wikipedia should not mention it either. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I see the notability of the complete article reduced by removing frameworks from the list. You didn't even make a difference in the programming language. The popularity of a web service framework also depends on the chosen programming language. The notability guidelines state: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. For instance, you have removed a range of C++ frameworks by applying your rules. For developing web services, C++ is usual not the language of choice. However, sometimes there is no way around it. I am a C++ developer and I have to deal with C++ web services. I have searched the web for suitable C++ frameworks. These are really hard to find. As C++ is not customary for developing web services it is only logical that there are few sources to find them in the web. The frameworks you have left in the list may be common in the Java community but they did not fit my needs and requirements as a C++ web service framework. So I have extended this list a few months ago and so did some other C++ developers, too. I'm asking you to reconsider your decision based on that. I fully understand your motivation here but please do not simply apply a set of rules to an article if it decreases the value of it (my C++ point of view).

Deleting every new external link is not spam fight

Please don't apply that policy(deleting every new external link) because you're making the Wikipedia a worst place. We already talk about a link inclusion that I recently did and you deleted, on Proxy list, extensivelly explained and fundamented in Talk:Proxy list. You keep maintaining old links, innacurate old links, not directly related with the article and you delete the link that I added that is a very good contribution to the article. Please rethink the way that you're affecting the Wikipedia, reconsider the deletion of my modification and probably other modifications that you're doing. Zzenitt (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have considered such issues carefully, and I fully believe I am doing the right thing. I'm sure you think you're doing the right thing as well, but I believe you are connected to the link you'd like to add and are therefore a little too close to the issue. - MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Epages

It came to my attention that you tagged the recently created article about ePages for speedy deletion. I'm aware of the rules for advertisement and I used the articles of Shopify and other e-commerce vendors listed here as a template to actually be on the safe side. I don't really get why these vendors have the permission to be public here while ePages has not. To add a little extra confusion: There already is a German article for ePages for some years now which seems to comply with the rules of Wikipedia but has similar content. I kindly request the undelete of the ePages article and the shopping cart comparison entry. Andreas.Hpt (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The German wikipedia has separate standards. Things which are appropriate there may not be so here, and vice versa. I do not have the privileges needed to undelete your article. You can try asking the deleting admin, User:Jimfbleak, but the article was loaded with promotional language (In a way Shopify is not) so I do not think it is very likely that your article will be restored. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I really tried to be as neutral as possible and to avoid promotional language. However it is important to mention in the article that the ePages business scenario is to resell their software (as a service) through providers like La Poste in France or BT in the UK (in contrast to Shopify selling their product under their own brand). If that is what you meant by "promotional language" how can I clarify this business scenario without referring to these providers directly? Andreas.Hpt (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Hi Mr.Ollie, I added to references to the article on vert.x. Is that OK? How do I exactly prevent the deletion? Regards Jens Laufer (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks better, thank you. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks for editing out my writing on entitlement benefits. Although it's factual and indesputable, I was unable to find anywhere else where this topic already raised. Still, I'd appreciate if you can advise me if there is any way to have the community review it and see if there are any disagreements on this point? Common Thinking (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. A blog does not qualify. A newspaper article or something like that would be much better. If this topic really has not been raised anywhere else, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletion of the LA Fashion magazine from Wikipedia

The LA Fashion magazine is the only major fashion publication on the west coast of US and you have recently removed it. FYI The Los Angeles Fashion has become the leading fashion source for the west coast region in less than one year. Its pretty sad that you can just decide to pull it off as in your opinion it does not belong into the encyclopedia. The Los Angeles Fashion publishes both a monthly publication and a weekly newspaper The LA Fashion magazine and the LA Fashion Weekly - also it is the fastest growing fashion source in the USA. 72.129.79.69 (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.79.69 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That list is for fashion magazines that have multiple independent references and already have a Wikipedia article, as was noted in the edit notice you saw when you went to edit the list. If this magazine is the 'fastest growing fashion source' and the 'leading fashion source for the west coast region' it should be easy for you to employ the independent references that no doubt exist and write an article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lazarus IDE package links deletion

Hi,

I would like to clarify some things about the section so we can have the best of both worlds.

The purpose of the section (and its subsections) as can be seen is to list what users can use to develop things in Lazarus. By removing them, it makes an impression that only very few things can be used with Lazarus. By giving external links, the items can be explained in further (esp. since of the links point to another wiki). If they don't conform with wikipedia quality standard, what can you advice so that readers don't get lost and has a wrong impression about it?

Leledumbo (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists of such external links are outside the scope of Wikipedia. I think that most readers of Wikipedia understand that it is not a link directory, so they will not draw the inference you are suggesting. We don't include such a list on Visual C++, and no one assumes that is because people don't write software in Visual C++. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

Dear MrOllie,

I answer to all of you, many thanks for helping.

Generally, we feel quite strange that wikipedia in English ignores important aspects of non English speaking other countries. So that is why we begin to try to improve it with other friends (students).

Well, for the example of Laurent Gervereau, I heard what you said. So, I will write some short words only for 4 subjects directly connected to him (we could take also for him literature, Art, politics, cinema, photography...) with references : political ecology, history of art, image, philosophy

Then, please help me Francophonie & Androphilie to put it in a better English

Many thanks

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem with your English skills, it's a problem with your sources. We need better, independently written and published sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry MrOllie but if wikipedia does not speak of the world specialist of images for 30 years, it is not good for our common encyclopedia. I am a student in France. You say no good source : the World Dictionnary of Images (1120 pages) is the only book with 275 specialists from all continents, from all disciplins and working about all periods fron rehistory to nowadays. LG made many other books (some are translated in Arab or Portuguese), websites as www.decryptimages.net

The place of Art in the world of images is a main question today for Art, history of Art, History and Images. I tried to write the strict minimum for every item about more than 30 years of work from him but it is not serious to delete everything about his work. Please undo even if you want to rewrite it. No problem

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Chateau Marmont Wikipedia revisions

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Recently you have included an edit summary: Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. All details included on Chateau Marmont's wikipage are factual and from a reliable source. I have emailed you previously twice and you have not responded to my inquiries.

If you have any suggestions on how to make the page appear less promotional, I would be open to learning more. Until then, I have contacted the Wikipedia help desk and they have informed me that Wikipedia is an open forum and there is not a higher authority over another user as long as the information is properly cited and factual.

If you hold a position I should be aware of it would be helpful if you could share details as I would like to resolve the issue of posting details that seem promotional to this page.

Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteriov86 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is not a 'higher authority', but the articles do have to be compliant with policy, including the policies on neutral point of view and advertising. Are you in any way employed or associated with this hotel? Either way, try omitting words and phrases such as 'historic', 'forties style glamour', 'quiet seclusion', 'perfect co-conspirator', etc. Use simple, factual description without all the puffery by adjectives. It would also be a very good idea to find sources other than the 'Hollywood Handbook', claims such as these that could be considered to be exceptional or self-serving should not be cited to a book written by the hotel owner. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

To avoid further conflict on Chateau Marmont's actual page I would like to try to address this topics for discussion here on your talk page.

If possible, can we agree on leaving the Rebel without a Cause excerpt as it is a part of Chateau's history. Also if we could add the Harry Cohn quote as it seems it is missing some historical facts that are important to the hotels background.

I realize it is not an advertising website and understand why you removed the Notable Residents section. If it would be possible to leave a few highlights from the hotels history of notable guests it would be much appreciated.

Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteriov86 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have citations for this stuff, aside from the Hollywood handbook? - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Auscultation and Doppler fetal monitor

Dear Mr Ollie Doppler auscultation with doppler fetal monitor was recently described in a major cardiology journal such as the International Journal of Cardiology. I don't understand why was this information deleted from their respective wikipedia articles.

Best Regards,

Santimcl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santimcl (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please take a few moments to read our guidelines for sources on medical claims. What you have is a primary source, preliminary findings of a pilot study. We should use secondary sources, such as systematic reviews that analyze the results of multiple studies. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding on deletion of DEVS Award page

Hi Ollie,

I got a notification of deleting DEVS Award article as follows. "This is apparently a niche, nonnotable award. No independent references in article, so it fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted."

I have some of independent references in the Internet. After adding reference sites in the article, I will update you.

Best Regards,

Moon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhwang2002 (talk • contribs)

OK, but you should not notify me here, you should write about it on the deletion discussion page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

PMML Tools

I disagree with your edit on the PMML page. PMML Tools are not spamming by Zementis. They are tools available for the entire PMML community free of charge and accessible through the DMG website (the makers of PMML). Zementis is a member of the DMG and the tools approved and tested by the committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetsky (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the PMML tools section? Obviously the tools are DMG sanctioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetsky (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to advertise particular tools, sanctioned or not. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of our links

First of all concerning a link to www.getnzb.com On you article usenet under See also you have all paid premium services and you leave the links without any problem. So just for fair competition leave all big usenet provider about whom you write your article and GetNZb is not a small one.

Now concerning the link www.nzbfriends.com. Usenet was always uncensored open sourced network and nzbfriends offers free indexing of the whole network, so it's very helpful for all customers who wish to see what usenet contains.

If you wish to be fair then be fair to all, please, cause wikipedia in my opinion is very qualitied site and I hope you work fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usenetfriend (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The see also section only has links to other Wikipedia articles. There are no links to usenet providers there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok is it possible to create an article about getnzb and what it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usenetfriend (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can turn up multiple significant, independently written citations that meet our sourcing guidelines, it would be possible to create an article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

3D MindMapper (computer program)

DonSergos (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Dear Sir. We are happy to inform You, that we have already inserted the article for the link missed in the article List of concept- and mind-mapping software))). It had been created recently , but we are not keen on article-writing on Wikipedia. Thus we beg your pardon and Kind Regards.

Deletion of VirtualGeo information in several articles

Dear Mr Olly,

I was about to write an article about VirtualGeo virtual globe when I noticed you removed the mentions to the sofware in the articles Géoportail and VirtualGlobe. As a result, the Géoportail article no longer informs about the recently 3D visualisation services offered by the portal and ambiguously refers (in See also and External links sections) to other virtual globes softwares than the one streaming the Géoportail data ...

VirtualGeo is a virtual globe significantly used in Europe. With more than 30.000 users per day (even just considering IGN services and Geoconcept solutions), don't you think that we can reasonably consider that it is at least as worthy of notice as many of the virtual globe software listed in the VirtualGlobe article ?

I understand that Wikipedia is neither a place for advertising nor a collection of external links. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I may have submitted my contribution in an unappropriate form for the encyclopedia. Could you kindly advice me in an acceptable way to proceed ?

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by F Rouas (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

AMOS (programming language)

I noticed you removed the link to the emulation package for AMOS Professional. This consists of original freeware Amiga files, the Amiga emulator UAE (preconfigured by myself), and AROS/68k as a free AmigaOS replacement ROM (which had very recently been patched by Toni Wilen to work with AMOSPro), with a Windows installer created with the free Clickteam Install Creator. My only role was to package these pieces together into an out-of-the-box emulation package which many reported to be a very convenient solution, freely and legally getting the original AMOSPro up and running in under 30 seconds on a Windows PC.

I gave credit to Toni Wilen for his work on the free AROS ROM to make this possible (AMOS has been usable under UAE since 1998, but not packagable legally), so there is no question of COI here. I have also included all files which are required to repackage it with free software and create a new installer, and gave instructions to do so. Thus, the process I used to package this is in the public domain and not my intellectual property.

Therefore, I think the availability of the original software for Windows and Linux PCs (in the form of an emulation package) is relevant to the AMOS article, and a non-biased Wikipedian would consider this due weight for re-inclusion as a link below the article, so there are no grounds for using an ad hominem argument of COI against including a link to the emulation package, simply because I packaged it (it is not otherwise my work). This emulation package was also tried by Francois Lionet (the creator of AMOS) who was happy with it (and for it to be linked on Clickteam's forums).

The article links to Back To The Roots which contains ADF floppy images of the original AMOS and AMOSPro, however this takes considerable time to set up, swap floppy images, install to a virtual hard drive, update and install the compiler and all extensions, as well as configure the emulator and ROMs. The emulation package is a far more convenient solution as it installs everything in seconds like a native application (simply launching an emulator). I think on researching legacy software on Wikipedia, ways to run the software on modern PCs (including easy bundles) are relevant to the article(s) in question. Mequa (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WiseMapping removed from List of concept- and mind-mapping software

Dear Mr Olly, I noticed you removed the link to WiseMapping.org Open Source project from list of Free Projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software WiseMapping is a free project that can be installed by the users locally and even download the source code for collaboration. There is a side project that is WiseMapping.com that it's also a free online instance of the project sustained only based on adds Dont you feel that WiseMapping.org could part of this list ?.

Regards Paulo

Pveiga (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)pveiga

No, that is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. You should not add external links to that list. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realised of that. I've added the proper WiseMapping article. Thanks for all the help. Pveiga (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)pveiga

Mail art – References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf

Hello again, those inappropriate references on the Mail art page to 'marketing Hairmail and Astroturf' (see your Talk page 13 November) have been restored by two moderators recently, I'd appreciate your help in removing them. Keithbates51 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mobile device management

Thanks for your edit. You should keep an eye out because there is some serious COI and sockpuppetry going on by someone who either hates Gartner, or is seriously pissed at not being included in the big 5 list. An extra pair of eyes means it doesn't become a one-on-one edit war. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don´t work for any MDM company! MrOllie please read my comments and why i delete edits of Biker Biker --Sgates05 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

By now you should realise, after three separate editors have removed your contributions, that it simply isn't going to work. Give it up. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Urban Planning: Planning Theories

I'm sure you have your reasons, but how come you deleted the paragraph on "power theories of planning"? This paragraph seems both relevant and useful, using Wikipedia's own criteria, because it covers a strand of planning theory that is actually out there and is important, but is now not covered by Wikipedia. Sonderbro (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

PMML Tools

MrOllie, I am still wondering why you believe the section PMML Tools is not appropriate for a PMML page. I would love to hear your feedback instead of considering the section spam. I believe it was OK for you to delete company listings (supporters of the standard), but I really do not understand why you keep deleting tools that promote the adoption and understanding of PMML. Will really appreciate your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetsky (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of VirtualGeo information in several articles

Dear Mr Olly,

I was about to write an article about VirtualGeo virtual globe when I noticed you removed the mentions to the software in the articles Géoportail and VirtualGlobe. As a result, the Géoportail article no longer informs about the recently 3D visualisation services offered by the portal and ambiguously refers (in See also and External links sections) to other virtual globes softwares than the one streaming the Géoportail data ...

VirtualGeo is a virtual globe significantly used in Europe. With more than 30.000 users per day (even just considering IGN services and Geoconcept solutions), don't you think that we can reasonably consider that it is at least as worthy of notice as many of the virtual globe software listed in the VirtualGlobe article ?

I understand that Wikipedia is neither a place for advertising nor a collection of external links. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I may have submitted my contribution in an unappropriate form for the encyclopedia. Could you kindly advice me in an acceptable way to proceed ? F Rouas (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable, independently written and published sources please feel free to write an article. But the kind of mentions that Wikipedia has seen so far (bare external links and promotional mentions) are not appropriate and will tend to be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion information about Free Photo Slideshow

I think these links are appropriate. I like this program and have added this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraphMan1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Libraries and Algorithm Implementations

Mr. Ollie,

Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clean of clutter. Before I talk about some specific issues, I do have one suggestion. When you make large deletions to a page, please post a new section to the talk page explaining what policies were being broken and what criteria you used to decide to keep items. The same paragraph could be posted to the talk page of several edits you recently made. That way it is easier for people to learn and new people are less likely to make the same mistake.

With regards to the list of numerical library page, if the policy of only linking to software which has internal wikipages is strictly followed, then software list will be woefully incomplete. Since this wikipage is only about lists of software libraries I don't feel that the policy you cited should be strictly followed and external links should be allowed. The next best alternative would be to add a comment to the of the page explaining that this list is intentionally incomplete per Wikipedia guidelines. Worst case I can set up an external page on another wiki with a complete list that could be included in an external links list on the bottom.

With regard to removing links to implementations of algorithms. I can see if the wikipage's focus is on algorithmic details then having a list of external links is ripe for spam. My suggestion is to create a new wikipage for implementations of computer vision algorithms (if one does not already exist) then provide a link to that from those pages. However, this new page would run into the same problem as the numerical library page. I will only put the effort into making that page if I know someone else isn't going to delete 95% of the links.

So in summary: Lists of software and algorithmic implementations are important for researchers. If the pages sole purpose is to list existing software and implementations then I feel external links should be allowed. Pages on the algorithmic details should link to an internal page containing lists of implementations.

Thanks Pabeles (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabeles (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As you correctly say, maintaining such a list of external links on any page on Wikipedia is going to present a problem, because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link directory. I suggest that you go to a site that is supposed to be a link directory and curate your list there: dmoz.org is a popular site that is used for this purpose. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel it would be appropriate to put a comment to the top of the page stating the only internal links are provided and as such this list is incomplete, then provide an external link at the bottom to see dmoz.org (or some other site) for a more complete list? Pabeles (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I went ahead and added a reference to notability to the list header, in line with what is commonly stated on other list articles. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I expanded your statement in the header to clarify what is being listed and why. Maybe that will reduce "unnotable" links from being added. Created an external reference section on the bottom. Looking for good external lists to add there now. Will move further comments about that page to its talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabeles (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"conflicts of interest"

Mr. Ollie: I have no idea about the software changes you refer to: I am not the person (or the Paul Oppenheimer: there are more than one) involved here. I have sent you and the management a calibrated defense of my attempt to have my books listed in at least the bibliographical sections of your articles on (a) the sonnet, (b) Peter Paul Rubens, (c) Machiavelli, and (d) guilt, in each of which I have published widely and well received books, to wit: The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Consciousness and the Invention of the Sonnet (Oxford University Press); Rubens: A Portrait (Cooper Square Press in the U.S., Duckworth in the U.K.); Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology (Continuum); and Infinite Desire: A Guide to Modern Guilt (Duckworth in the U.K. and Madison Books in the U.S.) My long recognized well respected translation of the tales of Till Eulenspiegel, Till Eulenspiegel: His Adventures (Routledge, 2001), now in its fourth edition and extremely well reviewed in many places (including initially in The New Yorker), is likewise nowhere cited in your article on Till Eulenspiegel. To argue, indeed plead, that these contributions ought to be listed in any balanced treatment of these subjects hardly represents a "conflict of interest." What it in fact represents, and this especially as your articles on all these subjects now offer unbalanced and obsolete points of view, is an unwillingness to supply readers with respectable and fair as well as standard opportunities (all these books are widely cited in other scholarly reference sources). I urge you to reconsider your stance here and at least to allow the listing of these books. Their absence in your listings will surely be regarded by many in the know as itself revelatory of bias.--With many thanks, Paul Oppenheimer Poppenheimer (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This kind of situation is exactly why we have the conflict of interest guideline. It is not appropriate to systematically add books you have written to Wikipedia articles. It creates the impression that you are here to promote your books and/or work. As a subject matter expert, I'm sure you know a great deal about these topics and are familiar with lots of other scholar's work - I suggest that you focus on adding content which would be references to people apart from yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie: Your article on the sonnet promotes the work (now obsolete) of C. Kleinhenz, indicating that he may have written the piece himself; your article on guilt takes a purely psychological-emotional approach to the problem, indicating that it was probably written by a student of psychology; your Eulenspiegel piece cites my translation of the hero's epitaph without crediting me for translating it, and while citing my 1991 edition, it fails to mention the new and improved 2001 edition, everywhere cited as a standard; your article on Rubens fails to cite a biography now cited as a crucial research volume (my biography), which is today mentioned in virtually all important discussions of Rubens and his paintings. In short, and as I mention in my previous email to you, Wikipedia articles invariably reveal "conflicts of interest" and all sorts of authors clearly promoting themselves, as they should, and as is unavoidable. Why should responsible authors not promote themselves? What can be done about cases of pure self-promotion is (a) to gauge whether it is professional and responsible, and (b) to restore some balance to the discsussion by citing and being sure to include up to date new sources. I'm afraid that anything short of doing so is simply misleading nonsense.--Paul OppenheimerPoppenheimer (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Responsible authors should not promote themselves, because Wikipedia policy forbids it. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its processes. I strongly suggest that you try editing articles that are unrelated to yourself or your professional interests for a while to gain an understanding of how this project operates. In particular reading some of the discussions at the conflict of interest noticeboard should prove illuminating. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with finaquant protos?

Hello MrOllie

I tried to add the noncommercial calculation engine finaquant protos to the list of .NET libraries at the wiki page "List of numerical libraries" but it was rejected everytime, even though I deleted the external link afterwards.

Would the following paragraph be acceptable without any links and references at all?

"finaquant protos by Finaquant Analytics is a noncommercial free (zero-priced) calculation engine based on table functions, with tables as input and output parameters. This .NET library can be used in applications like table calculations or table mathematics, cause-effect and provider-distributor networks."

If not, what is wrong? What would you advice?

Do I need to write a separate wiki article for finaquant protos?

Thanks and regards Tunc --92.106.200.184 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The list is for notable software as demonstrated by a preexisting Wikipedia article. It's probably not the best idea to write about software you have written on Wikipedia, but if you do, make sure that you have coverage in multiple sources that are independent of you and your software, or your separate article will likely be deleted. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding issues on MTJ

Not really sure how to address many of the issues you raised about that page. I actually have trouble finding a page on any software library which meets those requirements. Take OpenCV for example, every reference it has is to its own webpage, so it is also a single source and it is its own primary source. Same goes for LAPACK and many more very well estabilished widely used software libraries with filled out wikipages. MTJ is cited in several papers and used in other software projects. Those citations tend to be "we used MTJ in our project" type and would not be apprioriate to reference in that article. Any suggestions? Pabeles (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've mistakenly created an article that doesn't have the required sources available, you can correct that by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page, an admin will come by and delete it for you. Otherwise, someone will probably take the article through the articles for deletion process sooner or later. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it for now and see what happens. Maybe I am missreading the guidelines, but a large number of software library pages on wikipedia don't meet those requirements since they cite the project itself, only. As I mentioned in the talk page and in the last message, it is cited by papers in the literature. The "significant coverage" requirement is the only one I'm not sure about. OpenCV and LAPACK have numerious books written about them, on the other hand Jama does not and doesn't seem to be underquestion. Pabeles (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big site and there is a lot to do. Those other articles probably haven't been reviewed yet - sometimes these things can sit around under the radar for a long time, sometimes someone on new pages patrol notices right away. If you have the publication details of those books handy, it would be very helpful if you would add them, either as citations or in a further reading section. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and deleting contributions by others

Hello, You just deleted updates that I had made to the Reptile page. Fortunately, somebody just put it back. I thik that I abide by Wikipedia rules and try to provide reasonably objective accounts. If you disagree with anything I write in the future, please contact me first. I am a professional paleontologist and systematist. See my home page. I often cite some of my papers in these updates, but not only. In the case of the Reptile page, I added three papers, only one of which is mine, and I cited another of mine that was already abundantly cited on that page (and cited by others; I had not previously updated that page), for other aspects of the paper (it was cited for the phylogeny, but I needed to support an update about nomenclature). Best wishes, Michel Laurin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Laurin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Good Afternoon 'MrOllie',

I was wondering what the cause of the deletion of edits I made to three pages on Wikipedia. I'm new to this, but these external links and references were to interviews with the actual authors while visiting Australia. I'm not sure how a first hand source could be considered untrustworthy. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it, and I'm certain the authors would like to know why interviews they've participated in in good faith are being deleted from wikipedia, interviews about themselves and their lives like most of the newspaper articles and podcasts that are used for the majority of references on Wikipedia. The blog mentioned has about 10 interviews with authors every week, and has done so for about five years now. The section they have come from has become something of an institution in Australia, where domestic content relating to books, particularly interviews with authors from overseas, can be scarce.

Thanking You, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcattanach85 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your reversal of my edits

I just saw that you reversed my edits for red pill and alpha male that are part of my ongoing effort to document the "manosphere". Whether or not it is "fringe" is highly questionable. It is an online movement consisting of hundreds of websites, blogs, and forums that receives heavy user traffic. I'd appreciate your help in determining how to document the usage of these terms in this movement as it is almost exclusively online. This online movement (the "manosphere") arose exclusively online in response to what they felt was the well documented censorship in the mainstream media of any male opinions on gender issues that dissented from what they refer to as feminist doctrine. So although the movement literally contains hundreds of sites that receive a HUGE amount of combined web traffic, regardless of whether it's because of this censorship they mention or because of their own choice, they are ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media. I believe you would agree that whether or not one agrees with the movement's positions, it needs to be documented.

I don't want to get into an edit war so please refer me to the wikipedia policies you were referring to when you excluded my edits as "fringe" viewpoints.

I just looked up "Self-published sources (online and paper)" ... and by my reading the sources I provided should have been allowed. It reads: self-published media—whether ... personal websites, ... blogs, ... Internet forum postings, ...are largely not acceptable ... 'with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users'.

Since I referred to credentialed members of the site's editorial staff to document the usage of terms within the websites of the Manosphere, I'd like clarification on how this could have been considered a "fringe" interpretation.

In closing I'd like whatever help you can provide in ensuring that I'm able to document this movement. Ethicalv (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what is said in reliable sources as defined by our guidelines. If this community is truly 'ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media' as you say, then there may be no reliable sources to summarize and coverage of this topic may need to be omitted from Wikipedia. This is OK, Wikipedia is not intended to be a complete archive of every fact. Also see our policy on Due and undue weight as well as verifiability. As a subculture with little or no exposure to the mainstream, they form a fringe. The editorial staff exemption you are referencing is for sites that otherwise meet the reliable sources guideline but also have a user generated content section - for example, we might cite Arianna Huffington's articles on the Huffington Post, even though that site also carries a number of user blogs and comment sections. That is a fairly narrow exeception that will not apply to most blog postings, and does not apply to the sites you have referenced. There is a very important sentence from the section you link that you appear to have missed: 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ' - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the documentation you provided on what constitutes reliable sources as defined by our guidelines.

Reliable sources may be ... "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject"

In documenting the usage of terms by website authors in the websites that comprise the online community known as the "manosphere", there can be no more authoritative sources than the authors themselves. I'm sure you agree that referring to a writer's own webpage to obtain that writer's opinion is more authoritative than any second hand source, regardless of whether that source is "mainstream".

The "fringe" argument would not then be applicable, because my article clearly did not seek to change the general definition of any term, merely to record the terms usage in a large community by referring to reliable sources, namely authoritative sources in that community itself.

As for whether or not the "manosphere" community deserves to be included in wikipedia, there are mainstream sources that make significant mention of it, thereby indicating that it is "notable", and that identify some of the websites in it, thereby indicating which are "authoritative". They just don't mention anything about what the manosphere actually says. For that ... as I've stated, there can be no more reliable source of the website's usage of terms than the websites themselves.

I'd appreciate your help in resolving this matter. Ethicalv (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As I quoted for you above, authoritative authors are those that have previously been published by reliable third-party publications. There is really no getting around this - if all you have to cite are self published blogs, your content will not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. You need independently published material with a reputation for fact checking - newspapers, peer reviewed journals, etc. That a website has been mentioned is not sufficient: the Time Cube has been mentioned in reliable sources, but that does not mean we cite it on on Physics articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide that quote. But you misunderstood my entire argument as to why that content is suitable. I agree that the Time Cube should not be cited on Physics articles. That example is irrelevant as though I seek to document the manosphere, presenting it's views as mainstream or authoritative was clearly not what I was suggesting. Instead I was suggesting just documenting this large movements positions as its own. The example you gave actually supported my argument. The website of the Time Cube's creator is certainly a reliable source for any insight on the Time Cube, though it is not a mainstream source, and I see the article refers directly to that website exactly as I suggested would be appropriate in the case of the manosphere. Also though by any measure the concept of a Time Cube is certainly "fringe", that was no reason to exclude the concept from wikipedia because the article doesn't attempt to state that the interpretation is accepted by anyone but him the creator. This is EXACTLY what my edits have done.

Your response is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Self published sources should be used only on articles about that source - we can use the time cube cite on Time Cube, and no where else. Similarly, we could use avoiceformen.com on an article about that site, should one ever be created, but not anywhere else. If you have further questions you can get wider input at the sources noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance ... that was exactly my argument Ethicalv (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Now that you know not use these sorts of self published sources on articles that are not specifically about that source (as you were previously), you should not have any further problems. - MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand again. If your feedback is to be useful I ask that you comment specifically on the issue I addressed. Careless, insincere responses like yours above entertain yourself only at the expense of wikipedia itself, and those of us who value wikipedia enough to devote our time to improving it. I demonstrated in my argument that: a) mainstream reliable sources identify avoiceformen.com as part of the "manosphere", and b) I stated my intention to document only the usage of concepts and terms in the manosphere, not to change general definitions of concepts or terms, or to imply the manosphere definitions are mainstream, and c)I justified what should be obvious ... why websites in the manosphere are considered reliable sources for the usage of concepts and terms in the manosphere.

If you have any useful, topical feedback to assist myself and others in this matter, that feedback will always be appreciated. Ethicalv (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, as I said, the self published source exceptions are narrower than that. A website in the 'manosphere' should be used as a source only on an article about that particular website. Not an article about the 'manosphere' in general, not an article about a concept or a term, even if that term is commonly used by the 'manosphere'. My useful, topical feedback is this: If you don't support your text with citations to independently published and fact checked sources, your text will continue to be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will ensure that I do not represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid or are generally held views. I will ensure that I do not represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. And I will ensure that I only document the manosphere rather than advocate for it, and represent the claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. I hope it is clear as well now that sites in the manosphere can be cited reliable sources for their own opinions according to wikipedia policies since:

• A website can be linked as an external source for articles about itself

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any."

• The subject's website can be used as a source

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:"

• The manosphere is notable

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

And I hope it is clear furthermore that a number of sites have been specifically identified by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere", that Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source, and that the SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. I hope it is also clear that the manosphere is notable independently of the SPLC in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others. Ethicalv (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning of abusive editing

Hello MrOllie,

I was about to give up completely contributing to Wikipedia because of your repeated destruction of my contributions, but others have informed me of other options. I want to let you know that I have filed a complaint for abusive editing on Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard. I hope that you will simply desist and that we can both put this behind us; it is counter-productive for both of us. From what I have read elsewhere, I gather that you have removed some genuine spam from Wikipedia pages, which is a good thing, but my contributions are not spam. I am very surprised that you do not seem to be able to make the difference.

Best wishes anyway Michel Laurin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that you would simply desist and follow the recommendations of the conflict of interest guidelines, which would be to propose references to yourself or your work on the article talk pages instead of repetitively making them yourself. I have no issues at all when multiple other users agree, I will respect consensus. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

car sharing table of companies?

I’ve included a table with the major car sharing companies worldwide in the car sharing page, which was well sourced and organized. It’s something which is badly missing from the page today. Could you please explain why it was removed? {{subst:Mushmush123}}

I removed it because vendor lists of that sort don't add to reader's encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and because such lists generally end up being promotional commercial listsings quite rapidly, even if they don't start out that way. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is not just a vendor list, it includes markets, size, etc. It add encyclopedic understanding of the topic by knowing who are the major companies in this industry. This is a foundational knowledge required to every industry or market. Mushmush123 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Text moved from Category:Synectics

Hi Mr. Ollie, I accept your earlier removal of earlier edits to Synectics, but could you please stop changing the definition. "The Group Creative Problem Solving Process using Human Dynamics, Divergent-Converget Thinking, and external stimuli for creative thinking" is more accurate. They are the 3 corner stones of the Synectics Process originally outlined in Synectics by Bill Gordon and later developed by George M. Prince at Synectics, Inc. at outlined in Practice of Creativity — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenDavid (talk • contribs)

We need the definition to be neutral, not the consulting company's preferred collection of buzzwords. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

.com (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TRW

Two-factor authentication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Android

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Optimize Capital Markets

Hi MrOllie - P2P Financial has recently changed its name to Optimize Capital Markets and we have recently begun to offer crowd funding to Latin American and US Companies. Please allow our revision to the article as that is accurate and current information - thanks! Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McGrath (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Hi MrOllie - Received your notice that you removed my citations. The sources were from recognized experts, most of whom in the industry would regard as authority sources. As a full time professional in this industry I've also seen other sources and objective evidence to recognize these citations as reasonable or accurate. I'm new to this, but would like to make a contribution to the industry where I make my profession. Can you advise why these citations were removed? Thanks. Laureenmcgovern (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Laureen McGovern Laureenmcgovern (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can read about the kinds of sources that are acceptable here at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs and article aggregation sites like hrlabs do not qualify, I'm afraid. - MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Cleaning Lists

Nina Litvinenko I have made submitions on 2 pages, both of which you have cleaned without any obvious reason. My submissions fit just on place. Would you care to explain why? (Diagramming software and List of information graphics software). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina.litvinenko (talk • contribs)

We generally restrict such lists to entries that have multiple third party sources, usually listed on a Wikipedia article about the entry. Wikipedia is not a place for you to place external links to promote your software. Please read our guidelines on conflict of interest and external link spamming, and kindly refrain from adding links to your employer in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of contribution

Dear MrOllie,

I'm quite new to wikipedia, perhaps i've made a mistake, but could you explain me why you deleted the source/external link i've added to the digital potentiometer page? I partly used this page as a source, but also thinks it contains more interesting information on this subject, that's why i added it to the external links section. Should i have added it as a source only?

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Mann66 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of linkedin group

You have removed the link I added here Online focus group#External links but there are other websites there which are the same as the one I've put. What is the difference between the links already there and the one I put? I think you have made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOHanlon (talk • contribs)

Links to be avoided point 10 disallows social media groups such as the one you are linking. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition of External Link reference site

Dear MrOllie,

Thank you for the note regarding my addition to ‘External Links’. I, like many, enjoy using Wikipedia because it’s lean and ‘advertisements’ and spam are kept to a minimum.

I have read the Wikipedia external links guidelines, and I can tell you that my intent was in no way to create spam, or promotion of products, website, etc. – it is tantamount to the subject and on-topic, while providing the reader with further research.

The link posted, www.billtrack50.com is a free service that allows users to create their own search to see a summary of state legislative bills, and then click to see the full state bill text, action history, voting records, plus state bill sponsors and detailed contact information for all state legislators. There is a paid option, but free services represent over 95% of our total users. Our site is used all over the country at libraries and law schools for political research and legislative reference (currently over 225,000 legislative bills in full text are posted there).

I noticed that in your “See Also” you have the ‘State Legislative Sourcebook’ link which sell for approximately $195. Also, in your “External Links” section, there are currently (2) links for ‘stateside.com’ which is a for-fee service. Again, our website reference content is updated daily and free for researching and tracking state legislative bills.

Respectfully, I'd like to ask you to please reconsider adding this External Link. I appreciate your consideration, thank you.

Sincerely, Glenn Booth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboo12 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This was explained to you / your company at the talk page of the last account you had, User talk:Legination, where you said that this wouldn't happen again. Please read over the guidelines that you were linked to last time, and please do not add links to your own website again. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How to upload image when account is not verified yet for uploading?

Hello, I would like to add screenshot of page for my article abut I can't upload cause my account is not verified for it. How can i upload image? Thanks

Usenetfriend (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

You have removed links that and did not explain why not. Please add them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptoone (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you have not mentioned which link you meant. Can you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelSolin (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FINE MEP

Back in September 2011, you PRODded this and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case wou wish to consider AfD. regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, MrOllie. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How to upload image when account is not verified yet for uploading?

Hello, I would like to add screenshot of page for my article abut I can't upload cause my account is not verified for it. How can i upload image? Thanks

The following has gone unanswered since September.

Perhaps it was lost. I continue to beg a response. Mr Ollie, Thank-you for updating me on the importance of neutrality regarding external references. I do need your help understanding a few items. First, please reconsider, or at least explain to me: 1) Why you deleted the following statement from "Facilitator." You deleted the factual statement that "This is most noticeable during periods of organisational change when facilitators need the sponsorship of senior management." 2) Why is the remaining external reference (ie, name=Wherrett>Wherrett, R. The Compleat Biz, (2009) Reroq Publishing ISBN 978-0-9561305-0-1) more valid than the more recently published name=Attong>Attong, M. and Metz, T. Change or Die—The Business Process Improvement Manual, (2012) CRC Press ISBN 978-1-4665-1251-1 from a publisher with a known, scientific background in publishing? and, 3) Might you also take a moment to explain why you deleted the following statement from the term "Consensus decision-making" - "Business process improvement methods frequently rely on consensus for decision-making support because complex business processes affect various stakeholder groups."? T-Metz (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (continued below) It is unfortunate that a WIKI 'master' such as yourself seems predisposed to prefer external references whose title includes the content being referenced. The select few times that I referenced "Change or Die" were highly appropriate and well supported by the book, to the benefit of readers seeking more information on the topic. It's not like I went out and pasted the "Change or Die" reference in hundreds or even dozens of places. The few references provided were appropriate and well intended for the reader. I can give you page numbers from the book if you doubt the value of the few references made, out of millions of potential Wiki topics. I am frankly shocked that you deleted the reference in "Deliverable" because I could not find anywhere in the Five WIKI Pillars that valid references might not be attached to each sentence or claim, and if there is more than one, so be it. I think your fear of COI would be valid if there was an abuse of the reference, which clearly there is not. For example, the term "Consensus decision-making" has 62 references and "Change or Die" is a more current and valid reference than most of the 62 but you deleted it anyway, to the harm of some readers. While it's clear that you will not allow me to reference Change or Die—The Business Process Improvement Manual anymore, at least be kind and neutral yourself about some of the content adds or fixes I suggest. For example, it would helpful to understand how "14. ^ Ludy, Perry J. Profit Building: Cutting Costs Without Cutting People. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, Inc, 2000. Print." the 14th reference in "brainstorming" offers readers more value than your deletions discussed above. T-Metz (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Please note that I am forced to stop directing hundreds of links to WIKI from my blog site until I have a clearer understanding, not about the COI references, but the content edits discussed above that seemingly fell prey to a halo effect from the COI deletions.T-Metz (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

T-Metz...do not expect a logical answer, Mr Ollie is a vandal operating under the guise of an "editor" who deletes text and alters edits and when taken to task RUNS and opens complaints as if those whose work he vandalizes are the ones at fault. There are several reasons why Wijipedia is not accepted as a viable reference in educated venues, Mr Ollie is part of that problem. Cosand (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MesaBoy77 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. In response to your recent post at the Edit Warring Noticeboard, please see my post here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please cease removing information related to virtual token MFA

Virtual Token MFA is another form of MFA, fundamentally different from software tokens or hardware tokens. All vendor references have been removed from the article sections, so please cease removing the remaining information. Readers of this article will benefit from learning about all forms of security tokens and all forms of multi-factor authentication. They do not appreciate having pertinent information censored by capricious editors such as you. I am trying to understand your objection to this information. If you have a valid reason for censoring this information, please explain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MesaBoy77 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not here to host unsourced information about trademarked products by particular companies. Readers of the article will not benefit from unsourced promotional information. Wikipedia is not a place for single purpose editors to promote the companies they are associated with. - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by MesaBoy77. Information related to virtual token forms of multifactor does not promote any particular company or product, and it is no more sourced nor unsourced than the "software token" and "hardware token" forms of authentication discussed on these pages. The cited sections do not reference any particular company nor product. They describe an emerging type of authentication referred to within the industry as "virtual" token, which is fundamentally different from software token MFA in that, while software token MFA requires the user to deploy software, virtual token MFA does not. There are a number of different companies promoting this type of multi-factor authentication, none of which are cited within the article. Also, I am not a single source editor, having contributed content to several Wikipedia pages. Finally, I did not insert just "this stuff" since November 2011. I am the original author of the majority of these page's content, including the "stuff" related to hardware tokens and software tokens. Please cease removing information from these articles. MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am not a single source editor, having contributed content to several Wikipedia pages. Finally, I did not insert just "this stuff" since November 2011. I am the original author of the majority of these page's content, including the "stuff" related to hardware tokens and software tokens. While I appreciate that you may wish to promote specific forms of authentication on wikipedia, promoting specific types of authentication by censoring information related to other forms of authentication is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. It is "promotion-by-censorship".

There are many different companies promoting virtual token forms of multi-factor authentication, none of which are cited within the body of these articles. If you can show me any particular company or product name referenced in the section, I will be happy to remove it. (MesaBoy77) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see now the link I think you are objecting to. The link to Sestus was included simply because they were the first commercial company to introduce the concept of virtual token MFA. it was included as a historical reference. However, I have removed it. Please cease removing information from these articles. MesaBoy77 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss the AIR Module redirects/reverts/deletions you seem to be hell-bent upon

Hello! I'm trying in good faith to improve the AIR_module page. I've made notes on its talk page documenting my efforts. Rather than leaving anything on the talk page, you seem to wish to wordlessly delete or redirect the work I'm doing. Please stop this. I see you're something of a controversial editor. I'm not sure honestly about the process to run this up the ladder, but I should definitely do that if we couldn't come to some amicable and respectful accord here. Thanks! Probity incarnate (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is at the administrator's noticeboard. I would suggest that you read and consider the guidelines on conflict of interest and multiple accounts before escalating. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So called spam links. Hi! I'm not a spammer. Simply I want to give to readers possibility to listen to the fragments of Ancient Greek music and not only to read to them. It's not spam, it's scientific references. Highly appreciating your work I can't see any logic in deleting my references and leaving the other links to music soundclips. What is the principle of your choice?

List of United States state legislatures page

RE: Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am updating outdated information. Why do you keep reverting to the old information? I can understanding not listing a business in the citation, and merely keep the link to the information, but why are you reverting all the data back to outdated information? Maybe I don't understand Wikipedia's citations policy, but doesn't all information need to be cited to give credit to the author? Statesideassoc (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

p.s. you left these original messages on our talkpages, but said to respond on your talk page. You don't seem to be consistent with the instructions you left earlier, which is not helpful for novice editors like myself. Statesideassoc (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

List of United States state legislatures page part 2

RE: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

From the external links guidelines page: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." Common sense says that the interests of the encyclopedia are in conveying accurate information. We are updating only the inaccurate information with more recent and accurate information. I admit that I'm a wikipedia editing novice, but I took several hours to learn the basics when I found this information online and realized that it is just plain wrong, so I took the time to update it and would appreciate your not assuming that because the information comes from a business I'm affiliated with that it is somehow marketing or spam. Thank you. Statesideassoc (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Per our rules, which you can read at WP:ELNO WP:COI, and WP:SPAM, adding links to a site you are affiliated with is strongly discouraged and in this case is spamming. Please do not continue - if you do (particularly since you are using multiple accounts) there is the possibility that your link will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may be used by other sites and/or search engines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

None of those rules cover this case, but I'll cede the fact that you're in some kind of authority position with Wikipedia and you can make arbitrary decisions and threats, even though I've expressed my inexperience with editing Wikipedia pages. Are you going to revert the page to having the correct information with a textual citation? If not, I'm going to escalate this and note your poor interpretation of the rule "common sense is what is best for the encyclopedia." Gcrackers82 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is no conflict of interest when updating numerical information. The numbers of state legislators does not somehow include our opinion. We would like to see the information accurate, and would like to reflect our displeasure with the inaccurate interpretation of the rules and their heavy-handed application. Gcrackers82 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You folks obviously gathered this data from somewhere - since you have no conflict of interest and aren't here to promote your business, why don't we cite your original sources instead of your website? If you would like to register a complaint instead, I suggest the Administrator's noticeboard - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We are the original source; we call state legislatures and work with them directly in the course of our business. You didn't seem to object to the single-source citation you keep restoring. I am restoring the information once again after notifying you that your corrective measures are misplaced. If you have issue with my providing a citation for the information from the source that supplied and created it, then don't delete all the informaiton, delete the citation. Just note that if you decide to delete the citation, I will appeal your action and note your previous attempts to block me from correcting outdated and innacurate information on the encyclopedia. Gcrackers82 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We generally do not use self published primary sources, which you seem to be indicating your site is. We definitely do not use them because someone with a conflict of interest is edit warring to get links to their site. I again ask you not to insert links to organizations you are affiliated with. If you continue to do so, I'll enter a spam report on your site and/or move for link blacklisting as appropriate. Again, if you want to lodge a complaint, please do use the Administrator's noticeboard, I welcome additional involvement from the Wikipedia community. - MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already asked about removing the link and you complained about the fact (after what was clearly very little research) that you didn't think we were citing appropriately. Well we are first-hand sources and we want to information to be accurate. I've maintained that throughout this process and you really have not been helpful in ensuring the accuracy of the encyclopedia. So I will make the changes as described but omit the link, since that seems to be your hangup. I'm not trying to be rude here, but you make it really frustrating for knowledgeable individuals with access to information to update outdated material. It would be good for everyone involved if you, instead of being heavy-handed with your editing power, worked with individuals to make improvements to this collective resource. Gcrackers82 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Iperius Backup

Hello MrOllie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Iperius Backup, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. GedUK  13:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it wasn't my tag, I was just restoring one the author blanked. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLone (web server), could you look at the sources at User_talk:MBisanz#Ask_to_restore_page_.22KLone_.28web_server.29.22 and advise? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Self published sources, all. Nothing that establishes notability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! MBisanz ^talk 13:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Your actions are being discussed at [5] You may wish to comment there. Note: I am a neutral observer. Chutznik (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thoght putting your name into the post had the effect of notifying you that I posted on the administrator's board. I read plenty of information about how to post there and it looks like I still did it wrong. Can you please accept that fact that the information I'm trying to update is far more accurate than what is currently on the wikipedia page and leave the data alone as I am about to update it now? I'm happy to change my citation so that it meets the community criteria for an accurate and non-spammy citation, but your insistence on what currently exists being accurate is damaging for anyone looking this information up in the encyclopedia. I would appreciate your guidance in re-doing my citation if I have not composed it correctly. Thanks! Gcrackers82 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question. How about someone, such as myself, create a whole new wiki page listing the hundreds of coincidences I have found between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy? Neardeathcom (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that would not be appropriate. See the policy on original research. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed link to site

Hi MrOllie, I am new to wikipedia and want to add my WAMP software to "Comparison of WAMPs" page. The software is new. As you said I shouldn avoid links, can I add my WAMP software to that list without the link to the site. VarunAgw (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing Changes to eTools Article

Mr. Ollie, I have reviewed your comments on the COI page and have made the required changes to be in full compliance with Wiki Guidelines. I appreciate your efforts to police the website but believe that you are not correct in this case with your continued removal of the edits. If you have further issues, please let me know what specific policies this change is in violation of and I will correct them. Without further citations and cooperative discussion with me of your concerns, additional removal of my edits is unjustified. Paul2924 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Only veriable and neutral content that is supported by reputable, third party sources is in 'full compliance with Wiki Guidelines'. Your repeated attempts to promote your website / campaign are not neutral, and are completely unsourced. Kindly do not mention this campaign of yours again on Wikipedia - it is not ready yet. Wikipedia will list it when you have gotten some press attention, from for example a newspaper or an industry magazine. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "ETools". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Optimization Software

Just wondering why you pulled a bunch of the available software off of there.

Cnkavanaugh (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)cnkavanaugh

It's standard for lists on Wikipedia to consist of entries that either link to an existing Wikipedia article or that have a independently written third party reference such as a newspaper or trade journal. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WPEL

(Moved from User talk:MrOllie to User talk:Bhanks. See my comment below.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor) normally, a conversation about external links placed by Bhanks belongs on Bhanks' user talk page, so I am WP:BOLDly moving this from User talk:MrOllie to User talk:Bhanks. If anyone objects to this, WP:BRD explains what to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing entries from Comparison of file hosting services

Hi,

Please stop removing entries from Comparison of file hosting services. I don't know who's reverting the changes you try to make, but that person is right about reverting the change. Non of the guidelines you supply (WP:ELNO, WP:SAL, WP:SPAM, WP:WTAF) as a reason even apply in this case. I'd like to ask you to join the discussion about this matter instead. Simply reverting the changes constantly is nonsense.--Forage (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with your request, and I had already used the article talk page before you reverted me. Let's keep the conversation there, where it should be. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, and will end up blocked if you don't stop. Please -- both of you -- follow the advice given in WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Electroschematics#July_2013

Thank you for deleting the link that I posted here Electronic schematic The one that is already there is much interesting http://www.circuitstune.com/ , probably yours. BTW: this is irony because if you would have looked better circuitstune.com is not a good resource for readers, it has only a dozens of articles filled with ads compared to electroschematics.com which has over 1000 and is updated almost everyday with unique and great content provided by 3 active authors.

Thank you again!

Yours, Popescu Marian.

Electroschematics (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Electroschematics

If you have found inappropriate links on a Wikipedia article, please remove them. But do not take their presence as a reason to add more inappropriate links. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Seemingly random removal of legitimate edit to topic "Mobile search"

Hello Mr. Ollie,

So I today updated the "Mobile search" topic to include the mobile search engine mazoom.mobi. You have come along and removed it. Before I put it back on and get into some sad editor war with you, how about you let me know what the problem is. Did you even review the subject of the entry? Did you visit the site that was linked to? Your apparent reason for your actions was stated as "cleanup unlinked list entries". I provided a link to the url: http://mazoom.mobi, which IS A LINK!!! The column under which I posted that data was titled: "Name & Mobile URL". What I posted in there was: 1. The site name & 2. The mobile URL.

Kindly explain what your problem is with my entry, as I don't want to get into an editing war this early in my wikipedia experience, or ever for that matter. And if we can't agree on this, what is my remedy? Is there one, or do I simply have to endure the tyranny of anonymous editors who take a dislike to my entries?

Substantially unimpressed,

Here are some sources, in addition to the link already provided (now removed from main article by you), which should help you establish the veracity of the mobile web search engine that is Mazoom. Assuming you are indeed interested in establishing the facts, of course.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/smartphone-era-gets-first-dedicated-search-engine-courtesy-of-uk-start-up-mazoom-173683421.html

http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/content/mazoom-brings-search-mobile

I look forward to your comments. In fact, not withstanding my sniffy comments above, and yes, they were... I would appreciate any input or even some help in getting my edits/topics published. After all my main aim to to disseminate accurate and useful information. So if you are up for that Mr. Ollie, let me know what you think and let's do something productive together!

Regards,

MPersh (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPersh (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 

MPersh MPersh (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPersh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Lists such as the one you added your site to are generally used as navigation aids on Wikipedia, so they generally require that the list entry link to a preexisting Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:Write the article first. Please be sure that you have multiple good sources and study the requirements for inclusion before you start any article, though. Also, do you have any relation to the Joe Persh who wrote the press release you linked above? If so, please review our guidelines on conflict of interest and proceed carefully. - MrOllie (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Points taken. Particularly regarding conflict of interest, as I am one of the founders of Mazoom! But I didn't exactly attempt to mask my identity as I felt being open about it would be preferable. Clearly not! So I will request that other editors create the topic "Mazoom". How about you MrOllie? Do you write new articles? If you do here are 3 independent verifiable sources about Mazoom: http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/content/mazoom-brings-search-mobile http://www.repertoiremag.com/Article.asp?Id=4147 http://www.telecompaper.com/news/mazoom-launches-search-engine-for-smartphone-users--901486 I will post some info on my talk page - clearly disclosing my interest of course. Let me know if you are interested. Regards MPersh (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There was no confusion

(cur | prev) 11:08, 22 July 2013‎ MrOllie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,654 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎Main providers: fix column title which seems to have confused a new editor) (undo | thank)

It was quite clear: Name & Mobile URL

Why have you changed this? It wasn't confusing at all. It was quite clear. It just didn't fit with your previous edit, which you have chosen not to engage with me about. Instead you have made this edit as a comment about my comprehension of something that was quite clear. I will repair your error as you have "fixed" something that wasn't broken. And as you ostensibly made the edit for my benefit and I am not confused at all, then there is no reason not to re-instate the original column heading. MPersh (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

At one time that list mainly of search services where the name was the mobile url - that hasn't been the case for a while, and you indicated earlier that you felt the column title meant that you should add a live link to your website - there should not be any such external links in that table. - MrOllie (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why should there not be external links there? Is that wikipedia policy or your own? MPersh (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See the guideline on external links. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Literary links

You have whacked my links for various author sites claiming that they were inappropriate. Did you look at them? No, I am guessing not. The Wikipedia entry for Antoine Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Abel) contains an incomplete bibliography, his date of birth and death and one link, where the URL is given but not the title of the article. My link gave the title of the link, and the article had a complete bibliography, more biographical info, a link to six other relevant sites (with titles as well as URL) and a review of one of his books. In other words, it was far superior to the Wikipedia entry. Why is that inappropriate?

Theraven (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Theraven

See Links normally to be avoided points 4, 11, and especially #1. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia entry for Antoine Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Abel), which itself says "This article does not cite any references or sources", meets the criteria, while the article I link to provides six sources does not meet the criteria! What planet are you living on? These articles are not intended to promote a website but to give users (including Wikipedia users) more information on authors than is found in the Wikipedia articles, many of which are woefully inadequate or, in some cases, wrong.

Theraven (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Theraven

If the articles are wrong, the proper course of action is to fix them, not to add an external link. - MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding External Links

Hi Ollie

Thanks for the heads up. I will first start with internal linking and wax that before I build any external links.

Thanks again Julianventer47 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Soap Bubbles and Electrowetting

Dear Mr Olie, I updated two Wikipedia pages today: “Soap Bubble” and “Electrowetting”. I added a new section to each complete with a reference to a scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal by the American Institute of Physics. Both edits update the pages with original scientific work which will be of interest to readers of Wikipedia concerning these two subjects. For example, the “Physics” section of “Soap Bubbles” only contains two sub-sections – I added a valid third “Wetting” – as there is no mention of the wetting of soap bubbles anywhere in Wikipedia. In the “Electrowetting” page the inclusion of “Electrowetting of liquid films” is justified as there is no mention of this original subject on this page or elsewhere. I would like to know why these two contributions were deleted. Yours sincerely, S. Arscott Stevearscott (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It looked to me like it was putting undue weight on that particular paper, since it is a primary source which hasn't been cited by anyone else that I could find. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Was your article written about by the mainstream press or perhaps in a review article? - MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

reply

Dear Mr Olie, I understand that the edit may have seemed to be placing too much weight on one article. The fact of the matter is, however, that work on wetting of soap bubbles is very scarce and the cited paper is the only paper which considers soap bubble wetting on a range of solid surfaces. In the light of this would you allow me to re-write the edit by including and referencing work by others. I genuinely believe that a “Wetting” section would be an addition to the “Physics” section in “Soap Bubble”. Yours sincerely, Steve Arscott Stevearscott (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit on Crowdfunding comparaison

Dear Mr Ollie,

Yesterday I have added ikifu.org as a crowdfunding platform from Japan but you have undone my edit. I am new to Wikipedia. Would you kindly let me know what I did wrong?

Thank you very much,

Nhat Shincastle (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article considered for deletion

Hello MrOllie, I haven't created articles on Wikipedia before and it seems that my current page YTD Video Downloader doesn't meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia. I would like to edit the page in order for it to meet all the required criteria. Would it be possible to provide some guidance in this matter? Please note that I am not interested in any way to advertise this software. I have just been using it for a few years and I am very satisfied with it. I would also like to add that I have used a similar structure with other Wikipedia pages in creating the article (content structure, sources, external links) and if necessary, I can provide examples. Furthermore the sources I have referenced are IT websites acknowledged for software reviews and have their own pages on Wikipedia. I am not sure why they can't be considered reliable third party sources.

Thank you for your time and assistance Adrian309 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's sources that is the biggest problem. The websites you have listed (Softpedia, Software.informer, etc) are indiscriminate - they list and review pretty much every piece of software that exists. We need multiple sources that are selective in what they publish - the New York Times, Wired, something like that. If you can find sources, we can then use those to fill out the details of the article instead of what we have now - what you have written so far 'practical tool' 'useful solution' etc, all sounds like advertising copy. But first priority is the sources, the article will not survive without them. - 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the issue. I searched online and found a few sources that I think are more reliable that what I initially had.

• The software is referenced in an article published on the AICPA’s 125th birthday presenting 125 technology quick tips and best practices (#66) http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2012/Jun/20114845.htm
• It is also recommended as a free and user-friendly software for creating multimedia projects on Examiner.com.
• Found a lot of references regarding support for the community by publishing infographics. See http://www.today.com/tech/equivalent-2-782-years-spent-watching-harlem-shake-videos-1C8760003. The same infographic is already referenced on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Shake_%28meme%29 (#52)

Would the above mentioned information suffice in order for the page to meet the relevant criteria for content? Of course, I can reformulate the content on the page to avoid any advertising-related suspicions once you tell me this is ok. Also I will keep digging for more resources. Thank you, Adrian309 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article hoping the current version meets the necessary criteria. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you once again for your time and availability. Adrian309 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We need in depth sources, those articles don't strike me as being fairly superficial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Document Automation Article - red link deletion

Hi, could you please give an indication why the internal links to not yet existing Wikipedia articles were deleted from the Document Automation article? All four vendors were notable and established players in the space. Showing them in the article adds to objectivity of the article and gives users the opportunity to create articles about those vendors easily. Thanks 122.56.232.8 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Aam

Vendor lists are especially prone to promotional listings and we are not supposed to maintain vendor lists. Where we must have vendors mentioned, it is important that we limit those mentions to those vendors with established (through independent sources and/or a wikipedia article) notability, not just theoretical notability. See Wikipedia:Write the article first for more details. - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Computer Security Edit Removals

Hello MrOllie, I wanted to contact you regarding your removal of some of my edits. I had done some research into the computer security industry and made quite a few edits over the past couple of weeks that have now been removed. It also looks as if you have removed a large amount of content from other users as well on different pages in that related industry. You mentioned 'refspam' within your comments; however, I have no connection with these other editors. While I understand the issues you had with some of the edits, I feel that the Cyber Security Index link on the Computer Security page was relevant. Could you please explain your thoughts on this to me? I certainly want to abide Wikipedia guidelines, but am a little stumped by quite a few of your removals. Thank you for your help! Zune0112 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Every single one of your edits served to promote Secureworks - a domain that we have had spamming problems from before. The particular link on Computer Security added no value to the page. Wikipedia is not a place to place website links for promotion. I suggest you take the fruits of your research into the computer security industry and find something to write about on Wikipedia without inserting external links to the same company website over and over. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view

Dear Mr. Ollie, you have removed my edit in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitat_Oberta_de_Catalunya page, stating that it was not a neutral point of view.

This is not about points of views, but about facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_university

I know it's hard to believe that a Catalan university could be the first, everyone else seems to be ok with positioning UBC and Open UK as leading this revolution, but this is actually incorrect.

I understand you need to watch for points of views, but this time is more about facts. It's great to see you on top of it all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelera (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1), you need an independent source that calls them the first. You provided no source at all, so we cannot verify the claim. 2) You called the Rector a 'visionary' which is obviously not a neutral description, but your opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

clarifying notability criterion

Hi MrOllie, I'm with Crowd Valley and trying to understand how (or indeed, whether) we can meet the notability criterion. I read WP:COMPANY and would agree that we don't have a lot of substantial mention in the press yet, but by the same token I'm seeing plenty of company entities on wikipedia susceptible to the same criticism, e.g. InvestedIn. So it seems the criterion is being applied a little unevenly.

FWIW I would not read too much into "synergies such as between Grow VC and The Soho Loft". David Drake isn't a PR hack, he's a reasonably big player in the crowdfunding world, as is Jouko, and it's a rather small world; so you shouldn't be too surprised that they know each other and have a business relationship. Nothing sinister there. Otherwise David does not have a stake in Crowd Valley, but he blogs frequently on Equities.com. (I believe there is a regular feature article about us coming out there soon, although I couldn't say when.) Would appreciate your comments back. Thanks! -Mdavies2001 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a big place and there is a lot of work to do. We have lots of articles up that should be deleted, they will be reviewed and discussed eventually. InvestedIn has weakish sourcing as articles go, but it does have several independent sources: Pacific Coast Business Times, Pando Daily, the Wall Street Journal article, etc. I don't think that Mr. Drake is a 'PR Hack', but we do require that sources used to establish notability be fully independent, and that doesn't seem to be the case here, even if he's promoting Crowd Valley for friendship or networking purposes rather than financial ones. - MrOllie (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

revert war on breastfeeding

Hello Mr. Ollie,

The existing article on breastfeeding is mainly a very one-sided opinion piece, totally ignoring excellent evidence on the opposing side of the question. I have repeatedly tried to do edits to make it more neutral, by indicating that there is not unanimity regarding the blanked statements in the existing article, and by introducing some material on the opposite side of the question. I have left everything that is in the present article unmodified except for modifying a few phrases near the beginning to indicate that there is alternative evidence, then inserting alternative evidence that is very brief compared with the puffery in the rest of the article; and I cited authoritative sources for all of my points. However, very quickly after I do that, everything I do is reverted. How can I have my changes fully protected? I don't think a discussion with the opposing party would be productive. They have never suggested alternatives to reach neutrality in the language, they always totally revert to the previous version.

Should I show you my suggested modified version, or can you see it? You will see that it creates balance, as opposed to the totally one-sided presentation that it always is reverted back to.

Don Meulenberg Director Pollution Action dm@pollutionaction.org PollutionAction (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's time to stop making the same edit over and over. You should go to the article talk page and make a case for the material that you want to add there. You will not be able to force it in without arriving at a consensus that includes the other editors. See our page on the Bold, revert, discuss cycle for more details. There is not a single 'opposing party' here - your material has been removed by four different editors. It is possible to ask for an article to be protected from editing, but in a 4 vs 1 case like this, it is far more likely that your account would be blocked, so it is in your best interest to start a discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MesaBoy77 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Document Assembly revision

What's the justification for removing significant players from the article on Document Automation/Document Assembly? There's an entire class of new players, bringing new technologies and new business models to the game, winning awards and high growth rates. Why write them out? Bob Leibowitz (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Glockfamilyman— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glockfamilyman (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gauloises

I wonder would you care to respond further at the article Talk Page? This particular case does not seem to be quite as black and white as you have suggested. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Link removed

Even if I had nothing against removing the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, I do not understand why the update about Microsoft Dynamics SL was removed as well? How come "?" is better? Julia.Weronika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.Weronika (talk • contribs) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Data visualization

Dear MrOllie,

Qlikview is a valid data visualization platform.

And data discovery is highly linked to data visualization, please read the data discovery wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevandeneijnden (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Business Intelligence

In business intelligence the Gartner research is valid independent research predicting the future of BI. What is wrong about that? MikevandenEijnden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevandeneijnden (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Entry

Hi. Why do you keep deleting my entry for decision making software? The current table is not complete as per the reference and I was adding a missing product.Ian Seed (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still waiting for your response. My entry was deleted in minutes without notification and it's nearly 24 hours since I posted my query as to why. Ian Seed (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The list you're attempting to add to is limited to articles with existing Wikipedia articles, as is discussed on that article's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kochan Spam?

Kochan spam? My quick review shows these articles are law review pieces that discuss, to a greater or lesser extent, the subjects in question. I'm sure you don't mean advertising type spam, but please explain your edit summaries and rationale. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Spamming ia a behavior - all of these Kochan articles are being added by a small set of rotating IPs - almost certianly the work of a single anonymous editor who is interested in adding as many references to this person to Wikipedia as possible. - MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Kochan-related edits is happening at User talk:98.154.102.53. TheFeds 06:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie. First, I appreciate your patience with someone new to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed most of the links to the works of Donald Kochan on various pages. I have begun to respond and restore several of these pages. I was wondering whether after you read a few of the explanations that you will consider restoring all of the entries that you removed rather than require me to go one by one and explain them all. Every entry is an article written by Donald Kochan a law professor. The material was meant to add helpful information even though it is also the product of one author. The links are to 30 distinct articles and only posted where directly on topic -- so sometimes 1-4 relevant sites where it will be unique and helpful. As I was restoring things I tried to explain why they were uniquely qualified for inclusion. Many have been recognized in the legal community -- in total the articles have been cited and/or quoted in over 225 other law review articles. Some of these are quite prominent. For example, 6 amicus briefs in Kelo discussing public use and eminent domain (as you can see that means this article is relevant to at least 3 of the pages) cited the Kochan work on "Public Use and the Independent Judiciary." Another example, the Kochan work on the Arab Spring was the subject of questioning of Secretary Hillary Clinton in Senate Appropriations Committee hearings. And the examples of acceptedness could go on. In addition these are well thought out, lengthy law review articles all in reputable academic journals. I do hope that you might restore all of the entries and that you might allow a few more to be added as well. The articles in the entries provide supplemental information not found elsewhere and are well-regarded in the legal community. Will you restore them? Or if not then if I “undo” them will you block me? Thank you for any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.102.53 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that these articles are relevant, but nonetheless, by repetitively adding links to the works of a single author you are spamming. It would be best if you would mention these papers as possible sources on the article talk pages, and wait (you may need to be quite patient) for other editors to evaluate them and post them on the article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling the behavior spamming, and then removing the links is problematic. Compare, as stubs about motion pictures are created and developed a lot of people are adding links to IMDb, AllRovie, Rotten Tomatoes, the American Film Institute, etc. (In fact, there is a citation template for {{AFI film}}.) At most there is WP:CITESPAM here, but that occurs in limited situations. In Kochan's case, he's written about a variety of topics so its not unusual for him to have material, worthwhile material, relevant to a lot of topics. And his stuff is in high-quality RS. (To User:98.154.102.53, Mr. Ollie is not an administrator and cannot block you. But I do encourage you to register as a WP editor. Also, if there is WP:COI, you should follow that guidance.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I misunderstood how things work on Wikipedia while simply trying to provide helpful, substantive additional relevant and targeted readings to interested readers. I am surprised that this is how things work here on Wikipedia -- where material is deleted even while the user deleting it acknowledges it as relevant (and when the material is actually far more than that, as it is detailed scholarly analysis tailored to the specific topics where it was posted). I will look into registering as a WP editor and if so will review and follow what COI guidance is appropriate (although it does not seem like that will address MrOllie's concerns); I fear that MrOllie will delete those too (as MrOllie has decided to even delete at least one reference to Donald Kochan made years ago by persons unknown and not at all associated with the recent posted material -- see, for example, the deletion of the discussion and citation inside of the narrative description of Alperin v. Vatican Bank which was written by whoever wrote that article for Wikipedia (recently only a link to the already-cited article was added).) This, of course, makes me reluctant to put things on a Talk page as suggested by MrOllie because if someone adds it because they see that the citation is indeed relevant and helpful, will MrOllie just delete it again? The example of the Alperin v. Vatican Bank citation makes me believe so, which makes it seem pointless to pursue even his/her suggested channels of posting if he will just look for and delete anything associated with this author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.102.53 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Codendi (software)

It appears that you have placed such a tag 'on Codendi (software) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia' on the basis that you believe the article appears to be about web content'. It is not about web content, but the Codendi open source project of the genre of Redmine. I do not understand why you have done this. Please explain. Nrbray (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an open source web application. Either way it is sourced only to a rarely updated blog and has been previously deleted at AFD, so if the reviewing admin doesn't agree with my speedy deletion nomination it will certainly be taken to the formal deletion process. - MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DDD cleanup

You've made a major cleanup to the DDD article. What is the rationale behind leaving/removing supported software tools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.50.226 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what DDD article you're talking about - please use full article titles so people can look up what you're referring to. If it was like most of the article cleanups I do, I imagine I removed a bunch of software external links per our guideline on external links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about DDD. While I see that that someone thinks that article has issues, I'm not really sure what's wrong with it, since to me it looks just fine as an introduction to DDD. I agree with the link farm issue for the Software tools section where various products would like to call themselves DDD, but are really not. In the last cleanup you've removed Sculptor and DSL Platform, which are really unique in that space being text based because they were externally linked. If you follow the other links, most of them are almost empty pages to other products which have much less content about DDD, then those two products. The issue here is that Sculptor guys were trying to create a wikipedia page about Sculptor, but were shut down and now you've removed them from this link. So my question is, should we remove also other wiki pages and thus can remove that section entirely, leave external links or let other products have their own wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.101.95 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Domain-driven design. If those other articles on specific software packages do not meet our minimum requirements for inclusion (I don't know, I haven't checked them yet), we would probably delete those pages as well. If other products can meet the requirements, we should add Wikipedia articles for them and then list those pages. We definitely should not have a list of external links to software suppliers, per links to avoid. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Breastfeeding page edit

Hi MrOllie,

I'm new to this, so please bear with me.

I recognize the importance of citations on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to go about citing this particular claim. As an Exclusive Pumper who is very active in the Exclusive Pumping community, I can say for certain that the community includes moms that both breastfeed and pump. They require an equal amount of advice and support from the community, and thankfully the moms that do exclusively pump (I am one of them) are happy to welcome and accept them with open arms. The term is a bit misleading because it implies that this is not the case. I feel this clarification is important so that moms that are doing both (breastfeeding and pumping) feel that they can access this very important support system.

Please give me any advice or suggestion for how I may go about substantiating this claim to Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks in advance,

Nechama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessnk (talk • contribs)

We need some third party that meets our sourcing guidelines to make the same point. Generally a speaking, a journalist, an academic, in some contexts a doctor, etc. Online forums or facebook pages don't meet the sourcing guidelines. On Wikipedia we are discouraged from adding things that we personally know to be true - everything should be able to be verified by the readers. - MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Link removed

You removed some link i added which links did you remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veysel Yuce (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New and trying to understand

Hi MrOllie,

You removed my edit today and I'm not quite sure why. The tailored-suit.com I cited is not actually mine at all and the testing suit concept they offer is different to other online bespoke services. You deleted it and you doubtlessly know more than I do so that's fine. But I'm wondering how my reference to tailored-suit.com regarding the testing suit concept is promotional when etsy.com [8] and StanfordRow.com [9] in the same section are not? Neither of those seem to be referencing anything of value.

Russ aka TameWildcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by TameWildcat (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the other two web store links as well, thanks for bringing them to my attention. - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

link eliminated on list of open hardware resources

I eliminated external links, I hope it is now ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbecc (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The IVF Informant

Hi MrOllie, you removed the IVF Informant link from the external links section. We believe that this link provides the IVF community with a valuable resource, and that listing it in this external links section is an appropriate way to make it more visible to those people whom it would benefit. I was unaware that discussion of adding a link on a "talk" page prior to adding it was an option. Apologies for not taking that route, but we are here now (also, this is mentioned in the wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, which I have only now just read), and would appreciate you, and or the other editors taking a serious look at how a link to this community resource may provide a benefit to the readers.

Firstly, the IVF Informant is a set of growing informative articles on IVF and infertility related topics based around a growing community of those dealing with infertility. A link to should be considered for inclusion on the following basis ...

The article on IVF does not have a section on communities to help you deal with infertility, and from whom you can receive support and guidance, or simply someone to rant to. This is a large part of infertility, and The IVF Informant is such a community and resource.

The article on IVF is quite technical in places, as is common on Wikipedia, and rightly so. It is an encyclopedia. However, for the lay person, especially in medical related matters, a real benefit can be found in an article that is less technical and more focused on what they want and need to hear, not just the facts and history. That is not at all to say the articles on the IVF Informant are not factually correct, they are, but they just approach the topic from the perspective of providing help to the reader, beyond the facts of an encyclopedia.

In reading the external links guidelines, the following points should be made ...

• The link does not link to material that violates copyright, or a blacklisted page.
• The site linked to is both accessible, in context, and the link is functional.
• The site link to contains neutral, accurate information that is most definitely relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic, but should not be part of the wikipedia article itself as it aims to be more directly helpful, rather that just the facts. It is complementary to the wikipedia article, and just what should be considered for an external link.
• The page linked to is not very large, nor media rich.
• The linked to site certainly does provide a unique resource beyond what is in the wikipedia article, as discussed already.
• The site does not mislead the reader.
• The site contains no malware.
• The link is not intended to promote the website (Wikipedia links are nofollow, as such, having a link here does not benefit the site linked to in the search engine rankings, and really only does provide a resource to those that read the page and are looking for where to go next.).
• The site does not sell anything, nor advertise anything.
• The site does not require payment or registration to view its content.
• The site is not a blog or personal website, it is a community resource of helpful, accurate information.
• The site's content is directly related to the articles topic.

Please take a look at the IVF Informant site (ivf-info.org) before reconsidering this link. Hopefully you will find that it adds a genuine resource for those looking for a helpful information resource in the struggles with infertility.

I'll leave the consideration of this link in your hands.

Thanks, Dlgonline (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nation Branding

Hi Mr Ollie. I have reinstated the note about Professor Anholt's instigation of the field simply because in some form or another it has been on this page since inception (posted by others). If anyone in the field wishes to understand how it was started (part of what this page is about) this fact should ideally not be deleted, don't you think? I hope you understand the need to keep the history and facts about the field as true as possible and that you can see past the perception that this is promotion, which I can assure you Prof. Anholt does not need. KIC260 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And I removed again, because you are operating a single purpose account for the purpose of promoting Anholt. I'm no longer impressed by those cherry-picked sources - I can find something similar that calls Wally Olins the founder. - MrOllie (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Tangram - external link removal

Hi MrOllie. I appreciate that you have to keep wikkipedia free from irrelevant external links, but the link I added was to a online Tangram game, surely this is relevant to a wikkipedia page about Tangram games, also there are no adverts so the submission guidelines are adhered too. Anyway I dont understand how the Wolfram link is allowed however my link is not allowed, Wolfram is a commercial software organisation. Please visit the link I submitted and see for yourself Enxdtw (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, so as I mentioned, please feel free to visit the link (I will reinstate it on the Tangram page) and if you still think that it is not relevant or against the wikkipedia guidelines then please by all means remove it. Enxdtw (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

so another wikkipedia editor also removed my external link, but I would like to ask ...

why the Wolfram corp. link then, they are a commercial company? I looked at their website and could not find any further information about Tangrams that was in addition to the article, and it is an webapp that requires a proprietary player, actually this is against Wikipedia guidelines. The other link was for archimedes-lab and had prominent Amazon book adverts! Enxdtw (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You Deleted My Entry, No Explanation Was Given

Hello, I'm SysFailure0x5a. You deleted my entry at Intense Vibes. It was flagged for speedy deletion and I contested the deletion before it was removed. It did not go against section G11 as stated in the speedy removal notification. Did you read my contest? The article did not promote a product or brand, but was a description of the company. It followed a very similar structure of history and company philosophy just like other company's in it's category. It linked to various other Wikipedia pages such as wholesale, sex shop, sex toy, and even competing company Wikipedia pages such as Babeland that were similar in nature. It had no external links and was not spammy or promotional in nature. Why was this deleted? If there is a specific reason you should provide constructive feedback to correct whatever was wrong.

Sysfailure0x5a (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I was the one who flagged it for speedy deletion. The way it was written, it have the impression of promoting the company, and the reviewing admin agreed. Articles on Wikipedia also require independent sources. You referenced no sources. The Article on Babeland has a reference to NBC news, and has won an award from Zagat, both of which help it meet the inclusion criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "pencil" software in diagramming article

Hi, I saw you deleted my small entry of the (Open Source) "pencil" software for diagramming from the list. I consider that counterproductive as it is easily the most polished and workable of the programs listed (many of them are real time-wasters) as anyone trying to use the article to find a usable diagram drawing program will discover. I'm not too bothered that you reverted the text description though.

Your stated reason for removing the list entry is that it contains a link. Sorry, but if you're looking for software you want a link, or you'll waste your time searching for the software. And that's exactly what anyone trying to use this list to find software will do. If you feel your best contribution is to remove the one link that leads to software that actually works well, fine.

It does however mean that I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to contribute to what is essentially a list of poor-quality programs. No skin off my nose.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.220.29 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please Respond

MrOllie - I saw your note and reversion back to your edited pages for SpeechCommunication. How is it a soapbox or advertising when the articles listed are academic and scholarly? Additionally, have you read any of the articles as they contribute to the field? At the least they are all resources for further reading. Look forward to your answer. SpeechCommunication (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

edit to REIT of 8 Aug 2013 by jerseybusinesswatch

no personal interest and therfore no conflict of interest. I'm offended at the insinuation. Wiki wants and solicits intelligent, informed edits. Readers want substance. Substance requires specifics. Just like readers like pictures to enhance or clarify the substance presented, they also like specifics and examples to either clarify or enhance the substance. Both support and specifics in an article enhance the reader's experience in Wiki, whether the reader came to Wiki for authoritative support, or came to read simply for an entertainment experience. Please don't rush to judgment with unfounded suspicions.Jerseybusinesswatch (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples are generally unhelpful to the reader, particularly when they are to obscure entities that the reader has not heard of, and that have no Wikipedia article to go to for further information. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review and research, I think you're enforcing the rules/principles SELECTIVELY. Additionally, I think you've approached my edits with a certain mindset and assumptions, or at the least an inclination for suspicion. I am not Wiki's enemy. I don't get paid for this. You should have appreciated my contributions-- some of the articles by previous authors are lamely referenced. some are downright boring. we just have a different point of view. you can only sell to Suzy things that Suzy buys if you see things thorugh Suzy's eyes. I just think your readers want more from your articles whether it's for substance or pure entertainment-- and that means more references and more examples. Did you ever teach grade school? Kids learn quicker and better through examples. Jerseybusinesswatch (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Unbiasedness

Dear MrOllie,

thank you for posting this interesting piece on affiliation to a subject. I am aware that I am affiliated to certain articles I wrote, as are many people here. Yet I would like to ask you to reconsider your edits on the basis that I did and am doing everything in my power to make articles unbiased, reliable and accurate. Of course any help by anyone independent would be greatly appreciated. It is not my aim to sell anything, just to add on to wikipedia based on my own experience in a new field of business and IT. Kind regards, Mike. Mikevandeneijnden (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled modifications

Dear MrOllie, You classified all my recent modifications as spam but you forget that I added several valuable corrections, explanations to the smartphone-related articles, stubs which are arguably useful. What is more specs and related comparisons mean added value. I'm sure Wikipedia readers would have found my modificiations useful. Nmm166 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My contribution was deleted

Hi, I added two links in "Marathi language" page. But those two were removed. I need to clarify my side about the addition.

People who visit to "Marathi Language" page can look for links to learn Marathi language. Existing links in Wikipedia do not have sufficient resources. Then I found these two blogs. These give thorough knowledge of Marathi language grammar, vocabulary, conversation. So I think these websites must be quoted on Wikipedia. Though these two are blogs, they are not blogs in routine sense i.e. just expressing personal views. These blog has sole motive of helping others learn Marathi language. These blogs do not indulge in any kind of "commenting" or "views on political/social/personal/religions issues".

So I think links to the these blogs should be allowed on "Marathi Language" page.

Mentioning two links here for reference Learn Marathi through English :- http://kaushiklele-learnmarathi.blogspot.in/ Learn Marathi through Hindi:- http://learn-marathi-from-hindi-kaushiklele.blogspot.in/

KnowledgeTruthInfo (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

per Links normally to be avoided, we don't include external links to people's blogs or personal sites. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Link Removal

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I tried to add two relevant law blog posts to a Foreclosure and Bankruptcy page, but it then got deleted. I read the guidelines, but am still a bit confused. I have seen several links to blog posts that have extensive knowledge on the matter, and was wondering why these two links were taken down.

Thank you in advance! JSODigital (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Blogs aren't considered to be acceptable sources or external links. Other blogs you see used as sources might fall under the very limited exception to the rule on self published blogs (It's acceptable to cite something to a very well known expert such as Eugene Volokh, for example) or, more likely, it's because no one has noticed the blog link and removed it yet. Wikipedia is a big place and there is a lot of work to do, sometimes these things can take a while. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Washing machines reference removed

Hi MrOllie, I just added a reference to a tool created by Which? that helps users calculate the energy costs of washing machines. You decided to remove it classing it as TW which I see is a form of vandalism. I don't get it, it is a helpful reference in the section of the document which talks about running costs. echwa (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)echwa

No, TW is the name of a tool that's used for article maintenance. A 'reference' as Wikipedia defines it is a citation that supports information in the article. What you added was just a pointer to a web tool people can use - that is an 'external link' in Wikipedia jargon and is controlled by the guideline on external links. We generally do not add external links to calculators such as that one because that sort of tool is off topic for an encylopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

About WebGL changes

Is there a particular reason to remove the references to WebGL javascript libraries ?

I would rather think the readers would particularly appreciate the knowledge of their current practical options of using WebGL. As it is currently the case for many other Wikipedia pages about software standards.

Not that I'm very active in WebGL or javascript, but the reason to remove those references eludes me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.goyvaerts (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot of technical articles accumulate these laundry lists of libaries or implementations. Wikipedia's role is not to be a howto guilde or a link directory, so we're usually better off removing them. Implementation examples really don't help to build the reader's understanding of the underlying topic, which should be our focus. - MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Recently

Why is there a big movement for reverting good content or deeming edits as spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseNoCommunism (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Text

Hello MrOllie,

I have received a message from yourself explaining that if I am connected to the company I am editing there may be potential issues? I have edited 2 pages connected with the company however this is because currently the information stated is inaccurate? (i.e no of hotels currently etc)

Could you please tell me how to go about changing the current falsities so it stays on the site and is not removed?

Thank you RFHotels (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You added a bunch of promotional language that sounded like you copied it from a sales brochure. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. You also removed content that was cited to reliable third parties to use your promotional version instead, which is also against policy here. It would be a very good idea for you to go to the talk page and list factual corrections (with sources, please) there for editors unrelated to your company to consider and merge into the article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the quick reply.

The following information needs to be changed as it is currently incorrect:

- The company name is Rocco Forte Hotels and not The Rocco Forte Collection as currently stated - Their are 11 hotels and not 13 - Rocco Forte Hotel Abu Dhabi and The Augustine in Prague are no longer part of the group

The future openings for 2014 should be removed as these possibly may not be correct

Chairman needs to be added to Sir Rocco Fortes job title Deputy Chair needs to be added to Olga Polizzi

All this info can be found http://www.roccofortehotels.com/

Thank youRFHotels (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and opinion on Crittenden article

Hi Mr. Ollie,

You reverted text on the Gary Crittenden text that was opinion from a "steaming" business insider guest writer. She says she was "steaming" right in the article which makes her non-neutral.

The facts from the SEC documents do not support the opinion of the writer. Her opinion is inconsistent with the facts surrounding the subject of the article. I don't see how one person being at a company relates to the stock price of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company. The opinion she asserts is not grounded in history, in claims, or any other verifiable documents. What she writes is not verifiable.

I'm requesting that you remove the BI information, and allow me to find for you a source that matches the facts in SEC documents. Please advise or please take a look at the sentence and find something that you find meets a neutral point of view. I agree that the source exists and do not intend to remove it. The issue is that the source and text are both opinion and non-neutral, which conflicts with Wikipedia policy.

I'll leave it up to you to review and make changes. Respectfully. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financeguy39 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277#16_August_2013_3 —rybec 23:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Risk

So you deleted a mention of a website where thousands of people play advanced versions of risk online (majorcommand).

Ironically, it says "Rv advert" removed. The neutral mention of the fact that there is an online platform where people can play risk online is a contribution to the page on risk.

Two lines above that contribution there is a blatant advert for the iPhone/iPad/iPod-version of risk. Complete with a link to the commercial App-store. Go figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exceptionally happy about the iPhone version's treatment, but it is an officially licensed product, so I think it has a place in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of pages

Hello,

I disagree with the removal of the pages which were uploaded this Morning. Pages that were posted as external links and gave readers the opportunity to further their reading with sources produced by a respected Materials and Engineering institute. Please contact me on how we can approach this and hopefully find a solution.

Many thanks,

Callum Lewis Jones Business and Marketing Assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Materialsandeng (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your marketing efforts. Please read over the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and please refrain from linking websites you are affiliated with in the future. Thanks! - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of external link

Hi Ollie! Thanks for your message. I would really appreciate it if you would include the external links I made and which you removed - they are both from a reliable statistics database, and relevant to the articles in which they were posted, one of which was quite short and could do with some reference links to statistics and figures, also a generally integral part of Wikipedia articles. Thanks very much!EngGerm12 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reinstate word coinage cross-referencing Aspies usages of words, like Mundane for "Neurotypical"

If you check talk:asperger's syndrome, talk:Aspies and talk:Damon Matthew Wise you will see considerable discussion and discovery of evidence of pre-1999 references to such cultural lingo used by Aspies, and removing Aspie cultural. It should start coming out of talk pages and come into the public area.

Aspies around the world, who have now been using Aspies, Cousins, and Auties for around 20 years have no problem using their referenced lingo. It should not be classed as a subculture, to be hidden away, but identified as a unique cultural language and meaning.

Please do the right thing and reinstate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. You are linking from article space (where articles should be) to talk space (where discussion between editors should go). Articles must link only to other articles. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of an article for deletion

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to thicken the information and sources about the Rashumon article. I hope this is sufficient for keeping this article alive. To be honest, I was afraid that you picked this article in the first place (as it wasn't edited or changed for the last 3 months), thinking it has something to do with me undoing your deletions of other articles I have edited recently and I trust you this is not the case. In any case, it is all for the best as I have managed to found many sources to backup the information in the article. I am also happy to learn more about the ethics of Wikipedia, like your valuable comment in my talk page about the appropriate way to notify colleges, which I appreciate. Michael.haephrati (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen that another user (which I am familiar with, as he was one of the developers of another Amiga product, Photon Paint, has taken an initiative which is against any common sense and just to be clear, I have reverted it the moment it was published. Michael.haephrati (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yuvalg9

Hello,

My name is Yuval Goldstein and my Wikipedia user name is Yuvalg9. I would like to assert that I am a real person, not an impersonator, and thus my edits are legitimate and true to the etiquette of Wikipedia. Thank you. Yuvalg9 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvalg9 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Would you mind telling me what brought you back to Wikipedia and to the Spyware page after a five month absence? - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working in this business and even though I didn't make any edits recently, I visit pages like Spyware and pages about my expertise (monitoring, surveillance software and software in general on a daily basis and I am convinced the paragraphs you have brutally deleted are important and vital. As I wrote when I have undone them: I have no personal or business interest in this historical product or in a very professional article about Obfuscation, which, for a strange reason, you elected to remove; same goes for your other changes (including the nomination of Rashumon for deletion). I was involved in the development of Photon Paint for the Amiga and knew Rashumon just as an Amiga user. No personal or commercial connection to the developers. It is true you can't be too careful but this time you probably are...Yuvalg9 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: I ask that you remove the term "sockpuppet" from your posts. Thank you.Yuvalg9 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I call them as I see them, and it is quite clear based on your contribution history. Stop adding links to haephrati's sites, they are not appropriate for this encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The call to Amiga fans to impede the deletion of the value "Rashumon" was my initiative, and not connected in any way to Mr. Haephrati. I was among the developers of "Photon Paint" for the Amiga and I knew "Rashumon" as a user. It was a very advanced word-processor for its time, and thus I would hate to see the value deleted.Yuvalg9 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Community Funded Updated w/ Valid Citations : Response to Speedy Delete Request

Hi Ollie. Thanks for the notice on the speedy delete request for Community Funded; I've bolstered the article with new information and multiple corrected citations from newspapers, magazines, and online journals to prove notability, importance, and significance. Having read through all the support docs I can find, I think I've satisfied the CSD A7 requirements. If not, do you have any suggested changes that can help me get there?

Also, for your information: the Fort Collins Library is going to be hosting a Wikipedia-In with our community to create and update articles on notable organizations and communities inside of Fort Collins. Having the eye of a power user would be super helpful to our efforts that day so we don't make newbie mistakes. Are there any resources you like that you'd recommend for this aside from the Wikipedia documentation?

NickInFoCo (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you've added enough to pass the speedy deletion process. I would like to see some national sources - with only local coverage, there is a chance that the article could be deleted at the formal articles for deletion process in the future. There are some resources for events such as the one your library has planned at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects - they are focused on coursework there, but it is similar enough I think. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I declined the speedy tag per reasons stated here, but have also stressed the article may still wind up at AfD for the reasons MrOllie just gave. I won't nominate it myself at the moment, but if I can't find any better sources, I might. Remember that declining a CSD is not a "get out of jail free" card! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie and Ollie. I've added nationally-focused sources citing Community Funded (Forbes, Variety, Hypebot, and The Denver Post). - NickInFoCo (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit on Insurance has been reverted by MrOllie

Dear Mr. Ollie,

On August 2nd, 2013, you reverted my good faith revision to the Insurance page. I had added to the list of 'other types' of insurance, the following definition of Financial Catastrophe Insurance:

"* Financial catastrophe insurance (FinCat) provides coverage against losses arising from catastrophic financial events or performance failures."

Financial catastrophe insurance is in fact a type of insurance; this fact is easily verifiable. Like natural catastrophe (NatCat) insurance, cat(astrophe) bonds or certain derivative instruments, which protect against losses arising from natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and hurricanes, financial catastrophe insurance protects against losses arising from financial catastrophes (i.e. market crashes). Financial catastrophe risk is commonly abbreviated as "FinCat".

In light of this, would you help me understand your objection to its inclusion as an 'other type' of insurance on the insurance page?

Thank you.

Schuyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschuyler (talk • contribs)

The types listed should all have either appropriate sources or their own supporting Wikipedia article that in turn has sources. - MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Martijn Scheffer and Drag and Drop

Hi, i am indeed the inventor of drag and drop, but there is no way to prove it using a web citation, as the web did not exist, and my contract with Apple specified that i was not allowed to talk about this publicaly i worked with Paul Mercer, Dave Owens, Nick Kledzik, Phac le Tuan, Darin Adler (who is back at Apple nowadays, and still remembers me 20 years later), they can all confirm this.

i posted a photo of a macworld article here: http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/169/6y0b.jpg and another one here, it includes a prize i won for it: http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/7997/vzx5.jpg

you can also ask my friend Jean-Louis Gassée, he gave me that prize on a podium in Paris in September 1990, the day he left Apple.

that article was the only one published before Apple bought my idea, it is a bit inaccurate, but shows that i was working on a utility that allows to drag to the desktop etc.. at the time of writing it was going to be a third party utility, i'm dutch, not belgian like that article suggests, but i live in Belgium

i have the contract with Apple as proof, but i cannot make it public. there is also that macworld article, but i cannot find it anywhere on the web, as the web did not exist back in those years !, i tried to contact the journalists that i knew at the time at macworld and macweek, impossible, none of the emails addresses i found for them are still active.

i can understand that you cannot leave that information on that page without proof, but i have tried for years, i just cannot find any on the web. Martijn Scheffer (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As they say, 'It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.' It's not necessary that all citations be on the web - print citations are fine. However, neither of the magazine scans you linked seem to cite what was in the article - that Apple bought this from you or that you were the originator of the concept, unless I'm missing something. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, we would need sources for those things to put this in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are NO articles that say that Apple bought it, we were not allowed to say that publicly. but the article clearly says that i invented dragging files to the desktop, part of the whole invention i also invented dragging between windows, dragging text inside a document, dragging on top of an application icon, that wasn't mentioned in that article, but it's indication isn't ?

what else can i do ? i deserve to get the credit for this. Martijn Scheffer (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

actually the article says that my utility allowed to drag to the desktop AND between a spreadsheet and a word document !! Martijn Scheffer (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The article says that you were writing this software for the Mac, not that you invented it or even that you were first to market on the Mac. We also have to consider other platforms: GEOS for the Commodore had drag and drop in 1986, well before System 7 came out. We would need a source that clearly uses the word 'invented', which I cannot find in the Macworld source. I'm afraid that if you want credit and you have some kind of NDA with Apple Computer, you are going to need to take that up with Apple. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ANTz external link removal

MrOllie, alert to response left on my talk page Saxondigital (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to what you said on your talkpage - you shouldn't be placing links or writing about your software. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

why did you remove my addition Monster: A Novel of Frankenstein from Frankenstein in Popular Culture?

Why did you remove my following novel addition from Frankenstein in Popular Culture?

• 2012: Dave Zeltserman's Monster: a novel of Frankenstein was selected by Booklist for their 2013 list of top 10 horror novels and WBUR for their favorite novels of 2012, and is a thematically rich gothic retelling of the original story in which everything a dying Victor Frankenstein tells Captain Walton is a lie and the monster now tells the true story. ISBN 978-1-5902-0860-1

The references are valid. The novel was chosen by Booklist Magazine for their 2013 list of top 10 horror novels, as well as by WBUR (NPR Boston) as one of their favorite books for 2012. Why would this entry be any less vaid than any of the others?

DaveZeltserman (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)DaveZeltserman

I would strongly suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest and refrain from writing about yourself or your work on Wikipedia, as you seem to have some difficultly writing neutrally about yourself, as many people do. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If I had included blurbs from the Los Angeles Times or ForeWord Magazine or any of the other sources that reviewed Monster, then that would've been inappropriate and promotional, but both sources I referenced are valid and of merit. Instead of having a PR firm or lobbying a 3rd party to add an entry, like many of these entries, I tried adding a neutral one myself--or at least as neutral as the other entries in the section. Given the critical acclaim my book has received,including making those best of the year lists that I referenced, it should be in that section. Can you suggest an appropriate or what consider a fair and neutral entry? Or better yet add it yourself? DaveZeltserman (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)DaveZeltsetrman

Removing of optiSLang link

Hello, I just want to ask how I can list appropriately the software optiSLang in the Wikipedia list of optimization software. Since this is what the software basically does, I have seen no inappropriate reason not to do so. Maybe I did the procedure of editing in a wrong way and forgot to explain the reason why? Or do I have to create a Dynardo page on Wikipedia first. I just want to inform Wikipedia users and complete this list.

Best regards Henning Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynardo GmbH (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have independently written articles about your software in sources that meet our guidlines your software might meet our inclusion guidelines, but I would strongly suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest and refrain from writing about your company or your products on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing of CS-Cart from the "Comparison of shopping cart software" article

Dear Mr. Ollie, could you please explain the reason for removing the information about CS-Cart software from the "Comparison of shopping cart software" article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software

The information was added by analogy with other programs which are listed in this article and according to the conditions of Wikipedia. It does not contain links and includes the correct and truthful information about the functionality of the software in question.

In case a mistake was made or if some rules were still violated, please point out the exact conditions that should be met and let me know what should be done to have the information about CS-Cart added to the "Comparison of shopping cart software" article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander16481126 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Specify which ELNO you mean

The link you reverted from Social media meets multiple criteria in the ELNO article you pointed to as being acceptable. So which of the numerous points in that article indicate it's NOT acceptable? Please respond on my talk page. I sincerely want to know. Froid (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's very clear - we don't link to blogs. We especially do not link to blogs with objectionable amounts of advertising, with somebody's referal tag in the URL. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rephrasing the 'personal attack' template

How can someone rephrase a Wikipedia template from (personal attack removed) to something else with his own words? That is why I changed it. Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's his comment, he can write whatever he wants and rephrase templates in any way that he wants. It's not up to you to change it for him, it's not up to you to reformat other people's reports, especially when the report concerns you. It's not up to you to change spelling or insert commentary before someone else's signature. You should really just leave other people's comments alone entirely. If a truly egregious personal attack shows up, someone who is not a party to the argument will deal with it, I assure you.

Also, some free advice: You should slow down and respect Wikipedia community norms, particularly the ones about offsite canvassing and editing other people's talk entries. The article looks like it's heading for a keep result, but you run the risk of reversing that trend if you continue to argue against long standing policies and generally act counter to the community's established way of doing business. That has a way of attracting editors with no patience for messing about and will rebound back on the instigator. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly right about that. Please understand that I am quite new here and trying to learn. His comment is on my text, like my comment was on his text. We both accused the other party of attacking the other. That is why I asked. All the other examples you have listed here are my mistakes. Some of them, (editing above another user's signature) is an accident. Thanks again for helping me. Will avoid such mistakes in the future. Good evening. Michael Haephrati (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of obviously wrong statement

Hi MrOllie:

I deleted the following obviously wrong statement. Although this is a quote from an online press article, as you know quite a lot of press articles about Japan are wrong, such as the recent world-wide article about Japanese school girls licking the eyes of friends.

I have worked with Japan's telecom sector since 1984, was Assoc Prof on the NTT Telecommunications Chair of Tokyo University, so I know quite a bit about telecommunications. The following statement that 90-95% or mobile phones in Japan are waterproof is just plain wrong. I don't have the time to do scientific research project to prove this, but if you drop a Japanese mobile phone into water, you'll notice that it will stop working, and there are special stickers measuring the water - and this will be out of warranty as anywhere else. Obviously the journalist who wrote this story got something totally wrong. Its true that there are some waterproof phones in Japan, but thats maybe 2-3% of the market or less Thanks Gerhard

(In early 2012, 90 to 95 percent of mobile phone sales in Japan are waterproof because young Japanese women use them even when taking a shower. Based on world's statistic a third of damages to phones comes from water.[2]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasol (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I took that back out again, thanks for pointing it out. - MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I corrected a number of other issues in the article. Most articles about Japan's telecoms on the English language Wikipedia site are quite out of date, incomplete, and contain a lot of wrong information, or have been obviously written by Vodafone PR people (Vodafone tried to enter Japan's market, failed, sold operations to Softbank and in 2008 quite Japan. I have a business, working very long hours every day, and decided to try to improve the situation and update these reports. however found that you delete most of the corrections, additions etc. What am I doing wrong? I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia, of course I use Wikipedia almost every day as a user. Gerhard Fasol (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed many external links you added to your consulting business, along with the material sourced to those links. I did that because in my view they are not acceptable sources or links. As a subject matter expert, I'm sure you are familiar with a range of material published by many people. Please employ that familiarity to source material to articles that you are not personally associated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)