Jump to content

User talk:MrOllie/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Comparison of VoIP Software - my (first) contribution undone

You have undone my post to Comparison VoIP Software without any explanation. Frankly I thought that it was by mistake because we were both editing the page, but it was repeated after after I reposted. What is the reason for the deletion? Aepshteyn (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally we only have list entries for things which have their own article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned users

Curious about this fellow. Is there a username? Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

MeffJerkey (talk · contribs) should be of interest then. Dawnseeker2000 00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
nvm I followed the trail. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Parodies

Thank you for changing the article back to the way I left it.[1] That the book is not yet released and added by an anon with two other Wiki edits is suggestive. What stuck in my craw (but which I don't have a source for) is an published observation I read that some universities cash in on their name, farming it to popular authors who want to boost their sales and prestige. However the farmed popular books (the source stated) do not meet the usual university press academic standards. Oxford was particularly named. Calling an unpublished book a "standard reference" as one editor did, reinserting it, seems to make that point, too. At any rate, cheers! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mytilus additions

Thanks for the clean up after User:Mytilus. I challenged his work and got some very weasely words back on my talk page and was intending to finish reverting today and found it already done. Thanks.  Velela  Velela Talk   12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

There seems to be an issue concerning the listing of the Continuity Forum which we do not understand. We do appreciate the problem any editor has, but here diligence and natural suspicion is resulting in undeserved cynicism.

Having read the guidelines a number of times on external links and advertising it appears as though the links provided are perfectly allowable. Having reviewed guidelines for external links & advertising and reviewed the other links seemingly allowed we are a little confused over the application of the rules being used.

Here is our logic

Under the guidelines for external links the Links that should be included point 3 says

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

We certainly meet that criteria at both a practical and strategic level. BCM is a complex process covering a lot of topics. We as an independent Non Government Organisation, governed by constitution meet this criteria completely. Further, unlike a numerous of the other links illustrated we are not a commercial organisation. Some of those listed are directly selling products and using the links from wikipedia to do so when the information and fundamentally better advice is freely available elsewhere. Others are training organisations using academic parlance to establish some credibility, but are not subject to academic scrutiny or rigour. In addition Certification Bodies should accepted by and conform to national governing bodies, all those listed bar one provide a certificate once someone has completely their own in-house course, call us cynical but we have seen far too much mis-use of this practice to justify a commercial training course.

The Continuity Forum is the public and community service organisation working in UK and European providing free to access support in the area of developing Regulation and Legislation, defining policy across most organisational sectors and the European Union the Continuity Forum is contributing.

Our second point relates the relevance Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which in the case of the Continuity Forum is considerable and further justifies inclusion in the Wikipedia sections.

Across the UK and European Union the Continuity Forum is working with government at national, regional and local level helping organisations understand and apply BCM. Indeed, the Continuity Forum is cited in Legislation as a trusted source by government. We regularly brief Media and work with TV, radio and other media including CNN, BBC MSNBC to name just a few. Our formal partnerships covers all of the UK and a number of the European Police forces and many of the other emergency services too. We work supporting the National Counter-Terrorism Security Office and many of the other specialist government group such as the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.

In terms of Standards we have been at the forefront of this area for 10 years and have been full committee members of the technical and full committees of all of the BSI Standards and more recently the ASIS group working to produce the ANSI standard due this Fall.

To reiterate ... We are not commercial, we are providing considerable additional information as an industry body to any one that wants/needs it, we are completely independent and we have demonstrated this over a decade.

It interesting to note that you also removed the BCI from the BS25999 page this we 'interesting' as with the click of a mouse you have removed the two most expert organisations in the world on the subject and yet kept others such as:

Both are commercial portal sites created to sell to a common linked toolkit. They are not updated and yet feature. With ourselves and the BCI folks would have some independent current advice on the suitability of BS25999 to their needs without expense and a sales agenda.

BCM is complex and even a good summary on Wikipedia cannot provide the information needed to address the issues faced by organisations. We provide that information with credibility and independence through the site, research and briefings. Folks contact us directly and we help them ... that simple. This to me more than meets the requirements ofwhat should be included and the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

I trust this clarifies the situation and if you can either reestablish the links provided or advise on how suitability remains an issue I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see Links normally to be avoided point 4, the guideline on conflict of interest, and the guideline on link promotion. Please refrain from adding links to organizations you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that though I think there are a number of points of to make ...

I. Links normally to be avoided point 4 does state 'normally' and refers to a 'website' on this basis all websites would need to be removed. The intent behind the phrasing is to prevent exploitation/advertising. On this same page it CLEARLY states that the following:

This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. the link conforms in all ways to this principle.

What should be linked

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. As one of the principle European groups again we comply as official by any normal measure of the word Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Again we comply

On the Official links guidance for Wikipedia it states

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. COMPLY The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. COMPLY

This makes compliance self evident and when one includes the provisions of the notable organisation guidance again there appears to be no valid reason to exclude.

I also note that the commercial portals mentioned are still active.

We could provide links to specific pages if that is to be better demonstration of compliance with the rules

Your thoughts appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, an official site would be a link to CocaCola.com on Coca-Cola. Your organization's site is not an official site for any article but the (currently nonexistent) article about your organization. - MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What? NOT SO the site includes a very wide range of material solely on BCM matters that is both original and copyrighted such as Crown Copyright material. Using the point you appear to be making by referencing CocaCola you would not allow a link to Coca-Cola guidance you provide as it "promoting a Website" It also appears that you have not responded to the observations on the suitability as a notable organisation or the principles in a nutshell.
I am now totally confused as what appears to be an inconsistent application of Policy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs)
Let's take for an example BS 25999. That is a standard put out by BSI Group. BSI Group's website is the official site for that standard, because 'The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.' as you quoted above. BSI Group apparently does not control your web site, so your web site cannot be the official site. If you don't comprehend this I really don't believe I can help you further.
Your notability argument is not applicable because the guideline you cite is used for determining if an organization is a valid subject for a seperate Wikipedia article. It has no bearing on external linking. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think then that we are to a point where it seems that there are two ways forward.

First that a Continuity Forum page is set up that then can be challenged or accepted as a notable organisation (in the specific area of Business Continuity) this then could include references back to the Subject matter such as BS25999.

Secondly, provide links to specific pages on subject matter for example getting started, regulatory framework etc that again refer to the subject matter.

Correct? or are you telling me we cannot provide content, expert, free and detailed information likely to be be of value of the readers of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable secondary sources to start an article, and it does not have an overly promotional tone, you can of course feel free to start an article, but this will have no bearing on external links from other articles to your site.
I do not think you should be adding external links to sites you are affiliated with, regardless of the specificity of the content. - MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that who is the judge of what is valid and helpful you or the wealth of government bodies, regulators and standards bodies that we are partnered with. I really do appreciate the issue of needing independent, non commercial stuff to inform folks ... its enshrined in our constitution, the issue for me is simple folks need help and some of the sources Wikipedia is referring to are disingenuous or commercial. I have set up a page to illustrate what I think you would find acceptable can you confirm http://www.continuityforum.org/content/news/standards.

How does Wikipedia establish/verify the affiliate principle BTW? I know I am going to asked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is generally quite obvious when someone is affilated with a website based on the contributions their account makes. - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I take it the link shown above does accord with principles and this is the other I am intending to provide http://www.continuityforum.org/content/advice. Thanks for your help in all this —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, neither link should be added. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, how do you suggest I proceed then. Wikipedia lacks necessary information and detail. It is starting to look like everything I suggest is being refused. I do not understand why when I compare and contrast the information currently listed in many of the sections. If it is a question of process then I need clarification as when I apply the references you cite, rejection occurs on another point without explanation. If I apply half of the rules you are applying then I could remove most of the references/content etc on a comparable basis. Please don't think I am being rude, but our knowledge on Business Continuity and the related disciplines is very extensive and our independence/status very well established yet it seems we have an still have an issue. Who else can we involve to arbitrate or clarify? BCM adviser (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have information that you believe Wikipedia requires, I would suggest that you add the information to the article itself, and provide a reference to wherever you got that information originally (trade magazine, scholarly paper, etc). - MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks for that, but could you also provide detail on the arbitration I am requestingBCM adviser (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a second opinion; please don't add non-official links to a site your are affiliated with, per WP:EL and WP:COI. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Crowdsourcing

You seemed to have removed links without a valid reason. Would you please explain the removal? (I have reverted your edits; please feel free to restore them, but explain in the edit summary.) —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the links were all mentions of a company called uTest, added by an SPA who promotes the company on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Your first reversion had a blank edit summary. Have you tried getting that SPA blocked? —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, I only just noticed him and give him his first warning. - MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.

MrOllie - Let's discuss

You reverted my Edit without any explanation. Let's discuss it. What do you require in order to reach consensus? Question: why did you revert my edit in Invention? Zutam (talk)

Hello MrOllie, Recently, you undid the revisions that I made to the Book of Exodus, Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Midrash, Aggadah, and Jewish Ethics Wikipedia pages. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes.

I am confused by your actions because I was not trying to self promote with my additions to the Wiki page. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains a digital copy of its Bible translation. Additionally, you removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, yet other external sites like: Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikipedia pages concerning the Bible.

Can you please clarify why these organizations are permitted to post external links, and I am not? Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The presence of other links means nothing - they may not have been reviewed by anyone yet and may be inappropriate as well. If you find other links you believe to be inappropriate feel free to start a discussion about it on the article in question's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Social network conference

Hi MrOllie, I noted you deleted the link to the social network and database mining conference in Social Network. This is a legit academic group, with a journal. Although it is relatively new. FWIW, I think the link should stay, altho I do have a small WP:COI here. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Six Sigma Tennis - Wikipedia Editor

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide input on the Six Sigma Tennis page; considering your work on the Six Sigma page, I am sure it is important to you.

How do I find an editor who specializes in Wikipedia pages, so that this page and any future ones are properly and accurately created and maintained? Do you have a suggestion for a job board or posting space wherein such experts can be found?

Thank you again for your time, patience and assistance with this. I appreciate your commitment to quality.

Best regards,

Steven. --Srfalk (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. What you really need are secondary sources that were written independently of the article subject, though. As it stands the article doesn't have any, and that is the problem. - MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with edits to Flying Other Brothers page?

Hello. You sent me a message saying "one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Flying Other Brothers, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot."

I have no idea which edit you are referring to. What I know is, the band I played in (but was not leader of) is referred to in other articles. However, another band, Moonalice, redirected "Flying Other Brothers" to their page. That is not only not fair, but not true.

How could that happen? And what "conflict of interest" do I have as a band member trying to set the record straight? The page I edited had plenty of references.

Please let me know what I can do about this. Tonybove (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write that, User:ClueBot did. You have a conflict of interest because you are writing about a band you are in. See the conflict of interest guideline for details. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm doing this wrong -- but I assume it's OK to respond here, as well as on the Flying Other Brothers page. I created this page because links to "Flying Other Brothers" redirected to Moonalice (a band that is led by Roger McNamee, who also happens to be a Wikimedia Advisor). It seemed that the redirect was a promotion for Moonalice, which is still touring. The Flying Other Brothers, which existed from 1997-2006, deserves its place in history too. Perhaps the original redirect was simply an oversight on the part of the person who entered it? As a newbie, I don't even know how someone like me can go into wikipedia and create a redirect.

So all I wanted to do was give the FOBs a page of its own. The references speak for themselves; it's just history, there are no controversial statements, just quotes from people who liked the band. I hope someone else will come along and provide more info or edit the article.

Thanks, Tonybove (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm sure someone will be along to clean up the non-neutral language eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit to Desktop Publishing was also reverted

<blanked, this discussion already exists at Talk:Desktop publishing> MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I edit the entries I made that are not considered neutral?

Thanks again for helping me through my beginner phase. I should not have written the entries for Tony Bove (flagged as autobiography) and the others flagged as not neutral. But now that I have, should I go back and edit them, paring them back to just a few sentences with the references? Or should I do nothing and hope someone will come along and edit it? I'm a bit shy now to do anything, as I'm afraid to be characterized as a spammer (which I'm not, just eager to set the record straight). Thanks for your advice.

Tonybove (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you're very careful to avoid promotional language (e.g. the 'dynamic duo', 'ground-breaking books', etc) you should be OK, but if you want to be cautious the COI guideline recommends that you propose edits on the talk page associated with the article first. Wait a bit, and if no one responds make the change yourself, or you can add {{Request edit}}, just like that, with the curly braces, to the talk page and that should attract somebody's attention. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jisc digitisation

Hi there, I see that this user's addition of links to www.preraphaelites.org www.visionofbritain.org.uk and www.freezeframe.ac.uk have been reverted. From their username I can understand your concern about a COI, but looking at these websites they seem eminently suitable as external links, per WP:EL, since they are collections of historical images maintained by either museums or universities. I'm therefore not sure if reverting these additions didn't remove useful resources from these articles. Could you possibly take another look at these websites and see if you still think they are inappropriate? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion a brand new single purpose account hitting 10 articles in a morning is spamming behavior, but if you want to add the links back on a case by case basis I would not revert you. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can see why this came up on your radar, but "spam" of useful sources is spam I can live with! :) I'll take a look and re-add those that seem appropriate. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, done. Some were duplicates of existing external links, so I didn't replace these. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Dear MrOllie, Please have a look at a comment made on the article for Mark Ford (poet). I am rather concerned by all the deletions you have been doing against links to The Literateur which were added by people unaffiliated with the magazine. I would be grateful if you could take the time to read my message. Thank you in advance. Youngpossum (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Youngpossum

How amazing that you should return to complain about this immediately after a new crop of IPs and single purpose accounts have appeared to readd links to this site. Kindly stop adding links to sites you are affiliated with. - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How amazing that you have elected yourself judge and jury and be so totally mistaken. I'm not sure what to say except that I did NOT make the links subsequent to your telling me about the COI policies.I have recently undone some of your deletions of links by other people. That is the only linking I have done. Kindly stop being so overzealous and deprivıng users of recent information about writers that comes from their own mouth. There is no gain I can think of to wikipedia links to my site besides for that of other users. I make no profit at all from thıs site and wikipedia is, I'm afraid, hardly well-respected enough to be some sort of boon that there are links. In any case our interviews are often above the wiki entry in google searches. My only concern is that you are depriving people of the opportunity to explore a particular wrıter in more detail.Youngpossum--Youngpossum (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Open source video game EL reversion

I added those links because the section in question explicitly deals with a lack of community cohesion and past duplication of effort due to a lack of content repositories, yet no examples of solutions are provided. FreeSound is the only one with an article at present, and at the very least I'll re-add the Wikilink to it.

OpenGameArt is likely notable in its own right (It's been covered by Free Software Magazine), so in time I may start an article for it.

Being potentially notable and contextually appropriate, I don't think OpenGameArt fails WP:EL, so I'll re-add it as well. Feel free to revert if you disagree, but if so I'd appreciate a justification.

I feel FreeGameDev is also appropriate as it's the only example of an active free software developer community that I know of, but I'll wait to hear back from you before re-adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singlemaltscotch (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If an article is forthcoming it should be a wikilink. As an EL it seems to fail WP:ELNO points 11, 13, and 19. - MrOllie (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
On FreeGameDev in particular, I don't think it fails any of WP:ELNO's points. Of the three you mentioned, it's not a personal site, so it doesn't fail 11, and it's contextually-related to the subject matter discussed in the preceding paragraphs, so it doesn't fail 13. 19 is somewhat hard to apply in the first place, because the lack of such sites in the past is what's discussed and FreeGameDev is an example of one that now exists.
That said, while I don't think it fails WP:ELNO, it doesn't explicitly pass WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, so I'll leave it be. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
11, 13, and 19 were in regards to OpenGameArt. FreeGameDev is a discussion forum so it is WP:ELNO 10. - MrOllie (talk)

Prod

No problem. :) Steven Walling 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pond aeration

Just about to delete the commercial links but you beat me to the draw ! Would welcome your views on this one. There is a great deal which is just plain wrong and only makes sense if the reader assumes that this only applies to amenity ponds. Even then it is still wrong. Taken together with the plethora of references to one company makes it looks very much like a subtle form of commercial pushing or perhaps COI. If it sticks around in its current form its going to need a great deal of work.  Velela  Velela Talk   21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, based on other edits it looks like this user was trying to promote a company. If the article is severely factually challenged we should just revert it back to the redirect it was - I would defer to you on that because this is not a subject I know much about. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

SPA?

I understand that most of my edits so far have been related to disabiility related research/content, however none of these edits are pushing for a non-neutral POV. Maybe you can help me with this, I am at McMaster University so I am aware of new findings in the area of childhood disability. However, since you've marked me as SPA and COI, how can I introduce new information without having such information removed, which for the most part will help build the pages. The content for the most part is from a scholarly body who has had publications in peer-reviewed journals. I hope you can help out with this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahtcan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just 'disabiility related research/content', but one specific research center that you appear to be affiliated with. I would suggest that you cite any information you want to add to the publications in the peer-reviewed journals, not to the non reviewed output of a group that sometimes publishes in peer reviewed journals.
It would also be a very good idea not to link to the website of that 'scholarly body' directly any more. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok. One thing I've found irritating is by every definition within Wikipedia policies it is a 'scholarly body'. It's not only associated but operates with the University. So on what basis is it not a 'scholarly body'? Ahtcan (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No one said that it wasn't? - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, placing quotation marks around it implying it is not something you believe in.. Also, it is not a group that sometimes publishes in peer reviewd journals, its purpose is solely academic but time to time it has content for parents and others who for the most will not be able to follow a journal paper. Unfortunately, it seems that's been the issue here... Ahtcan (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I placed quotation marks around it because I was quoting you. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Thank you for your earlier linkspam cleanup. Re your edit comment, please try to comment on the spam instead of the spammer. We occasionally manage to get constructive collaboration from editors who start out by spamming, simply by educating them. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder for what? The edit summary here is accurate and correct. I see nothing wrong with it. That person may turn out to be a fine contributor, but I don't see this edit summary having any impact towards that (or not). Dawnseeker2000 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Accurate, correct, and counterproductive. As performed it caused Twinkle to create a permanent entry (barring oversight) in the article history labling that username as a linkspammer. Better to simply omit the username and depersonalize it, as with "undo WP:ELSPAM". As soldiers say, "no names, no pack drill". LeadSongDog come howl! 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright. If you wish to be complete about what you're doing you may want to get the text of {{Uw-spam4}} and any others changed so as not to include the "spammer" label. Dawnseeker2000 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Proposed. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be consequent please

You undid various of my contribs because they contained links to a website that explains more about the foodpairing subject and offers the method for free. I can understand that it is against the rules of wikipedia. Yet meanwhile, in the same article molecular gastronomy for example, there is a sales pitch of the texturas of Mr. Adria, who I respect, there are even links to a commercial website where you can buy his products. What happened to that section? It just got flagged for being an advertisement... Where is the logic? Are you just picky?

Kind regards Drobbere (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid various of your contribs because they seemed to be promotional in nature, the links were merely one facet of that. I did not flag that section as an advert, someone else did. I couldn't tell you why they merely flagged it instead of removing it, but I have removed it now. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if you actually read my contributions and if you check the references. It is NOT my intention to promote a website, it is my intention to make people aware, to pass knowledge. If you would be concious about the evolutions in mixology or gastronomy, than you would know that what I have written is completely true. Yet you treat my contributions as vandalisms, while many times, the content is completely legit. The methods I talk about are teached in gastronomic schools, not just foodpairing, but also the CDS and Ratio techniques. They are considered as revolutions in the gastronomic world. And what do you do, you just delete it, you do not check it or discuss it with me or others who actually know something about the matter. It just seems to me that you are blindly selective about the content of wikipedia. Only deleting new content is not contributing imho. I am an expert in the field of molecular gastronomy, aroma analysis, sensory science, food technology, and physiology, I actually know the people in this specific field, I even asked them if it was ok the add a piece about foodpairing, because I know they use it all the time. The bit I added to Heston Blumenthal is completely true and good information, it was an exiting revolution at the time. You just completely throwed it in the bin. You removed actual information, I believe that is vandalism. Couldn't you just remove the link to foodpairing.be?
I see many, many mistakes and hyats on wikipedia. Your attitude towards newcomers and your "contribution" behavior does not motivate me to contribute any further, even though it is merely copy/paste. It would be very easy for me to make a complete wiki about CDS or food ratio, pretty sure you will be deleting it, so why bother...
Drobbere (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
On Heston Blumenthal, I removed information that seemed to be original research because it did not cite a source that met with Wikipedia's guidelines. You seem to be falling into a pattern that is sometimes common with subject matter experts - you are adding things to Wikipedia that you know to be true without taking into account our policies on sourcing and verifiability. We need your additions to be sourced to, for example, newspaper articles, magazine articles, trade publications, etc. Websites generally do not make the grade. Also, if you are cutting and pasting content from some source, that is a serious matter, we cannot use text from other places without proper permissions. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Taking your reply into account about sourcing, 3 other paragraphs of the cooking methods of Heston Blumenthal should be deleted because they don't have a proper reference and are likely to be based on original research. Yet you only deleted my contribution. Could you please explain...
It would be ashame if you would actually delete these other 3 items, because they are as much true as my contribution. Maybe a "citation needed" can do the trick, as also with mine contribution? This would motivate other people to find the needed reference or at least investigate the matter.
Could you please explain your deletion of my techniques contribution in molecular mixology, where i have given two sources, taken your own comments into account. One of the references is verifable by everybody, although the book reference is far better ofcourse.
Could you please explain your last deletion at foodpairing, where I state that foodpairing can also be used for cocktail making. This addition is also referenced by an independent source.
Again, I am not trying to redirect people to a site, I was only referring to it because they are the founders of foodpairing, it is the basic reference, the origin of all. It's normal that other articles about the matter reference to the site because it is the foundation. If you look up Kraft, coca-cola or ANY other brand on wikipedia, you will find a link to the offical webpage. Isn't that link promotion as well? If you delete a text of mine because the given reference contains a link to the official website of the matter, well surely you would delete all the links that are on wikis about ANY brand.Drobbere (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that foodpairing is not a trademarked brand, is it? It is a technique which is not owned by any one particular organization, so no one site is more official than any other. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is trademarked internationally. The act of pairing food with wine or even beer is sometimes described as food pairing, this act is based on subjective knowledge, the chef or sommelier does this intuitively for the most part. Foodpairing is a method where foods and drinks are combined objectively, based on their aroma profile. So here scientific data takes over from the intuation. Please also comment on the other topics I mentioned. Drobbere (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a whole different thing entirely, then. As an article on a company's specific product, it needs sources that show notability, or it may be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been a topic on several international gastronomic symposia, such as The flemish primitives, Lo major de la gastronomia, it will be on Bar Convent berlin and Starchefs later this year. Here is the reference linking Heston to foodpairing: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article7097382.ece. Foodpairing has been written about a couple of times in the highly rated belgian magazine "knack" and in a couple of belgian news papers. It has been adopted by several culinary blogs and even shamelessly copied by khymos. Foodpairing has notability.
Could you please comment on the other topics I have mentioned? Drobbere (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article you link, he mentions the web site, but does not write about the brand 'FoodPairing'. That is a source about a technique, not a brand. You can't have it both ways - if it is a brand, we need sources that write about the brand or the article may be deleted. If it is a technique, you don't have any special standing to promote one website or company. So which is it? - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a branded technique, made available for everybody, it is open source, like wikipedia. I guess "wikipedia" is also trademarked. I don't understand how this changes things... So many have written about the technique and the website, I don't understand how you can discard all that.

Since you do not comment on the other topics as I have requested 3 times, I can assume you have no arguments that back up your actions? Drobbere (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of your questions are addressed by Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. I cannot add any material about foodpairing which is not properly referenced and I can not add references which mention the site, even though it is written independently and the writer of the reference does not mean to advertise, on the contrary, he even validates his article by referring to the site? That would be quite challenging since the site is the only source where the technique itself can be found and used, and is in all cases a primal reference for an article concerning this specific technique. When one would discard references that refer to the foodpairing website, one would end up with references that are not properly referenced itself, thus are not valid. I am sure it is not an objective of wikipedia to encourage referencing to articles and alike which are itself badly or not at all referenced. So could you please advice... Drobbere (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand. We need independently written sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking - this includes newspapers and many magazines, but excludes blogs and other self published web sites. In addition, to establish notability the source must be about the foodpairing brand or website as a primary topic. Merely mentioning the website in the context of an article about a more general topic is what Wikipedia's guidelines call a 'trivial mention', and it does not help to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Its Cameron - hoping for your assistance

Good morning MrOllie

I trust all is well - my name is Cameron Watson.

I am the original author of the Integrated IT Methodology article. Prior to creating the article I took the time to read and interpret the Wikipedia "rules" and "protocols". The article was published in July and appeared to meet all of the necessary protocols.

I went into Wikipedia this morning in wanting to further enhance the article and linkages (to and within) of the article. I attempted to create links to other Wikpedia articles and I also wanted to link these additional references to provide them access to where they could further explore a sample of the Integrated IT Methodology (QAIassist). Upon wrapping up my session in Wikipedia I received a message from you stating the Integrated IT Methodology would be deleted.

It appears the reason you have suggested this article be removed is because there have been additional links added to it. I am hoping you will take a second to advise me on how I might best remove any of these linkages that breach the wikipedia rules and protocols.

Appreciate your patience with this and am looking forward to any advice/suggestion you could make.

Thanks. Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiassist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While reading those rules, you seem to have missed the guidelines on conflict of interest, external links, reliable sources and notability.
I did not propose the article should be removed because additional links were added, I proposed that it be removed because it has no sources which Wikipedia guidelines consider to be reliable that establish the notability of the concept. We need something like a print magazine or newspaper article or a peer reviewed academic paper on the subject to establish that we should have an article on the topic. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning again MrOllie.

I trust all is well and appreciate you taking the time to get back to me.

First, thanks for your patience - guess I am learning as I go.

Second, have read through the Wikipedia rules and protocols with regard to the "references" and was to the understanding that they would have to be from magazines or books or other articles. The references used for this article are all electronic in nature. They include a reference to (a) a news letter article published by the Project Management Institute(Houston) (b)white paper and blog articles from a number of leading Project Management tool Vendors (AceProject, Project Insight)(c) an article published in ProjectTimes (leading electronic Canadian PM magazine) (d)a leading Project Management Outlet (Project Smart) in England.

I guess I am getting a little confused with the protocol. On the one hand I am able to make a direct reference (see above) to where and how the subject matter was beneficial and applied by some of the leading and most reputed PM institutions in the world (although electronic), on the other hand I am being informed that these references do not yet allow me to satisfy the wikipedia rules.

My only intent is to try and provide knowledge to users of wikipedia - in the event you would like me to introduce you to the editors or sentior managers of those who have used these publications I would be happy to make such introductions.

Hoping you will get an opportunity to respond.

Thanks. Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiassist (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What we need are sources that meet with the guidelines, and blogs and electronic magazines generally do not. I do not believe an introduction to anyone in particular would assist with this. The sources also need to be written independently of the article subject - I see you have written all of these sources yourself. We need something by an independent journalist or researcher. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon MrOlle.

I trust all is well and appreciate you getting back to me.

Seems I may have misunderstood the guidelines/protocols - apologize for wasting all of you time today. I little bit disappointed that your readership will not be able to benefit from this knowledge.

Good luck to you and all things Wikipedia.

Thanks. Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiassist (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bio WikiInfo

MrOlle Thank you, as you may see we are still learning and any more input is welcome and any suggestions as well, we will edit this over and pay attention further. Thank you --Wiki BioInfo (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I added some links to Specific Disabilities and see they have been deleted, I would like offer the the follow information in the hope of you gaining greater knowledge of the site and pages in question.

Ableize is a disability resource and the largest on the Internet, I edit both with dmoz.org and botw.org Ableize offer far more information about disability than both put together.

The links added were:

  • Non commercial "Specific Disability" information pages.
  • All contain a great deal of information and offer a descrition of the disability in depth and links of interest, simalar to dmoz.org but with greater volume and a larger selection of hand picked information sites. All entries are human edited and hand picked by myself a wheelchair user.
  • I truly feel that listing areas that offer the public greater information and choice of resources to be a good thing. I am aware that no page rank is passed on to the site in question, they were added as part of my life work to offer greater information to people with disabilities.

Please take a few minutes to look at the pages in depth, the information offered and its value to those with that specific disability and kindly consider allowing me to add the non commercial disability information pages.

Kind Regards

Robin

AKA Scipilot Scipilot (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding links to sites you are affiliated with to Wikipedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive User

I saw a user (The Rev Av) was making unconstructive edits such as deleting a small part of the article then re-editing it and adding it back. It seems that he is just doing this to make his contribution count higher. I have seen that you have notified him before for vandalism. I was wondering if you could warn him as I am not experienced at such things. Thanks and feel free to leave me a message back. Orangemohawk (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#literateur.com discussion underway

FYI, please see

  1. My suggestion re: checkuser
  2. The site-owner's concern about blacklisting.

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of scientific information from Schizotypy entry

Mr. Ollie:

You have repeatedly removed my edits to the schizotypy entry. I have simply added material that makes the entry more accurate and provides proper citations to scientific work on this topic. Paul E. Meehl and Mark F. Lenzenweger are, arguably, the two leading authorities on this topic. I have provided information on both the taxonic latent structure of schizotypy as well as the model that holds schizotypy is the latent liability for schizophrenia. The empirical corpus for both points is contained in the new monograph by Lenzenweger. Lenzenweger, M.F. (2010). Schizotypy and schizophrenia: The view from experimental psychopathology. New York: Guilford. You seem rather dedicated to removing information regarding the Lenzenweger (2010) monograph from this site. Such removals make the schizotypy entry less accurate and it raises questions about objectivity/neutrality on your part. Elmhurstminn (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem rather dedicated to including references to the Lenzenweger (2010) monograph to this site. Such additions raise questions about objectivity/neutrality on your part. - MrOllie (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is because it is recognized as the new field standard on the topic. Do you have any scientific training in this area? Are you aware of the status of the monograph? If you want to learn more just consult Science Citation Index, search on schizotypy, and see what you find. This is the sort of thing that makes people doubt the utility of Wikipedia. Elmhurstminn (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How are you related to the publication of this book? It appears that you added a reference to it in June, which was before it's publication date, which is listed as being in July. How did that come about? - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I, like many others in experimental psychopathology, follow closely the work of Lenzenweger, Claridge, Siever and others. I read large portions of the book in draft form in reviews as did quite a number of others (see below).

"Standing proudly on the shoulders of such giants of quantitative clinical psychology as Meehl and Maher, Lenzenweger offers us an unsurpassed view of the terrain called schizotypy and schizophrenia. The breadth and depth of his work are just plain amazing. No wishy-washy prose here; he tells readers that received wisdom may not be wise, and that the reception of such wisdom can arrive with distortions. He easily goes from psychometrics to endophenotypes to psychodynamics, all in a relaxed, user-friendly style. Reading this book is like listening in on a professor's chat with bright students in an advanced psychopathology seminar. Even the footnotes contain probing questions that imply future dissertation topics. Looking for an exciting psychopathology textbook? Stop looking—it has arrived." -Irving I. Gottesman, PhD, Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Minnesota


"For over 25 years, Lenzenweger has led the field in the laboratory study of schizotypy. In this book, Lenzenweger not only provides the tools, theory, and methodological approach for a sophisticated view of schizotypy, but also invites readers to explore the scientific challenges in this complicated research domain from his richly creative and uncompromisingly rigorous perspective. Clearly written, compelling, and replete with elucidating examples, Lenzenweger's book is a tour de force. This book should be read and reread by any serious student of psychopathology." -Dante Cicchetti, PhD, McKnight Presidential Chair of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Institute of Child Development and Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota


"Written by an internationally recognized authority, this book is essential reading for anyone interested in the complexities of schizophrenia and psychopathology research. Meticulous scholarship, accumulated wisdom, and personal anecdotes are combined into an engaging and highly readable text. In addition to highlighting classic findings and the most up-to-date research, Lenzenweger provides the reader with the benefits of his vast knowledge and unique perspective. Everyone from the beginning graduate student to the experienced researcher will find true gold in these pages." -Jill M. Hooley, DPhil, Department of Psychology, Harvard University


"Lenzenweger, a world-class scholar, teacher, and clinician, has produced a spectacular volume. This book is unique in conveying the adventures, joys, and dilemmas of thinking about and doing clinical research related to mental illness. Lenzenweger thoughtfully considers multiple psychological and biological methods and approaches, teaching about each of them in ways that stick with the reader. Centered on schizotypy and schizophrenia, the book contains valuable lessons that apply to all clinical areas. A tour de force, equivalent to having a very knowledgeable, curious, and likeable mentor at your elbow." -Jack D. Barchas, MD, Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College

Elmhurstminn (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When I ask you if you are affiliated with the publication, your response is to quote a collection of reviews exactly as they are listed on the publisher's website? - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that, not affiliated, just an impressed reviewer, like those above (I gave you those, which are indeed from the publishers web site, just so you could see the views of others in the field). Elmhurstminn (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Aetolia (online game) & Lusternia

Both your PROD tags and my speedy tags were removed, without improving the articles in any way. Would you care to take them to AFD, or alternatively merge them into Iron Realms Entertainment as the remover suggested? As in IP editor, it's not possible to create the pages necessary for step 2 of the AFD process. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no obligation to improve an article in order to contest a prod or speedy nomination, and it's kinda ridiculous to go for a speedy on a long-standing article immediately after a prod has been contested. Just sayin'. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no obligation, true, but without improvement the article fails notability criteria. And just because an article has been around for a while is no reason to overlook the fact that it does so. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
They are technically speedy-able (they don't really assert notability) so it is reasonable in that sense, but it should have been obvious that Chaos would just contest that as well. :) I'll probably merge them soon, if Chaos is still agreeable. I think one article for Achaea and another for the company and their more borderline notable games is workable. - MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
However it works for the both of you. I just wanted to make sure they didn't slip into the cracks again. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool by me. I just don't want to see them deleted without a debate. A cursory check of my usual sources doesn't seem to indicate that any of IRE's stuff besides Achaea is independently notable, so merging seems fine. (Though it's crazy difficult to search for Aetolia, what with the little aliasing issue with the actual Aetolia.) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why do you keep reverting my edits of "Idempotence"? Dumbier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbier (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Ollie- I saw that you removed my External Link on the Rum Swizzle to a page that contained some further reading and a recipe (please note I am not affiliated with the site I added as a link; merely thought it would be useful to other users). Fair play that you deleted my link; I have no argument given the reasons you provided. However, by that logic, the remaining three External Links should also be deleted because they could also be construed as advertisements: one for a pub that calls itself 'The Home of the Swizzle', one for another recipe, and one for an article in the Dining section in The New York Times. Maybe the NYT one can stay, but again, it's quite like mine because it merely provides further reading for Wikipedia users. Again, not complaining that you deleted my link, just asking that the same criteria be applied fairly to everyone. Kind regards, Frank aka FrankComm Frankcomm (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia COI policy. Specifically: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Also see my discussion on the Bankruptcy article. I have no further time to waste on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew LoPucki (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So long as the link isn't re-added, no further time will be wasted. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL

Not sure why you removed links to Stickyminds.com in several testing articles. I have restored all of those since they don't break WP:EL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

business-improvement.eu

Hello Mr Ollie, you removed several links of me concerning continuous improvement methods like Lean and TOC. I am a journalist specialized in this methods, so these are not advertisements (I do not consultancy of any sort). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist procesverb (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We generally do not allow people to link their own blogs and/or personal sites on Wikipedia. See WP:ELNO points 4 and 11, and the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of bibliography reference to Thomas Erl´s work in Service-Orientation page

Dear sir: Obviously, I must have done something wrong in adding a list of books by my favorite author on service orientation. But I took my clue from the existing bibliography (one book) already on the page. Could you please help me interpret the policies and understand why my references were not acceptable? When is bibliography advertisement? You do mention external links. So maybe I did not use the proper instructions to create a bibliography? Regards.Yveschaix (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We really do not need that many books by one author on a page about a general topic. I am also very concerned about the overlinking of soaprinciples.com. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I obviously did not understand anything about the editing. I read something from you about reversing the edits and telling me to save what seemed to be the original, based on good faith. So whatever editing war you believe I am engaged in is only due to my misunderstanding of what I was supposed to do after your message. Now, I can see your point about linking to many books. Makes sense. As for the multiple links to soaprinciples.com, what would be your suggestion? a single global link? There is not need to block me, I will take into account whatever recommendation I receive. I have no personal interest in all this and will be happy to withdraw altogether if I am generating too much noise. Regards.Yveschaix (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In demonstration of good faith, I just removed all the links to soaprinciples.com but one. Are we still in an edit war? Was there anything else you would like me to do or stop doing? RegardsYveschaix (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7 and MUDs

Hey, something had been nagging at the back of my mind about the dialogue between you, me and that IP about the NN IRE games (perfectly good merge, btw, I'm not arguing with it or anything), and I realized what it is: CSD A7 doesn't apply to MUDs because MUDs are not Web content (trivial demonstration: compare length of history of MUDs with length of history of Web). So yeah, bad speedies. Wanted to make note of it for whatever it's worth. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, but yeah, you're right. I guess the only games that would fall under A7 would be browser games. - MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably Flash games too, I guess. Can't think of any other cases. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with Hellma?

I see that you just reverted a series of contributions by Hellma. Can you please explain your reason? They appear to me to contain valuable information, relevant to their articles. AJim (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't discriminate

In the article about the european data format, can you explain why the link to edfbrowser is inappropriate and the link to polyman and EEGlab are not? What is wrong with edfbrowser? It's opensource, not commercial and the page does not contain any advertisements. You are making a big misstake here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo177 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to add links to .teuniz.net. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please answer my question. Thanks. - Theo177 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC).
I do not believe that it meets the requirements of WP:EL, and because your account appears to be a single purpose account promoting that site. Other sites that may or may not be linked are not relevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain me, why can other sites be mentioned and this one not? What's the difference with the other external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo177 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to let you know that I restored two of the seven links that you recently removed from European_Data_Format. Those links provide important general support to EDF users and were there for several years. Because of your discussion with Theo177, I did not restore the other five links. --Bob Kemp (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Spend Analysis

Mr Ollie -

Why the reversion? Spend Analysis is a business process that companies struggle to understand. The reference that I included is helpful for procurement departments to understand the value proposition for the undertaking of a spend analysis project and that these benefits have been quantified. It follows the same referencing protocol as the other report. Procurementleaders (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag on StickMUD

With one notability-contributing source, does it still need this tag? Notability isn't clearly established, of course, but my feeling is that the tag is more for cases that are really desperate. What are your thoughts? —chaos5023 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You can remove it if you like, I was just hoping to motivate the StickMUD guys who were working on the article to add some sourcing - they should know best where they've had good coverage, after all. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Though my experience is that MUD staffers are often completely unaware of their media coverage. I'll leave it in and give it a chance to get noticed. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps I've misunderstood something, but you reverted an external link on this article. The website which it links to has some interesting information about the theatre. Some of this could even be included into the article. Why did you remove it? KlickingKarl (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was part of a mass addition of links to that site by a single purpose account. - MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process

You deleted two external links without much explanation. One of them, the video, was suggested by subject matter experts as a very useful exposition of the subject. I agreed. I put it in and tried to follow all recommendations for external links to videos. Unless you have some serious objection, I propose to put it back in.

The other link is to a reasonably useful site that Zone Alarm is now suspicious of. I propose to leave it out. --Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process

You deleted two external links without much explanation. One of them, the video, was suggested by subject matter experts as a very useful exposition of the subject. I agreed. I put it in and tried to follow all recommendations for external links to videos. Unless you have some serious objection, I propose to put it back in.

The other link is to a reasonably useful site that Zone Alarm is now suspicious of. I propose to leave it out. --Lou Sander (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of software calculators

Why did you removed software which has no Wikipedia page? I think you should move external links to 'External links' as for example here: Social_network_analysis_software. The idea of all comparison lists is to show as many programs as possible. Not all listed programs have wiki page because of Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services. I have moved links. --Electriq (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We should not have lists of links to nonnotable software. See WP:EL and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
After consideration of Theo177's edits and your point here, I have reversed myself on his edit to Serial port. Further applying the "no lists to non-notable software" principle, cleaned up several other such links in that article and also RS-232. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ANPR References

Hi,

Could you please explain why link to ANPR Algoritm implementation is wrong while ecternal link to some non-existing web is valid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anpr expert (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO points 4, 5, 13, and 14. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I added an external link to my blog (currently is suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JavaScript#External_link_to_Dmitry_Soshnikov.27s_ECMA-262_analysis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ECMAScript#External_link_to_Dmitry_Soshnikov.27s_ECMA-262_analysis). I'd like to know why did you just removed them? The content of my articles completely corresponds to the topics of JavaScript and ECMAScript and is an analysis of the ECMA-262.

Dmitry A. Soshnikov (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not link to people's blogs. See WP:ELNO points 4 and 11, and the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
And? First, it isn't blog about me (I repeat, it's the blog about ECMAScript and -- completely at the moment, without even analysis of other languages). Second, I see in the point 11 of WP:ELNO word "except". And saw in the external links (in JavaScript/ECMAScript articles) stuff of J.Resig and D.Crockford. Without any exaggeration, content of my blog is in many places even deeper and more completed than mentioned. Does domain name is going to make difference? If it would be "ecmascript-in-detail.com" without mentioning my name, is it OK then? For you? Excuse me, are you a moderator of JavaScript/ECMAScript articles here or for Wikipedia as a whole? If later, that's OK, I may understand why you didn't like my proposal. If the former one, sorry, I don't think you're able to judge me regarding JavaScript resources and knowledge. I just want to suggest a good quality additional content for Wikipedia readers. Dmitry A. Soshnikov (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The domain name is not the problem, the problem is that it is a self published blog. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
But the official site of ECMAScript is also published by people (with their names). The analysis presented on my site may be treated as also the original spec, but just explained in more human-readable way. And sorry again, you didn't answer my question -- are you a moderator of JS/ES articles or of the Wikipedia as a whole? Are you related with ES/JS somehow? And still I remind about exceptions of point 11 of WP:ELNO and already mentioned external links of personal blogs. Once again, it's not just a "self-published a layman's stuff", it's the deep and detailed analysis of the ECMA-262 specification which mentioned also on Mozilla's MDC (see: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript_Language_Resources). Please, don't tell me that you see just a PR in the good and quality literature proposal for ES/JS programmers. Dmitry A. Soshnikov (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We have an exception for official sites. Your site is not an official site. The exception to ELNO point 11 is for 'recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.' You do not meet the notability criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. Once again, please explain me, how are you related with JS/ES? The other question, what the level of "notability criteria" to be in the "exceptions" section? And who decide what does fit to notability criteria and what do not? Is that you? That exactly I'm asking, please explain if it's not so hard -- how are you related with JS to be able to decide what is good and what's not for ES/JS programmers? And why should I ask exactly you? If some (recognized; by you?) authority will recommend to place the link, will you do it? And still, why then we should ask you? Thanks in advance for clarifications. Dmitry A. Soshnikov (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I choose not to discuss my background or professional life on Wikipedia. On your other question, you can find specifics at Wikipedia:Notability, but in a nutshell multiple reliable and independent biographical sources are required - for example if a national newspaper or magazine has written a piece on you. - MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, the last part (with "national newspaper or magazine") is clear enough. Thanks. Dmitry A. Soshnikov (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) P.S.: I'm back when it will be done ;)

Reverting vandalism

Hi MrOllie! I notice that you reverted some vandalism to the Renaissance architecture article. Can I ask you to be careful, in the future , to check all unnamed or suspicious edits when you are reverting. Your reversion caught some of the stupidity, but left behind it the vandalistic edit immediatelt below. This editor had simple changed a few dates.

The problem with leaving behind something like that is that once you have done one reversion, it buries the other problem! A couple of years ago a whole section in the life of Fra Angelico was deleted, and then the problem was buried under another correction and I didn't discover it for months! For this reason I urge all editors who work to combat vandalism, to be vigilant. If dates have been changed or something seemingly "corrected" which might be suspicious, if the person tidying up doesn't know which is correct, it's a good idea to leave a note on the talk page so that the change is noticed by someone who knows the subject. I can't believe how cunning some vandals are. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Help me understand what you consider SPAM ...

On the House & Simple Church External links, is the LINK House Church Resource the thing you consider SPAMy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschwab88 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the links on those pages are spammy. But in particular you should not be adding links to websites that you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ... I question whether you really take the time to carefully look at links people are adding to web pages. Given you have made over 60 posts today and your behavior seems to favor the "revert" click rather than actually going in and cleaning up the links associated with a topic, you must have a bot or something looking for certain user behavior for you to zap. (And there seem to be others like you doing similar zaps.) I hope you are getting paid for this. If you bother to explain what you mean by SPAM, I will take the time to do some real work and add valuable relevant links to the pages you have shown concern for. If not, I'm going to assume that any effort to add value will be zapped by you or someone like you shortly after I take the time to introduce any relevant content. --MSchwab88

You can find our guidelines on links at Wikipedia:External links. I believe this was linked for you on your talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you care about the topics in question? Or do you just care about keeping External Links in Wikipedia to a minimum? It would be interesting to get to know somebody who cares about both House Church and IBM Infosphere. --MSchwab88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.244 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was information on IT Business Analysis removed?

Hi MrOllie.. i wanted to understand why the page I created on IT Business Analysis was redirected to generic business analysis. I am a BA enthusiast and have been doing a lot for research and found out that the skill specific to a IT business analysis are far beyond what a generic course can provide. I found the course available by CSBA to be a have a good coverage of the reqd. skills and wanted the larger BA community to benefit by knowing about it. Let me know if you have any specific questions or issues or suggest changes to be made to the page. Thanks

--Baspecialist (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi,

You have warned me for being in an edit war on particle swarm optimization. I am a researcher and not a professional wikipedia editor so I am not familiar with the way to solve such disputes. I have listed my comments on Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization#Major_Changes and I ask that you and the other official wikipedia editors make a decision on these points.

Optimering (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

MrOllie = Censor ?

Hi! Think about your censoring. You are to critical in some cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.45.165 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mr Ollie,

I have just added a contribution to the time management article after reading a very interesting article on the following website :http://www.evoliatraining.co.uk/public/The_importance_of_time_management_in_the_workplace.cfm and added the link under external link. I do not understand why this has been deleted as it was relevant to the article and was really adding something interesting to it

Many thanks.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallod (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the external links guideline on your talk page, we do not link to self published blurbs on commercial sites such as that one. - MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand

I add a link to a video interview of Bill Sokolis (owner of the Chicago Bandits) to the Chicago bandits Wiki page, and you remove it as spam, and inappropriate. I do not see where the video was ether. It is one of the few interviews he has even done. Please explain why it is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleland (talk • contribs)

See WP:ELNO points 4, 5, and 11, and the guideline on conflict of interest. Kindly stop adding links to your podcasts to wikipedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is pure BS it is not just promoting a website, It is a very relevant interview. I am not just selling a product. Yes we do have a sponsor but they take up less than 30 seconds of a 13 minute interview. I guess I have not been published, but I have been given press passes by the NCAA, The ISF, The NPF and many other softball organizations, so they think I am somewhat of an authority. I do not think you took 30 seconds to see the interview, if you even went to the website.

After looking at your Archives I see you have a passion for removing links as spam. No wonder you removed my links even thought they were very relevant. Some of them had been on Wikipedia for a couple of years, but all of a sudden they are spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleland (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is quite large and is an ongoing project. Occasionally it takes quite a long time before a link is reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling they had been seen by editors before, but they felt it was relevant, and not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleland (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know if there is someone else I can take this to. I feel you are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleland (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new section at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check before you are doing an uncritical censorship

Dear MrOllie, I would be glad if you check a topic and than check external links. I think external links are useful and not every external links is a spam... The entry exactly matches the topic of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrafromgermany (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not include external links in list or comparison articles. This is WP:ELNO point # 20. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

YOU REMOVED AN ENTRY OF A NON-PROFIT OPEN SOURCE PROJECT??? BUT YOU LEFT LINKS TO COMMERCIAL COMPANIES.... Again... first check the link and what is behind and than you can censor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrafromgermany (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Non profit open source projects do not get any special exception from the external linking guideline. If there are inappropriate links, that is a reason to remove those links, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

CAN WE KEEP THE CONTENT (BECAUSE IT FITS WITH THE COMPARISON), BUT WITHOUT AN EXTERNAL LINK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrafromgermany (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Such lists are meant to list only notable topics, and to serve as navigation aids to existing wikipedia articles. Since the article on Bettercodes was deleted as non-notable, it should not be on any of the lists. - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is your view. Where is the reference for your opinion? "Such lists are meant to list only notable topics, and to serve as navigation aids to existing wikipedia articles".... From my understanding. It is a comparision of the capabilities of different services and we provide much of those services. Isn't it??? So, I think that it very notable... What is the solution for that dispute? --Sandrafromgermany (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Honestly, I would strongly suggest that you broaden your horizons and find something unrelated to Bettercodes.org ‎to edit. Failing that, please read and take to heart the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Martini / Cosmopolitan / White Russian

Hello,

You recently reverted my edits on the Martini, Cosmopolitan, and White Russian cocktail articles. In each case, I independently found the nutritional data and personally did the mathematics required to determine calorie count, total carbohydrate content, Vitamin A RDI value, and Vitamin C RDI value. For each of the forementioned Wiki articles, this information was missing from Wikipedia and I noticed this while writing my own blog article. I thought I would help out by adding the missing information to the articles and, since I display the sources and methods for my calculations on my blog, this would qualify as unique analysis. Unique analysis, unlike original research, is considered acceptable for Wikipedia articles.

Could you please explain your reason for reverting my edits? If you'd like, I would be happy to send you a PDF of the resources I utilized and equations I employed.

Thanks!

Daniel.lamorte (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)daniel.lamorte

Blogs generally do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Please refrain from linking to your own blog or using it as a reference. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed "linkfarm" on the HOTP page was probably the most complete internet list of HOTP-compliant tokens

Hello,

the links removed by yout last edit of HOTP were probably the most complete internet list of HOTP tokens, while the removed information was quite valuable on that page as it demonstrated HOTP popularity and token availibility mentioned in the text. If you don't believe just try to get the list of available tokens by using search engines; you'll find out that it's much harder after the removal. So I think you should probably create List of HOTP tokens and List of HOTP server-side solutions to eliminate the harm caused to Wikipedia by this removal. Thanks & Regards, v.b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.120.131 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to create either of those, because wikipedia is not to be used for link directories. I suggest you start a category over at Dmoz.org, where link directories are welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

Following the discussion on Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization#External_Links_to_Source-Code I have requested more input at Wikipedia:ELN#Particle swarm optimization. As I am not familiar with this process and you seem to be the primary administrator who is opposing the external links in question, please lend a hand in reaching a consensus either for or against by informing us of what needs to be done during the process.

Thanks,

Optimering (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Undone your changes to IT Business Analysis page

Dear MrOllie, as I did not hear from you on my question why was IT business analysis removed and redirected to generic business analysis page. I have undone your changes and reverted back to original version of the page. Hope this is fine. Thanks

--Baspecialist (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you destroy the page content and tag it as refspam?

Hi MrOllie,

I was working on building out the content for the topic "Build Management" and put in some material last night and this morning that I wanted to continue building upon this weekend. I logged on to add some more info and noticed you had completely eliminated the page. In the comment, I see something labeled "refspam", which I'm assuming is your claim that the material entered was spam.

May I ask what's going on?

My Best,

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerino1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I just checked and noticed that you also removed the content placed under "Information Technology", as well as that of "Build Management". In all cases that I've been adding content, I've done my best to research the topics and add multiple solid references (wherever possible). I've also gone out of my way to ensure the content is accurate, rich and reflects what is generally accepted by the industry for the readers. I'm confused why you're referring to me as a spammer when I'm working hard to provide accurate and rich content that corrects what is either completely lacking (such as in the case of Build Management) or very incomplete and even wrong (as in the case of Information Technology).

Is there some way to come to terms on how best to appropriately represent this material so that you're satisfied?

My Best,

Frank

--Guerino1 (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you stick to references produced by independent organizations that meet wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, and refrain from adding links to websites you are associated with, such as if4it or TraverseIT. - MrOllie (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Added firm removed

MrOllie: I recently added a firm to the list of mgmt consulting firms, why was this removed? It meets the criteria of the list and is refrenced on the BBB website.

  1. 18:03, 6 October 2010 (diff | hist) List of management consulting firms ‎ (Reverted good faith edits by Amitrb2; Rv redlink. (TW)) (top)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitrb2 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because there was no demonstrated notability as required by wikipedia's guidelines. The BBB site is an indiscriminate directory and does not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Antivirus software remove

Hi MrOllie,

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I fully understand that you want to keep Wikipedia clean and as an often Wikipedia reader I salute you. However, I feel that when you feel something is spammy, you would be better off removing the links if the text is objective. My idea was to add something to Wikipedia and link to the sources, which I admit being affiliated with. However I added something to the list of anti-virusscanners, which made the list more complete and I added something to the text of the anti-virus software article to make it more complete. If you felt it was spammy, why not only remove the links and do e research that would be a much better contribution than reverting posts. I hope you will keep my feedback in mind for the future. 94.212.184.180 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not think the text was objective: We do not mention and/or advertise particular virus scanners unless we have independently written sources that attest to their importance to the subject. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is your independent written source: http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/links/index.xml?ven will you now put it back? --94.212.184.180 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Service-oriented Architecture

Hi,

I have tried adding the section SOA Manifesto on 2 different occassions to Service-oriented_architecture page, but for some reason, the changes get reverted right away.

Could you please revert my latest change as there doesn't seem to be anything objectionable regarding the added content.

Regards Sunrisesunset12345 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

External Links to Recipe that support an entry

MrOllie,

I have posted external links to recipes like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollo_a_la_Brasa and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elote that support the wikipedia entries so users can use it as a reference and actually see how the dishes are made.

Just to be clear will these external links always be deleted?

Thanks in advance.

--Simplestupid (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Recipe sites generally do not meet the external links guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Job scheduler

I don't understand why you removed the most important part of "Part of operating system installation" in Job scheduler? is this a joke or a vandalism? I will report you. STOP your vandalism you prick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpepper115 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a linkfarm. We are not supposed to have directories of links to software. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Prince George, British columbia

Thank you for your oversight of the edits that I made recently to this Wikipedia entry - I better understand the guidelines now. I have posted the following changes: 1. I have corrected the entry for Charles Jago as he is the past-president of UNBC. (See the UNBC site if you wish to verify.) I haven't made any other changes to the "prominent citizens" list, and while Dr. Jago and one or two others undoubtedly qualify, much of the list is quite arbitrary. 2. I have added the popular arts film series run by Cinema CNC, an extracurricular activity of the College of New Caledonia English and film program. 3. I have added several longstanding and important local outdoor clubs to better balance the recreation side. 4. I have added back the book "Exlploring Prince George". This book is very deserving to be included in the list, and has been used at various times as promotional gifts and recruiting aids by the City of Prince George, the University of Northern BC, the Northern Medical Program, Communities in Bloom etc. 5. I take your point about some of the other titles I added, and the links that I had added. Some of those more important links, such as UNBC and CNC I now see are already there embedded in the text. Thanks Geossepg (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

After the additions to numerous articles, I think the ship has sailed on Mike Nash's works for the time being. - MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; as I said above I didn't fully understand the guidelines and was only adding what I thought were useful references for this area. I would at least like you to add back "Exploring Prince George" to the Prince George entry as it is a recognized and unique resource for the city and North Central BC. If and when you are inclined to do so, the details again are:

  • Nash, Mike (2007). Exploring Prince George - A Guide To North Central B.C. Outdoors. ISBN 978-1-894765-49-7.

I'm glad to see that you left my other most recent edits in place, and at some point in the future when I have the time I will look over this entry and suggest other changes. Thank youGeossepg (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Innovation Management (R)

My firm has the registered Trade Mark for Innovation Management and respectfully asks that you honor our rights. Our attorney's tell us it is critically important that we protect the mark and that listings like Wikipedia should reflect our trademark ownership. Please let me know why you have removed our citation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmleibel (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia disclaims ownership of any mentioned trademarks in the general disclaimer, which should be sufficient for your needs. - MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fax art

I removed your Prod and added material and citations. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to keep? Bearian (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Minature wargaming page links

Hi Mr. Ollie, I added a link to a tabletop gaming community site to the miniature wargaming article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming which you removed because you claimed it violated terms for external links. I believe that it was valid to add it, and if you believe that it was not a fit why did you not remove the links for other gaming communities that are on the same page, such as theminiaturepage.com, bell of lost souls, etc?

The link was not an advertisement as the site is just as valid a resource for people interested in miniature gaming as the other community links you've allowed. I've added it back, let me know if you intend to continue removing it.

Regards, Senseijack (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Point 10 of links normally to be avoided says that we do not link to social networks. If there are other inappropriate links on the page, that is a reason to remove those links, not for you to add more inappropriate links. I see that you're affiliated with this site: I suggest you also look over the guidelines on conflict of interest and promotional linking. Please refrain from adding links to sites you are associated with in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Induction Loop/Audio Induction Loop

Mr Ollie,

There seems to be a recurring theme that you are removing alot of people's extenal links which is quite annoying. Could you tell me on what authority you are doing this and why you removed my links to th above pages. I am requesting that you please re-instate them. If not I will have no option other than to report you for mindless removal of links. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.15.187 (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I remove a lot of external links because they do not meet with the external links guidelines. Feel free to report this wherever you feel is appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the links I provided would be considered as spam. It's even more unacceptable that you don't use the article's discussion page to discuss whether it would be considered spam or not. As far as I see it, the links to this site that bundles test and reviews fulfil these criteria: (from Wikipedia:External_links)

1. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
2. It is very important to consider whether the link is likely to remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future.
3. Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)
4. Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?

And when it comes to usefulness...
Would you consider the review-links provided in these articles more useful than a link to a site that covers multiple in these articles (and there are countless more):

Nikon_D3000
Olympus_PEN_E-P1
Nikon_D1

I will try to get an experienced wikipedian to reconsider this case. TobiasK (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be omitting WP:ELNO point 4, 10, 11, the conflict of interest guideline, and the guideline on spam. But by all means, bring it some more attention. I recommend the external links noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sgpsol

Dear MrOlie, why do you always eliminate my contributions? sgpsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgpsol (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do all of your contributions insert mentions of Guy Bleus or links to his website? - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

At the "Free University of Brussels" (Belgium) I'm working on a research about the artist "Guy Bleus" in relation to networking arts (for the degree of Philosophical doctor). So I consider myself as a scientific expert. I did also insert other items which you already deleted, but no hard feelings. Take care, sgpsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgpsol (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You should know that Bleus was previously considered for an article and that article was removed because he did not satisfy the notability requirements, so it would probably be best if you did not continue to insert mentions of him on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can not agree: see also: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Bleus (sgpsol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.145.141 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Different editions of Wikipedia have different standards. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New Mirial products in "Comparison of VoIP Software"

Dear MrOllie, kindly provide explanation about reverting the edit in the subject. Even the "Last release" fields (version and release date) of currently listed products were reverted, please detail. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.202.240 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

post production page

Hello,

I've never used wikipedia before, but I am trying to launch a new blog and a friend of mine suggested putting it on the Post-production wikipedia page since that is my topic. I inserted the link, and then when I told my friend to check it out, he said it wasn't there. I was shocked, but then I looked at the edit history and saw that you had removed the link. As I said before I am a new wikipedia user, therefore I don't know the community etiquette. I don't want to step on any toes here, but I am very curious as to why you took the link down. Did you take a look at my site? I think it could be beneficial to people trying to learn about post. I realize it is new, but I am committed to writing almost every day. In fact... I've got to go write a post right now.

````Andrew (andygsuch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andygsuch (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't link people's blogs on Wikipedia. See Links normally to be avoided point 11 and the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk)

ok that makes sense. Is that a steadfast rule? For example, lets pretend one day that my blog has developed a significant library of post production information, and a decent following (which surprisingly for the short amount of time its been up, is already growing fast), would it then be eligible for posting on wikipedia? All I want to do is share my knowledge and opinions with people looking to learn, but I'd rather not have to retype everything I do into wikipedia. Plus, that would be WAY too much. ````Andrew(andygsuch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andygsuch (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an exception for blogs of notable authorities. So if your blog becomes successful enough that it is written about by independent sources, then we'd probably link to it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"notable authorities" is a very fuzzy term... Please, explain what you think is this exactly? How you estimate it? What kind of independent source you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycyganov (talk • contribs)

Here is a link for the notability requirements. Here is the guideline on reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would really appreciate that you stop this annoying process of removing external links that are posted by serious Wikipedia users. As far as I am concerned, I dedicate a great amount of my time to contribute to this website posting external links to research papers and handouts that are serious, documented and sourced. More over, those links always bear computational programs that are useful to many people according to the amount of thanking emails I have received so far. All those people accessed those materials through Wikipedia. I also have been quoted in some research papers after authors have found useful materials accessing my wikipedia external links. Your behavior results in an illegitimate and unjustified obstacle to knowledge diffusion and I am pretty sure many contributors you also have annoyed would agree with me. The links I have posted do not directly route to my personal web page whatsoever but to independent google documents pages.

"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". All my links have been useful and content-relevant. Please argue if you disagree. According to how fast you remove my links and other users' I doubt you actually have read them.

"# Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is perfectly arguable though I make sure, and I am convinced so do many other users, that all new external links add added-value to the article in comparison to the other external sources of information. Besides, I always make sure to post them in the section dedicated to software since all my links are making available for free - I want to stress on this point - one or two computational programs I have built.

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement" All materials developed in the external links were mine. I have several degrees in economics and relevant professional experiences. If I were to use extra sources of material, I would always make sure to source and, if applicable, provide an Internet link to the source. Therefore, I have never infringe copyrights.

"Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" Everything was fully related to the article. If you think it might not be so, please do not hesitate to argue. Otherwise, I would consider my contributions as relevant.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." The main reason would be that I make available relevant and professional computational programs that are related to articles. Therefore, I feel your decisions to withdraw my links were illegitimate and excessive.

I am pretty sure you would argue that I do not respect rule #11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." It do agree that my external links somehow refer to my personnal webpage, though I respect all the recognized authority provisions. This makes the links acceptable.

I appreciate your time and your willingness to respond as soon as possible. I consider re-posting the links when we agree this is just a misunderstanding.

Sincerely yours, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julienbarlan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have omitted the most important part of ELNO 11, 'as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people'. You do not meet the notability criteria, thus we shouldn't be linking to your self published materials. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again you skim-read everything and do not even care about simple politeness rules. It seems to me you are pursuing a goal of arbitrarily destroying people's work. Among all wikipedia users, you are the only one that have deleted my contributions, sometimes within seconds after publication. I don't know why you are acting like this but I won't let you ruin my work. You have absolutely no authority whatsoever neither for preventing me to share some knowledge with other Wikipedia users nor preventing me to take advantage of the others' external links. Until you take a few minutes and more that a two-line response to argument why I wouldn't meet the criteria, what I definitely challenge, I will keep considering your actions as illegitimate and unappropriated. I will be definitely ready to refer that issue to senior wikipedia administrators as well as other users on pages' discussion windows. Your actions go against the philosophy of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julienbarlan (talk • contribs)

You should feel free to raise the issue wherever you feel is appropriate. From your most recent response it seems you have personalized the dispute, so I would expect you would be more willing to listen to others than to me at this point. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

job scheduler software

Based on others remarks this doesn't seem to be the first time. You seem to have arbitrarily removed my link (and others) from the list of job scheduler software. I'm not sure why you have done this. Since this just a simple list of software I don't see how you can simply remove people's links for no reason. I will continue to undo your work unless you give me a perfectly valid reason why you are removing my link (which I doubt you have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.209.154 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided point 20 is quite clear, we do not include external links in list articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Text Messaging Short codes needs a viable commercial use example

Greetings MrOllie,


You were right in removing my patent reference, I should have known better and done a better job on that edit. Sorry about that one. But I feel you removed to much.

Text Messaging Short codes needs a viable commercial use example or the reader will not understand the unique technological uses currently being developed.
I do realize by adding an example it would appear on face value as promotional material or a conflict of interest issue, however other sections cite companies by name and explain what they do and is allowed... Vodafone, Boost Mobile, J-Phone's "SkyMail" and NTT Docomo's "Short Mail" to name a few.
I used GoIP Global, Inc. (GO800) as the example because they are the only company in the world using short codes to replace 1-800 numbers and URL's, a topic everyone can relate to and understand.
Perhaps we can come to an agreement as to how this example can be used.
I will add the example again, wording it the best I can, I do have to cite the company by name or it will be unreferenced information. I will create a seperate GoIP Global, Inc. and GO800 WIKI page and link to that like the other companies referenced in Text Messaging.


Sincerely,

Hightectexter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightectexter (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just find an independent reference (a newspaper article which isn't a press release reprint would work) and we can use it. I would also make sure that you have such references in hand before creating a new article, or it is quite likely that that article would be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)



Hightectexter Thank you MrOllie, I will do the best I can. One problem with referencing this topic is most print media has not picked up on the story. Probably because technology has cost them much business and forced many in the print news media to enter bankruptcy or shutdown because people are going high-tech digital for news.
Text Messaging short codes represents a new powerful competitor in their industry, so it seems they try not to publish articles on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightectexter (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, if the wider media has not picked up the story then it does not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for reporting what secondary sources say, not for publicizing new information. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)



Hightectexter Thank you for the reminder.
Do you think this secondary source reference Article would be acceptable?
Ecommercetimes.com

I didn't use it at first because of the advertisement they toss up before a person reads the articles published. This is where I first learned of GO800 using Text Messaging short codes to replace 1-800 numbers. They are like the Huffington Post, news organization, just internet based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightectexter (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Where Can We Put Lists?

I have noticed there are many examples of lists on Wikipedia, especially for tv shows, but can we create an article for list of test equipment, or is there another wikipedia related site that we could enter these types of lists that you removed from Serial Peripheral Interface Bus and then reference in this wiki article. Sbmeirow (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The external links guideline tells us that lists of external links such as the one I removed shouldn't really be anywhere on Wikipedia. You could try dmoz.org, though. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability Topics on Wikipedia

I suppose you are not a reliability engineer. The links I add or change are relevant to the education and practices of individuals interested in reliability enigeering. The links are certainly neutral and informative.

I do not see any reason for the changes you have made. If you are a reliability engineer please explain your rational.

ASQ-Reliability-Div 2010-10-18 ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the guidelines on conflict of interest and external links. From your talk page I see others have provided links to these for you before. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting predict x

Dude, whats the problem here? I am part of the founder team and we are running a non-profit project. Theres nothhing spammy or advertising-orientated about the article, nor the link on prediction markets. I have outlined my field of interest/activity on my user page. To be honest, I`m not quite sure why some random dudes delete articles without providing clear reasons. "Read this general blabla on spam and this stuff on conflict on interest" does not help at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodo14 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place to put up an article about a website that just launched last week and has no independently written sources that would allow it to meet our guidelines about what should have an article. - MrOllie (talk)

Reequest for review

There is a need for more editors to review Tape Wrangler and to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tape Wrangler Rlsheehan (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior Driven Development

Hi - saw that you removed the list of Tools from this article - I' like to put the list back because it is pretty useful and there are lots of other places where lists of tools occur. Edit this page to to tell me what you think. 82.13.26.197 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)tyroneking

If you have noticed another lots of other lists of external links like that, please let me know where they are. Per the guideline on external links we are not supposed to have lists like that. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bird feeding page

I was curious why you deleted the recent changes I made to the Bird Feeding article? The Bird Feeding article is tagged with “This article needs additional citations for verification.” Thus, I was adding text and three citations that would strengthen the article. 216.125.125.135 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See also links are emphatically not citations. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The changes I made were deleted before I could add the citations. I would like to re-add my changes and citations, and will refrain from adding the see also links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvsnature (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pompeii Changes

Just wondering about a couple of reverts done by you to my additions to Pompeii articles.

On 22 Sept you reverted information I added to the Conservation Issues of Pompeii and Herculaneum regarding recent changes to the Large Theatre. You also deleted the Notes containing links to articles reporting the raising of the issues in Parliament. Surely concerns being raised in the Italian Parliament are relevant to the subject of conservation issues.

On 22 Sept you reverted an external link I added to toe Pompeii page relating to 3D models of Pompeii

On 21 October you reverted an external link I added to a 3D model of the Macellum of Pompeii. What is the problem please? A picture tells a thousand words. A 3D model replaces a thousand pictures.

There are numerous other Wiki pages that contain links to 3D Google Earth models. Examples include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Computing_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Tower,_Faisalabad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_del_Naranco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Future_(Yalta)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyeri_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metropolitan_Government_Building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheong_Fatt_Tze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennybacker_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Arabic_Studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloss_Johannisburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Teatro_Falla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_MK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnos_Grove_tube_station
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_pyramid_complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_Necropolis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Al_Arab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_picchu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayna_Picchu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_Park,_Newcastle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_de_la_Madeleine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_College_Chapel,_Cambridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Schonell_Bridge


Pmolsen (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Pmolsen (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Pmolsen (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO point 8, we shouldn't link to such things. That there are other such links is a reason to remove those, not to add more. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I think you are being a bit pedantic. The reference you gave lists things that should "generally" be avoided. Not "must be avoided". I think a little bit of flexibility is called for when a link is to something that adds significant research value to an article.

Point 8 is rather archaic when it says sites that use Java or Flash should be avoided, given the increasing use of such rich content on web sites.

But if you want to follow those guidelines to the letter then the existing Pompeii article and millions of others will have to be modified.

- Point 8 that you refer to mentions sites that need an external plugin. There is already an External Link to Google Streetview which requires an external plugin. (Please don't delete it).

- Point 5 says to avoid links to sites that primarily sell products or services or have large amounts of advertising. That rules out the millions of links to newspaper, TV and other media sites because they all primarily sell information services and also contain huge amounts of advertising.

- Point 7 mentions links to sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users. That rules out links to thousands of sites that are inaccessible due to censorship in China. China has 425 million users (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users), more than the USA and 22% of the world internet usage, definitely "a substantial number of users".

- Point 13 refers to links to sites that are only indirectly related to an article's subject. There goes a whole lot more useful content in many articles.

Please also explain the revert on the link I added to the Italian Parliament raising concerns about the conservation of the Large Theatre. Pmolsen (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the external links guideline is incorrect, the place to take that up is Wikipedia_talk:External_links, not my talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with the guidelines, which is what they are - guidelines, not hard and fast rules. If they were hard and fast rules I would debate them on the page you refer to, since they are unworkable in many cases as pointed out above.

As they are merely guidelines I believe the appropriate place to debate them would be on the discussion page for individual articles. I posed the question on the Pompeii Discussion page but nobody has responded there.

Could you please also comment on your revert to the Pompeii Conservation page. Regards. Pmolsen (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this thread ... a few options are available per WP:DR; either starting a discussion on the article talk page, and if needed use WP:THIRD. Alternately, start the discussion on the article talk page, then post neutral notices about the discussion at WP:ELN and/or the talk page of some of the WikiProjects identified at the top of the article talk page (ie: WikiProjects that likely have members with an interest in the article). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestions Barek. At this point I don't think we have a dispute and so far there has been no discussion on the Pompeii discussion page. I have placed comment there but there has been no response. There needs to be more discussion on that page first from interested parties and I am happy to accept the majority opinion. Pmolsen (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

Here are some references to the technology development - there are many more, that google can provide.

http://www.sciencemagnews.com/google-to-make-dead-sea-scrolls-available-online-for-free-leon-levy-dead-sea-scrolls-digital-library-comes-to-life-soon.html

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/10/19/the-dead-sea-scrolls-go-digital-thanks-to-megavision/

http://eikonopoiia.org/speakers.html

http://www.mega-vision.com/cultural_heritage.html

Pileser (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Agence France-Presse article which is already cited in the article is more authoritative than those (which seem to be blogs and other self published sources), and the AFP says NASA, so the Wikipedia article should say NASA. - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a press release from THE authority and the umbrella organization under which it is all happening - The Israeli Antiquities Authority: http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14

Pileser (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed Spanish Celebrations in Granada

Hi man... why did you remove that external link. Thats is not spam. I would like the reason because it was removed

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spainfriend (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you reply me MrOllie? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spainfriend (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are operating a single purpose account to repeatedly add links to delengua.es. I suggest you find something to do on Wikipedia which is not related to that web site. - MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mail Art - some useful external links

Hello, I am a co-writer of the Mail Art page and I'd like to re-insert 3 external links that have been removed recently, and add a fourth. Firstly, I see you have just removed a link to a Clayton Lewis who didn't seem to have any connection to Mail Art, so thanks for that. The links I've added are of practical use to newcomers to the genre and will help to redress the balance which currently favours the history of Mail Art. 1. Ginny Lloyd's Gina Lotta Post Artistamp Museum - http://artistampmuseum.blogspot.com/ - I can understand why Ginny Lloyd's Artistamp museum blog would be removed, it does appear quite brash, but my co-writer Vittore Baroni and I both agree that the site does showcase inspirational mailartists' stamp sheets that aren't seen anywhere else on the web, and does contain some significant written material which could prove helpful to emerging mailartists. 2. Mail-Art Forum – Mail Art project listings by Chris Horstmann, Germany - http://www.mail-art.de/frame.php?dir=projects:projects_list&doc=list.php - http://mailartists.wordpress.com/ - Again, maybe not the best designed site, but a useful resource listing current projects useful to practising mailartists and those beginning networking. 3. Mail Artists Index – curated by Lutz Wohlrab and others, Germany - http://mailartists.wordpress.com/ - Another useful site with information about practising mailartists, their ideas and interests, and info about mailartists who have gone before. 4. Mailartist address list (Fraenz Frisch) - http://www.mailart.lu/adressen.htm - A very simple online address list, again useful to newcomers. Regards, Keithbates51 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't link blogs or most self published sites per WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Mail-Art Forum is a resource for mailartists and newcomers to Mail Art, it's current project listings not a blog or self-publicity, can't you at least allow that link? Vittore and I also thought the Mail Art Index would be valuable to students of Mail Art and practitioners - have you taken a look at the content? Keithbates51 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for a general audience, and we should pick links based on what is useful for them, not for practitioners of mail art. Dmoz.org is a web directory, and is the place for that kind of stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Clayton Lewis is internationally known as a mail artist. Yet he was also a renowned sculptor and painter. His mail art is in the permanent collections of the California Historical Society and the Musée de La Poste, in Paris. His sculpture is in the permanent collections of various important museums, including SFMOMA. Please also refer to http://www.claytonlewis.net. There you'll find 168 examples of his envelope art. Please also restore the Wikipedia page I put up for him. While it's similar to the bio page on his web site, I'm the author, and I give my permission to use the contents. I'm also the executor of his estate. Thank you. 66.245.140.107 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As the executor of his estate you have an obvious conflict of interest with respect to this person. Please cease adding links to sites you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've not heard of Clayton Lewis before, he's not a prominent mailartist, even if we were linking to notable mailartists, which we aren't and can't. We deliberately requested people not to add personal Mail Art blogs or websites to the page's External links so I can understand Mr Ollie removing Clayton's. What I can't understand is the removal of links that would interest any reader about Mail Art (like current projects), and might even encourage readers to 'have a go'. The links weren't to self-promotional sites, they were of general interest to anyone interested in the subject . Also can't understand the prejudice against blogs, many website creators just use them as a CMS. Keithbates51 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Optimering

You have repeatedly made conflict-of-interest allegations against User:Optimering. If you have any concrete evidence for this please report it at the administator's noticeboard. If not stop with this harassment. This editor has been writing a number of great articles, so I will not tolerate this kind of behaviour for much longer. —Ruud 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He has been writing a great number of articles that all gratuitously reference the works of Pedersen and/or include a link to Pedersen's web site. As for tolerating my behavior, if you have an issue take it to a noticeboard yourself, but please refrain from making threats on my talk page. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Parkour

Hello Mr. Ollie. You removed an addition made to literature section of the Parkour page, and I'm not sure why. I am the author of the book, though not the author of the Wikipedia addition (I've not been able to figure out how to add material to Wikipedia...not even to my own page, which someone --I don't know who--created). In any case, here is the history:

  1. 18:56, 19 October 2010 MrOllie (talk | contribs) (47,805 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Podbookgirl. (TW)) (undo)
  2. 18:38, 19 October 2010 Podbookgirl (talk | contribs) (48,071 bytes) (→Literature) (undo)
  3. 18:37, 19 October 2010 Podbookgirl (talk | contribs) (48,069 bytes) (→Literature) (undo)

This is the info: # Two Foot Punch by Anita Daher, October 1, 2007. The protagonist, Nikki, uses her parkour skills to stay ahead of danger and keep her brother from being killed.[58]

The book was published by Orca Book Publishers in 2007. Can you tell me why you removed the information? If it was somehow input incorrectly, I would greatly appreciate it if you could put it back for me in the correct manner. I don't want to impose, and understand if you are unable to do this. Squish6312 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply, we do not list every possible book, see WP:N, WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your work, see the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you. I guess folks interested in PK literature will have to search out info via other means. Anita Daher (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

About Removal of Wordpress implications on Web 2.0 culture

Mr. Ollie,

I seems you have removed content added by me, along with the ref. I believe, it was because of the ref. directing to a company blog/.pdf, however to lighten on the Wordpress implications on Web 2.0 there is no availability of any permanent and most reliable source in the internet, not even O'Reilly. The blog [2] had compiled the information and rephrased every possible Wordpress implications on future web generation.

Moreover, I believe, it would have helped to make this (Wordpress) article lighten on its effect on web culture. Let me know what you think, and would suggest? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If the only source available is a blog, that means that the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. See the guideline on sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed addition to Business Process Discovery

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I am writing to you in regards to your removal of my recent addition to Business Process Discovery page.

The page is currently outdated and is missing referrences to latest technology breakthroughs that happened in this rapidly changing area. I was in the meeting with a leading analyst firm yeasterday and received some of the latest information about ABPD. My goal was to post my findings on the page. Please advise how can I do it in accordance with Wikipedia rules?

Many thanks in advance for your time, Stan Passov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan.passov (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First, Always cite your content to reliable, third party sources. Second, do not write about your company on wikipedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. The page currently has references to a few commercial tools (and no references?). I would like to add a more recent tool and I have some credible third party references to back it up. Do international analyst firms such as Gartner and IDC qualify as credible sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan.passov (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the exact content, since I understand that both Gartner and IDC publish reports for renumeration. I will say that if this is a Stereologic Ltd product, it would not be a very good idea for you to add material about it. - MrOllie (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed end-user programming section from drag and drop

MrOllie,

Gaging from you talk page you appear to be specialized in removing stuff. At the very least you should provide a reason. I added some information about drag and drop about its use in end-user programming. There is legitimate research of drag and drop programming and its used probably by millions of users. What could possibly be a reason NOT feature this in the Wikipedia. This is not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragentsheets (talk • contribs) 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also not cool to allow a single purpose editor to insert references to specific products in tangentially related articles. - MrOllie (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Business Transaction Performance

Can you please explain why you added

back into this article? A different reviewer "Airplaneman" reviewed the article after specific citations were put in and found this acceptable. It is difficult to please different reviewers who have different opinions. Can you provide some explicit recommendations and I will be more than happy to follow them. Thank you.

Charleyrich (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In short, I believe Airplaneman was mistaken. Other wikipedia articles and blogs/restated press releases are not adequate sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of systems management systems

Why was nastel taken off the "List of systems management systems"? It has been a vendor in this area for over 15 years. Why did you make this change with no explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleyrich (talk • contribs)

I reverted many of your additions of links to the Nastel article in various locations, because of the indiscriminate nature of the link additions and because of your obvious conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Then in fairness, you should remove all the links of other firms like mine that are listed on that page. It is not correct to apply policies to one individual or company and not the others. Either it is a policy applied to all or to none. Please revert this back. It is not a conflict of interest to add the name of a company to a list of companies in an industry. By removing this name you are diluting the value of this article. This is not fair. Charleyrich (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for saying you were unfair. I know you are just doing your job. Please advise what I can do to help when writing articles to keep them conformant with Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Charleyrich (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lux is a Risk clone

Ollie, Lux is a self-admitted risk clone. There is no harm in identifying it as such. --Riitoken (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the AFD is finished, please. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove a list of frameworks for doing fuzz testing?

I believe this was both informative and useful, even if very incomplete. Manuel.oriol (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Manuel.oriol

The external links guideline says that we should not have lists of links to solution providers such as that one. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which exact points in the external links guidelines are you referring to? I would have expected this to apply to commercial approaches, not research prototypes (if I am not mistaken all linked frameworks were free and research prototypes). If this is not the case then the list of external links should also be trimmed of a number of external links. Don't you think? Manuel.oriol (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines draw no distinction between commercial and non-commercial links and/or content. If you believe that other links do not meet with the external links guideline, feel free to remove them. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Those links had been there for a long time. I was using them to convert speed units, and certainly other people were using them for the same purpose. You sited the WP External Links Guidelines as your reason for removing the links, but those guidelines allow external links. So tell us your specific reason, quoting those guidelines, for removing the links. Wilomina (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO points 1, 4 and 13, also Wikipedia is not a link directory. I suggest you find links such as these on Google next time you need them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You gave WP:ELNO "point 1" as one of your reasons. Are you referring to WP:ELNO section 4.0.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." ? Wilomina (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie (talk), please reply to questions on this matter, otherwise someone auditing this chat might reasonably assume you gave up defending your edit, and would be justified to undo your changes. Wilomina (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I second MrOllie's opinion on the links (and there are no shortage of other veteran editors who would third, fourth, fifth). Online conversion sites are dime-a-dozen. Heck, Google even does conversions on the search page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kia ora MrOllie - just wanting to know why you removed the external link I put up in the Maori reference? I added www.tangatawhenua.com because it provides both original and aggregated content by and for Maori, which suggests to me that this is just the type of external link that should be included - the existing "news" link (http://www.maorinews.com) that is there is only an aggregation site run by rss feed. Mauri ora Raranga (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help (Sindh page)

Thank you for your help in guiding edits on Wikipedia (Sindh page). Actually its just 2nd or 3rd edit being made on Wiki that is why facing some problems in beginning. Your guidance is very much appreciated. Might contact you again if help section is not clear. Thanks again. Will remove the links as suggested by you. Tariq hilal (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) tariq

userfy QI MACROS

I am requesting that you 'userfy'--hope that's the correct phrase the article QI MACROS to my user space smarthu/QI MACROS if it is still available.

I was still working on the article and I know it came off as advertising, but I believe it to be a valid topic for Wikipedia due to the developer's history and involvement in the development of Lean Six Sigma and Lean Process Control. It should take a rightful place in the list of Statistical Software Packages with other such software packages as Minitab. I have many sources and references from authors and experts to add into the article and would like the chance to do so. I incorrectly put the article up before it was ready, thinking that I could still edit it as time permitted.

If this is not possible, then I will begin again.

Also, "Orange Mike" was the one who put the article to its final demise, and he evidently thought I was shouting at him due to my absent-minded use of all-caps. I apologize for that, and I do not intend for the article to be 'shameless advertising.' I would also like to add that I agree with the person who wrote the query about List of systems management systems above--what should apply for one company should apply for all. If one software company is eliminated from a list, then none should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarthu (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the permissions necessary to userfy deleted articles. You'll have to ask someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, please could you tell me why you delete the link I put with the practical tipps for a efficient Project Management? It is not a promotion, because they are tipps. For me, promotion is all the softwares that are in the "List of ERP software packages". Please, could you explain me, why these ERP vendors are allowed to be in Wikipedia if promotion is forbidden? Thank you very much for your time! 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)HumboldtKritiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumboldtKritiker (talk • contribs)

Nomination of WinHoldEm for deletion

Hi. Your prod of WinHoldEm was contested so I sent it to AfD. andy (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

PhotoShop

Why did you remove the image I just put up? I think this entry requires at least one illustration (if not a few) of what 'PhotoShopped' looks like. So far the illustrations for this entry are of the software and company logo images and are not very illustrative. If you don't like my sample (from Creative Commons), then another selection should be made.

kt 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

'PhotoShopped' can look like any number of things, so inserting a random image like that is misleading. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just added a referenceto audiovisualacademy.com, which has been removed. This is not spam, as we are not selling anything - this is a free educational resource containing video lessons related to audiovisuals arts and directly to the article in question. I do believe its useful and relevant. What is the problem?87.245.178.106 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on external links, link promotion, and conflict of interest - and please then refrain from adding links to sites you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:96.236.134.2 and User:X7tech

Thanks for cleaning out this IP's linkspam. It's painfully obvious that it's the same user editing anonymously, so I've blocked the IP (temporarily, for now at least) as a block circumvention attempt. Why they think we won't figure it out, I don't know. --Kinu t/c 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if they had any shame, they wouldn't be working as SEOs. :) - MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Touche. :P --Kinu t/c 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The edited page contained links to material that was accurate and provided on a web site. The information on the web site was not copyrighted. What reference do you have to indicated copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmesnik (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

remove text in drag and drop about end-user programming

Drag and drop is an essential concept in visual programming. The section lists a number of early systems using drag and drop. I am an expert in visual programming and these systems are some of the first systems making use of drag and drop. If you know more systems feel free to add them to the article. Don't just remove the section. This is not professional behavior.


Dragentsheets (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase my response last time you brought this to my talk page, It is also not professional behavior to allow a single purpose editor to insert references to specific products in tangentially related articles. - MrOllie (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nation's Restaurant News

Hello, you recently removed a source from the Domino's article from Nation's Restaurant News claiming it was unreliable. NRN is one of the larger trade magazines in the commercial foods business and is an accepted, reliable source. May I ask why you believe it not to be? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with NRN, but that particular article isn't news reporting, it's an opinion piece. It was added by a SPA whose Raison d'être seems to be adding references to the editorial's author and/or marketing firm to various Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I wrote you on the 17th January and unfortunately I haven't received an answer yet. I found my question in your "Archives 1". So I put it again, just in case you couldn't see it. I understand, you receive hundred of questions daily. This was my question last time: "please could you tell me why you delete the link I put with the practical tipps for a efficient Project Management? It is not a promotion, because they are tipps. For me, promotion is all the softwares that are in the "List of ERP software packages". Please, could you explain me, why these ERP vendors are allowed to be in Wikipedia if promotion is forbidden? Thank you very much for your time! 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)HumboldtKritiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumboldtKritiker (talk • contribs)" HumboldtKritiker (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC) HumboldtKritiker

For one thing, this is the English wikipedia and your link was in German. (also, the word in english is 'tips', not 'tipps'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Plain English Campaign Vandalism

these edits that you are undoing are being vandalised by Mike Young as he has a personal greivance with PEC please see his contributions Martinos155 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock will be correct twice a day. It is not appropriate to link the plain english campaign on articles about every term they have criticized or every company they have awarded something to. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I havent i am undoing vandalism Martinos155 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This was not reverting vandalism. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011

Are you disputing facts on the Plain English Campaign page or putting back Libelous content by undoing edits Martinos155 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NLT before throwing around terms like 'Libelous' - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Try reading edits before undoing them Martinos155 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Times Newspaper have been contacted and never printed this story it is a rant on a blog...They are happy to make a Story out of it if you wish.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinos155 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Given your obvious bias, I simply do not believe you. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Look through The Times archives and put in a cite Martinos155 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pompeii 3D Models

I notice that you deleted the external link to 3D models of Pompeii on 12 January, but you entered no comments in the discussion page where the subject is up for discussion.

That discussion has been there for 2 months inviting people to comment, yet not one other person has raised any objection to the external link. Can you please provide comment in the discussion page as to why you believe it degrades the page to have a reference to the availability of 3D models of the city.

I note that there is an external link to "Pompeii on Google Streetview" which you (rightly) did not delete. That seems a bit contradictory given that they are both Google features. Pmolsen (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Streetview is a google service which contains content created by google for the service. Your link is an open hosting site which hosts content submitted by you. We generally don't like to see people submitting links to youtube videos they have made, either. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am trying to isolate your actual objection to the link. The last time we discussed it back in October you said it was because the models required a plugin to view them. My point above was that so does Streetview, yet that link remains.

If your objection is solely that I have submitted the link, the models are not solely my work as indicated in the model descriptions. I have been working with various people on the project, including CyArk, archaeologists from the University of Virginia, Google and various others. I am sure that they would all be keen to see the link in place and would happily submit it, as the models greatly assist with visualisation of the site.

The model's scope is currently being expanded, at the request of the Italian Minister for Culture, in light of the recent building collapses (documented in the article.) He is keen to have an accurate digital representation to assist in reconstruction in the event of any future collapses. Google is organising the effort and CyArk will be assisting in the data collection process.

My discussion on the discussion page has been there for over two months now, inviting anyone who objects to the link to speak up. Nobody apart from yourself has voiced any objection. 27.32.45.81 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

Hi Ollie, I'm tom and we had some discussions on Synchronous Technology and stuff.

Are you on facebook? just created an account there so if you send me a link to yours I can add you up.

Tom Jenkins (reply) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Local unimodal sampling

Hi Mr. Ollie!

I am surprised that local unimodal sampling wasn't deleted, because it's junk and stinks of self-promotion (citing sections of an unpublished thesis from ... not Cambridge ....). I am unfamiliar with AFD, and couldn't find its archive discussion (at least not at the AFD page). Would you give me a pointer, please? Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a proposed deletion tag on it. It has not yet been to AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have any PROD tag now.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Optimering removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
He tried to establish notability by stating (OR) that it is related to another method, for which he provided references. All but one reference were due to Luus, the other method's founder, and the remaining reference was an unpublished M.S. thesis. No references were provided for the method of Pedersen, apart from Pedersen's thesis. I removed what seems to be clearly OR, and I share your concerns about COI
Would you review my edits, please? If you agree, then I wish that you would propose this article for deletion.
Best regard,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Table of Contents of the Pedersen thesis (which Optimering has inserted in several articles) has striking similarities to the articles Optimering has written. A COI notice might also be appropriate.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
He's been warned about COI several times. At least he isn't adding external links to Pedersen's web site everywhere he can any more. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I reminded him of 4 (my rough count) COI and OR warnings. We concluded a related discussion on my talk page today, which may interest you. He has made some constructive and non-tendentious edits in the last days, and I hope all concerns may now be laid to rest. In my less charitable moments, I remember the saying that it is rare for a tiger to change its spots .... Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several derogatory remarks made here about real people, universities, etc. Please read WP:No personal attacks and focus on content. Optimering (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We were - the content in this case seeming to have an undue focus on the works of a specific individual. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Independent and competent review underway

We have been in an ongoing dispute about me inserting references to certain work and you continually removing them. In one of those articles I can easily spot several blatant self-promotions by various authors that you have not removed. So it is clear that you have targeted me specifically rather than making a general cleanup. You have on several occasions deleted text/references I wrote that made the remaining context incomprehensible (left it 'dangling'.)

While you are essentially accusing me of WP:Tendentious editing I am accusing you of the same, because you are not observing the proper consensus reaching procedure for Wikipedia, see e.g. WP:CONSENSUS. You have generally been curt and discourteous when I have tried to reach consensus with you on different matters. I can also see from your talk page that numerous editors on Wikipedia are intimidated by you and are under the impression that you are an elected administrator with authority, which you are not, but you do nothing to dispel their fear of you.

In the case of our dispute over certain references I am under the impression that you have no expertise on the subject at all, so you should instead tag the sections you have concerns about with Template:NPOV language or similar and expand on your concerns in the talk page. Otherwise it is difficult for me and others to know exactly what you object to and it is hence difficult to improve the text. As for me inserting certain references in one or more articles is not WP:COI if it is relevant and unbiased. That you believe I have a personal connection with certain author(s) does not by itself make it biased. I have connections with several reseachers and have also inserted references I actually disagree with but should have proper coverage in a neutral and balanced encyclopedic article. If I have failed on certain points then please tag the section and detail your concerns in the talk page. You may also want to study WP:NPOVT.

I have asked User:Ruud Koot if he or another elected administrator would care to try and recruit outside experts by contacting e.g. journal editors/reviewers in those research fields, so we can get a competent and independent review of the articles, which I will then accept and hope you will too. Until then I ask that you please follow proper procedure and tag where you have concerns but no actual insight.

Optimering (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Several points: I reject your groundless accusations that I lack expertise or insight, the only symptom of which being that I disagree with you. As I have told you before 'elected administrators' have no special authority in these matters. As to 'exactly what you object to', In all cases, I object to your continuous references to Pedersen, his thesis, and links to his website, which appear to form the majority of your edits to Wikipedia. Let me ask straight out - Are you Pedersen? What is your connection with him? - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you have expertise in the field you have never expressed it in your arguments. You also leave articles in disarray, sometimes meaningless, after you remove text, which suggests you do not understand the context. Particle swarm optimization and differential evolution were in shambles before I edited them, the references you object to are included because I believe they are relevant to an encyclopedic article giving good coverage of the topic and its facets. If you feel the coverage of those references is biased or unbalanced then you should say so and follow regular Wikipedia procedure for building consensus. (Of course, I think the community will find it strange that you think e.g. mathematical facts are 'biased' or 'COI', as you did in Luus-Jaakola.) As to my real identity I will remain anonymous and neither confirm or disconfirm, but you should know that WP:OUTING is strictly prohibited. Allow me to suggest that you recruit an independent and competent review board from academia if you have further concerns about the articles in question (hopefully this is already underway, but you can speed it up if you like.) You have never contributed anything constructive to those articles, you have never made sound arguments of your opinion, and our lengthy debate has been futile. For these reasons I will no longer discuss this with you. If you continue to delete text I will revert your edits. Optimering (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that you are biased and that mention of Pedersen's work is undue weight. Also, please see our policies on civility and personal attacks, and try to discuss calmly without attacking other editors. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard, so we can get some outside opinions. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcement learning

Hi,

Would you please check the discussion page of the RL page?

I do care about this page, because this is a major part of my research.

However, I will not add or remove anything because you have changed at least twice my edits and I do not wish to interfere any further. But it bothers me a bit that we have (again) at least one random reference (at least what I think is a random, probably self-promoting reference) appearing on this page.

As to the reference to my book which you removed. Note that when I have edited this page, I have thoroughly cleaned the whole article up to my best knowledge. Also, I have added references to all the other books that I knew of. Thus I felt that adding a reference to my book would not be inadequate at all. I still do not feel that what I did was COI editing and so I was puzzled when you removed this reference. However, you have certainly must have done your homework researching me and so you know it better than me when to remove a reference. Anyhow..

Have a good day, - Csaba Szepi (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the page. If you see what you believe are self promotional references there, feel free to remove them or to raise the issue on the article's talk page, but you should not add your own book as well. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

The few links I added have been removed because someone arbitrarily decided they were spam. If Wikipedia is to be a useful resource, it should allow helpful links to be added, especially for non-profit organizations. In this instance, the organization I added provides real help to teenage victims of bullying. Listing it as a resource is for informational, not advertising purposes.

Most articles do have links at the bottom of the page. Please explain to me who decides what stays or goes and why. I was under the impression that Wikipedia operates under neutral and unbiased guidelines.

Thank you.

Gusflaubert (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You can find guidelines on link inclusion at Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There are many, many organizations that help people that could be linked on Wikipedia, but we do not make it a practice to link them, as there is no fair way to determine what should be linked. Where we do link them, they are generally established organizations that have coverage in multiple reliable sources, not websites that were set up in the last year or so. - MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gusflaubert (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and concise reply. I do understand what you are saying and the endeavor to keep Wikipedia scholarly. I will submit the links again once they meet the criteria for inclusion and hope there won't be any opposition when I do.

Drug test

Mr Ollie you are preventing removal of scientifically misleading and incorrect information which as a consequence may cause harm to individuals. Here is the correct information so make the changes yourself or please provide information with which I can officially dispute you failure to allow edits to a section which is untrue.

Urine tests may detect marijuana 1-7 days after an occasional use, 1-3 weeks in regular users, and up to 3 months in multiple daily users. Urine tests do not detect the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, THC, but other, nonactive metabolites, they in no way measure impairment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Regardless of how wrong you may think the present article is, it is against the rules here to remove or denigrate sourced content in favor of your own opinions. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear my information is not opinion but scientific fact. Numerous sources can be provided to back up my information unlike the original biased 'source' of the removed misinformation. I ask that my last edit stand and if it does not I demand the full record of edits reviewed by a third party. Also recall I actually let the original information stand in my original edit and the elimination of it was a direct result of your interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is 'scientific fact' then why are you not including a scientific citation as is required by policy? - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have written to the 'National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws' who will be properly sourcing my information. Future edits will not be made by me as you are clearly anti-Cannabis and will not allow my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 'anti-Cannabis' but I am 'pro-Wikipedia-policy'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material? I am a dues paying member of NORML and am allowed to publish their information. My attempt to include them as the source was blocked by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PuffDoggie, the fact that you are a dues-paying member of NORML and are allowed to publish their information does not mean you are allowed to include copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the information in my own words and attempted to credit NORML in the edit chain how is this using copyrighted material. I'll ask Keith Stroup the original founder of NORML about my rights to use NORML information the next time I see him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you were repeatedly putting text copy and pasted from NORML's website into the article with no citation or attribution. It really does not matter, though, because it is not appropriate to blank information sourced to someplace like the NDCI in favor of content from a political advocacy group. - MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The NDIC itself is a political advocacy group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffDoggie (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I noticed you have removed some external links I created linking signal transduction pathways to their specific category and was wondering what the purpose of the removal was? I have read the wiki documentation and could not find a reason for the removal. A good example of this is the Angiogenesis wikipedia entry. Misull (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

I removed them to comply with the external links guideline, particularly links normally to be avoided points 1, 4, and 5. Since your only contributions to Wikipedia are writing about this company and adding links to their web site, it would be a good idea for you to review the conflict of interest guideline and the spam guideline as well. - MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what you would suggest to prevent the removal of the Cell Signaling Technology entry? I have done my best to provide references in keeping the entry fact-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misull (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it sound less like an advertisement (right now it reads like a copy paste from a marketing brochure), and find some third party sources about the company. It looks like most of what you have there now are either reposted press releases or about the King’s Grant Inn. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have update the page with your suggestion, please let me know if this is sufficient.Misull (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

question on recent edit

Mr Ollie,

I wanted to ask why you rolled back the content on the Windows Workflow Foundation page. I'm new to content editing in Wikipedia but the reference to our product seemed legitimate for this section. We make one of the most widely used Windows Workflow Foundation development tools so I'm not sure why our inclusion in the "Products using Workflow Foundation" section would not be as legitimate as the other entries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Workflow_Foundation

Tks

Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDNF (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not list external links to software products in that fashion, see the guidelines on external links, conflict of interest and spamming. Please do not add external links to sites you are affiliated with again. Wikipedia is not here to advertise your products. - MrOllie (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

www.fex.org link removal from Donor advised fund page

Hi MrOllie,

You recently removed a link to www.fex.org from the Donor advised fund page. I checked www.fex.org and it does, in fact, offer DAFs as one of its giving options, so it is not clear to me why the link should have been removed from the list of organizations offering DAFs.

Note: I have no affiliation with www.fex.org; I'm watching this page only because I use a DAF for my charitable giving and am curious about what other DAFs are out there.

Thanks.

Jikamens (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jacques of London

Dear Mr Ollie I am most upset to see our links removed from the wikipedia pages that are to the pages related to that product. Jaques of London are over 216 years and inventors of some of the world’s finest games. Please read the official table tennis page, croquet page, and Jaques of London page. The pages I have applied links to are 100% relevant and not sale related. The games pages are related linked from to games which our company invented. I urge you to conduct further research before simply removing valid links. Yours Sincerely The Jaques Family Games Business - since 1795 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsharking (talk • contribs) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See the guidelines on external links, conflict of interest and spamming. Please do not add external links to sites you are affiliated with again. Wikipedia is not here to advertise your products. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for policing the Nagios page

and reverting the edits of Mar 5. I think this sort of thing has been going on there for at least a year or so but didn't pay attention until recently. --kop (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Madhav86 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Retailing

Hi,

I added a valuable component of retailing. I even quoted the right source Can i know what was the mistake?

Regards, Madhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhav86 (talk • contribs)

You failed to note details required to look up the reference, such as the publisher and date of publication. The text was also highly POV. It was also not encyclopedic in tone. Overall, it read like a direct cut and paste of some article written for another context. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nation branding

If you look at the version of the Nation branding article that you have reverted to it is almost exclusively about Simon Anholt. It has few references except to him and it only has his very outdated index (2008). What is that about? If anything he is the self promoter. My revisions discussed the issues and mentioned him among several other in the industry, and then included our index (which is current: 2010). My article is far less self promotion than is the previous version you have reverted to. I don't know if you are an expert at nation branding, but the present version is ridiculous.

Thomas Cromwell

Thomas Cromwell (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be true that the present article places too much importance on Simon Anholt, but the presence of other inappropriate content would not mean that you should also promote yourself as a 'main practitioner' and add external links to your website. - MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate Sources

Hi,

I recently edited the article on NetQuote. I was surprised how this page has gotten away with such blatant advertising and endorsement of this company. Hoping to make the article unbiased I added a section for criticism. It's important to understand that criticism is not backed by any facts or studies but is rather statements made by a person or a group. "The media criticized Charlie Sheen for using drugs" doesn't need to cite his drug test, it needs to cite an article or a video published by the media. At least that is what your university professor would expect, perhaps things work differently in the world of wikipedia.

And let's be honest, plenty of pages have sections regarding criticism of individuals or companies, and many, if not the majority, have a 'citation needed' at the end.

I cited two websites, both of which clearly showing that the company is heavily criticized for what I mentioned in the article. Sure, the sources are not as reputable as UC Berkley but nonetheless, they are sources indicating that such criticism does in fact exist. The sources are not insufficient. It is insufficient reason to remove that content just by saying 'insufficient'.

Not that it matters, but I have first hand evidence here that the company does in fact do what I mentioned. It's not online so I can't cite them but I can explain if you'd like.

Hope this clears things up.

User:AmirGTR 10:10am 8 March 2011 (PST)

What you are saying runs counter to the verifiability policy and the guideline on reliable sources. Especially for critical information, we need an independently published source with a reputation for neutrality and fact checking, such as a trade journal or a newspaper. We can not rely on self published sites built to host anecdotal gripes from individuals. Your first hand evidence probably does not help either. (verifiability is the standard, not truth. When the news media picks up on this, then it should be written about on Wikipedia, not before. - MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was "enterprise architect" removed from UML tools?

Dear MrOllie,

I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing, only contributed some to digital radio related stuff sofar but today I tried to improve the UML_tools page by adding a reference to a high grade commercial tool that was missing from the listing (EA).

My question is why that improvement was deleted, without as much as a comment. Did it not follow any guidelines that I should be aware of? I did spend quite some time trying to get the edit right, partly because editing tables was new to me. I would therefore appreciate to know what I did wrong so that I can learn from it.

Best regards, Kydyl (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Standalone list articles should only list things that have established notability, generally by that topic having a preexisting, properly sourced wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. So to add a tool you first have to add a dedicated page for that tool. I think I'll pass then, if I can't get a simple edit approved the chances of submitting a new article and have that approved seem like a definite 0 :) . Again, thanks for clarifying. Kydyl (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on content that I would like to add

Mr Ollie, I have a website www.micropedia.org that is a free to use virtual microscope for education project that provides specimens under a virtual microscope. For example an image of a housefly under a virtual microscope Would this content be acceptable for wikipedia? Is there any way that I can work with wikipedia to enhance or provide wikipedia articles with this kind of content? Sorry for not editing correctly, I am new to these forums and certainly do not want to step on any ones toes.

Thank you very much for your input, Mike Gibbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelraymondgibbs (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add links to sites you are affiliated with to Wikipedia. See the guidelines on external links and conflict of interest for details. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sudoku Edit

Why was my edit to the article Sudoku deleted?Grubblegrook (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It did not cite any independently written reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Koudus is being advertised across the world on the Internet. How about Amazon, who advertises the book?Grubblegrook (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Neither advertising nor book store links are independently written reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of lightweight web servers

Please provide clear notability treashold BEFORE you revert! And if your problem is the link, then only remove the link and not the entry. Also don't post false claims, I removed the link, so I'm NOT linkspamming. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywalk (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hax

This user has modified many pages that do not concern this user. He has removed valuable information in order to control topics and has hacked into several accounts modifying material. This user needs to have a review and be removed. I will be investigating this issue and updating as my investigation proceeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston-cplusplus-guy (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway. - MrOllie (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness

You have been reverting a link from various sites. I don't think you are operating under good faith. The link should be kept as per WP:ELMAYBE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montrealcanada (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of additions by apparent sockpuppet accounts it is quite likely that this link will shortly be blacklisted. - MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/whylife.html a legit site? I dont want any personal attacks but I feel you are not worth it. --Montrealcanada (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The presence of other links that may not meet with the external links guideline is not a valid reason to add more spammy links. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Microinsurance

Dear MrOllie,

you deleted my additions to the microinsurance-article several times on the ground that it would be advertisement and/or spam. GRF Davos is a nonprofit foundation amongst others trying to increase awareness and appreciation for microinsurance. Wikipedia, as a collaborative Encyclopedia, is helpful in raising awareness and getting information across and marking my neutral statements as advertisement is therefore inappropriate. Furthermore you deleted my entry of appropriate literature. Microinsurance is a topic for which only limited literature is available and the entered book provides a good source of additional information. With this in mind I would be very grateful if you stop deleting edits due to inexplicable reasons.

Thank you and best wishes, GRF mk — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRF mk (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for you to 'raise awareness' of your group's literature. Kindly stop adding references to it and try making some edits which are unrelated to the global risk forum. - MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Composting

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I was disheartened to see that you did not accept my expanded list of material that can and cannot be composted because it added value to the article and took me about 15 minutes. The information I added is useful and important to any Wikipedia user who is trying to figure out what to add to their compost, while the information that was there previous--and it back up there now--is woefully incomplete.

Kindly explain to me what you see as the problem.

All best,

Avidgardener711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidgardener711 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Blogs published by gardening stores for marketing purposes are not appropriate sources. Since all you seem to do here is link that blog, you should read over our guidelines on external links and conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Kindly answer my question: is the article better with the information I added, or without it?

Yours,

AvidGardener — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidgardener711 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is better without it because per the verifiability policy all information should be reliably sourced. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie,

You clearly are not a gardener because if you were you would notice that the list provided from the "reliably sourced" article is no good. I disagree with this policy because some of the best information about gardening I've found is on blogs and from commercial sources. Lowe's for example has an incredible number of useful pamphlets, better than those available from universities. However I don't have time to argue this further. In parting I will say that this interaction has been discouraging, a waste of time, and I do not intend to continue to try to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope you are pleased that you have discouraged me and that the list of compostable material you have up is no good and misleading by the things it omits.

Sincerely,

AvidGardener — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidgardener711 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know how I can close my Wikipedia account.----AvidGardener711

WP:V also says that what we think is true is not important, only what we can reliably source. I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, but Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and if you disagree with it strongly Wikipedia is probably not the encyclopedia project for you. There is no mechanism or process for closing Wikipedia accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Decision Making Software

Hi MrOllie,

I have added a comment on the following page [3] following your revert of External links. In addition, I have noticed that you reverted the following [4] but I do not understand the reason why you have deleted the supported method in the D-Sight line. Those methods are referred above the table in the Basic principles section. Or am I missing something here? Thank you for your comment. Cheers, 91.103.35.158 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Music Notation

Hi - I'm not sure why you made this reversion to Music notation. The book added (not by me) is an important new work from a reputable author and publisher. Could you elaborate - is it because it's a very recent publication? (I didn't want to re-revert without checking with you.) Thanks. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PS - information about the book here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Forum Spam

You recently deleted a brief addition to the topic of forum spam, saying that it needed to be sourced. However, on the very page, there are numerous explanations of spam without any source whatsoever, including an entire section that openly states that it is unverified and unsourced.

In fact, the very first section "Types", which is where my brief addition was included...there is not a single source or citation for verification (which is the reason you deleted my addition).


Not a single source exists in this entire section that describes the types of spam.

What is different about all those other unsourced, unverified contributions that makes them allowable? I wish to conform to Wiki standards...but at the present, it seems rather arbitrary. Since it is the case that different community forums identify and define spam in different ways...are you wanting a link to many of these forums which expressly have a rules of conduct or spam identification explanation?

Regardless, I'd like to know why some unsourced content is acceptable while other unsourced content is not. Not trying to be combative, I just do not understand the distinction being made and I'm seeking assistance so that I can contribute to Wikipedia appropriately.

Thank you,

Apokalupsis (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that I challenged the addition you made. If you want to restore it, you must cite a reliable source. The presence of other badly sourced info is not a good reason to add more badly sourced info. Note that per the sourcing guideline, forums are not good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be common knowledge. Especially considering the definition added to the Oxford Dictionary. And since the only difference between what appears to be arbitrary unsourced text is an arbitrary "challenge"...then about 1/2 of that article should be challenged for the consistency. Apokalupsis (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'Common knowledge' is not a source as envisioned by the guidelines here, except that we don't need to specifically cite a source if everyone generally agrees that a source exists ('The sky is blue', 'Canada is north of the US', etc). I frankly doubt there is a reliable source anywhere for what you have added to the article, so I removed it. We are specifically prohibited from adding info to Wikipedia for which there is no source.
If you would like to remove other unsourced info, have at it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Texas Hold'Em Bonus

I've added an external link to my Basic Strategy Table for Texas Hold'Em Bonus. It is long, and it will be tweaked, so I don't want to reproduce it on wikipedia. Can you please allow my changes on that page? Thanks --Stephenhow (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, Per the guideline on external links, we do not link to people's blogs or personal sites. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow ... ok ... so there's no way to inform the reader that a basic strategy for the game has been devised? BTW, after I publish my Flash game, I'll end up higher on a Google search than Wikipedia. Should I just forget about disseminating this info through Wikipedia? --Stephenhow (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you get it published through some body with a reputation for fact checking we can include it then. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Wizard Of Odds links to me for [Ultimate Texas Hold'Em], [Mississippi Stud] and through his [general directory]. Eventually, he'll link to me. I'm simulating and tweaking the strategy as we talk.--Stephenhow (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say get linked by someone else's site. Get a book published, write an article for a print magazine with a reputable publisher, something like that. Oh, and please take a look at the guideline on COI. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, this was an enjoyable experience. Now I know why some people have zealous anti-Wikipedia attitudes. I'm happy to go about my business and contribute info to the web, via Google. Wow.--Stephenhow (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

options

What options do i have for corresponding with you? Only this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelconerly (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just leave your messages here. - MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:Bugapi

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Bugapi (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. -- RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize they look like spam, but actually I think these links are ok, & will reinstate them. This is a useful non-commercial resource as a major database site by a consortium of US museums & university libraries & well set up. It's been added to a number of relevant pages & should probably not be added to many more, except those on specific manuscripts on the site. In many cases existing links could be weeded out in place of this one, which it may duplicate. I'll use roll-back for convenience, as I don't have twinkle, but please don't take offence. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to link to specific documents, go ahead, but links to the organization's front page are unhelpful, and these were all inappropriately added to the top of the EL list. I would urge you not to use roll-back, and not to blanket revert these without improving the links. - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Any reasons? The database is very large & for the general article that were mostly linked the home page is most appropriate. I agree the placing may often be inappropriate, although the database seems after a few test searches the easiest to use and one of the largest around, with 30,000 images. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
On Romance (genre), the link is only indirectly related, making it unsuitable per WP:ELNO #13. Similar arguments apply to several of the other pages. King Arthur, Medieval music, etc. Links such as the one on Ellesmere Chaucer, which you have already restored, should go to a page on the specific work if one is available. The front landing page is unhelpful. These may be useful on a case by case basis, but are unsuitable for a bulk restore. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Some may be inappropriate. It is a database, which doesn't give stable url's for search results, any more than the others linked in many of the articles. Why is "The front landing page unhelpful"? It may be less helpful than a specific page. A search on Roman de la Rose reveals 12 manuscripts, a large number [5]. Arguments please. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a tricky one. The Digital Scriptorium project is a serious and well-respected academic resource, right up there with the CVMA or the Corpus of Medieval Ivories as the 'go-to' place for research in a particular medium. Because it aims to bring together manuscripts from multiple collections it arguably has more right to be in the ELs than more established sites (such as the British Library's) which are collection specific. That said, I think the OP was a little over-enthusiastic in adding it to the EL section of articles concerning specific genres of medieval manuscripts, rather than just manuscript-studies topics. For example the 'Medieval medicine' topic is about far more than just medieval medical manuscripts so I would have considered that an inappropriate EL. I would also say the link is too specific for the articles on 'Romance (genre)', 'King Arthur', 'Medieval Latin', 'Middle Ages', 'Medieval Music', 'Medieval Art' and 'Vulgate'. It might have helped if the OP had labelled the links 'Collection of digitised manuscripts including medieval medical texts' for example, rather than just posing the bare link. Just my opinion - happy for others to disagree! StuartLondon (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

recent changes

MrOllie-- Why did you remove the section I created called "Purim Page" in the "Purim" entry?Sanhedrinmakos (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You did not cite any sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to Free Enzyme Kinetics Text Book Deleted

I noticed you'd deleted the link to the text book 'Introductory enzyme kinetics for systems biology". I looked at the guidelines for external links but it is quite long. Could you let me know which part of the guidelines I violated by citing this free text book on enzyme kinetics? I have no intention of putting the link back in but for future reference I would like to know why it was deleted so I don't make the same mistake again. TheoThompson (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, I'm am sure you must be busy but I would still like a response to the above question. TheoThompson (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, I think I've have figured it out myself, hence no need to reply. TheoThompson (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Time Value of Money and Bond Tutor

I recently submitted links from several economic pages such as Yield Curve, Time Value of Money, Fisher Equation and i got the message that i violated the links policy as fore told by wikipedia. i would like to responds that the links i submitted are too a free online textbook we are writing which does not require any subscription. i am going to join in the discussion for the pages we would like to submit links to i am just writing this to clear up any problems

Justin Srivastava

Justinfts1 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justinfts1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinfts1 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you did not 'join in the discussion' as you said you would. Do not continue to place these links without doing so. - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

involuntary treatment

I was sent a conflict notice about the above page when I tried to insert sources. I have studied the issue for years, but have no conflicts in that I take money from no one, and am not associated with any orgs that have interest in this, other than to study it and get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalillnesspolicyorg (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You do have a conflict of interest in that you are adding links to your own site and/or works to Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest, external linking and website promotion, and kindly refrain from adding links to sites you are affiliated with to Wikipedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie, I'd like to know why you feel that a link I posted to a mikvah directory with maps was removed from the mikvah page? The link I posted http://www.mikvahminder.com/mikvah-directory is a global mikvah directory with maps. I feel this is totally appropriate for the page about Mikvaot. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgivre (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the link is not appropriate per the external link guidelines. I also note that the only thing you have ever used your account for on Wikipedia has been to repeatedly add links to this site. That is classic [[WP:LINKSPAM|spamming behavior]. Please find something else to do here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Scaffolding

I've been trying to update the page about scaffolding and keep having the changes revoked. The information is out of date, for example I have updated this paragraph twice now and had it changed back -

Thus the requirements of BS EN 12811-1. TG20 is largely based on BS 5973 with extracts taken directly from the old code, it also uses permissible stress design method. However, TG20 received a mixed response from the UK industry and as a result TG20 is being re-written and the new version is due for release sometime in 2008. This is the reason for the 'limbo' situation. Until the release of the revised TG20 the HSE continue to allow scaffold to be built in accordance with BS 5973.

This has a date over 2 years ago, I also updated text which was about industry developments with the use of scaffolding. This is part of the product life cycle of scaffolding as a key development into changes as to how the product is used. This text included items about modular scaffolding in general, it was not specific to a business as it covered the various forms including rosettes, cups etc. Those interested in scaffolding or new to an industry should have a documented way of seeing where the product originated and how it developed. Although I appreciate that the first amends mentioned a business, I had removed these references.

Please can you advise what text is allowed to be placed on there and exactly what parts were disagreed with please rather than dismissing the entire form so that the information can be used in an acceptable manor to the users please? Thanks VG2468 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to avoid using POV language, and you need to use third party sources. For example, one should not source the statement 'The Scaffixer became the industry standard coupling' to the webpage of the company that produced it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Organic farming

Dear MrOllie, I would like to know why you reverted the edition I made to the organic farming page to include the organic.edunet external link. Organic.Edunet is a portal which results from a EU funded research effort of 3 years where more than 15 institutions around Europe (universities, farmers associations, etc.) gathered more than 10,000 educational resources in digital format and made them available to the general public. Some of the resources in this huge database are those of Organic.Eprints, through an agreement between the two efforts. Just to clarify, Organic.Eprints is a currently approved external link in this wikipedia entry.

So, it would be nice to hear the reasons behind your decission. Thank you.

ssalonso

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.72.36 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Such portals are not very useful to readers, especially when they duplicate existing content. I would also suggest that you read our guideline on conflicts of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear MrOllie, I disagree with your personal opinion "such portals are not very useful to readers" because although some existing contents are referred in this portal, many many others are new and come from previously-non-accessible materials produced by experts in the field working in european universities and institutions (e.g. agricultural university of Athens, AGROASIS/NOVA, FAO, ENOAT, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Bundesministerium fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Austria), Spanish Society of Organic Farming, Corvinus University of Budapest (BCE) and the Association for Hungarian Organic Farming (MOGERT) just to name a few).
As for the conflict of interest, I was personally involved in the project but it already ended so neither myself nor my institution nor the responsible partners that developed it can have any benefit from this link in wikipedia anymore (end of project: 30th september 2010). Instead, Organic.Edunet portal is a public endeavor which provides free access to educational materials, and the only reason I included this link here is because I truly believe that it can be good for the awareness and education of youth about organic farming. I therefore kindly ask you to reconsider your previous decision. Best regards.
Ssalonso (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi There,

I would like to firstly apologise for what you deem to be spam, that was not my intention nor an attempt to gain free links. I added to the section about Unlocking Codes as i am one of the largest unlocking sites in the UK and as such would consider my company as an expert in this line. I not only provide unlock codes online but also in-store.

I would hope you will reconsider as it is clear if you view my website i am an authority on this subject.

Kind Regards FtDesotoFtDesoto (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO point 5 we do not link to sites which primarily exist to sell services. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Executive Onboarding

Help me understand why you deleted the page on executive onboarding.

While I don't know who "loparty" is, it seems to me that their new Onboarding article is very good. It is, however, entirely academically based and has very little, if any, real-world business perspective in it.

My thinking was to leave the "Onboarding" article as the more academic look at onboarding and revive the old "Executive Onboarding" article as the more practical application, linking the two, but not automatically re-directing them.

Don't recall if you were part of the discussions a year ago, but I am the author of three books on onboarding and now write a weekly article for Forbes called "The New Leader's Playbook". Given my obvious conflicts of interest, I no longer make any changes to any of these articles myself, instead, making my points on discussion pages.

With that perspective, I'm interested in understanding your thinking and how you see these articles evolving. Not surprisingly, I'm going to try to convince you to go with the two article solution. Alternately, we could put back the more practical of the advice that's been in the "Onboarding" article for the past couple of years, but I'm thinking separate articles with separate perspectives are stronger.Gbradt (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When an article changes over time, it is not that unusual for somebody to take offense to the changes. Sometimes a person will create a second article that is really about the same topic, but with their preferred content. We call this a POV fork, and they are not allowed. In addition, cases like the Executive Onboarding page are problematic because the editor who created it cut and pasted content from an old version of Onboarding, which does not credit the authors of the original text and so causes a violation of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses under which the text was originally provided. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Well that makes total sense. Seems like I should ask the editor to add a "Practical application" section into the new onboarding page.Gbradt (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits you have recently reverted as spam are not actually spam, as per Wikipedia guidelines. It falls under this: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." That's all. WMdcu (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Spamming is a behavior. You appear to have some form of conflict of interest here since all your account does is link or write about that site. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made many other contributions to Wikipedia, especially related to the building and design industry. This is just the first time I've needed to use a username. Still, I'll take what you said into account. WMdcu (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Weighted Average Cost of Capital

Hi MrOllie. I see that you have removed my recent inclusion of an external link in the entry on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. Please can you be more specific as to the objections regarding this link? The material linked in a genuine teaching tool that is freely available under a Creative Commons Licence and is not a commercial solicitation. JonnyBSchool (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could this type of link be included without linking to the Wikipedia entry for the school? JonnyBSchool (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) You are a single purpose account repetitively adding links to the same site. That is linkspamming. 2) The links do not meet with links to avoid points 1,4, and 5. Wikipedia is not a place to promote this school. - MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the need for such regulations. The material being linked is free, Creative Commons and not a solicitation. Can you please guide me on how I can link to this information? Coming from an esteemed institution it should be considered valid and as the content is flash-based and interactive it adds value over what can be displayed by Wikipedia. Could the links be included without reference to the school in the link? The link to the institution was to the relevant Wikipedia page, but could be omitted. Many thanks JonnyBSchool (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If the links require flash, that is actually another reason not to include them (WP:ELNO number 8), not added value. It sounds like it would be better if you did not link these at all. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

message

Hi, I noted that you reverted an edit that I did to an article on Fine art photography. I will appreciate it if you tell me what was your point of view. Best wishes (Saharnsaleem (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

message

Hi, I also noticed that you reverted multiple edits of mine. Please let me know why. Thank you, Tlwheeler22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwheeler22 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just noticed your message regarding an inappropriate external link on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TestArchitect. Can you please let me know which link in particular is inappropriate? I'm not sure whether to remove the link to http://www.testarchitect.com from the 'Software Info' section or from the 'External Links' section.

Best regards,

Jesse W. Gibbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewgibbs (talk • contribs) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I have added the Configuration Management Resource Guide (http://cmpic.com/cmresourceguide.htm) to a few pages concerning Configuration Management. I was wondering why it was removed since it appears to be a relevant link concerning configuration management and has been cited on many other CM websites. It contains an extensive list of CM & related standards, white papers and articles concerning CM, lists of PLM tool vendors, books, conferences, and organizations dedicated to configuration management, and links to places where you can obtain CM standards. This link was placed on the pages Configuration Management, Software Configuration Management and more CM related pages.

I was hoping I could add this link once more to the two pages above and not have it removed.

Thanks, Keebrook (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC) KEEbrook March 31, 2010

Your comments on ESDS

Dear MrOllie

Recently you have added a comment on ESDS that it has been posted as an advertisement. ESDS is one of the largest Tier III datacenter in India and only datacenter with concept of "Green Technology". Can you please let us know which section of the article give you a feel of advertising. This article has been written by me and I would be more than happy to make corrections in area where it is needed.

Moosaz (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited Text

Dear MrOllie

I have made changes to the text, please advice if it still give the same feeling.

Thank you. Moosaz (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cities and Maps

Hello Mr Ollie,

my apologies for only replying this late but I have only now noticed that you have removed the external link to a map that I placed on the Havana City Page. I think the edit was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havana&oldid=420668327 but it is the first time I try to paste a link to a Wikipedia history, so please bear with me if it is wrong.

The addition of the map was actually also the first time I ever posted anything on Wikipedia - so with my luck, I guess it had to go wrong. Still, I don't want to be an anonymous coward and at least explain my idea. Basically I had read most of the Wikipedia article on Havana and then wanted to get a bit of a feel for the places and started looking for a map. I found the one that I added and had a good look at it. As it seemed to be a community page without trying to get you to buy anything I thought it would fit the Wikipedia external links category and added it thinking that other people might also be interested in the layout of things in addition to the article. After that I got a bit carried away (I had changed something and could see it on mighty Wikipedia - a strange feeling) and added a few more maps that I liked. I understand of course that I should maybe have asked some advice before any of this. Sorry.

In any case, please deal with the links as you see fit.

Thanks, Thomas-xyxy (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please let me know if I am using this talks feature correctly.

Hi, was just wondering how I'll know if you make a comment?

Thomas-xyxy (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Game server browser

Could you please give some thoughts about why you removed QTracker and quakestat from the "Game server browser" page?

Please also state if you are a vivid gamer or do some script programming from time to time or are working for a competitor.

Thanks for your time.Crass Spektakel (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Allen J. Scott

Dear Mr Ollie. Most of the information in the article was posted by me (Allen J. Scott). However, the article only contains easily verifiable facts and does not provide any judgments or evaluations of these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajscott (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting of edits done by A.J. Scott

Hi, is there a special reason why you reverted all the user's edits at one go? Don't get me wrong, I see the problem in self-promotion, but I wouldn't classify any one of his edits as mere "spam" either. A.J. Scott is one of the most highly reputed experts on regional science, and many of his works rank among the most influential on their particular topics. That especially refers to his edits on Los Angeles School, which, while certainly involving some COI on his part, imo provided substantial info on the topic and made the article less lop-sided than it had been before (and currently is, again). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert everything 'at one go', I reviewed each edit individually. On many articles, his edit merely put a paper or books of his on the reference list without adding any information. Those were plain cases of citation spamming. On LA School in particular, my revert touched three hunks of text: Dancing around the issue of who identified the Los Angeles School so Scott could get credit for it, insertion of criticism of Dear's work that amounted to 'he ignored me', and an assertion that he is a 'household name', which was sourced to a book he wrote. - MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm just a bit worried that a leading scholar of the field contributing to Wikipedia is just taken for granted. It seems his speedy request on the article about him was some "my work isn't recognised here anyways"-overreaction. On a personal level, I don't intent to defend this kind of behaviour (if I interpret it correctly), but c'mon, you reverted nine of his edits within a few minutes, it's just impossible to thouroughly "review" an edit within such a short time. And what's generally wrong with providing some furder reading? You didn't care about the result (is this particular text useful?), but only on the way the reference had been pasted into the articles. Concerning the L.A. School, I'd agree that Scott isn't a "household name" the way Soja and Davis are, but that doesn't mean his academic contributions aren't ackknowledged by his peers the same way Soja's and Davis's are. It's not "neutral" (I really dislike this term anyway) that the article's completely missing Scott's and Storper's contributions to the field. To sum it up, this isn't a matter of details, this is a matter of removing contend by an author who probably knows more about it than all but a few people in the world on the assumption of "citation spamming" only, without even talking to him besides some inappropiate template use. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Scott and Storper's work is not 'completely missing', it is mentioned in the Ideas section. I do not doubt that Scott's expertise could be valuable, but so far he has not moved beyond inserting his name in as many places as he can, which is not helpful no matter who he is. I would not be nearly as concerned if he were citing other experts in the field. - MrOllie (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the choice of words ("completely missing") was too strong, referring only to the history section and the references. Again, my concern is less what he does, but rather the results of his edits. While some of his edits and remarks certainly are questionable, and the COI concerning the histories of the respective fields and theoretical models is obvious, it's highly doubtful that reverting all his edits leaves all the articles less lop-sided than they had been before, and that the harm he has done to the articles' neutrality weights so much heavier than the benefit his contributions could provide – assuming his edits are thouroughly reviewed. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DV Lottery page

Please do not touch it. You are destroying work done by a lot of people. That is vandalism. Wikipedia is a shared resource, not you own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.252.202 (talk • contribs)

dating for archive bot - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

New Message

Hi, I have contributed on the IFRS page at bottom for Resources on relevant topic... It will be great to know about that is it relevant for users or not? Regards... (ramesolin (talk) 1 April 2011 (UTC))

dating for archive bot - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of QI Macros to the Statistical Software page (add-ins)

I am wondering how to get QI Macros added (if I cannot add it myself as developer of this software). The other software products on the list are of the same commercial category as ours, so it seems that if QI Macros is deleted, so should the rest of the products.

thanks for your consideration,

s. arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarthu (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't add it yourself, no. Just keep working on your software, and it will inevitably be added once trade publications, newspapers and the like who are published by third parties who are unrelated to you begin writing about it. Those other programs are there because they have these third party references. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Orpalis

Hello Mr Ollie,

You have recently deleted (after only few minutes of submission) an article of mine about ORPALIS. With all due respect, I would most kind;y ask what should I do to improve the content of the article (I need to add that I have studied elementary tutorials on Wiki articles creation + similar already existing articles (such as "Synfusion" or "ZyLAB Technologies". I also read and understood the automatic reply page regarding deletion. However, can you please tell me what do I have to do in order to comply with your regulations (which i really respect, as I am a massive Wikipedia "consumer" myself) ?

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Bogdan Nemteanu

Bogdan.nemteanu (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I tagged it for review. An administator will review it and make a deletion decision soon. The most pressing issue is that the articles lack secondary sources. We need to see articles in newspapers, trade magazines and so on about the company. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Geotagging Page

Dear MrOllie, You recently deleted material that I had added to the geotagging pages. I am a computer scientist and I wanted to let the geotagging community know about a survey article that I and my colleagues published recently. I am an active wikipedia reader and check at wiki pages for technical topics too. We believe that including this article in wikipedia will be beneficial to the community at large and it is directly related to the topic of discussion. Please let me know your thoughts and what I will need to do to include the article and discussion back. Dhirajjoshi16 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)DJ

Wikipedia is generally not for breaking scientific news or to publicize recent articles. It's especially not a good place to publicize your own work: see the conflict of interest guideline and self promotion. - MrOllie (talk)

Dear MrOllie, I do see references to many scientific articles in many wiki pages. Perhaps I am being penalized as I am writing content about my own article. Let me reassure you that this article was published in a special issue entitled "Special Issue: Survey Papers in Multimedia by World Experts". that was edited by eminent computer scientists like Prof. Ramesh Jain <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Jain</url>. I would like to really understand why you consider my description invalid to be included in the wiki page. Thanks Dhirajjoshi16 (talk) DJ

Dear MrOllie, adding to my earlier comment, here's the link to table of contents of the special issue. I went through the conflict of interest page but it does not say that one cannot cite his/her own material. Please explain why it is not fair for me to add this article and description to the wiki page. If you suggest I can expand the description to explain to give readers more idea about research. Given the above references that I have provided, please judge the scientific verity yourself and decide if it should be included. Thanks a lot. Best Regards, Dhirajjoshi16 (talk)DJ —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Many Wikipedia articles do cite scientific articles, yes. Generally they do so to support some content in the article. That is not what you did: you added a section specifically about your survey article. The Geotagging article is supposed to be about Geotagging, not about particular papers people have written. Expanding the description would only exacerbate this problem. I suggest you find some other venue to promote your work instead. Any number of usenet groups or web discussion fora would be appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a potentially useful reliable source. I've referenced it in a less spammy way. —Ruud 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation, Ruud. Dear MrOllie, I appreciate your concern. I had added the article to inform a geotagging-interested reader (who reads wiki) that there's research going on in this area and to perhaps someday expand that article or sub-article more(I had recently received email from a non-researcher about our article asking some questions and thought that the larger community might also appreciate it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhirajjoshi16 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Harsh Environment Computer

Dear MrOllie, I do not understand why you have removed the content and added the redirect to Rugged Computer? This is also with no discussion or notification. These are 2 completely different types of computer. The Rugged Computer does not represent the Harsh Environment Computer in anyway. I am very happy to show this VERY clear difference and a range of these devices form a range of manufacturers who products are Harsh environment. Unlike the Panasonic Rugged portable style computer listed in the other category, which is very obviously tailored to particular brand. The "Harsh Environment Computer" article was very carefully written from a completely neutral standpoint. If in you view and maybe the view of your peers, this is not the case then I would really appreciate your help and experience in updating this subject to a level that is suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STXDavid (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A completely neutral standpoint that just happened to reference STX technologies multiple times? Sure. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your products. That is not what this site is for. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_2&oldid=1090547636"