User talk:MrOllie/Archive 12

Regarding Motorola Mobility

I don't why you are adding wrong information in the Name of the Company itself it is mentioned LLC only American business can become LLC. If you don't know what is LLC then go through LLC details. And next Lenovo is a "Private" Company so owning share in Motorola won't change Motorola's American sovereignty Swastik Mridha (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

\check it from the Official website of Motorola Mobility they still mention LLC. If Motorola Mobility was a Chinese company then the LLC would have got replaced by LTD. And next its already mentioned it is a subsidiary hence it doesn't require to mention "owned" again  Swastik Mridha (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Foreign entities own plenty of LLCs. It is disingenuous to refer to these LLCs simply as 'American'. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Since 2011 Motorola has maintained it's registration/Incorporation in United States. It has always provided it's primary legal domicile in 222 West Merchandise Mart Chicago, IL 60654 USA. Even when Google acquired Motorola's share and the company Changed from Inc. to LLC it has still maintain that given address as it's legal domicile in present day too. And as the company already registered as a separate entity and doesn't operate under it's parent company's registration/Incorporation. It is necessary to mention. Even Lenovo themselves has mentioned Motorola Mobility will maintain it's American domicile domicile in their official website Swastik Mridha (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and thousands of shell companies are registered in Nevis. It is laughable to suggest that these are 'Nevis companies'. Thousands of US corporations are registered in Delaware for tax purposes, but it is laughable to suggest my corner store is a 'Delaware company'. - MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And if you don't know what is Legal domicile then you should know that a company's nationality is determined in which place the company is incorporated/registered and for all legal purposes the company will has that as it's address. https://fccid.io/IHD Here is I'm providing you the FCC ID of Motorola Mobility it is a Government website and the address given is the "legal domicile" of Motorola Mobility . And now also I'm providing you the FCC ID of Binatone which is a Hong Kong based Company https://fccid.io/VLJ Check here too the only the legal domicile of the company is mentioned. Here is the FCC ID of Xiaomi https://fccid.io/2AFZY Here also legal domicile of Xiaomi is only mentioned. And this is a continuously updated government site so no outdated information Swastik Mridha (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but your POV is far from universal. Wikipedia is not so legalistic. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

At any rate, this sort of article specific argument does not belong on my talk page. If you have more concerns please take it up on the associated article talk page - other editors may wish to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Dog behavior

Hi. Please explain why you removed my Dog Behavior content and exactly, specifically what you disagree with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.7.11.178 (talk • contribs)

I've moved the above from the top of this page to it's own section. This user came to the IRC help channel seeking advice on their content being removed, and I advised them to discuss it with the editor(s) who removed the content. Vermont (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You additions relied on lots of citations to unreliable and self published sources, including blogs, opinion pieces, facebook posts, advocacy websites, etc. Please have a look at Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Pare it down to only those parts supported by reliable sources (such as academic journals) and you should have no problems. - MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

But you removed ENTIRE thing over a disagreed about source. Those sources are all experts in their fields. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Improper sourcing was endemic through the piece. - MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is my prof. field and thos esources are all solid. Are you a canine behavior professional? 47.7.11.178 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the original editors who told me to add it to DOg Behavior did NOT have a problem with it. They jus twanted it move to the DB page. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

They may be solid by your field's standards, but Wikipedia has its own standards, and if you want your writing to stand here you need to conform to them. No blogs, no social media posts, no advocacy organizations. Anyone who told you to add that to a Wikipedia article did not read it throughly or check the sources. MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia source details: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". and "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals..." My sources qualify. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, they obviously do not. Please read and try to understand the whole guideline, don't just try to mine it for a quote that you think supports your preconceived position. In particular Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) contradicts your position. But, again, read the whole thing. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." My sources are all experts in their fields who have a history of being published by independent reliable publications. Please show me evidence that this isn't true. 47.7.11.178 (talk)

Then cite their work in independent reliable publications. At any rate, per WP:BRD, you have been bold, and you have been reverted, and you are apparently not willing to listen to me on this page. You may take this up on the article's associated talk page for further input from other editors. - MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That is NOT what the wikipedia page I quoted says. It says that if self-published experts *also* have been published in reliable independent ... etc. You are purposely misreading in order to justify removing my content. I have explained that my sources are experts who have a history of the requirements of publication in independent pubs; are you choosing to ignore that and not even try to confirm it? 47.7.11.178 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: My understanding of what you are supposed to do is discuss WITH other editors, not lay down your own law, yet above you end the conversation because you say, I am "not willing to listen to" you. You're not the boss of Wikipedia and I'm not a subordinate to you. The help people told me you are supposed to discuss the issue, not just refuse to consider my input. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Your venue for discussing this with other editors is the article talk page. Perhaps you'll surprise me and you'll be able to build a consensus among others that your blog and facebook cites are reliable, but I honestly doubt it. - MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Building a consensus of wiki volunteers to go against a wiki volunteer who has already removed content is nearly impossible, as I'm sure you know. I'd prefer to file a complaint as you are cherry picking and being unreasonable. I've shown you in the rules where my contributions are supported and you refuse to even acknowledge those areas, preferring to only look to areas that you think support your scorched earth approach of just deleting everything. And btw you could not have taken time to check my sources and their reputations since you deleted my content immediately after I posted it. Oh and have a look at the "Alternative Approaches" to BRD page. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of SAML-based Products and Services

<rant>The way talks are structures in wikipedia still sucks</rant> I am oblivious about the formal rules that forbid product overviews for a subject matter, but as a long-time member of the community I received the feedback that it has been very useful, although many improvements could be done. If the page has to be delted, please let me know what you would recommend as an equivalent place to keep the information available to the public. Just deleting it would cause more harm by loss of information than benefit by cleaning up pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoerbe (talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a web host - some things are off mission for Wikipedia, and that means that they should be hosted on some other web site. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I want to apologize for my behaviour. I'm going through really rough times in life. Feel free to delete this; I just wanted to let you know my apology. Kind regards. ExoEditor 15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Spamming malformatted citations and references

I feel I must apologize for my disruptive editing (spamming numerous citations). I am a recent contributor to this Wikipedia and I'm still learning the ropes.179.218.91.213 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Contributor's Note

Hi, MrOllie!

I am assuming good faith in your edits. :) Please be informed that the articles I cite are grounded on research and involve verifiable content. I have contributed a lot on Wikipedia to further expand on the knowledge this platform provides. I do agree that the edits you made have been disruptive, so kindly assume good faith in the people contributing to this website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info-03051995 (talk • contribs)

You are spamming links to your employer. Keep it up and your account will be blocked and the URL could be blacklisted. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

iofficecorp.com

Hi MrOllie, I am linking back to my company as the content I am referring to is not intended for sales purposes but links to our free informational blogs. Many of the edits I am making are to either links that are dated over 18 months ago, or no definition is provided. I only link to the information pages I cite the definitions from. Our blog is a independent resource from our sales, and I was just sharing information. Added by user ManagerPlus for page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_management ManagerPlus (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't use marketing materials or blogs as sources on Wikipedia, and per WP:PAID and WP:COI, you should not be adding links to your employer's web site. Please use independent, reliable sources from now on. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Completely lost

I just saw the following from you: "We don't use marketing materials or blogs as sources on Wikipedia, and per WP:PAID and WP:COI, you should not be adding links to your employer's web site. Please use independent, reliable sources from now on."

I'm not sure this was meant for me since I am CLEARLY not using marketing materials or a blog as a source. The source is an online industry publication! You might as well call CNET a blog. Furthermore, I am completely confounded by, "you should not be adding links to your employer's web site". Every single company page in Wikipedia has a link to their website if they have one! Every single one. How it got there, in other words, whether an employee or an outside contractor has placed it is completely irrelevant! Furthermore, "Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies - neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research". Wiki's "words". Not mine, not yours - Wikipedia Foundation's. 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Mlcastellanos (talk)

That was in reply to someone else's message, though it does apply in your case. Either way, keep this discussion on the article's talk page, not here on my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been warned many times

I just want to enrich the knowledge about beeswax, such as the chemical composition of beeswax. This is missing. This data comes from the industry website related to beeswax. When quoting, I put the website address on it to respect the author, but every time it is a warning. What is the correct way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehexianwiki (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PLPAK

I saw that you put a PROD on this article but it got removed as it's been deleted before via PROD. Might be worth taking to AfD? I'm not an expert on this sort of subject myself. Spiderone 11:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability tag at Justin Picard

Hey there. Just wanted to ask if you could remove the {{notability}} tag you added at the Justin Picard article a few weeks ago. The subject is the inventor of the copy detection pattern, and as such WP:NACADEMIC should also be applied to gauge his notability alongside WP:GNG. The subject does not currently work in academia, but the lead section at WP:NACADEMIC states that "academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements."

It would seem to me that the subject fits criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, which states: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The specific criteria notes also state that "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." A dozen peer-reviewed articles attributing the invention to Picard were cited in the draft, but only 3 were kept following the recommendation of a reviewer to avoid WP:CITEKILL.

The subject may also fit the criterion 2 of WP:CREATIVE ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"), which also seems to apply to scientists. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davykamanzi, I see no indication that NACADEMIC applies. Or that Copy detection patterns solve a major problem. The citation counts on the paper where he introduced it are fairly low, and we only have a Wikipedia article on it because Picard wrote it himself. I also have to ask: were you paid to write that article? There has been a lot of promotion of Picard and his company on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I would argue that given that the CDP has been used for security purposes on a large scale (see refs 13 to 17 here) I would argue that it was a "significant new concept, technique or idea" at the time of its invention since achieving the same level of security may have been harder had it not existed. With that in mind and given Picard's career history I can't see how NACADEMIC wouldn't apply.

I was indeed paid to create that article; adequate disclosure per WP:DCOI was provided well before the draft was moved to the mainspace. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davykamanzi, those are all press release churnalism placed by Schreiner MediPharm, who are trying to sell a product based on it. This is very, very weak sourcing. I think it is fairly likely this article will not survive an AFD if better sources don't present themselves, so the notability tag is warranted. I'll see if I can spare some time soonish to do a literature search in coming days or weeks to see if we should go ahead and move to AFD or if the article can be better sourced. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Community ban discussion on Sievert 81/75000cases

Since you were involved in the investigation regarding Sievert 81/75000cases, I would like to notify you that there is currently a proposal to community ban them, if you weren't already aware. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Rude comment

Mr. Ollie,

I appreciate the comment I left may seem rude and I'm not as such contesting that it be removed. It's simply that I tried to edit an article elsewhere that the user Tercer has been quite disparaging of. Calling standard references and terminology that I used "nonsense" and "idiotic" and clearly editing the article despite having little knowledge of the area (he made basic mathematical errors). I just became curious as to what other articles he has been present on as I think he is basically just censoring out positions he disagrees with. I even think Superdeterminism is a bit silly, but you can't just pull a reference describing it on an article devoted to it, especially if it is in fact referenced by an expert in Foundations. Again this isn't to contest or disagree with you. I simply tried editing Wikipedia a few days ago on an article related to my own expertise and found it controlled by somebody with little requisite knowledge and I'd be concerned how broadly this is occuring. 64.43.31.141 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you get a warning for personal attacks, writing a message repeating them is an usual strategy. Just stop talking about other editors entirely, and focus on the content. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Undid revision 994117324 by MrOllie (talk) - Hoping to learn how to fix this properly.

Hello,

I'm very new to editing on Wikipedia so I'm writing here to try and learn what I did wrong in my recent edit to Job description that you undid. I was doing research for work to try and better understand the process of creating a job description. The article was very informative and helpful. The next day I looked at the article again and most of the useful information that was added by :Punsalang had been removed. The content that was put in its place didn't seem to make sense in terms of how it related to the section, and it was also just lacking much info at all, specifically the "roles and responsibilities," and "developmental goals," sections.

What can I do to make this right? Could I use the content originally put in by :Punsalang and just fix the broken references and broken grammar that you mention? My contribution so far has just been to revert changes, not add any content, but I'm happy to do what's necessary to fix this article and hopefully learn something along the way.

Thanks.Rumblyfish (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

job interview

Is it ok to leave my edits until after my job interview next Wednesday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnchuaibd (talk • contribs)

No. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey Software - Comparison List

MrOllie - I'd like to know why you reverted QuestionPro from the list of tools for survey platforms. Here are some citations about QuestionPro;

• https://www.geekwire.com/2018/survey-company-questionpro-acquires-workxo-bolster-workplace-engagement-tools/
• https://www.geekwire.com/2014/online-survey-company-questionpro-buys-rapidengage/
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/tech/silicon-valley-moving-to-austin-miami/index.html
• https://venturebeat.com/2012/08/20/add-it-up-web-survey-company-questionpro-acquires-pollbob/

Can you please let me know if QuestionPro can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubek~enwiki (talk • contribs)

That's a list of software that already has an article. Wait to see if your draft is approved first. And since you have declared a COI, you should use the requested edit process on the list's talk page rather than making edits yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - Kinda makes sense now. I'll wait for the Draft and see. Thansk for the tip on request edit vs doing it myself. Good point. Bubek~enwiki (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with Changes

As per your comment, my changes are not neutral. I never understand your point because I added additional information for the readers to understand more about the page. I think the Wiki Pages should be updated with new information instead of keeping old information, that's why I added this information. If my content is promotional then I can agree with your comment, but my published content is totally user-friendly and worthy of them. I request to review again my content and it would be great if can publish it with as per knowledge. Nilesh (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to simply add your personal opinion, you must write neutrally and you should base all additions on sources. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a howto site - you should not address the reader directly. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Confused editor

Nonsense? That sounds pretty opinionated to me. And very rude. My addition of the distinguish template was made in good faith, as I think the two diseases are very similar sounding and someone searching for one disease may get confused w Crazytonyi (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You have me confused with someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not Adding Spam!

Hey there!, I'm adding website links with the motive to add knowledge to the Wikipedia pages (wherever citation or broken links are present). The Link on Social Media Optimization ( Reference 8) is also a blog. Please let me know how can we consider a blog from Oracle (that's outdated and broken)as worthy to stay live instead of a fresh and researched blog on some other website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinder3790 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing BN66

I have been asked by one of the lead campaigners to make edits to the BN66 page so it accurately reflects the position. You attempted to undo thses changes and revert to the old text. I have re instated my changes.Please leave tham as is. Thank you. Signed Taxingtothepoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No. You have been reverted, you must now build consensus for your changes, see WP:BRD, but a wholesale whitewash of the article is not appropriate, especially from an editor who has just admitted to having a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no conflict of interest. The person concerned is not IT literate. neither is there any whitewashing of the article. It clarifies the tax planning and lack of clarity on the part of HMG. taxingtothepoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My request for citation was neither personal nor commentary

I notice that there are a lot of complaints about erasing edits other contributors, as mine is too.

My request for citation was a professional request, and that is why I mentioned engineering licensing to justify the term "engineer".

Nor was my request personal. It is professional because I know what these "engineering approaches" are and do not see them cited anywhere in the document. Contrarily, I specifically asked for citations on how a programmer can apply engineering skills to predict or prevent failures of things such as airplanes (i.e. "there is no amount of software that can make airplanes safe.")

I intend to add to the section on criticism, and it will be stronger than my reason for asking for a citation.

FYI, I once worked for a person claiming to be a "systems engineer", but turned out to have only programming skills. Yet, I was licensed as a Mechanical Engineer, and she had no clue what my skills were and my value to the company. (yes, this is a personal example of professional corruption and industrial negligence).

Otherwise, why can't programmers just call themselves Computer Scientists? Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impediguy (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Impediguy, There are already three citations on that sentence. If you are unhappy with them for some reason, you may explain on the article talk page. Embedding lengthy criticism into a citation needed tag is not how things are done on Wikipedia. It is 'personal commentary' because it is your own opinion, in your own voice. That belongs on the talk page. Any criticism that you want to add that is based on reliable sources, should be added to the article, but expect that any unsourced criticisms will be removed. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I will do as you suggest and take my criticism to the talk page. However, this article needs at least one citation from a respected engineering source, which software is not. Otherwise, the entire article is self-proclamation and conjecture (i.e. your opinion, not mine. In your own voice, not an engineer's.). The citations you point out are all software references devoid of any engineering methods or "approaches" that could be used when writing software, and therefore are not sufficient to support the concept of "software engineering". In fact, no "engineering approach" at all is described in the entire article that might be applicable to software. Thus, I will request another citation. If you then delete my request again, regardless if it seems like opinion to you, which is nevertheless a perfectly legitimate reason to ask for a citation, I will report your behavior to Wikipedia. You could avoid the criticism by providing a citation, which in my "opinion", is not possible.

Impediguy (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Impediguy, You are welcome to argue that "article needs at least one citation from a respected engineering source" on the talk page, but to my knowledge that doesn't match Wikipedia policy at all. We'll see who else agrees. Don't restore the tag without agreement from someone else on the talk page, see WP:BRD. You threats of 'reporting my behavior to Wikipedia' are noted but unpersuasive. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Calvary/Golgotha

New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. I hope this is an ok place to ask for my published encyclopedia article on Golgotha to be considered for the citations and bibliography of that Wikipedia article.

“Golgotha, Calvary: New Testament.” Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 10:580–581. Boston; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3746738 doi.org/10.1515/ebr.golgothacalvary Vocesanticae (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Pliny the Younger and Pliny the Younger on Christians

New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. I hope this is an ok place to ask for my published chapter on Pliny to be considered for the citations and bibliography of one or both of these Wikipedia articles.

“Pliny’s Correspondence and the Acts of the Apostles: An Intertextual Relationship?” Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know? Edited by J. Verheyden and J. S. Kloppenborg. BTS 29 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 147–69. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3745661

Thanks! Vocesanticae (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Penitent Thief

Please let me know how I can work with you to contribute as a recognized expert to this article. I've spent ten years researching and publishing on the Penitent Thief, and I'd like to facilitate broader awareness of and access to that research. Vocesanticae (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As a recognized expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of people publishing in the field. It would probably be of most help to Wikipedia is you could add to the articles by citing them. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here is a draft of a proposed new section that is completely free of any self-citations. May I post it? Would you be willing to post it?

Major Early and Medieval Legends

• Jos. Arim (= CANT 76 or ECCL 274).: a late 4^th or early 5^th century Greek narrative based out of Jerusalem that greatly expands the backstories of both bandits, blames the death of Jesus on the good bandit’s righteous theft of relics from the Jerusalem temple, narrates involved dialogues and correspondence between Jesus and Demas, and describes Demas as the cross-bearer (staurophylax) who accompanies Jesus when he appears to Joseph of Arimathea. Remi Gounelle at Uni Strasbourg is working on the critical edition of this text for the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum.
• CPG 4877: a 4^th or 5^th century Palestinian or Syrian Greek sermon/story falsely attributed to John Chrysostom wherein the bandit is a Gentile (indeed a relative of Pilate!) and has a vision in the desert leading to his conversion
• CPG 4145.22 / 4162.3: a 5^th or 6^th century Palestinian sermon/story in Arabic and Georgian with many connections to CPG 4877, but here the bandit’s conversion stems from hearing Jesus preach
• Vis. Theo. pp. 19–20, 26–29: a 6^th century Coptic story perhaps authored by Cyriacus in which the good bandit (who is Egyptian) and the evil bandit (who is Jewish) steal the Holy Family’s clothes only later to repent and return them
• Homily on the Church of the Rock 31–32 (Coptic/Arabic; 17–18 in the Ethiopic recension): originally created around the 6^th century, this story is highly similar to and in the same historical neighborhood as Vis. Theo., except that it narrates the evil bandit stealing the infant Jesus along with the Holy Family’s clothes!
• Hosp. Dysmas (= CANT 78.4, ECCL 630, found within M2 and M3 family mss of Acts Pil.): a late-12^th to early 14^th century Byzantine Greek account of the Egyptian bandit showing hospitality to the Holy Family, resulting in the healing of his leprous child and his future beatitude.
• Hosp. Oint. Band. (= CANT 78.1, ECCL 250, found within the Arundel form of Birth Sav. 111–25): a 12^th–14^th century Latin story describing how the hospitable Egyptian bandit received healing and wealth from the magical bathwater of Jesus. The critical edition of this text was produced by J.-D. Kaestli and M. McNamara, and it was later introduced and translated by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše.
• Reb. Dimas (= CANT 78.2, ECCL 106, found within Ps.-Mt., particularly between chapters 19 and 20 in Namur, Seminary Library, Lat. 80, fol. 13v–15v and 17r–17v): a 12^th century Latin story featuring the bandit as a procurator’s son and border guard who defies his father by allowing the Holy Family to escape Israel and flee to Egypt. This story was featured in a LiveScience article by Owen Jarus.[1]
• Hosp. Perf. Band. (= CANT 78.3, ECCL 506 found within at least two manuscripts of Ps-Matt: London, British Library, Harley 3199 (14th cent.) and Vatican BAV Latin 6300 (15th and 17th cent.). This distinctive interpolation connects the the hospitable bandit’s miraculous bathwater to the eventual conversion of Mary Magdalene.
• Leabhar Breac 131–32 (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 23 P 16 (1230): a brief story appearing in this famous ca. 1408–1411 manuscript (the “Speckled Book”) about the bandit as a child encountering the infant Jesus in Egypt, a story quite similar to that summarized in Aelred of Rievaulx’s De institutione inclusarum 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocesanticae (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft slightly amended. Vocesanticae (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Innovation

I see that you deleted the block on innovation drivers I posted yesterday (technology-meaning). I would be willing to understand if there could be another way to present it since it reflects an important debate going on in the literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unizo92 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sargan Test

What exactly is the conflict of interest on the Sargan Test page? I work in the field and the information inserted by various editors is appropriate for that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBertolucci (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello MrOllie. I appreciate your concern and advocacy for Wikipedia's Terms of Service, but I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang612 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Jlang612, Simply put: Given the edits you have been making to Canada Goose (clothing) and the company's CEO, I don't believe you. You must stop adding promotional content to those articles. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am simply a fan of the brand. All of my edits have been properly cited with appropriate sources. None of the edits I have made have been added for promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang612 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Jlang612, :Whether that was your intent or not, that is what you have been doing. That style of writing is not for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please direct me to the appropriate style of writing for Wikipedia, because I do not see where I have done wrong. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang612 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Jlang612, See WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mechskill

hope that i can contribute for enhancing sources if i can , if it is possible i will be glad to know from you what should be desired guideline for it, new to wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikar15 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:ADS. We don't use blogs as sources, and you should not be repetitively adding links to your blog. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you saying that my image is unhelpful?

Hello MrOllie, I do believe that the picture is appropriate in this case to illustrate that the same form factor is used regardless of the vendor, operator or even the carrier technology. The readers can imagine different devices when they see the term "dongle" or "USB stick", which is not necessarily the same as a broadband USB modem. A picture can avoid this confusion. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Dr.KBAHT

Dr.KBAHT, It's just a bunch of USB plugs with logos on them. All it really illustrates is that different vendors have different logos. Anyone who is confused about the form factor will click through the provided link. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, this confusion is very common. If the modem is described as a USB dongle the readers can get the wrong impression. They can imagine any kind of "USB plug" like a USB memory stick or one of those cryptographic tokens, which have nothing to do with wireless communications. The logos are also illustrative because this section is explaining that different operators rebrand the modems. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Dr.KBAHT

Dr.KBAHT, If some reader had that impression, they would still have it after viewing that image, because, again, all these things are identical to casual inspection by end users. The image does not convey any information beyond what already is in the prose. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I was hoping to get an advice on how to improve the contents. I thought you would suggest blurring the logos, turning the devices upside down or something like that. I do think that illustrating this section would be helpful for the reasons mentioned above. You have a different opinion. I won't insist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.KBAHT (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

remove template Message

I am Dimitri Bertsekas the subject of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Bertsekas. This section relates to the following template

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2019)"

that was added to this article about a year and a half ago. I am not sure what prompted the template, perhaps an innocuous correction/addition of a book reference that I personally added, while not fully aware of your conflict of interest guidelines. However, the requested cleanup with a neutral point of view has not materialized after so long, likely because all the information in the article is correct, and fully documented.

I would like to request that the template be removed from this article because it already reflects a neutral point of view. If this is not possible what recourse would you recommend?

Thank you for your attention,

Dimitri Bertsekas

Dpbert (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Such cleanup categories are highly backlogged, that is true, but the tag is still accurate and should remain. More detail can be found on the associated talk page. Its addition was not prompted by any single edit, but by a pattern of improper editing over a span of years. You should not edit the article on yourself, nor should you be adding your books or mentions of yourself to other articles. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

external links deleted

Hello MrOllie, Happy New Year. You have deleted a number of edits I made on websites where I inserted external links to free self-help resources that are evidence-based (i.e., efficacy confirmed by meta-analyses), I kindly ask you to revert these changes or provide advice where these links are perhaps more appropriate, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a link directory. Curlie.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, Thanks for your quick response. For example, I do not understand why you deleted the link to the self-help manual on the wikipedia OCD page as it is free (i.e., no commercial interest) as well as evidence-based (meta-analysis reporting significant effects here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cpp.2345). I think this is relevant information and I kindly ask you to consider reverting the change.--Wiki psych21 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but the Wikipedia community has decided that we don't give medical advice, and endorsing one particular self-help treatment via a link like that would be dispensing advice. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but it is just a link really and no medical advice. On the OCD wikipedia page, there is also a link to an APA site (https://div12.org/psychological-treatments/disorders/obsessive-compulsive-disorder/) which provides information on psychological but not psychopharmacological treatment. Why is that link OK but the one to the free evidence-based treatment not. Would the link to the treatment program be OK without the citation? I had added it to make clear this is a serious approach but I could delete that. Thanks for your time. --Wiki psych21 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I would be really grateful for some advice in this matter (see also unanswered post before). For example, could you please insert a proper external link for the "association splitting" article to the web-site from which the manual can be retrieved and the technique is further described (https://clinical-neuropsychology.de/association-splitting-technique-for-reducing-obsessive-thoughts/). This may serve me as a template for further edits, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained, there should not be any further edits to add this site. - MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, according to wikipedia rules a link to an official website should be OK, however. I will only make these when appropriate. I will also use Curlie in the future, thanks for the advice. Yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

I have posted at Dispute resolution noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Peter_Navarro karagory (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Karagory (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting SPEED II?

Really? You couldn't even give me a few minutes to clean it up without slapping your delete tag on it. What is it with you deletionists? Did you even read the article and the link to the history of the software? I know of at least one bank that used this language to develop products. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If you need a few minutes, create it in draft space or in your userspace and move it when you're done. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

People like you have been ruining Wikipedia for years - every time I come back and consider doing an edit or a small change, I remember why I left. The only reason I even added this article was in response to this message from years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programming_languages#Is_Speed_II_esoteric%3F Delete it if you want - I couldn't care less. Deletionists have ruined Wikipedia. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to think it is the people who make personal attacks at the drop of the hat that ruin Wikipedia, but I suppose perceptions differ. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong - you started the hostilities with your Delete tag. Do you ever even stop for a second to imagine how that feels to someone who is an occasional editor making a good faith addition? It's so aggressive and deserves a harsh retort. Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother here any more. I forget and people like you are do to give me a sharp reminder. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Added adaptation Death in Venice

You seem to have missed the following on my talk page. I would be grateful if you would reply to it here.

"I regret that I do not understand your comment and view your removal of pertinent facts as at best misguided and at worst offensive. It is not self-promotion to give the title and ISBN of a book published by a reputable company (referred to in itself by Wikipedia). Nor is it self-promotion to state, with evidence of outsider reviewers, that theatre productions took place. In that light, your removal of objectively verifiable information that adds to the topics concerned (Volpone / Hadrian VII and Death in Venice) can only be seen as censorship that deprives the public of information that might be of interest to them. I invite you to reinstate the information or I will have to appeal against your deletions. Your reinstatement - verifying independently the facts that were in the original edits - should meet even the strictest standards of impartiality. In the hope that you can reconsider and resolve this mistake, I wish you a happy new year."

Since writing that piece two points have occurred to me. (a) there is a difference between existence and promotion. "John Smith exists" is different from "John Smith is a wonderful guy". (b) if you are saying that John Smith cannot state "I exist" on Wikipedia and that no-one known to him is allowed to state that fact, the conclusion must be that Wikipedia - or at least the portion of it that you monitor - is less interested in what is posted than who posts it. I would be disappointed to have to draw this conclusion.

I look forward to hearing from you either on this thread or my own

Idiomist (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)idiomistIdiomist (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The mere fact that something exists is not sufficient reason to list it. The main reason Wikipedia has guidelines on conflict of interest (I trust you have read these by now, they have been linked on your talk page for some time) is that conflicted editors often have difficulty judging the proper amount of coverage to give their own work - and in some cases (many cases, actually) that amount is 'none'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

You keep removing the edits I am making which I am moving false information and adding factual information. When I add a portion about an organization (with nothing but a reference, you claim it is in violation of Wikipedia's an advertising and promotion policy, but it is just part of the work that Shmuley is doing now. Please let me know how to add information that is true without being in violation of the advertising and promotion policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel234Ok (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are adding promotional content and removing well sourced criticism, which is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, and of WP:COI. If you keep this up I fully expect that your account will be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add the content without it being "Promotional"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel234Ok (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As an editor with an admitted COI, you should be discussing this on the associated talk page with other editors to request edits. I have left a template message about editing with a COI on your user talk page, you should find the answers you need in the links embedded in that message. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference removed on the recommender system page

Dear MrOllie,

First of all, I want to thank you for the time, energy, and resources allocated to keep Wikipedia at a high level of content quality. I saw that you have a meticulous activity and I congratulate you on this. Not many people devote their time to making Wikipedia a better place.

However, according to the research and reporting systems we use, we saw that you deleted a piece of content that referred to a recently published article. The content was taken from a peer-reviewed article published in the prestigious journal Decision Support Systems, where top researchers from the world publish their research. Therefore, we do not understand why that piece of content was deleted. From what I saw, it fit perfectly with the location where it was inserted, being a natural addition, which brought an added value regarding the privacy of recommender systems.

We believe that addition would be in the direct interest of Wikipedia, because all research tools (from prestigious sites with very high authority and high PR) will track back to the reference, and at the same time will put direct links to the Wikipedia page you manage very carefully. Please see an example below:

https://plu.mx/plum/a/wikipedia?doi=10.1016/j.dss.2020.113420&theme=plum-sciencedirect-theme&hideUsage=true

As a result of the above, I cordially ask you to re-add the reference (see below) in the place where it was placed.

With much appreciation and thanks, Daniel

DrDanielM (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:55, 3 January 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) MrOllie (talk | contribs) (clean up some SYN problems, and an instance of apparent refspam)

Moreover, the results from the empirical study of Mican et al. indicate that recommendations perceived usefulness positively and significantly influences the extent to which users consent to the recommender system's provider collecting, storing, and using their data. As a result, a new prediction model for users' attitudes toward data privacy in recommender systems was proposed.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mican|first1=Daniel|last2=Sitar-Tăut|first2=Dan-Andrei|last3=Moisescu|first3=Ovidiu-Ioan|date=2020-12-01|title=Perceived usefulness: A silver bullet to assure user data availability for online recommendation systems|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923620301755|journal=Decision Support Systems|language=en|volume=139|pages=113420|doi=10.1016/j.dss.2020.113420|issn=0167-9236}}</ref>

Can you explain what these 'research and reporting systems' are? Are you the Daniel Mican who is an author of this reference? - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

Elsevier is the biggest publisher of scientific papers in the world. It provides researchers who publish their research with a number of tools/reporting systems, including some that allow them to track the impact of their research online. An example of such a publically accessible tool is the one I left in the previous post and which can be accessed at the custom link below:

https://plu.mx/plum/a/wikipedia?doi=10.1016/j.dss.2020.113420&theme=plum-sciencedirect-theme&hideUsage=true

As you can see, that tool mentions the citation in the Wikipedia article (with a do-follow backlink, which helps Wikipedia a lot concerning the SEO purpose). It is just that it seems to have been deleted in the meantime (hopefully by mistake).

Yes, I am Daniel Mican, the author of the article and I am writing both on my behalf and on behalf of the other co-authors of the article. I am also writing to you on behalf of Babeș Bolyai University, from Cluj-Napoca. Therefore, if an official document from the university is needed for this purpose, it can be provided. I must mention that we do not have any financial interest in this case, only the desire to make the results obtained by the current research known to the public free of charge.

With much appreciation and respect for your work, Daniel

DrDanielM (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the tool. The reference was removed deliberately. Did you or one of your coauthors and/or associates add the reference to the Wikipedia article? - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. We only saw the appearance of the paragraph in our reporting tools with delight, and now we have seen its disappearance. Therefore, I decided to write to you, with the idea that maybe this would give credibility so that the paragraph could remain on the page. DrDanielM (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Digital Twin

Hy MrOllie, could you explain (by scientific arguments and/or literature or ...), why you deleted the text ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmjakob (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about Amelia(given name)

I noticed you removed from Fictional characters Amelia Watson of Hololive Production. May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsmallBlurb (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That page is a navigation aid and should only be used to list characters that have substantial content for readers at their linked pages. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Issues of PeaZip page

Hello, I've updated the links to external sources of information about PeaZip, with the intent to address the issues of notability, verifiability and neutrality raised in the Multiple issue template added to the page yesterday. To help scrutiny of the updates, at the bottom of Talk:PeaZip I've added notes about the most relevant sources. My actions were aimed to:

1) back up claims of features made on the page citing independent, verifiable, and reputable sources endorsing PeaZip for actually having those features; in example Bruce Scheier (reputable and influential cryptographer) citing PeaZip on his own site Schneier on Security for using Blowfish and Twofish algorithms; or 7-Zip official domain listing PeaZip as software supporting .7z archive format; or Yann Collet, author of zstandard, linking PeaZip as application supporting zstandard on official zstandard project page (which is one of open source projects Facebook is publishing on GitHub); or Matt Mahoney, author of paq family of compressors, linking PeaZip on his official website.

2) recognize the efforts willingly spent by independent third party supporting PeaZip projects over the years, which is significant to establish the outreach of the project; in example I linked OpenSUSE and FreeBSD pages for PeaZip, where they distribute the packages of the application they created and regularly maintain; for the same reason I linked an independent project to port PeaZip to ARM architecture; also in this "class" can be considered the link to Microsoft's repository of winget featuring manifest files for PeaZip (MS added PeaZip to winget package manager very early, and regularly updates).

3) with the sole purpose of showing the significance of the application over the years I've linked some other mixed sources, in example: a step by step guide for encryption using PeaZip on the website of University of Southern California, or the "Project of the month award" interview on Sourcefoce, or a narrow selection of comparatives and dedicated reviews (not auto-published "product pages", nor automated product listings) written from well established tech writers on mainstream tech magazines as The Register, LifeHacker, Techrarad.

Please let me know if my efforts went in the right direction to improve the quality of the page and in addressing the issues raised yesterday, and how this can be improved for the best. Gtani (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the further feedback, I've tried to reduce the redundant and less significative links Gtani (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Art & Object

Hello,

I added Art & Object to the list of art magazines because it is one of the most widely read publications in the art world today. They are read by several million readers each year and feature interviews with top artists and art professionals (from Judy Chicago to Ai WeiWei). Not including Art & Object on the list of art publications makes zero sense. It is one of the fastest growing art websites in America.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeditor1996 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about COI on reproducibility for RecSys

Dear MrOllie,

I am writing this message because I have noticed that you removed some references related to reproducibility studies for recommender systems due to COI/refspam. While I am indeed one of the authors (and probably adding a second reference was excessive on my part) the first article was a significant contribution that was appreciated by the community, having won a "Best paper award" and received more than 160 citations. One could certainly discuss these issues without citing that paper, but the set of people investigating those issues is limited and it would still contain other of my coauthors. Furthermore, there has not been a reproducibility study of that nature in the RecSys field in several years, before several of the currently widely used techniques were introduced, so the remaining reference would be from more or less 10/15 years ago and discuss older approaches. For a field that was born in the '90s that is a lot of time.

So, I would like to ask if you think that a wider discussion incluiding other, maybe older, works would mitigate/address the COI problem. Including for the reproducibility crisis page (where I noticed some of the other examples are similarly referred to a single article).

I would also point out that on Matrix factorization (recommender systems), you lef the paper from Rendle, which confirms one specific result reported in our own study and then does further experimental inqury, however it is not in itself a wide reproducibility study so the previous part of the section would be without citation. I am not going to re-insert it so as not to create further problems.

Thank you

MaurizioFD (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I now noticed that there had been quite a few changes in the past related to those references in the recommender systems page, from various users which you reverted. I am sorry if I added to the mess. I suppose the issue was also they appeared in too many different places where a link to another page would have sufficed. MaurizioFD (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Inheritance (object-oriented programming)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the Inheritance (object-oriented programming) article after all that mess was inserted! I tried to fix it a little, but your method was better. Perhaps if I'd had my coffee, I would've seen the simpler solution. Anyway, thanks again, and Happy New Year! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing External Link

Hi,

Thank you for your detailed message.

I have read your wiki page ,and I thought that, I have to update the same by adding the external link. I have only redirected to the well researched article (https://www.astuteanalytica.com/industry-report/waste-management-market) which includes the definition of Waste Management along with the COVID and Asia Pacific analysis. Please read the link and allow me to add this on your page, it will be useful for readers. Please suggest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon7860923 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's linkspam. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to advice

Sorry, I did not realize that my edits on QAnon would be considered 'disruptive' - how should I have approached them? Jaydubyah43 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You must edit based only on what is in reliable sources. You must not simply add your own personal feelings or personal knowledge to articles. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Added adaptation Death in Venice

Thank you for your reply now archived. My apologies for not responding earlier than this. I of course accept your points about self-promotion, but your added comment about existence not being sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia unfortunately confirms my suspicion that facts are less important than the person inserting them - or in your case - censoring them. I am aware that another individual posted similar facts at some point last year, that were also deleted. I am not sure if you were responsible for this. That incident concerns me because it seems that an important contribution to the topic - a view on Death in Venice from Tadzio's point of view, which, to my knowledge has not been attempted elsewhere, and which has received favourable comment on print, stage and audio versions - cannot now be placed on Wikipedia. If I submit the topic; you will delete it. If another person submits it; you or another person will delete it - I presume because you will suspect me of having initiated the post. That might then lead to the situation where it could never be posted, no matter how important the topic is or how often it is cited / referred to in sources outside Wikipedia. For my own satisfaction, therefore, I would appreciate your informing me, under what condition can this kind of information be published without it being censored by you or another editor? Is it a question of (a) who posts the information? or (b) a minimum number of copies of a book / performances of a play / a minimum film budget whatever? Or am I right in suspecting that once deleted, always deleted on Wikipedia? omotion. With thanks in advance for your reply. (Finally - your comments about self-promotion are ironic given that - to give just one example - the entry on Wonder Woman (2017 film) is nothing more or less than promotion by the film company with press releases quoted word for word for much of the article. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and delete all that extraneous material to save you the trouble of doing so.) idiomistIdiomist (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not about you personally (or this other person that you asked to add this for you), it is about the coverage in independent sourcing per WP:UNDUE. What percentage of independent writing that meet's Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (academic works) about Death in Venice mentions your adaptation? It is so low that it simply does not belong on the article. It has nothing to do with budget. It is normal that you take pride in your own work, but this is why you aren't able to judge this objectively, and this is why the COI guidelines so discourage self promotion. Re: blanking content from Wonder Woman, see WP:POINT. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument seems to keep shifting. a) you suddenly bring in academic works in citing my adaptations - but references to other adapted works on Death in Venice do not have academic references - which makes your point irrelevant. b) incidentally my initial adaptation is referred to Gregory Woods' A History of Gay Literature, publ 1998, although I did not refer to that in my posting - I thought (stupidly, as it turns out) that the existence of the book I wrote from a publisher that is already on Wikipedia was more important than the secondary reference. c) I note that you allow works such as "Ehrhard Bahr: "Der Tod in Venedig, Erläuterungen und Dokumente." Reclam, Stuttgart 1991 and Philip Kitcher, Deaths in Venice: The Cases of Gustav von Aschenbach. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013 to be cited without confirmation as to their worth. (These are just two of many such examples across Wikipedia) d) the later adaptations are referred to online by organisations / individuals I have no connection with - I had (again stupidly, it seems) thought that since other entries are accepted with online references, so might mine be. e) You say that the independent writing "is so low that it simply does not belong on the article". I ask again - what level of independent writing - and how do you accept that it is independent - would you consider necessary for the information to be included. f) I regret that my perusal of the link you gave me to Wonder Woman does not explain why copying a press release is not considered promotion. Again it must be my stupidity that allows that content. g) If I were really interested in self-promotion I would flood Wikipedia through my own name and others with useless information about the dozens of works I have written / produced. I only wished to add three (Death in Venice / Volpone and Hadrian VII) items because my writing on these topics is original, thought-provoking and has provoked a positive response from readers / audiences.

Because your statements are either vague or contradict the practice I see, I can only come to the conclusion that you have a capricious attitude and wish to censor minor points of information that are not in themselves of world-shattering importance but which do throw at least a little extra light on the topics mentioned. The reasons you give keep shifting. I don't want to waste your time and I certainly don't want to waste my time on this discussion, but if instead of vague and sometimes groundless statements you could state under exactly what conditions you would allow the information to be published, then I would be happy for both of us to move on to more important things.

idiomistIdiomist (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Added reference to: What is Computational Intelligence and where is it going?

>Hello, Wduch. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers. Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

WD: Artificial Intelligence entry contains large number of articles that are not of the review type. Unfortunately relations between computational intelligence (CI) and AI are difficult to find in review literature. I have cited the only article that contains detailed discussion how CI and AI should be defined and how they are related. It is easy to check that Springer book cited is a trusted resource. So I believe that it contributes to the quality of this entry.

Anyway, thank you for keeping Wikipedia a valuable resource. Sincerely,

Prof. Włodzisław Duch Fellow, International Neural Network Society, Past President, European Neural Network Society Head, Neuroinformatics and Artificial Intelligence Group, Center of Excellence, and Neurocognitive Laboratory, CMIT. Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland Google: Wlodzislaw Duch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.50.196 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Meditation Classifications

Dear MrOllie, I am writing this because you reverted my addition to the Meditation >> Classifications section. While I am indeed one of the authors of this study, our article was a significant contribution to the research literature. The classification system we propose features a much higer diversity of meditation practices than any of the classifications presented in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, I think it would be very interesting for the readers, too. Could you please consider re-inserting the paragraph I wrote? Thank you Karmatko (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 - Expanding beyond transportation

Dear MrOllie, I am writing this in response to the claim that I have an undisclosed financial stake to the company in question (and the subsequent reverting of my edit). I would like to clarify that I am not paid for this edit and hence do not have an undisclosed financial stake to the company. I merely added the edit after researching and discovering that the company has ventured into the healthcare industry. I have zero relations with the company, and hence I believe that my edit should not be reverted. Thank you. Awesomereality (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reason you would have for pasting blatant advertising into the article, then, but either way it is not appropriate and the edit should not be restored. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, would you mind highlighting to me which part of the edit is 'blatant advertising'? I have cited all sources accordingly (with one citation directly from the company website) and have not exaggerated or falsified any part of the edit. I find it simply ridiculous that a community edit like mine (with no form of advertising or monetary compensation involved) is reverted. Anyway, I don't think I am interested in pursuing this any further as it's simply too tedious to do all these work/explaining just to revert a random edit of mine. Awesomereality (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Road bikes edit

Hello MrOllie, I've noticed you have reverted changes I did in the road bike article due to an "unreliable source". I've written the article using more than 20 different sources. Why it is "unreliable" then? Thank you for your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minarik Petr (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

On wikipedia we do not use blog posts as sources, see WP:RS. Per WP:REFSPAM, WP:NOR, and WP:COI, you especially should use your own blog posts as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen so many articles, blog posts, and news used as a source. Can you give me some comment on that, please? COI - fair enough. But I don't get the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minarik Petr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers are fine. As to blogs, Wikipedia is a big site and volunteer time is limited, sometimes it takes a while for someone to notice an inappropriate source. Please read and follow the polices, and don't make more work for others by using inappropriate sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it possible that in the same wiki article about road bikes, there is a source (also a blog post - from EcoVelo) that was not deleted? What makes it more reliable? Please, help me to understand this. I also forgot to add that the same source links to doubtful Cryptocurrency website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minarik Petr (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Added adaptation Death in Venice

I apologise if I have missed a reply the following question.

"I don't want to waste your time and I certainly don't want to waste my time on this discussion, but if instead of vague and sometimes groundless statements you could state under exactly what conditions you would allow the information to be published, then I would be happy for both of us to move on to more important things."

To put that in simple English: (A) what is the statistic you would use to agree that this item was worthy of conclusion? (eg sales of a publication / online references / reference by A Famous Person) (B) what evidence would you accept that any information posted was neither by myself nor posted by myself and was therefore acceptable to Wikipedia?

If I could get a clear answer from you on both these points I would happy to move on to other issues.

You don't need to answer the following points. (C) You might ask yourself why a Wikipedia page devoted to fictional pigs is of greater importance than an entry about a classic piece of literature. (D) You might ask yourself why you are happy to accept promotional material from Hollywood studios as an entry but not a factual entry about a topic.

In the spirit of civility, I look forward to your answer and offer you my kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiomist (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've answered these questions, and I don't have anything more to say on this matter, aside from noting that strawman arguments generally convince no one. If you have further questions, I suggest you ask them at WP:COIN or WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You have not answered either question in this or your previous responses. I have tried to move on from COI to get a clear a idea of posting policy for any subject but you keep reverting to COI. I accept COIN, which makes that page irrelevant, and the teahouse seems inappropriate for discussion. If only you could tell me what the criteria are! (COI apart, I could become as famous as J K Rowling and if a thousand people I had never met posted information about my work, you would probably delete all references to it in the belief I had somehow orchestrated it.)

I assume by the strawman argument you mean my references to absurd entries and reposting of press releases. Again I have to differ, because to me they underline the impression that that what is posted on Wikipedia is less important than who posts or edits it.

Moving on ... you may not be aware that some time ago I added an item to the playwright Constance Cox, as the author of The Picture of Dorian Gray, published by the Fortune Press. This is your chance to delete it. I may post other items in future, but I will immediately inform you so that you can delete them as you wish.

I do not expect a response to this final post. I thank you for the time you have take to respond to me in the past, although I would have preferred illumination rather than obfuscation.

idiomistIdiomist (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

/* References */ Shahjay23 (section)

Hello MrOllie, It's my sincere apology from my side I have attached the link on that thought the word binge watcher is similar to our site name... so after editing this I gave a reference as a citation required error I saw as on the page, That's why I have attached the link. refrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahjay23 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You apologized, and then you continued spamming. If you keep that up you can expect your account to be blocked and the domain added to the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Cloud gaming table

Hi, I noticed your edit "removing tables of nonnotable vendors per WP:NOT", it's not clear to me which specific part of WP:NOT apply here. I think it should probably be either WP:DIRECTORY or WP:PLOT, is that right?

Anyhow, I think that Wikipedia still lost something with the removal of the table. Specifically, I noticed your edit because I wanted to refer to some of the alternatives that are available in a smaller set of geographical regions. From the current article, it seems that the only services are the ones created by massive businesses like Microsoft, Google, Amazon... with very few exceptions (e.g. Shadow).

Do you think there might be a way to have this information tracked, maybe in aggregate (so it wouldn't become a directory)? Knowing how many such services started, in which countries, running on which platforms (web, mobile apps, set top box, etc.) might still be encyclopedic. Do you agree? Tiibiidii (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have sources that discuss the industry in aggregate, that should be fine. If not, please have a read of WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits on Place Branding wiki

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Yesterday I contributed to the Place Branding page. It seems that you did not accept any of the edits I made, is that right? I was surprised that not a single one of my suggestions was accepted. Could you please explain your role? And could you be so kind to explain whether there was a specific reason why my suggestions were not accepted? How could I improve my contributions? With kind regards, Jasper Eshuis Jas Eshuis (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:NOR. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources on these topics. Please cite some that have not been written by yourself or by any associates. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Digital Twin for Logistics

do you have any scientific based arguments and references for canceling the text ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmjakob (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to self-promote. Try basing your additions on sources that have been written by people unrelated to yourself or your own work. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

CBIR entry

Hey I saw you reverted adding an entry to the list of content-based image retrieval engines. Wondering why? Thanks for the info, would love to learn how to improve the contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhamilton723 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Smart_city#Gdynia

Dear MrOllie, I'm trying to add Gdynia to Smart city. I took your advice and reedited the text to make it neutral - facts only, no opinions. The text is written by me, so there is no problem with copyright violation. Can you please explain what was the problem? Regards, Moje Miasto Gdynia (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moje Miasto Gdynia (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moje Miasto Gdynia, You're still plagiarizing something, as you have cited no sources in your latest versions. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Named entity

Dear MrOllie, I don't really understand your removal on the "named entity" page, as it's just about pointing out there's a debate about what can be considered as an entity. Knowing that "President of the United States" corresponds to a Wikipedia page (and is therefore an entity in Google and major search engines Knowledge Graphs). There are so many mistakes done about named entities that I'm still convinced my update was important. Maybe I'm wrong, but then, it would be worth correcting the assertion itself (i.e. "President of the United States" IS an entity) Let me know what you think, Thanks FredLaurent — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredLaurent (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't use blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer. I've checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability where it's stated that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I've checked the author bio for the source, and he's a renowned expert in the field. Can you have a look ? Thanks, Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredLaurent (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FredLaurent, That exception is for people like Eugene Volokh, professors who regularly publish in peer reviewed publications and who also have a blog, not for SEO folks who write guest posts in other people's self published blogs. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I have to conclude that you prefer to maintain errors in WIkipedia rather than correcting them, because the format of a reference does not suit you? This is simply counterproductive in my opinion. I think that you didn't bother to check the author's references either. It's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredLaurent (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

CT scan

Dear Mr.Ollie, I have extend the CT scan article by short information about robotic CT which is a new CT scanning technology. You have rejected the extension. Could you please explain your reasons?

Thank you, Josef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef.uher (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Your addition was not properly sourced, and appeared to be promotional. Either of which is a reason to remove the content. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It is a very new area of CT and not many teams are working on this and it is in my opinion worthy to spread the information about this entirely new CT segment. I'll improve the text according to your comments. Josef.uher (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize secondary sources, not to 'get the word out' about new developments and products. Especially on medical content/technologies, Wikipedia deliberately lags far behind the curve. See WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, as I mentioned I will add sources and improve the formulaiton. Yet, wikipedia contains many articles about "hot" topics that are just being explored. An example might be Long COVID. The robotic CT is under development for at least 6 or 7 years, so it has already some place in the field. Josef.uher (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Please also see WP:COI and WP:PAID, it appears that you are in violation of those policies and Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, if a scientists contributes to Wikipedia about his/her field of study, is it a conflict of interest? I understand that adding contribution in sense of "buy our product because it is the best" is simply wrong. However, is it wrong to describe a new general approach to CT? Without promotion of any particular device? In other words, for example, is description of the CBCT approach promotion of CBCT manufacturers? This is not clear to me. Josef.uher (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, Have you ever heard the phrase A rising tide lifts all boats? Promoting the field also promotes all the companies in it, particularly when (as you just mentioned) the industry is very small. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, yes, certainly. Does that mean that Wikipedia should talk only about topics that involve large industries? Nevertheless, it is not clear to me why the CT scan article contains section "Manufacturers". Why these ones are OK to be mentioned and not the hundreds of others? Josef.uher (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Josef.uher, No, but it does mean that a company CTO / founder should not be making undisclosed edits about his (tiny) industry. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, well, it would be nice if the field was only about one team :-), but it is not:

https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/pr/2018/20180731_EZRT_RoboCT.html

http://www.veterinary-imaging.com/equimagine-robotic-ct.php

https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/cz/robotic-x-ray/twin-robotic-x-ray/multitom-rax

https://www.weamec.fr/en/technologies/robotized-computed-tomography/

Fraunhofer, CEA, Siemens are not exactly tiny. I would appreciate recommendations how to improve the references and/or the text. I was writing the text so that it focuses on the new CT approach rather than any company or product. If you feel it is not the case, let's talk about how to change the text so it is acceptable. However, I see no reason to reject this new topic entirely. Josef.uher (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Either way, you must disclose per WP:PAID if you want to be involved in articles relating to this field, and you must avoid referencing yourself or your company, even indirectly. All related changes should be made as talk page edit requests, as outlined in the policies I have already linked for you. - MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits on human resource management system

Yesterday I added a section to human resource management system entitled Employee Experience Platform. This has since been removed and I wondered why? Prue535 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not well written (WP:SOLUTIONS for one problem, among others), and sourced to someone's blog (See WP:V, WP:RS). - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits rejected on Training

Hi,

I edited this page, on the section of "Occupational skills training" and it was rejected. I have been a fan of Wikipedia for over a decade, and donated to Wikipedia many times. Now, is this immediate rejection a new policy? I added a source to my text from an article from a well-known journal in ergonomics. It was a comprehensive literature review as suggested by Wikipedia to include literature reviews. Why was it rejected?

14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Zarathustra55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarathustra55 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise your own work or insert citations to yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCsee (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Weirsky

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for additional information in the article on flight cancellation and delay

Dear MrOllie,

I have noticed that you removed some sources I added to the article covering flight cancellations and delay. In your comment you remarked that you consider them unreliable without going into further detail. Hence, I am curious to learn what you find unreliable about them or rather what you expect to clear the threshold for reliability.

As far as I can tell, you deleted references to two detailed articles from a legal blog on passenger rights both authored by German lawyers (https://www.qam-qam.com/flight-compensation-guide/ and https://www.qam-qam.com/flight-delay-rights/). Both contributions also list their sources extensively. The first even contains 88 footnotes referring to court rulings and commentaries. This is why I found them particularly trustworthy and insightful. In comparison, most other references cited in the article (that you did not object to) are mere online newspaper articles that barely disclose their legal sources and are written by journalists rather than legal experts. Besides, given that the template message in the article complained about its focus on the US perspective I thought it would be helpful to add expert references from continental Europe (where German domestic courts deal with most passenger rights cases given the relative size of the country within the EU).

Since I am therefore unsure what is wrong with these sources, it would be great if you could let me know more about your assessment.

Best regards,

--Baronomingo (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. In a nutshell self published sources such as blogs are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, with some limited exceptions that do not apply in this case. Do not assume that I endorse every other citation in those articles. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, Thank you for your fast response. The lawyers who wrote the articles in question are neither the owners of the website that hosts the blog nor affiliated with the owner in any noticeable way. As the editorial note at the end of each contribution states, they are guest authors. There is little reason to doubt this given that one author's law firm is located in Hamburg and the other one's in Munich (https://vokat.de/anwaelte/; http://ra-dr-roeckl.de/), whereas the company operating the website is headquartered in the Frankfurt area. I could easily see that a reference would have to be treated as a self published source if someone employed at the company operating a website wrote an article or if a lawyer published the material in question through his own law firm's homepage. But that is not the case here. Judging by the standard you cited, I would have far more reason to delete the following reference I inserted as well: https://www.dlapiper.com/de/austria/insights/publications/2020/12/brexit-the-end-for-261/. Here, one of DLA Piper's own lawyers produced a contribution for the company's blog. And while DLA Piper is an international law firm and the lawyers authoring the article practice in the field of passenger rights (just like the German attorneys), I could not find a lengthy track record of scientific publication covering the subject that sets their degree of expertise apart. Since you did not object to the piece by DLA Piper though, I am a bit confused why the deleted sources are considered self-published and the latter is not. --Baronomingo (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it yourself. Did you read my reply? Let me quote part of it for you again: "Do not assume that I endorse every other citation in those articles." - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I have read your reply and I will make additional changes myself once I have understood the standards by which you judge whether a source is appropriate or not. But so far, I am not quite sure. So perhaps you can help me on this: Why are guest posts by lawyers on a legal blog operated by another company considered unreliable self-published content? The authors themselves did not publish the articles in question, afterall. --Baronomingo (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Baronomingo, Guest blog posts are not peer reviewed, fact checked, or edited in any meaningful sense. If you have further questions about policies in general I suggest you ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Thought I was in my sandbox.Casprings (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Business Data Links

Please stop wrongly deleting valuable and wholly legitimate links to business data of publicly-traded companies. Classifying SEC Filing links and other legitimate sources of financial as "mass spam" is wholly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessDataContributor (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

BusinessDataContributor, Wikipedia is not a link directory, and the mass link additions were wholly inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not mindlessly regurgitate "rules" that you are mindlessly and inconsistently applying. There are thousands of pages with legitimate business data links that you somehow are not deeming "wholly inappropriate". One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newmont_Corporation#External_links. Please delete those links immediately if you are to be consistent the so called "rules" you are applying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessDataContributor (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday. That some other article somewhere on Wikipedia also has an external link does not excuse adding linkspam, and we do notice when a spam link is inserted next to a link to the SEC. - MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Evidently you were indeed born yesterday. There is absolutely nothing promotional whatsoever in adding links to official government filings that contain official business data. And your inability to comprehend this is both disturbing and embarrassing to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessDataContributor (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC) You may also want to explain to Yahoo Finance and other legitimate sources that you have singlehandedly decided to categorize them as "spam" as a result of your total ignorance and boneheadedness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessDataContributor (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sports

Who are you From which 3rd class Area Have you born ?????Can't you read what's there ????There is link why are deleting ?????Hello MrOllie ????? Prathik mysorean (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you are fluent in English? - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

CBIR entry - Have been trying to contact you for weeks

Hey User:MrOllie, I noticed you removed my addition to the list of CBIR engines. Can you help me understand how to improve the contribution? I have been trying persistently to chat and would appreciate any help. Thanks a ton! 2601:184:4A80:8180:BC61:C2B:AC42:1D5B (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Mhamilton723 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about deleted contribution

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I just wanted to ask about my deleted contribution on "steel". I understand why you removed the one with an external link attached to it. But, I added additional information in "Carbon" and "alloy steel" that did not have any external links and were just plain texts. I would just like to ask why they were removed. Thanks! CyreneL (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Diamond data

Edahn Golan Diamond Research is a leading diamond industry analyst, one of very few such people globally. His insights are commissioned by some of the largest diamond firms (De Beers, Alrosa, Rio Tinto)in the world and the leading consultancy firms (BCG, Kearney) as shown on their client page (edahngolan dot com/clients/). As such, they are very appropriate and high quality references, an important resource for Wikipedia users and should not be blocked. NYT, CNN, WSJ, and a long list of diamond/jewelry industry press seem to interview him regularly (edahngolan dot com/press). One such quote was cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTRA_Diamonds.

Isn't that the best way to ensure the relevance of a source? In addition, Golan was cited on Wikipedia as a source a number of times in the past by other contributors, such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rapaport.

Regarding the entry on investments in diamonds, the cited source was the cover story of a major diamond industry publication, IDEX Online.

I therefore believe that a reversal of blacklisting edahngolan.com is in order.

Thanks,

MBT-skl (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Beer Festival - Ecuador

You seem to be the one that keeps disrupting. I removed all external links, and yet you still refuse to allow a significant contribution to relevant page in Wikipedia. Perhaps you do not want to allow a 3rd world country to be listed in this list of Beer Festivals in this listing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracefulonline (talk • contribs) 02:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gracefulonline, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise. Your addition was promotional in tone and cited no independent sources. MrOllie (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, EVERY single post on that page is promotional in tone and very few cite independent sources. I don't see you deleting their entire listing for their country. Gracefulonline 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've started to review it, but it is a long list. That other people have spammed is not a reason for you to spam as well. - MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

TripZilla Excellence Award

Hey User:MrOllie, I noticed you removed my contribution on TripZilla Excellence Award page and other pages as well. I have added tripzilla excellence award on the participant Wiki with reference from their own website to show appropriate notability but I think you removed them as well, please be aware that I'm not paid for any of the edits.Vstranger1235 (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a notable award and you should not have added it to all those pages, particularly not with the non-neutral wording that you used. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Freeman789 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC) please help/advise.

MrOllie, hello, please advise: I'm trying to add pertinent published works to Complementary Currency -- publications from Thomas Greco, who is acknowledged to be a decades long researcher and author on alternative exchange mechanisms. I listed 4 of his books, two of which are partially available online.

Please advise how to make this not "spam" , which it is not.

Thank you. Freeman789 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Freeman789

MrOllie, Similar to above, how is Riegel and Greco and Bilgram & Levy not pertinent to mutual credit??? Are you familiar with any of them? Thank you in advance,

Freeman789 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Freeman789

We don't indiscriminately list works to promote a particular author, particularly not self published books. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie

You have removed all my data inputs on National Institute of Agricultural Marketing, Jaipur. See MrOllie Its an Public Government Business school so we can feed information on our own more information should be taken from the website of the Business school itself that will help the people coming to get info about that institute so the institute too will be looking same such and for the more info am on of the student in that institute so change all the things you have deleted as soon I have taken more time to update about my institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajigmail (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

On wikipedia, articles must be written neutrally. You were turning that page into an advertising piece, and apparently violating copyright while doing so. - MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Then why delete books that are not self published? And who decides what is "indiscriminately" added?

MrOllie, In response to above, Then why delete books that are not self published? And who decides what is "indiscriminately" added? Riegel was not self published. Greco's last two books were not self published. Can you please reinstate those? Thank you Freeman789 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Freeman789

Human resource management system: Suggested improvements

Hi, I just want to pick your comments back up with regards to my edits on the Human resource management system page. You mentioned that it was not well written. Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Would you like it to be more technical or more descriptive? I’m happy to rewrite it with your direction. Also, you mentioned that I sourced to someone’s blog. I think this might of been in error as it was a white paper written by a recognised industry analyst. I would really like to get employee experience platforms on Wikipedia as it’s a technology widely used in HR and so it should be referenced. If you think it would be better suited on a different page or should have a dedicated page please let me know. Your help and advice is much appreciated. Prue535 (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Prue535, the edit was rightly reverted. Wikipedia is not here for you to do PR. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy I don’t understand what you mean. There were no companies or products mentioned. It is an industry term that should be defined. That was the sole purpose of my edit. Would more of a technical definition be more suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prue535 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove section with a reference I was co-authoring.

Hi, I added a few lines on a specific topic concerning autonomous vehicles and welfare performance of such cars. It was a citation I was involved in myself, but I do not know of other references that consider the welfare effects within the network. So this was my excuse. But it is also fine to remove, I just thought it provided some specific added information on this particular topic. I do not reference things that are irrelevant. Thanks for being observant!

Jeppe.Rich (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Jeppe.Rich

General Personal Data Protection Law edit reverted

Hi User:MrOllie ! I've noticed you reverted an edit I did to General Personal Data Protection Law You removed an external link. I want to understand why you thought the link was inappropriate. Could you please give me your view on this?

Thank you!

Isabel Growth (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, we do not link to marketing materials such as vendor sites. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

COI

Hello, MrOllie. I used the format of the PLOS subcaption in the open access page. However, if that is a COI, then by all means please remove it. This is, after all, open science. The graphic is provided under a free CC4.0 license. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discovertek (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Discovertek, Yes, I did remove it, and now you are restoring it - in the future, please don't make up logos yourself and then add them to pages, and do not add external links to or mentions of groups you are associated with. 100% of your editing so far has been conflicted edits - please find a topic unrelated to yourself or your organizations, or else restrict your editing to making suggestions on article talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie. I thought removing the COI of the company name (still don't know why PLOS has theirs listed) would be sufficient to get the logo posted. There is no logo for open science and no ISO or other international standards body with an "approved" open science logo. Therefore, since I am a deep proponent of open science, I took the initiative to develop a logo and make it freely available to all. What do you require from me in order to list such an effort? Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discovertek (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Discovertek, Wikipedia is not a place to promote a new logo. It might be covered here, if and when it becomes widely used by others and is the subject of sources independent of those who came up with it. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie.

Thank you for the feedback. I am NOT trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand.

Wikipedia was not being used to promote this logo. Maybe I am promoting open science by engaging in the Wiki, but open science is not an enterprise, for profit organization, institution, government entity, or any other entity. Open science is a concept. Perhaps you know this. If so, please do not be offended with my not knowing this. Again, I am NOT trying to be argumentative.

What are the metrics of "when it becomes widely used by others" and how many "sources" must make the logo the subject of independent discussion (or some other method)?

I am also curious as to how PLOS was allowed to link its creation (was it theirs?) of the open access logo?

Must mention I am a significant supporter of PLOS so not a barb at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discovertek (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate the understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discovertek (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything, not even worthy causes or ideals. It is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle. It is also not a newspaper or a journal - it is not a place to get the word out about new developments. See policies such as WP:NOR and WP:RS - the purpose of Wikipedia is to follow and summarize sources, not to lead them. There are no hard numbers of sources or mentions to look for - if and when your logo is widely used it will be apparent to everyone and will likely be used here without any further action on your part. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Drills and Drilling Machines

Hi, I recently edited a page for drills anonomously as I couldn't login. You reversed the edit based on "what's more common". So if I understand correctly you're sticking with incorrect terminology just because it's "more common"? Reznik420 (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it is incorrect. If you think the article should be retitled, you should raise that at the article's associated talk page, as others will probably want to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It definitely is incorrect. Thankyou for the advice I'll raise on the wiki talk page like you advise. Reznik420 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Remote Backup Service Edits Not Accepted - Response

Mr. Ollie,

Thankyou for your response. If you are the owner of the companies mentioned, and the page had the original information that was deleted in the first place, how do I site something if you are the owner and was there? That's like saying bill gates could not edit the windows page, because he did not cite his sources. And when you delete the original pages information and the owner and pioneer of the technology corrects the mistake, he has to cite the fact that he was there. I guess we can add Wikipedia to the list of Tech companies who shadow ban.

Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.36.231 (talk • contribs)

Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. You must be prepared to cite a reliable source for anything you add, so the readers can verify that it is true later. Writing based solely on your own personal knowledge is not allowed. You are correct, even Bill Gates could not write whatever he wants on the page about Microsoft Windows, both because of these policies and because he would have a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

SHAREit ‎promotional editing

MrOllie, my recent edits are facts directly to those companies providing the accolades with proper citation. How is that promotional? Huhlanpah (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're building a list of obscure rewards based on primary sources. Lists of nonnotable awards inherently promote the company that 'won' (in reality most of these are paid for adverts/marketing opportunities). That's why Wikipedia articles generally only list very major awards. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reason for reverting change on service-oriented architectures?

Hello, is there a specific reason why you reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Service-oriented_architecture&diff=1005800620&oldid=1005182202 ? 2bax (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight. That's a very obscure paper (only a single citation) and shouldn't be covered here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I added an improved version. I don't think the IEEE is an "obscure paper".2bax (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The IEEE publishes a lot of stuff no one takes any notice of, this is just one example. Are you associated with this paper or its authors somehow? - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No association or author, but I work in that area. In general, what are the criteria for including something in Wikipedia? My assumption was that this is a perfect fit for that section. In your second revert you classify it as "apparent refspam" as if the reference has no relevance to the topic. How did you came to this conclusion? You mention the number of citations to classify it as "obscure paper". Where do you got that number from? What is the minimum for inclusion in Wikipedia? Would additional references about that topic make it qualify in your view? In general, in my experience, I think real-time applications also in the context of service-oriented architectures are an important topic which should be not excluded from Wikipedia. 2bax (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What about sourcing it with [2] instead? It's a little bit older, but has more citations from whatV I can see. And as I can see a complete different set of authors, which should satisfy your refspam fear. Or what about [3]? In general, I think that area of real-time applications using service-oriented architectures is obviously an important topic. Do you want to exclude that topic in general, or do you have specific reservations with the original reference? 2bax (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a new version using both the new references and the old one. I hope this satisfies your requirements. In case you have objections to specific sources, for example the original one, I suggest removing these specific source or sources, instead of removing the whole topic. 2bax (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, if the issue for you is only the reference, then I think this can be fixed by sourcing it differently, as I tried in my last edit. Of course, if you object to the area of using service-oriented architectures for interactive applications in general, then this is obviously a much more fundamental dispute. 2bax (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

See also [4]. I wouldn't use that as source, because it is no scientific paper. But it is just one of many samples that interactive applications are an important area of service oriented architectures (Kubernetes is a leading orchestration software for services meshes). Of course, I fully understand that everything in Wikipedia should be well sourced. This was my intention from the beginning. 2bax (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Friendly jaguar padding by with what I hope is a helpful comment or two for you, 2bax, as you appear to be a new editor. Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! Secondly, one of the most important policies (as opposed to looser guidelines) that informs what is, and what is not, included as content in Wikipedia (WP) articles is WP:DUE. If you have not yet done so, I encourage you to read that policy (which is actually a subset of the larger WP:NPOV policy, which I also encourage you to read in full), as it should provide you with impartial explanations, and insights, for why your recent edit was removed (i.e., reverted). One does not need to be an expert in a particular scholarly field to appreciate that a research paper that has only been cited once is unlikely to satisfy WP:DUE, and being an encyclopedia WP articles do not include every possible topic or external citation (see WP:NOT). Regarding your questions, there are no explicit standards, or threshold numbers, that are used to determine if a reference, or even a topic, is included in an article. The essay WP:MAINSTREAM might be helpful for understanding that issue. Which leads me to my final point. Another fundamental policy for determining article content on WP is WP:CONSENSUS which - you guessed it! - I encourage you to read. By discussing article content on the Talk page, as you are doing here, it is possible that other editors will join the discussion and agree with you, with a result being that the content you wish to include/expand (assuming it is not in direct violation of some policy) will be included in the article. Of course, consensus might go against you, in which case c'est la vie. Every editor, if they are here long enough, will have consensus go against them at some point(s). If that is what happens here, just move on to another point/topic/article. There is, and always will be, something to do on WP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was just a little bit puzzled about the initial revert which (as I could see) was without explanation at all, especially since my understanding is that Wikipedia basically openly invites everyone to make (useful) contributions. This was why I asked for the reason for the revert. I also didn't want to dispute the relevance of the number of references, but I was just asking where this specific number of only one reference was coming from, because I couldn't find it. I also tried to look it up for other references on the same Wikipedia article, and couldn't find it either. Is there some standard source for finding that number for a specific article? Nevertheless, now I tried to address that issue by other references, since I still think that this topic is relevant in general, see also my previous explanations. And don't worry, my happyness does not depend on me making Wikipedia contributions. 2bax (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

At the IEEE's page about the citation, click on 'metrics' on the left menu bar. Under 'citations' click on either the Scorpus or the google scholar buttons. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! You live and learn. 16:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)2bax (talk)

removal of "sourcehut" on page Comparison_of_source-code-hosting_facilities

Hello, i noticed today sourcehut is missing on the page on source code hosting facilities "Comparison_of_source-code-hosting_facilities". The thought crossed my mind of quickly adding it, but i noticed it was recently added but was immediately removed by you (january 10th). No point in adding it if someone removes it right away. Would you care to explain why sourcehut should not be mentioned ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.75.153 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a list of facilities that have preexisting Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifiying. However, that's certainly not clear from the article that this is a requirement. Is this part of wikipedia policy ? In that case I wonder what the value is of a comparison page, if many services are missing (sourcehut I know, but i guess from your comment there are probably many others). For the sake of argument, if I would add a wiki page on source hut, then a reference to sourcehut on this page would be valid to stay ? However, this would be a long shot as I never added anything on wikipedia, this new sourcehut page would probably also be taken down as it would not correspond to wiki guidelines and policies. thanks anyway for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.75.153 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

De Beers

Dear Mr Ollie, Regarding edits I made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Beers&action=history last week. I have been well connected to both Ashton Mining, who discovered Argyle, and I am a past National Convener of the Diamond Diploma at the Gemmological Association of Australia. I had lunch with Ewen Tyler OA on Tuesday. Ewen began the search for the Argyle mine and has been involved in the discovery of all three commercial diamond mines in Australia. I am acknowledged as a diamond cut quality expert world over and hold several US and EU patents in the field and wrote many others. My first was Holloway Cut Adviser which is used to grade about $1B worth of diamonds each year by trade and consumers. I can go no, but perhaps you would like to fact check a few of these claims. PS I was given the AKA Cut Nut by Martin Rapaport 25 years ago. Kind regards Garry Holloway BSc FGAA DipDT NCJV valuer — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarryH CutNut (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GarryH CutNut, You must be prepared to cite sources for everything you write, see WP:V. You may not simply add text based on your personal expierence or what someone told you at lunch, see WP:NOR. These are core Wikipedia policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

reverting comment on louvain

Hi As a network science practitioner, I find it very helpful to get and give best practices of network analysis. In this case, I've checked scholar citations to measure Louvain's popularity to back my experience (reading many many papers about community detection in big data networks) and Facebook, which needs no introductions I hope, uses Louvain from the same reasons many others do. I call Leiden algorithm "the successor" to louvain, as it improves it and Gephi (one of the most popular network analysis tools) uses it as a default. The source uses quotations and is considered to be enough of a best practice as can be testified by academics from McGill university and other universities in Israel. If you practice network analysis I urge you to read the source and if you don't, I humbly ask you to check with someone who masters in this field for a second opinion.

Thank you for your time. AS

אבינעם שפירא (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Account Warning

Please do not threaten other Wikipedia users. Further threatening behaviour may result in your account being reviewed & terminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Wriggle (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep adding inappropriate links and we'll see who gets 'terminated'. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from threatening behaviour & violent language towards others. Your account will be flagged for review if any further infractions occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Wriggle (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing

Hello MrOllie, I've attempted twice today to edit pages concerning building estimating, but both have been reverted by you. The current pages are written around USA and some UK situations and my intention is to start to introduce Australian content and information with relevant Australian references. Thank you. QS-CE (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine, but what you have actually been doing is add repetitive links to the same company. I suggest you use higher quality sources, such as peer reviewed journals, books from academic publishers, or newspapers. - MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MrOllie, the two references are some of the highest quality sources in Australian building cost estimating. The Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors represents professional quantity surveyors in Australia and Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook is approximately 1000 pages, hard covered, and has been published annually since 1983. It is a massive resource of estimating data with cost indices back to the 1960's, includes comparisons with consumer price indices, and is Australia's largest library of cost information. Please refer, for example, to a the Commonwealth of Australia Staff Discussion paper 2015 Review 'A Capital Cost Index' which, under Suitability, writes: 'Rawlinsons indices are independent and widely used indices prepared specifically to provide data on construction costs and variations in those costs. Similar methods are used in preparing the indices for each capital city and for each region within States'.QS-CE (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia judges quality of sourcing differently. - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it's difficult to understand your stance. The page is USA/UK biased, the references and resources are to USA/UK governments, businesses and institutions that generally do not relate to Australia. The page needs work and I thought I could contribute by adding information for Australian readers, but apparently not. With that aside, I feel that for accuracy, a minor edit is required to the sentence: 'Due to the inherent unavailability of up-to-date cost literature, several inflation or cost indexes are available'. It is sourced as: ' Silla, H., 2003. Chemical Process Engineering: Design and Economics. s.l.:Marcel Dekker' I don't have that publication, but from the title it relates to Chemical Process Engineering. The statement is, at best, a generalization. The reference is 18 years old. Up to date construction cost literature is available in Australia and I'm confident elsewhere and the circumstances for each type of cost estimating will be different. For accuracy the line should be completely deleted or at best read: 'Several inflation or cost indexes are available.'QS-CE (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

..........................................

I've had the same problem with this user. Seems MrOllie is only interested in linking to big business/tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Wriggle (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in keeping linkspam off the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll bet. There are over 40 citation links on the page in question to other blogs, but you don't seem to have a problem with them, because they are big business. Are they paying you to keep these links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Wriggle (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Which page? You've spammed several. I haven't reviewed every link on all of them. Even if there are already inappropriate links, that is not a reason to add more spam. - MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So if somebody adds a citation it's automatically spam according to what I've seen from your edits. You didn't even check the content. Seems like you just go about reverting edits at will if it's not from a multi-national website or big tech. Wikipedia is supposed to be the world's encyclopedia for the people. Not run by a small group preventing others from contributing. Please check the links in the future & have some consideration for other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Wriggle (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial markets content project

Hello,

My name is Tijana and I am managing a newly established non-profit project called Wikinvesting. Generally, it concerns a knowledge base creation, where everyone will be able to share their knowledge, experience and information related to financial markets. I saw you expressed interest in topics related to it on Wikipedia and I’d love to discuss the project with you further.

If you are interested, please let me know how can I contact you?

Cheers,

TijanaRistic (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on correcting errors in a Wikipedia page

I have been attempting to fix errors in the Wikipedia page for Enea AB, both by editing the text itself and also by requesting changes through the Talk page. In both cases you have indicated that my comments were not appropriate. So, I would be very grateful for your guidance on how I should go about fixing content that is in accurate and/or refers to discontinued products. Thanks! HikerCharlie (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the instructions at Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide and at Template:Request edit. Note that just because you request edits in the proper format does not necessarily mean your suggestions will be accepted, particularly if you request the inclusion of promotional language. - MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Editng out links

Hi

I'm puzzled as to why you felt the rules had been breached. Please explain which links you are referring to and why. Please email me at g.ross@theresolver.com I have to say that this page is in need of a huge amount of updating/editing which I am happy to help with in time.So much is out of date (Square Trade closed down over 10 years ago not "recently" as stated.

If what you deleted was the list of training courses, anybody wishing to learn about ODR would welcome being directed to courses.

Many thanks

Graham Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.99.135 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to keep all communications on Wikipedia. Adding external links to businesses that you are affiliated with is linkspam, full stop. Please don't do that again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Realme

Hi I Request you to please not remove the content which has been in the article since it was created and simply marking it as promotional content....i feel you are the hater of this company who is preventing editing.Adithya003 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)(talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hellfire and Brimstone!

Does anyone in this place ever write to thank you for what you're doing? Well thank you! I'm trying to solve a problem with the Wordpress page. I think it's a touch misleading and acts more like an advertisement for Wordpress.com than a real resource. To mittigate this, I have attempted edits to 1) point out that power-users will need more than just Wordpress up and running, and 2) that Wordpress.com isn't the only game in town for hosting. Would you suggest/support the creation of and link to a Wordpress Resources page or some-such with a table of viable host? I'm happy to construct it.

As for kiboshing reference links to Elegant Themes blog, IMO it is a better and more well-read resource than many of the references already on the page (and I'm no Fan of Divi so shilling for them is not my intent). But, while I've had an account forever, I'm johnny-come-lately when it comes to editing here, and maybe that's a battle that's already been fought.

Anyway - cheers and thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertohuste (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory or a how to site (see WP:NOT), so I'm not sure that sort of content has a home here. There are other sites that do host that sort of thing - you might look into signing up for wikihow, perhaps. - MrOllie (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but I wasn't creating a link directory as such, heck none of them need to be linked as far as I'm concerned (though that's a little unwiki), so long as the information is there. And, in fact such directories absolutely do exist on Wikipedia and help people make informed decisions – List_of_web_browsers for instance, or a List of content management systems. So, quite respectfully, I believe such a list would be a benefit to the Wordpress community and the Wikipedia community at large and that it would, in fact, adhere to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Does that make sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertohuste (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't lists of vendors particular to one type of software, though. For web hosting in general we have Category:Web hosting and that is about as specific as it should be in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but Wordpress, depending on who's numbers you believe, comprises roughly 40% of the web, yet Wordpress.com is the only host tied to the page. By contrast, there is already a sub-category here for wiki hosting, and even a comparison of wiki hosts Comparison of wiki hosting services. And, I think we can agree that wikis comprize a much smaller portion of tthe web. So while I respect your rigor in trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming a mess, I'm having trouble agreeing with you on this point. Further thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertohuste (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cherry Sisters

Please explain how providing evidence to back up a fact that I added to the original page is adding promotional material. Other books are cited in the references section. Are you going to remove all of those too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisispop (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Essentially all of your editing has been to add mentions of that author, their books, bookstore links, and so on. This is WP:REFSPAM and it is not allowed here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

TimPatAlPostma1996 wants to fix this situation

I would like to quote something I wanted to deal with this is there any way I can fix it and earn my way to drop the case here is a quote “ Tea house I would like to appeal a warning from a bot that I am not part of that flagged me , what I will tell is I do not know what a sandbox is or how to set it up , I wanted to fix it as a responsible adult but the bot did it for me please help me with this 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)” TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate, your writing is completely incoherent. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Self published sites

hi

sorry to show my ignorance but you have removed the links I added to Zeebrugge related site and I don't understand why? Am I getting the editing process wrong? one of the changes was to spell McKenzie with a K which is how we do it in our family

many thanks for your help Colin McKenzie Zeeraider (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:EL and WP:COI. Wikipedia doesn't link to self published sites, and you especially should not be adding links to your own self published site. - MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing my additions

Same question as above, why do you keep removing my additions to this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_racing_video_games It's relevant, accurate, and sources were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gf11speed (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Gf11speed, That is a list of things that have preexisting Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing my links and additions

Hello, you just reverted all of my changes. I added relevant new information to multiple pages. I am not affiliated with longform site The Pigeon, but saw it had not been used to cite before and wanted to add its valuable research to pages. You will note many of my changes were valuable, new information for certain topics. -daffodil.edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffodil.edits (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a good source for Wikipedia - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Pigeon is new, yes, but as a reader I've seen it cite sources reliably, interview experts, and use data. It is not an opinion publication, and it has original reporting with new information for the Wikipedia entries I was editing. Your perception of a "good source" should not override my own. Did you read any of the articles I used as citations? - Daffodil.edits — Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up at WP:RSN for further input, but we require some track record, a site that is only a few months old is unlikely to meet with any acceptance. In any case systematically adding links to the same site is going to appear to be linkspam as Wikipedia defines it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your editing business networking

Dear Ollie,

you just edited this: "‪MrOllie‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪February 2021‬". Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Business networking. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people,..."

I completely understand and support the concept and codex of Wikipedia. But this is not promotion, since Dictyonomy is really a different way of building and operating networking, we are researching and spreading this since 2009. Yes, I make my money with this, but since I am fully booked anyhow, it was not my intention to advertise. I just wanted to add this aspect to the conversation about ethics in business networking. Can you give me advice how to enter this aspect of a value based networking culture (as it was the rule in The German Hanse) without violating Wikipedia rules?

Sorry to bring additional work. Greetings from Berlin Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderSWolf (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to summarize widely accepted knowledge, it is not a place to 'spread' recent innovations or to publicize original research, particularly when you have a financial interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

note#1

i wanted to say i have autism , how about i wait until i spend a few days in English class which will be September by how it currently looks its either 2021 or 2022

hence this quote i also sign and so will my other main account TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Why do people keep removing rubber bands

It’s totally relevant because I really do not want this to be a semi protected article request 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

   Your comments and article edits are almost completely incoherent. Many of your edits are being reverted on that basis, others are being reverted because you are adding entries to see also sections that are not sufficiently related to the article topics. - MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk • contribs)  
also because TimPatAlPostma1996 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC) has autism does not effect anything about slingshot safety , i used to take a city bus to st clair college without supervision which for autism is a big deal i also go to the detist alone even if their drilling my teeth unless they plan to KO me

Here is proof of my iPhone account 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPostma3DPrints (talk • contribs)

Changes to Cloud-computing_comparison#Providers

Hi, you removed my edits to Cloud-computing_comparison#Providers, because they don't include links to pages in Wikipedia... that's exactly what I was adding while you were removing my contributions. I have to start with something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:WTAF. And as a newpaid editor, you should start new articles as drafts, using the WP:AFC process. Your new article does not meet basic sourcing guidelines, so I tagged it as a speedy deletion candidate. You should also read WP:PAID, as it appears you are currently in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Psychopathy page edits removed

Hello, I recently added information to the page on psychopathy (under Measures, and also in Bibliography) that you removed. I'm not sure why, as they were factually truthful, relevant to understanding psychopathy, and referenced. Can you please let me know how these edits can be amended so that they will not get removed next time? Here was the psychopathy measure information I added that you removed: <<cut and paste removed>>

Thank you, 216.15.54.166 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that most content be based on secondary sources, so it can be put into proper context and overall impact can be evaluated. This is doubly true for medical content, which has special sourcing requirements that rule out primary sources in favor of sources such as review articles. See WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS for details. In addition, if you have any connection to the authors or the online offerings related to this, please see WP:COI, Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), and WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm even more confused now. None of these issues apply. The article I referenced in the section on the TriPM is a secondary source--a large review article in a major journal that is both authoritative and designed to be read by the general public. I am not one of the authors of this article, nor am I involved in any way with the creation of the TriPM or have any conflict of interest related to it. But I am a psychopathy researcher and I know how valuable this tool is and given its increasingly common use, the total absence of the TriPM from the psychopathy page borders on bizarre. It seems biased to omit mention of it, frankly.

I also included a reference to the Handbook of Psychopathy. I am also not the author of this handbook, which contains articles written by nearly every major psychopathy researcher. It's a really useful reference--at least as useful as the relatively outdated trade books cited already--and it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.54.166 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

All your cites were authored by Patrick, who originated the idea. You need stuff that was not written by Patrick or associated with his lab or ventures making use of it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I don't see how the TriPM section I added is any different than this section for the PPI-R. The PPI-R was developed by Lilienfeld, and all the citations in this section are authored by Lilienfeld and others (one of them is the same reference I cited, first authored by Skeem). I actually based my section on this section to try to get it right:

Psychopathic Personality Inventory Main article: Psychopathic Personality Inventory Unlike the PCL, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) was developed to comprehensively index personality traits without explicitly referring to antisocial or criminal behaviors themselves. It is a self-report scale that was developed originally for non-clinical samples (e.g. university students) rather than prisoners, though may be used with the latter. It was revised in 2005 to become the PPI-R and now comprises 154 items organized into eight subscales.[133] The item scores have been found to group into two overarching and largely separate factors (unlike the PCL-R factors), Fearless-Dominance and Impulsive Antisociality, plus a third factor, Coldheartedness, which is largely dependent on scores on the other two.[4] Factor 1 is associated with social efficacy while Factor 2 is associated with maladaptive tendencies. A person may score at different levels on the different factors, but the overall score indicates the extent of psychopathic personality.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.54.166 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Simplilearn

Hello, this is [User:Butterweking] user. You have reverted the changes on outline of machine learning and outline of artificial intelligence links added to the free courses that Simplilearn offers. But those are free resources for the users to get to understand the basics of ai and machine learning. Kindly relook into it and add the links back to those pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterweking (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:EL, link promotion is not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

rubber bands

• just a heads up I know you thought it was unconstructed to add rubber bands to the slingshot article I got a actual product that is to be disclaimer as in the link check it out & it will make sense & if you agree Release My friend Timpatalpostmaa1996 from the the warning because you missed this https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/tim-postma-s-reinforced-slingshot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate here. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a section that is now removed it was something like why keep deleting slingshots on rubber bands as the section called also see 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your writing is once again incoherent, so I will just reiterate: You should stop adding unrelated or semi-related topics in see also sections, and you should stop filling up talk pages with irrelevant comments. You also should stop endlessly registering new accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TimPostma3DPrints?markasread=212071087&markasreadwiki=enwiki#February_2021

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TimPatAlPostma1996?markasread=212043975&markasreadwiki=enwiki#February_2021 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've been warned for disruptive editing. The best way to keep that from happening will be to stop editing disruptively. - MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice the slight difference in same neither is separate 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say either is separate not neither I need grammerly 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Now I am starting to understand I was just tired & was confused but if you want to download and additively manufacture it your welcome to 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ollie: I have now formally warned the various iterations of this user against disruptive editing, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PROMOTION and WP:CIR and I feel further editing in this vein will merit a block of all these accounts. Please let me know if this continues now that a warning has been given. Thank you for reverting their unhelpful edits to various articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comparison of disc image software

Hi MrOllie. Your edit to Comparison of disc image software left some reference errors. Could you take a look? --Bsherr (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like someone else fixed it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

talk:MrOllie talk:Johntorknik

It's not promotional - it's a real process of how to do it I'm sorry if I'm not understanding the concern - I'm trying to add value to Wikipedia here I removed the direct link as requested - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntorknik (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're trying to advertise for diffgram. One of your colleagues was blocked for doing the same thing last summer. If you keep this up, I think it is likely that your domain will be added to the spam blacklist. Even aside from that, Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a place to host how-to guides or tutorials. - MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Communities magazine updates

Hi Mr. Ollie, Thanks for being alert to this kind of thing. I am NOT being paid to update these pages. I am doing it because a reader alerted me to the fact that the magazine information was grossly out of date, with expired links to its previous publisher. I am the one best positioned to update it, as I am indeed the magazine editor, but I am actually not being paid at all even for editing the magazine right now (let alone for any Wikipedia entry updating, which would not be paid anyway), as the nonprofit is short of funds. I am responding not to any staff-related instructions or offer of payment but instead the requests of a reader, who wanted to see the information current but didn't have all the info herself. I hope that's acceptable. I spend very little time on Wikipedia myself, which is why I didn't realize the page was so out of date--I hadn't looked at it in years. I just wanted to make it more current. I hope this meets your concerns. Thanks. Ornithologistics (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you work at the magazine, you are considered to have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's policies, and you should not be adding links or editing the magazine's article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon's UFO Videos

I am simply following the rules as provided to me. There is currently pseudo science on the Pentagon's UAP Videos page from a retired video game programmer that is making unsubstantiated claims. He is stating that the Navy's AN/SPY-1 3D Radar system has mistaken balloons for advanced aeronautics craft. A retired video game programmer is not a recognized authority on classified military technology and has intentionally ignored the fact that these systems are able to identify the difference between a balloon and aerospace vehicles. The an/spy-1 gets data from a locked target from multiple sources and could not have been a balloon. This is not a possible or even plausible explanation and has not been scientifically peer reviewed or backed up by any credible sources.

SystemFailure0x5a (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, then, because you are plainly not following those. Keep future content discussion on the article talk page, please. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Updates of Pages on Systems Benchmarking

Dear Mr. Ollie, I added a response to your comments on my talk page: - DescartesResearch (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2021 (CET). Dear Mr. Ollie, I saw that you have undone my changes from last year to both Autonomic computing and Self-awareness. I wrote an explanation in my talk page. I would appreciate if you can take time to look at. Thanks. DescartesResearch (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References to sites with camera or lenses image samples

Hi MrOllie, in my opinion, links to website with image samples are valuable reference for users but I do understand the concern of excessive links in references. For consistency and to keep competition equal advantage, can you therefore remove links to pixelpeeper on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FS3 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OptimisticComputer (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Couscous

Just a heads up in case you didn't realize it. For this edit the user in question is referring to all the sources in the article. The article fully supports, and is fully referenced, for it to be a Berber dish, and it appears that it's M.Bitton who is pushing back against all references and sources and not the new editor. I know it's not immediately obvious, hence why I'm pointing this out. Doesn't excuse the edit warring, but there seems to be an ownership issue on the page with M.Bitton who until very recently actually reverted all attempts to change it away from Berber according to the history. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the best way to settle it would be to put a cite on the disputed text rather than edit warring back and forth. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree, edit warring is never a solution nor one I can get behind. Canterbury Tail talk 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Millicom

Hi MrOllie, I am trying to edit the page using the updated information of the company, with official sources. All current references date from 2015 and can be updated, I am not including any type of promotional or sales-inciting content. Can I have more details about where is the "promotional content" expressed? Thanks in advance Alexmarval2306 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI, as have been linked on your user talk page. You should not be editing that article at all, let alone turning it into an advertisement. - MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not providing advertising material. It's the official information of the webpage. Where is the mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmarval2306 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely adding inappropriate promotional language to the article, and you continue to ignore Wikipedia's paid and COI editing guidelines. You should stop editing the article directly and restrict yourself to talk page suggestions only. - MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support MrOllie, I'm adding the content in the talk page to have answers and support from Wikipedia Contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmarval2306 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery

Hello MrOllie, TLDR: I had a meeting with a big oil company and they referenced this section of the article... It is incorrect because the use of bacteria in MEOR/ microbial injectivity is the cheapest option. you literally just pour the bacteria down the well between the tubing and casing. Its easier to apply bacteria treatment to oil wells than it is to bake a cake from a box.

Not sure if it's a conflict of interest, but I work for a company that pioneered the use of bacteria in the oil field. I was making an edit to change the intro, because it is public knowledge in the oil field that MEOR and microbial injectivity is the MOST economical option when it comes to EOR. There are many sources for this, but I do not normally edit Wikipedia....

 "Microbial injection is part of microbial enhanced oil recovery and is rarely used because of its higher cost and because the development is not widely accepted."

(Background: My company was the first to offer microbial treatments in oil wells... we formulated the best products, sold them worldwide, remediated the rainforest, and worked with NASA on the Space Station's water system.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.105.183.11 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, editing Wikipedia to promote your company absolutely is a COI (see WP:PAID and WP:COI), and is inappropriate, especially here where you removed properly cited content to instead substitute an unsourced paragraph that discussed your company's product in the best possible light. - MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Digital Piano page edit

Hi MrOllie, I've added link to electronic keyboard stands overview page, the link was related to the Wikipedia page content and didn't violate the guidelines, what was wrong with it? Thanks. Alexwiki21 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexwiki21, Blogs, especially blogs that are set up to list as many products with referral links as possible, are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia. See WP:RS for details. MrOllie (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Green tribology

MrOllie, this is about the Green tribology page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_tribology&redirect=no). I made a page, and you deleted it. Green tribology is an important new area. Prof Bhushan is one of the pioneers of tribology with 900+ publications and he invented the term "Green Tribology" along with this colleague. It's in the cited paper and the book. These papers are peer-reviewed. It's in everybody's best interest that we restore that. Other researchers if they wish they can add to it ofcourse. But it shouldn't be deleted Devgurera (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As an editor with a fairly obvious conflict of interest, you shouldn't have written that article in the first place. It's a Neologism, which Wikipedia generally does not cover. - MrOllie (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude, it's not Prof. Bhushan's "fault" that he invented the term "Green tribology" and wrote the first paper and book on it. All the information is true in that article. You can cross-check. It's been peer-reviewed as well. You are stopping the spread of information. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia to have information available to people. *Prof. Bhushan is a pioneer of the tribology field* Not you. Not me. Let's put it out. Let the scientists edit this article. and not the non-scientists. Devgurera (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and we deliberately rely on secondary sources, not primary sources. We specifically do not want pioneering work here - the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize only after new work has become mainstream and commonplace. If you are here to build an encyclopedia and not to promote a particular person or his work, please respect this. - MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

AI

Regarding the additions on the Artificial General Intelligence page on functional modeling, please be specific about your issues rather than just deleting what some consider to be the most important approach in the field today and that is supported by peer reviewed research.CognitiveMMA (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CognitiveMMA: Take it up on the article talk page and get consensus there (see WP:BRD), others will doubtless want to weigh in and they will not find the discussion on my talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed when citing an important result that has already been peer reviewed. Consensus is demonstrated by the peer review process. If more references or any other specific complaint is the issue, then say so. Otherwise please stop edit warring.CognitiveMMA (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CognitiveMMA: Consensus is required for all article content on Wikipedia. See WP:CON. This is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, and you will get nowhere by ignoring it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

unity

Wondering why you removed my unity games list edit. Was cited with multiple. Zapman987 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a list of things that have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

General Collective Intelligence

All issues have been addressed in the draft page. Please restore the published article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitiveMMA (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

CognitiveMMA, It is in the AFC queue, be patient, and don't try to jump the queue by creating another duplicate article, that will just take longer. Also, if you have any other favors to ask of me, please respond to the question I've left on your talk page. MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Design School

Hi there, I'm writing to tell you that I'm currently participating in an Art + Feminism wiki-edit-a-thon in which we are linking more feminist indian women with design. Therefore I added the event in order to acknowledge the connection eco-feminist Vandana Shiva has had with design and NID. Hope this expains to you as to why that wasn't meant to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrinskine.xyz (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrinskine.xyz, I appreciate that you didn't mean it to be promotional, but by (I assume) cutting and pasting in promotional language based only on the event's own website, that's what you accomplished. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Concentrix Edit

Hi MrOllie, I received this message: The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Concentrix, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. I just want to ocnfirm that I wasn't compensated or paid to edit this page. This is based from my research and I did this edit as I found that the information I added is valuable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennybanh016 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Time series database

Would be great if you provided a reason for reverting my recent changes to the article adding TimescaleDB to the list. I've started using it lately and find it strange that is not in the list Jobarnaby — Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Jobarnaby, I did, 'see talk page'. If you look at the article's talk page you'll see discussions of the list's inclusion criteria and how TimescaleDB does not meet it. - MrOllie (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Potato Starch

Hello, Johns Hopkins Medical School is an unreliable source? Please explain why you think so. Gentleman wiki (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. We don't use 'patient guides' as sources for medical info. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Lets hope people dont use wikipedia as their source

Since you only allow opinions from one side of a topic, it is easy to manipulate people to think that is the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qreuts (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Qreuts, Bollinger has no qualifications, he was a Theatre professor/activist who published in MRA journals. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Just letting you know. I have brought the behavior of the IP on the Rent Control talk page to the ANI if you wish to contribute a statement or participate. Since you have born the brunt of their ire, I thought you should know. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, Thanks, and thanks also for your efforts to explain decorum to them. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Saw you around

Hey there, I've run into a few of your reversions in the past few days. You can report some of those accounts to WP:UAA if they meet the criteria, usually I see accounts where it's not clear it's being run by an individual (e.g. 'TechNews' instead of 'John at TechNews'), and those accounts often linkspam, etc. For example, I reported the user you reverted here. Just thought I'd let you know. (Twinkle has a UAA-reporting option under the ARV dropdown menu if you haven't seen it yet.) Zupotachyon (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dimensions CM

Hello MrOllie. I have replied to your impression about undisclosed financial stake at User talk:Alex.Thunder.UA#March_2021, but you have not reacted. Are you going to fix the template or undo to the earlier versions of affected articles, or expect me to do that?
Alex.Thunder.UA (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As there is no any feedback, I've undid the "undisclosed payments" changes as mistaken. Please let me know if you have any concerns.
--Alex.Thunder.UA (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: References to sites with camera or lenses image samples

Hi MrOllie, you archived my message in this edit without answering my question. If we don't remove the link to pixelpeeper on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FS3 can you clarify how is this not arbitrary censorship solely based on the suspicion that the edit is made by someone who is affiliate to the website. Thanks in advance for not archiving this message without replying to it.

OptimisticComputer (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC) OptimisticComputer

I'm trying to answer fewer questions when they're peppered with insults, thanks. Please don't post here again. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

new search engine addition

Hello I'm new to Wikipedia editing. zarebin is a major search engine recently been launched. My edit is news not spam, thanks. Vgarmani (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)vahid

Vgarmani, Wikipedia is not a place to promote recently launched companies with external links. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

zarebin is not a company but a search engine and is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I don't think being recent or old is a factor to be in Wikipedia. This is the case for Clubhouse (app) which is not even publicly released but notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Challenge my point if you think I'm wrong and please note this teacher voice by you is very irritating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgarmani (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If it is notable enough for Wikipedia you can start a draft at WP:AFC with whatever reliable sources you have, and then link that article when it is approved. But just adding external links is not the way. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Real estate

Hello MrOllie,

Wanted to follow up on a revision you made, The link I've replaced was the original. The site (the advisory) has duplicated the content and tends to make money from selling data which is why I've replaced the link to firstly match the same as the rest of that section (also referring to which?). I apologise if the formatting is anyway incorrect but I prefer external links in wiki not to profit from selling peoples data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggul1928 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Ignite India

Hi MrOllie I request you to remove speedy deletion tag from draft of Ignite India . I am not a banned user . I doesn’t belongs to any banned user . Please consider request and help to improve draft instead of deleting it . I will be thankful to you . Please consider my request.Omsaipower2021 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you. I opened a sockpuppet investigation as well. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not shock or banned user please understand. Article you can improve don’t delete it. Please .Omsaipower2021 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Omsaipower2021, Stop vandalizing the tags. An admin will review and make the final determination. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please understand I’m not banned user this article is not promotional. It’s written with reliable sourcing references please remove tag . I will be thankful to you . You can improve article by editing it .Omsaipower2021 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop threatening me I’m new editor you should help and support . Why you want to delete my hard work ? Stop blaming me as banned user . This article is purely written with my research. No promotional content .Omsaipower2021 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Looking at this talk page, it looks like you deal with a lot of this stuff. Thank you for your anti-spam work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

LanguageTool Emacs Plugin By PillFall

Hello, I built an different version of mhayashi LangTool plugin, as he is too busy to maintain his version. Yesterday I was searching info about LanguageTool and I found the wikipedia article, that says that Emacs has a plugin to use this software (refering to mhayashi version). But as my software do the same and also is published in MELPA , I decided to include it in the refs as it would complement Wikipedia. But I recieved today a notification in which you undo that ref.

PillFall (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is not a place to share your work. See WP:COI and WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

So delete the other refs, as is the same thing, it's a matter of sharing works. I don't care if my work is recognized, but technically, it is a ref, as actually it is part of one of Emacs LanguageTool Plugins used these days. and I don't have a COI as I don't even delete none of the other refs, only add it. PillFall (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Also this let me thinking, the author or the person that the article is talking about can't contribute on it? I mean, e.g. Linux Mint Developers can't write in Linux Mint page? PillFall (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The other refs have been deleted as well. Linking your own sites is always a COI. And you are correct, the Mint developers should be making suggestions on talk pages and not editing the articles about their own work directly. - MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Industrial Internet of Things

This is regarding the information you deleted about security. We understand where you are coming from but we think it is important information relevant to the topic. This is not the case of selfpromo. Removing a useful finding about operational technology security is unnecessary.

Many small-scale manufacturing companies are victims of cyberattacks on operational technology as they can not afford to upgrade to modern hardware. Covid-19 made it worse for small businesses and there are more attacks happening now. Unfortunately, most of the applied academic research on security issues is funded by big companies and doesn't benefit small manufacturers as much. It is ok to make the open-access reseach visible that benefits small manufacturers.

Citations are not an indicator for useful research. Regarding your concern on research being new, the older the research on cryprographic protocols for IIoT, the higher the danger of it becoming irrelevant. 86.52.40.226 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Link Removed

Hello, Recently i had placed a link to Garden tool wiki page and it was removed, may be due to violation of any of wikipedia's terms. I do understand and respect your decision. I might have made a mistake there.

however, i can see that all my contributions are reverted. Please note that, i am new to this platform and want to contribute to more and more pages. Till now, i was spending time to learn about wikipedia in details. Is there anyway, we can keep the existing contributions live while i will ensure not to add any unnecessary external links?

Kindly note that, i have no intention to put external links to marketing purpose. As it generates nofollow links and it is useless in terms of marketing anyway.

What i am trying to do is that, trying to build up a strong personal authority by contributing more and more to wikipedia.

Kindly let me know, how can i recover my contributions, please? Thanks and regards

RasAlGhul 2021 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC) RasAlGhul 2021

@RasAlGhul 2021: Every single one of your contributions was simply to add spam links to the same URL. You will not 'build up a strong personal authority' by spamming links - it is much more likely that your account will be blocked and the spammed domain will be added to the link blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand, this is because i am giving links to the same domain only. I realise that, i have made a mistake here. Kindly note that, my intention was simply to learn the basics. Kindly excuse me.

I would also like to bring your attention to the fact that, i was not adding useless content links to the wikipedia page. I genuinely think, those pages will add a value to the wiki pages.

Anyway, what should i be doing now to recover from my mistakes?

Kindly advice.

RasAlGhul 2021 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC) RasAlGhul 2021

I would suggest reading Help:Getting started. - MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope my account is in good standing as i do not want to be blocked by wikipedia. And about my external links, I would request you to check if the given links are relevant or not. As per my knowledge, i have replaced the existing links with better relevancy. My only mistake was to keep giving links to same URL. I will never repeat it again.

Thanks and regards. RasAlGhul 2021 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC) RasAlGhul 2021

No, your mistake was adding inappropriate links. 'Relevant' is only one criteria a link must meet. If you had been adding links to six different blogs hosted on online shopping sites instead of one, they would have been reverted as well. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, i would politely disagree with your statement here. I had replaced the links, which were completely irrelevant. Anyway, i also understand my mistakes here. Just let me know, if my profile and the site i was linking to are in good standing but not in block list??

Thanks once again. RasAlGhul 2021 (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC) RasAlGhul 2021

Removing an irrelevant link is not a license to add a different inappropriate link. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I kindly request you to visit the links and see if they are truly irrelevant link and make a conclusion. Kindly do that. If you genuinely feel the links are not appropriate, you can remove them and keep the links which are relevant. I repeat, spamming was not my intention. I want to be a supercontributer to wikipedia.

Thanks and regards. RasAlGhul 2021 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC). RasAlGhul 2021

Harvard Law School

Hi MrOllie! I just reverted your "undo" for the research centers at Harvard Law School. You left a note saying it is a "laundry list" but I strongly believe it is a useful one with all the links attached. In addition, you'll find that the programs and centers lists are available on the Wiki pages of Yale Law School and Stanford Law School (in fact, with less links attached). Since these are the 3 top law schools in the country, may I ask what would justify a differential treatment between their pages? (And to be clear, I did find them very useful which made me realize that the Harvard page lacked this information that I wanted to compare.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethere42 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is specifically not supposed to host lists of links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thermal Oxidizer / JonCarender - Threats of Blocking / Blacklisting

MrOllie, Not all links to external sites are promotional/spam, they show users where information came from, if fact-checks are needed. In this niche industry, 99% of the knowledge is held with the engineering companies that post information on their websites. Are we no longer allowed to cite sources?

The link I added yesterday was to CPI - I don't even work for that company! I work for a competitor.... TKS Industrial. You can check linkedin.

I feel you have gone too far in seeking to remove/ban all promotional "spam" links. You are reducing the helpfulness of the Wikipedia pages with your actions. I object to what you are doing. Please reconsider your actions. -Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonCarender (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

JonCarender, You've added many links to TKS Industrial, too, which was a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. When someone repetitively links to vendors, that is spamming as Wikipedia defines it. Please use only reliable sources, which in this case would mean peer reviewed articles, not vendor web sites. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1 "One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that reliable sources must be able to support the material." In this industry, there are not peer reviewed articles, there are only vendor websites. What you suggest is not an option. Therefore, the best course of action is to link to the vendor sites, so the reader has the OPTION to click through to independently verify the information. The alternative is to have an article with zero cites - which is exactly what we have now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_thermal_oxidizer thanks to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonCarender (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources, the solution is to omit the information, not to compromise sourcing standards. As an user who works in this industry you remain in violation of WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Soil Mechanics - Effective stress

Dear MrOllie, the changes you've detected at the article in subject is not a Refspam. I've pointed out some details about Terzaghi's model (i.e. one-dimensional consolidation theory) and the more general one developed by Biot. Furthermore, the cited reference may be useful for many readers as here several theoretical aspects of the effective stress principle have been explained. Maybe the appended text was unclear. I would be grateful if you may provide some suggestion about. Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.72.12 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I apologize for writing to you without using a wiki account. This is my account. If you have nothing against it, I will restore my contribution to the article on Soil Mechanics. If you think that something is wrong, please try to explain to me what I have to change, before reverting my contribution. Thank you

Maximumentropy80 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you related to any of the authors of the citation in any way? - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm gone through this paper in the last couple of weeks
Maximumentropy80 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control

I have opened a new discussion here that may be of interest to you. [5]193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

User:Alexander Davronov started a thread about you, in case you want to reply. The thread is WP:ANI#Canvassing in Malassezia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

About "Board of Control for Cricket in India"

You may need to revert to a previous version than mine, since there is still a lot of vandalism that he has done in mine. Thanks!

KittenGosCrazy (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

theofficeproviders.com

Hi there, I am a new contributor. I have had a link removed from the entry that I made but I feel the link is appropriate as it is to a unique resource based off unique research. The company referenced is regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) so would appear to be a safe source. There appears to be no other resource with this information available. The source has creative commons licence. Thanks and regards. Crestatto (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not use vendor sales materials as sources, they are not considered to be reliable (they are self published and generally full of self-serving claims). If this is a unique source of information, the solution is to omit the information, not to compromise sourcing standards. See WP:RS for what makes a reliable source on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I researched overnight and the resource does actually list and profile the 393 serviced office providers currently operating in London, as they state. I cannot find any other resource that does this. I don't believe the information should be included without a citation, though. Is your advice to omit this information? Crestatto (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gaphor Removing COI Templates

Hi MrOllie, you reverted my changes to remove the COI templates on Draft:Gaphor citing that new editors should not remove them. The Template:COI#When_to_remove page doesn't say being a new editor is part of the criteria and I think the issue is resolved on the talk page. It appears that the original editor has expertise in this area, and I verified what is written. Is there some other criteria or rule that I am missing? Terilica (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Terilica, The article is still largely the product of COI editing, the issue is not resolved. If/when the article makes it through the AFC review, it should be removed then. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, to get this through AFC, would it be better for me to completely remove the draft and rewrite it independent of the initial editor? Terilica (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have substantially better sources, sure. It is currently based on a combination of trivial mentions, primary sources that are affiliated with the project, and unreliable sources such as blogs. If not, better to just let it work its way through the AFC queue. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Whitley

I think that may be one of those articles where one has to click the unwatch button. Some individuals are really dead set on the whole father of Hollywood moniker... which in the larger scope of things is just trivia.--- Possibly (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, Maybe! I'm more concerned by their tendency to put ahistorical promotion in related articles, particularly Hollywood. MrOllie (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization External Link

I linked a well written and in-depth article on SEO in the external links. Didn't seem inappropriate to me. I would request you to have a look at the content and if it really is inappropriate then my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binoykaran (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Binoykaran, You linked a self published blog post, on your own web site. See WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

can you move it back for me

can you move it back for me idk how Lalalulilalia (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

how to resolve flag on my page?

Hello - An article I wrote was flagged for COI, DataGraph. I am not a paid writer and new to wikipedia - at least I don't have a lot of experience! I am an enthusiast but tried to just add facts. I made a note on the talk page about why I started the page. Is that OK? Meam70 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this here and then realized you said to respond on my own page, which I did, so feel free to ignore this and respond on my page. Sorry about that. Meam70 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Irritant diaper dermatitis

Why can this image not be revised? It’s specifically about nappy rash and the image is too graphic. Tuhfklfsft (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Tuhfklfsft, The place to ask about that is Talk:Irritant diaper dermatitis. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED if you haven't yet. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WhatsApp

Hello, I'm Mars, I recently added some development information about WhatsApp and you removed it, I wanted to understand what was wrong with the information. Thank you. Mars (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hyeclass, I removed it because wabetainfo.com is not a reliable source. Also, your account name is Hyeclass, not Mars. You may set a custom signature, but it must include a link to your actual account name. See Wikipedia:Signatures for details. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Sorry about the confusing about username, I saw another user use that tag so I thought it was the way it's supposed to be used (nickname vs real name). Regarding the WAbetainfo, if you've been following the development of WhatsApp the recent years I'm sure you noticed how reliable they are as a source. But I will make another revision using WhatsApp's github page instead. Thanks for the info! Hyeclass (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Holi

The reason you are stating for celebrations is stupid and doesn't have any ground. The Hindu mythology states the victory of Narasimha over Hiranakashyap is reason why we celebrate holi. Every Indian school student knows that as it is written in every textbook you can find. Radha and Krishna are celebrating holi as it existed before them. Tempering with information is not good in religious matter. Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Adichoudhary123456, You are both adding content without sourcing it and deleting parts of the article, leaving sentence fragments behind. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion is required cause we don't use chemicals colours anymore now we use organic colours. The need to edit the content is require cause you are spreading misinformation. As I saw few posts about it and I myself am a hindu so I know very well. Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Radha Krishna are far not related to Holi as in particular. Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Adichoudhary123456, You may bring up your concerns on the article's talk page. You may not haphazardly delete content without discussion, leave the article in a broken state, or change cited information in the article without also updating the citations so they continue to agree with the article content. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Then edit it yourself and make it correct now know what is wrong with the article. You don't have any sense it's 3 am in India. And I am discussing this with you cause you must do whats correct. Legitimacy of Wikipedia is the reason why I'm wasting my time on it. And religious sentiments can get hurt very badly. Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You* Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have done my best to complete the article just have a look and talk if any disagreements before editing it. Adichoudhary123456 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Interview with podcasters links

I've added the link to the interview with podcasters about Clubhouse <<link redacted>>. This is a unique recource with original questions which was not mentioned here Clubhouse_(app) I think it need to be here and add more information about the future of Clubhouse than this ″In March 2021, Oman banned the application because "it was operating without a proper license." Please, don't delete my link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlysak scanteam (talk • contribs)

Adding links to your own website is link spamming. If you keep this up you can expect that your user account will be blocked from editing and the domain may be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Buyer decision process

Hello MrOllie,

As an expert (practitioner and teacher) in consumer marketing and digital marketing/advertising, I am trying to complete a rather incomplete page. My contribution was relevant to this field: I suppose that you are yourself an expert in this space, so let me know why it does not fit here. Also, the couple of sentences I wrote were as simple and neutral as possible, quoting the American creators of a 25-year-old concept (I am not related to them) that we often use in consumer marketing, and the research that has been done about this concept by a leading European university (I am also unrelated to this team, although we live in the same country). Not sure how anyone can bring something more relevant, written in a factual way, to this topic, than what I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John JL London (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

John JL London, Content matters should be brought up at the article talk page, not at my user page. Your additions have been removed by three editors in total at this point, the others will not see the discussion here. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

External link section about AVL Tree and Binary Search Tree

Hello. I have recently added link to the external section of the page AVL Tree and Binary Search Tree but found out that you have removed the links. The sole purpose of adding an external link to a page is to point to some external resource which might contain credible information regarding the topic of the wikipedia page, and to help the readers or help-seekers with additional resources. However, I believe the resources provided by myself was credible and helpful. Therefore I really do not understand why people remove such resources. Akd92 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Akd92

Akd92, See WP:COI and WP:ELNO. Not every 'credible' link meets inclusion criteria, and you especially should not be adding links to your own sites or work. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Who told you that I have added links to my own sites or work? How did you come up with such an accusation? Do you have any evidence or any kind of valid 'criteria' which might back your statement up? I must tell you that without such evidence you should not accuse somebody for something, that will be a mistake for sure.Akd92 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Akd92, That's a lot of leading questions, but not a denial. I've already linked the WP:ELNO guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, No you do not recognize a denial at all. I have read 19 criteria on the WP:ELNO guidelines but could not find a single violation. I have linked to a repository on GitHub. Can you tell me which criteria looks broken by that? Akd92 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Akd92, ELNO points 1, 4, and 11 all apply. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Get straight to the point. 1@ELNO is not broken because the page linked is not repetitive and contain extended and related information that the Wiki article does not cover. 4@ELNO is okay because the linked page is not promoting itself, it shows academic and technical knowledge from top to bottom, let go of online petition or crowdfunding scams. 11@ELNO is also okay because GitHub is neither a blog nor a personal web page or fansite. It is very apparent that you are not familiar with sites like GitHub. Akd92 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Akd92, I'm familiar with github, but it is quite apparent that you are not familiar with Wikipedia or its policies on external linking. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Well I think I did prove that my contribution is legit and you are wrong, as there is no 'denial'. I also showed that Wikipedia and its WP:ELNO criteria is supportive to my contribution. Sadly it looks like your activities are driven by your own ignorance and not by Wikipedia's policies. Akd92 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Akd92, GitHub is essentially a personal website, especially since this project appears to be one controlled by you. If it's something that's by a recognized expert or is considered a canonical example (mentioned in multiple reference books on the subject) or is directly tied to the article (ie, the article is about that GitHub project) but that's not the case here. It should not be included on Wikipedia. You may want to consider posting at the external links noticeboard for a second opinion. Mr Ollie's points about the issues with the link are accurate though. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), It's being repetitive and you are not adding anything constructive here. You are speaking of accuracy of someone's opinion who is involved with raising false accusations to other people's work or contribution. Is this kind of actions are mandated by the policies of Wikipedia, I don't think so. FYI if GitHub is a personal website, so is Wikipedia as both sites are powered by public contribution and not by personal agendas. Moreover, I hate to be repetitive in such a matter but I think I just described how Wikipedia's WP:ELNO criteria is not obstructive to my contribution in any way, and this leaves my contribution legit and includable. Still if MrOllie disagrees, it is his ignorance and I can't help it. Akd92 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation about Business Intelligence

Thanks for your message - I don't have any financial stake or interest, I am not paid or sponsored by that site or any other at all. I post as I use that site on a daily basis as part of my research into UK Financial news. I consider my latest post to be a good citation and it appears well researched and a good reflection of the history of decision support systems, I would therefore like to re-instate it. I of course don't want to have any conflict with the Wikipedia team and fellow editors who I deeply respect and I understand have the best interests of wikipedia at heart, so please respond if its OK or not to include it. NancyBradley (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to remove my edits

I made an edit in a post whose title is capacitor. But it was removed by you. I gave that link in intension to help people out. If you had a problem with that link then you should just remove that link. I wanna know if there was any wrong information in my edit or were my images containing wrong information. Why you removed all my edits. Bhimsen Kumar (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bhimsen Kumar, Wikipedia doesn't use self published blogs as sources. We also avoid unsourced information. If I removed your blog and not the content, the content would have been unsourced. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

IBM Domino does not sell anymore

Hi MrOllie, I renamed IBM Domino to HCL Domino, since IBM does not sell Domino anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Domino

Why can't the software be renamed to reflect the actual situation? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliversl (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oliversl, What you did was break a bunch of links in a comparison table so they didn't point at the correct articles any more. I have no issue with you keeping names up to date, so long as you don't break things as you do it. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying it out, I didn't changed the link only the name. So I thought it was safe, will do some test before trying to modify the page again, sorry for the trouble.Oliversl (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Web Monetization API

Hello. I added a section on the W3C proposed standard Web Monetization to the Website Monetization page but see you've removed my addition. Can you help me understand the reason behind this? What can be done to improve the submission?

77.102.100.19 (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You could base it on indepedent reliable sources, not primary sources, and you could do it without advertising for particular companies. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

List of multi-level marketing companies

Hi. I added a company, Valentus, to the list of MLMs and you reverted the edit. I had declared that the company didn't have its own page on Wikipedia, although that is also the case for one or two other companies. I had also confirmed that it was a valid vampiric MLM company from searches online. Maybe I should have provided some news articles in support? I'd be interested to hear why you reverted the edit (really very quickly after I submitted it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-b-g (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

H-b-g, That is a list of companies that have Wikipedia articles. I don't see anything on there that is missing an article, but if there is and I'm not seeing it, they should be removed. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the concise explanation. Clearly I was mistaken in thinking that other non-articled companies were in the list, and I stand corrected.

Important information missing on allergy wikipedia page

Hi !

My name is Theo and I have been the manager of my website allergieshub.com for about 4 years now. I just wanted to let you know that it would be important to add a new section on the "allergy" page talking scientific researches on the subject. What I propose is to talk about a new protein that immunologist Paula Gonzalez-Figueroa from the Australian National University (ANU) discovered. If you like my proposition, I encourage you to read on the subject from my blog post so maybe we could start a new section in the allergy page! Here is the blog post link : <<link removed>> Allergieshub (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use blogs or self published sites as sources for medical content. We stick to review articles published in peer reviewed journals, statements from major medical organizations, and the like. See WP:MEDRS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate service providers

Hello MrOllie,

For the vast sector of cyber security, there is a lot of wiki pages providing information on each of the online threats. Most of these pages include trusted service providers to help aid readers with finding where to test for these issues.

Each provider does things differently so it is in my opinion imperative to show each service provider.

I understand Wikipedia is not a Yellow Books page, however service providers directly fit into the education of cyber security vulnerabilities.

I kindly ask that you revoke your deletions on the Wikipedia pages.

Many thanks and kindest regards, SamTCD (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

SamTCD, You were made aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, paid editing, and link spamming a couple of months ago. Kindly stop trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your services. Thanks in advance. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

Thank you for your speedy response. I wasn't aware of that message as I wasn't aware of the "Talk" pages on Wikipedia. I am in the know now. Thank you.

I believe in this case a lot of rule breakers are slipping through the net. Take this one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection#cite_note-47

Would you say the link above would class as a COI?

Best wishes, SamTCD (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

SamTCD, I have no idea. Wikipedia is a large site and there are only so many volunteers, it may be that no one has reviewed that citation yet. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Property tax

Hi, can you please explain me whats wrong with the citation on Property tax - Determination of property tax? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDeLaRosaPi (talk • contribs)

First, the text is opinionated, not written in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Second, the sources added do not support all of the claims you're adding. In particular, citations must be attached to the individual statements they support, you can't just add refs to a section title and expect someone else to figure it out. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Medical devices

Dear MrOllie. In your last revision of the Artificial Intelligence section in the article Medical device you justified your edits as follows:

"cut figures our readers aren't interested in, cut some OR that isn't in the cited sources, and fix a typo"

• Could you please specify which part of the text that you deleted you considered as "readers aren't interested in"? How do you decide what Wikipedia's readers are interested in?
• Could you please specify which part of the text that you deleted you considered as OR? And why?
• Could you please specify why you removed two studies published in peer-reviewed journals that support the sentence "Currently, there is no specific regulatory pathway for AI/ML-based medical devices in the USA or Europe, despite reported limitations of the actual practice"? The source that you left does not support the statement regarding Europe.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhur (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhur, I asked you a question on your talk page, are you going to respond? MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I did. Thank you in advance for your responses here and on my talk page.Muhur (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhur, 1) As I said in my edit summary, the specific figures that different researchers came up with for number of devices approved. 2) The portions which presumed interest levels or that regulations were changing. 3) They appeared to be redundant, and there are COI issues. Wikipedia is not a place to promote particular research. See WP:REFSPAM and WP:MEDCOI for details. As to the Europe statement, that looks to be supported by the Beckers source. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie. Thank you for your response.

• 1) How do you decide what Wikipedia's readers are interested in? Please answer my question. Is there a specific way to measure this? Or is it your personal opinion? It looks like you deleted this part because the sources contradicted each other. In my understanding, this should not be done: "It's a reflex tendency of someone attached to a topic to want to exclude facts that seemingly contradict other facts in the article. It is often a flaw of human nature to want to simplify contentious topics by merely excluding points of view that disagree with it.".

Moreover, please specify to whom you refer by our in "cut figures our readers aren't interested in". Are you a group?

• 2) Which portions presumed interest levels in your opintion? I kindly ask you to be specific. Regulations are changing, as stated in the FDA source, if you do not agree with the statements from this major medical organizations, please be specific.
• 3)The two cited studies you deleted are not redundant regarding the points they sourced. Muehlematter et al. looked at medical devices in the US and in Europe, Wu et al. looked at the US. How could you draw this conclusion from these studies? Are you an expert in this field? Moreover, all studies were cited chronologically in a neutral encyclopedic way and did not promote particular research. Regarding redundancy one could argue, that Gerke et al. and Wu et. al are somewhat redundant (both looking at the US). Your statement "As to the Europe statement, that looks to be supported by the Beckers source." is true. However, the two sources you deleted clearly did not refer to this sentence but to "Currently, there is no specific regulatory pathway for AI/ML-based medical devices in the USA or Europe, despite reported limitations of the actual practice". Following your logic regarding redundancy it would have been consistent to only detelte Wu. et al. (which I do do not support since I do not think

Your edit leaves "reported limitations of the actual practice" partially unsourced. Even though this is a well known issue in this field.

In sum, you initial statement regarding overemphasis on a single study might have been appropriate. I wonder why you do did not delete other parts of medical device, that might bear the same problem. However, the subsequent shift from "that's a lot of words (and again, overemphasis on one study) to say they get approved in the same way that any other medical devices does" to "Still seems more aimed at promoting Muehlematter than actually conveying information. We don't need a whole section to state that these devices are approved the same way everything else is" and "cut figures our readers aren't interested in, cut some OR that isn't in the cited sources, and fix a typo" ist 1) mostly not kindly formulated and 2) promt questions regarding your expertise in the filed of medical devices and your personal agenda. Thank you for clarification.

References

Muhur (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not going to convince me that you were right to try to edit war self promotion into the article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie. These are by all means no personal attacks. These are my opinions and questions regarding your arguments, i.e. normal parts of a discussion. I would ask every person that interpets Ref1 and Ref2 as redundant about his expertise in this field. It is not my aim to convice you regarding the first article addition I made. I did not try to edit war. These points are not the basis of this discussion I started. As a new Wikipedia user, I tried to adhere to the advice I got after adding new information to medical device. However, everytime I solved one of the issues, a new issue was added. I started this discussion with a questions regarding my last revision and these questions have not been answered. For me it is not clear, why my last version is not acceptable, the answers I got here are either unclear or vague. That content is under discussion. I re-added the deleted references to my statement above since I think these are very important for the audience to understand this issue. Since my questions got repeatedly ignored and accusations have been stated, I opened a dispute resolution request. Thank you for your colaboration and clarification. Muhur (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia help recommended me to move this discussion here to see if getting more eyes on the problem leads to a solution. In my opinion it is better to discuss an issue raised by MrOllie directly on the talk pages of the corresponding articles and just leave a short comment here. Muhur (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Art & Object

Art & Object should be added to the list of art magazines. Why would a magazine with millions of annual readers not be suitable for the list when many publications listed are defunct and never attained that readership? The fact that it does not have an existing page is a problem too. Maybe you should actually look at the magazine before making such a hasty call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeditor1996 (talk • contribs)

We don't go by readership stats, we go by independently written, reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Audiblegate

Dear MrOllie, I only just saw your note about reliable sources on the edits I made to the Audible page. For clarification, would the news websites The Guardian, Publishing Perspectives, Publisher's Weekly and/or The Alliance of of Independent Authors Self-publishing Advice Center be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia content? Thank you in advance for your help. Eequay (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Eequay

Eequay, it all depends on the context of how they are used, but The Guardian is usually reliable. Publishing Perspectives and Publisher's Weekly are trade mags, so they might be if they're not used to support anything controversial. The Alliance of of Independent Authors almost certainly is not. If you stick to something neutrally written based only on what's in the Guardian, that would probably be fine. But it should be kept short - per WP:UNDUE 1/3 of the article is far too much to spend on this dispute. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Eequay (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of public recursive name server

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_recursive_name_server&oldid=1016929173. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mimi89999, That's a list of things with an associated article. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Where is it noted that all items in the list have to have an associated article? There are many lists on Wikipedia with items without an associated article. Why would this list be special and require all items to have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

It isn't special, it is the most common inclusion criteria for list articles, especially for lists on software topics. - MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Should all lists of software be cleaned the same way until an article is written then? I can volunteer to do that then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

It depends on the local consensus. See also WP:POINT. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Where could I find out if such a consensus was reached? Are there other places that I should check besides the talk page?

Also, how could we ensure that a service is visible in Wikipedia if a page of the company or organization can't be written? This will be especially bad for small companies or orgs for which we won't be able to find many reliable sources, if any? How should the fact that such an org/company/project exists or existed in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

Generally it will be on the talk page (or talk page archives), but some will be in HTML comments or in the article text itself.

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to ensure that all things are visible, so this isn't a problem. If reliable sources don't exist it should just be left out. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Should the Comodo and Yandex resolvers be removed then? The linked Wikipedia article does not mention anything about them running a resolver. How is that different than the situation with Freenom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

Freenom was considered at an AFD discussion and was deemed to not be notable. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to the discussion? Source of the data/stats/user count?

Association?

Are you associated with the University of South Florida in some way? Oro89 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Oro89, Nope! Why do you ask? MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

COI?

Do you, or have you, or expect you to receive compensation for any contribution you made/make on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhur (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhur, What is your basis for asking this question? I already told you I have no COI with regards to medical devices. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, the basis is the fact that you edited one of my contributions and since it looks like you prefer to keep an air of mystery about youself I would like, at least, to know your COI regarding compensation for your contributions on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhur (talk • contribs)

You got me, I'm being paid by big medical device to suppress your work. All my other edits over the last few years have been a smokescreen, leading to this moment. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is disparaging. Muhur (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I think you just broke their Sarcast-O-Meter. Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It is disparaging to answer and/or comment questions regarding COI with mockery. Muhur (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

open source model

dear ollie i added some information in the open source model page in the eyewear section under the fashion category. i checked that source again and realized that it was not proper for this section and came again to delete it. however the whole fashion category was gone in which info of some other open source eyewear info was there as well. you deleted that too, that info about botho was not my addition. so why did you delete that too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.121.226 (talk • contribs)

I removed several things that were either promotional or lacked independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)