User talk:MrOllie/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MrOllie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

MrOllie Please explain why you deleted my references to an article that we at The Argonaut Journal published about suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge? Abbycruz44 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The reference you added was malformatted and didn't support anything in the article. Please clarify: You published this article? - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

I completely agree with your point that wikipedia is purely for information purpose. That's why I want to add the link of a website that will guide the student to get help in study in australia. --Sayed Armani (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Sayed

We don't link to advertising, not even for informational purposes. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MrOllie! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, Could you please let me know why you have removed the content that I had updated for semiotics. If the content was missing any details, please let me know and I can add those also. Just to let you know, these were not copied from anywhere else, but the edit, especially about Piaget is provided based on my knowledge of the subject. Thanks, Dr.Mani muttappillil — Preceding unsigned comment added by M K Mani muttappillil (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It was unsourced opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie, Can you please confirm why was external links section was deleted from canine distemper page. There are no external sources on canine distemper page and i think user will benefit by having one. --Great Indian Artist (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't use blogs as external links, see WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you differentiate wether a site is a blog or a professional website? Following is a link of external source which i know for a fact is also a blog: https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=19239&id=4951463 Please help drive clarity between which website you see as a blog and which website you see as a non-blog? thanks--Great Indian Artist (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Thanks for your feedback on my edit. I'm a professional writer with a keen interest in online education and I'm new to this Wikipedia platform. The reason I gave the link, as references, was due to the fact that I found their blogs to be very insightful. I follow various elearning blogs and they tend to conduct researches in ramifications in education and publish articles based on their own experiences. Can you please elaborate your reason to delete the same?

Waiting for your kind reply

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphasoup (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't use self published blogs as sources on Wikipedia, see our guideline pages at WP:RS and WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, very much appreciated your comment / concern about not using a WP:MEDRS compliant source =) Having said that I would like to put this into perspective since the reference used is just that: a comprehensive summary of all available world-wide reliable sources.

Here is the conclusion published by German Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (by Milachowski y Krauss; Fuß & Sprunggelenk):

“The patients had a light to moderate hallux valgus with a mean angle of 28,8 degree. The results show statistically significant correction of the hallux valgus angle (…).”

Finally all references used are reliable and credited such as the above mentioned German Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, U.S. National Center of Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, University of Yeungnam, South Korea, University of MS&R Adesh (you can find the full bibliography at the end of the reference).

Most importantly, the overall goal of Wikipedia is to present right and useful findings for our readers. Current conclusion “there is no evidence that any of these techniques reduces the physical deformity” is misleading. This is because 80% of bunion’s pathology is mild (i.e. Manchester Scale Grade 1), and on these cases the bunion splint is effective in reducing deformity.

Hope to have answered your concern and very much open to your POV. I wish you a wonderful day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascianini (talk • contribs)

If the site you linked itself relies on WP:MEDRS complaint sources, just cite those sources directly. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

tx for your suggestion: the metadata article mentioned 8 different WP:MEDRS complient sources, that's why I preferred to insert only the metatadata link rather than the 8 links, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascianini (talk • contribs)

I think that we have WP:MEDRS for a reason and you should do your best to follow it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

បរិស្ថានស្អាត់ជាឱសថរបស់យើង Sum Dolla (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie I was adding a new book on the medical condition to various pages to which it is relevant. All proceeds from this book are going to cerebral palsy research. The pages are:

1) Spastic Diplegia 2) Cerebral palsy 3) spastic 4) spastic cerebral palsy 5) spasticity 6) spastic quadriplegia 7) spastic hemiplegia

Can you please confirm that this is okay. Many thanks

(ElizabethC2020 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC))

Did you write this book? Or are you connected with the author? - MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am the author but this is not a commercial book. If it is inappropriate for any author to add a book, then I understand. ElizabethC2020 (ElizabethC2020 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethC2020 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't be listing it in further reading yourself, no. The guidelines are a bit more fuzzy on whether you can use it as a citation to write new content for Wikipedia, especially since these are medical pages which have special sourcing requirements, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. As a subject matter expert we would welcome your contributions, but it would be much better if you were citing reviews in peer reviewed journals and the like. You could perhaps bring it up over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which is where Wikipedia's medical focused users can be found. Be patient, though, I imagine they're pretty busy keeping untested coronavirus folk remedies off those articles at the moment. - MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand–I didn't realize that. I added the book after I'd seen that someone else earlier had added an external link to the book. I added it as Further Reading which I felt was more appropriate. ElizabethC2020 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I have no relationship with this artwork or artist, other than the fact that I live in the same area and know the work of many street artists in my area. Additionally, now I'm being restricted from publishing other photos of other street art works that I have taken with the reason given that the photo is not suitable for Creative Commons because I did not take the photo. But I have taken all photos. I'm just trying to enrich the subject page here, nothing devious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonminused (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if you took the photo, if you did not also design the artwork you don't have the proper copyright permission to upload this to the commons. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding: Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to List of North American scholarships have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Explanation Regarding Link: i added that link actually providing scholarship in whole usa and canada that is why i added that link as reference. if you think that link was inappropriate then can you please explain me in brief so i get proper information what actually i made mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyra c 12 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie: Regarding Sign Language Ad astra per aspera...

You reverted my edit on sign language; explanation was 'do not edit in quotations'. My edits were not within the quoted; of course I may not understanding format.

When it comes to deaf person - there is deaf: meaning anatomically speaking and then Deaf: meaning Culture. But this was not what I changed. I just added a hyperlink to the meaning and the hyperlink was not changed from a different link, it was added after changing capitalization. I added, also, a line regarding CODA. Saying 'commonly referred to as CODA's. I believe, it was I, who added the the quote(s) discussed for changing or perhaps by quote you meant the three parenthesis-like lines for formatting the appearance of a letter or word. Please note that I added something in a quotation regarding CODA Then please also note the letters whether capitalized (and the reason provided above) or whether placed in bold font which created the three parenthesis-like lines. I notice, in this editing talk page, that if I were to place a letter in bold, as I have above, for d and D - what appears is quotations because I highlighted the letters and chose B-Bold above this text. Perhaps you and I are looking at quotations from two view points; otherwise I am not understanding my error. .....................Ad meliora AlterĒvolvere (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You changed quotations and titles materials written in 1648 and 1680 to modern spellings - don't do this, use the author's spelling even if it does not match modern standards. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters we do not unnecessarily capitalize. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I added a couple hyperlinks to images that you used from the Art Institute of Chicago as I thought it would help readers see where the actual artwork is located. One link was to an image title, but you have removed all of those links and I'm curious why you don't want to include that information? It seems like a direct link to the actual object of the photograph that you use would be an appropriate resource. Thank you. 18:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AncientArtEnthusiast (talk • contribs)

We don't embed external links into the middle of articles or image captions. See WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just giving people a list of best android emulators out there. Isn't it helpful for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul rana2018 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't link to people's blogs. See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey There,

I did receive a couple of messages stating "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Category 3 cable."

I totally get that and I am on it. Now I need to know why all my edits are not reflected in the respective context. I had made around 14 edits and none reflected, I request to please let me know when the same would be approved or I need to take any actions to get them approved.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynerajesh94 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

All your edits were reverted because they were attempts to advertise. Wikipedia doesn't host advertising, so none of these edits are going to be approved. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you removed Delta Chat completelly from the Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients page in this change.

Your comment was "rm external link", but in fact you removed the whole line for Delta Chat from the tables.

Was this intentional? If yes, why not just remove the link and leave the rest of the information there?

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.58.235.11 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was intentional. That is a list of topics that already have a Wikipedia article. Delta Chat has no preexisting article so it should not be listed. - MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

I don't quite understand why you are saying "One listing per article" and have reverted my changed [[1]].

"RSA BSAFE" is not an implementation. "RSA BSAFE" is a product suite, which is why, if you look in the Overview table, you will notice there is a difference between "Micro Edition Suite" and "SSL-J", which are two different products, and two different implementations.

Or would you prefer one row that shows "RSA BSAFE - Micro Edition Suite and SSL-J" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Security in mind (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ollie you have changed this article. You have given no reasoning as to why it is promotional in your opinion. Nor how you are qualified to edit a telecoms vendor article? Rather than mass deleting information you should have left comments on the talk page so that people could discuss and then agree any changes. You haven't improved the article you have introduced errors through your editing. If you want to improve the article will you please engage rather than just mass deleting things and will you give proper reasoning in the talk page.84.68.167.255 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, everyone is qualified to edit every article. How are you qualified? Are you an employee of TEOCO, or otherwise related to it or the industry? - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not an employee of the company or associated with them in any way. But I do have 25 years' experience in telecoms and I am regarded as a worldwide (and neutral) expert - so yes I am qualified. You have vandalised the article because your edits don't even make sense. You still have provided no reasoning why this is promotional in your view. I have now asked you several times to provide examples as to why. There is absolutely nothing in here that is advertising the company and it is written in a neutral tone and it is referenced so what is your problem. Wiki guidelines also say you're not supposed to mass delete things.84.68.167.255 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered on the article's talk page, please keep the discussion there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

after reading the wp:el . There is no discussion that links to paid sites are a violation. in fact that expternal link was on wiki Beam from 2008 until 2018, for ten years without incident until you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rburnwiki (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and there are a limited number of volunteers. Sometimes it takes a long time to notice inappropriate links, and a site advertising commercial software is absolutely an inappropriate link. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You reverted some spam links on the Wikiproject for civil engineering. thanks. do you work on the project?... cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, just happened to notice that user adding spam elsewhere. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a JavaScript obfuscation example which was removed. JavaScript is a very common language and I felt an example would be relevant to this page. I believe it was removed because of the reference link to a site that provides a free tool. If I remove the reference link, can I repost the example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmt767 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have plenty of examples. We don't want them to dominate the article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

While researching articles for my blog, I took the time to improve a couple of wiki entries. In doing so, I also cited my original work where appropriate. You call this inappropriate and cite pre-existing rules to back this opinion up. As you stated, there is no SEO value to the nofollow links found on Wikipedia. This isn't new information to me. I understand the intention and that you're not alone in thinking all self-promotion must be blindly stamped out, but the brutish action of deleting improvements to content seems to lack consideration. Delete all suspected self-promotional citations if you must, but burning books to spite the author seems a misguided endeavor for a curator of knowledge. It may also be subjective, but how small is the evil that may be safely ignored by the righteous? Please attempt consideration from more than one perspective. I'm sorry if you've mistaken my own intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QBass (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use self published blogs as sources. Now you know - if you are here to improve Wikipedia, have at it. Just cite a source that meets the guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon, There is a new note at the top of James Ketchell's page which says I know him so there is a conflict of interest. I am a freelance journalist and I have interviewed him in the past. But that is all. He is not my friend or colleague so I ask this is removed from his page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpitcher1977 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

One user user:JonFredriksen adding some works what can be promotional and spam different pages with that some GeGaLo index or so. e.g geopolitics geostrategy Always in lead of article and no edit summary and seems as not something so relevant or widely accepeted. So maybe some attention should be paid about. And maybe user is author so coonected with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.34.43 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked content more and lets say, problems what I saw are also to user included that list (GeGaLo index) in many articles often in lead of articles almost as spam. The list included, I doubt to it got so wide attention in any kind of community (cited by many third relevant sources) (so it can be promotional to get some fame via Wikipedia) and the list is all about "IF" as prediction so about speculative future events what could happen or could not so mostly it is one claim for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.34.43 (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

External links section:

The below link is broken, it does not work:

• [http://dna.kdna.ucla.edu/rna/index.aspx RNA editing website]

The below link is irrelevant to the topic because it is about Crispr-Cas9 RNA editing, so a suspicious advertisement:

• [https://techengage.com/salk-institute-rna-editing-tool/ Salk Institute discovered an RNA editing tool]

I have removed the above 2 links for the reasons listed above, and I added another valid link for analysis of RNA editing.

However, you reverted them back twice, blocking the contribution and growing of Wikipedia independently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeran (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have found bad links, remove them and clearly indicate why in your edit summary. Do not also use this as an opportunity to link your own or your employer's web sites. And look over WP:PAID, it looks to me like you are currently in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think users like MrOllie should be banned from editing Wikipedia because you harm content development rather than improve it.

Hi again Ollie

I don't understand why the COI is still on his page...? There is no conflict of interest. The article is in no way promotional. He is a person of interest, a world record holder, I really don't see why this COI is on here? I will keep writing until I can make you understand why there is no COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpitcher1977 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on your editing history (and a few seconds of googling), I just don't believe you, sorry. That is a badly formatted, badly written (and yes, promotional) article that desperately needs cleanup from an experienced editor. - MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand and accept that it may be inappropriate for individuals to post about themselves on Wikipedia even if that information is accurate. (eg If Joe Bloggs, born on 1 Jan 1980, creates an entry stating that Joe Bloggs was born on 1 Januar 1980). I was therefore only slightly annoyed when I put up factual information about my work on several Wikipedia pages and those facts were removed.

I then asked a friend to put up exactly the same information; it lasted for about 24 hours before it was taken down.

Can you please explain why?

The facts were to state that (a) plays of mine have been published and produced in London and Edinburgh and (b) the playscripts have been published and are for sale through several sources. I accept that such information needs to be verified, which is why websites containing that information (admittedly maintained by myself) given as references. In several cases these websites lead to other websites that carry reviews of the work.

Would you like confirmation that that the books exist - do you want to see photos of the actual books? - and are available for sale on Amazon and elsewhere - do you want that proof? - and the plays were produced - do you want copies of the flyers and publicity and reviews?

The deleted statements included no opinion. The intention was only to state on Wikipedia FACTS: certain things exist and certain events have taken place. Yet Wikipedia has decided that either (a) I or my friend were lying and that information is not true and therefore cannot be included, or (b) that information is true but Wikipedia wishes to censor it.

Even more disturbing was an amendation of a fact that had nothing to do with me (the production of a play by Peter Luke on the author Frederick Rolfe in the 1960s) was deleted.

I repeat - nothing that was unloaded was untrue; everything was independently verifiable. I accept that self-promotion and lies have no place on Wikipedia (which is why I am very pleased that there is no page on Wikipedia about myself and I hope that there never is.)

Can you please explain how to put onto Wikipedia factual information that can be verified independently? And why factual information that can be verified independently can be deleted?

Can I suggest that I give you the information, already formatted, so that you can verify it independently?

Can you explain why my amendation of information that had nothing to do with me (the Peter Luke play) was deleted?

Now, to state an opinion (for the first time); my faith in Wikipedia as a source of independent, verifiable information has been shaken. I hope (another opinion) that you can help me resolve this issue and restore my faith in what I had thought was a reputable and trustworthy source of information

Idiomist (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Idiomist

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is not enough that something be true, it must also (for instance), be covered in appropriate weight relative to other relevant aspects of the article. Most small productions should not be covered at all. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing it now and The document should not be returned. User John b13 , He kept deleting others' opinions, leaving only his own.Bablos939 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, Thank you for your feedback on why the external resource was removed. I respect your judgement. We will work on a more pertinent and comprehensive piece that will provide Wikipedia and its users with valuable content.

Potatoesusa (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Quantum Unique Identifiers equations RheyAllan251973 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the useful content adding. They are not advertising. There is no interest in attracting search engine indexing. The sole purpose is to extend the content useful for the readers. You reverted back a content which was there for more than 6 months. If you keep reverting the content, you will be banned from Wikipedia as your actions are against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeran (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't link your own websites and/or your employer's sites. This is textbook link spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked - COI info and 2 clear warnings ignored plus edit warring over disputed content. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully they reflect on what happened, get unblocked, and apply their expertise in a more constructive way. - MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi...

I just read the talk page for the job schedulers page, since I wondered what is wrong with that article since it misses so many critical contents. Your edits made the article less useful - removing schedulers that are used in such central roles that they keep the world running for decades just because they aren't described here on Wikipedia... I have no vendor relationship and am not using there anymore, but I'd give you the friendly recommendation to go back there and undo your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.167.254 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie: You have supported the actions of user Red King who keeps eliminating "arguments against" on the "Dividend Tax" page. He gives no justification for destroying this material except by vague unspecific generics with no apparent relation to the text he objects to.

He claims the statements there are un-grounded expressions of personal political views. In fact, there no such statements there at all and everything said there is clearly explained in other Wikipedia's and external articles linked to in the text. Red King refused to specify on the talk page which statements are such and how.

Everybody knows that the issue of Dividend Tax is controversial. Eliminating explanations of one side of this controversy is not a good way to give support (which he obviously wants) to the other side. Violating the balanced view policy only drives away people, not gaining any supporters. The useful and harmful aspects of Dividend Taxes should be clearly explained, so that the remaining differences would really be based on political disagreements rather than just on lack of comprehension.

I presume Red King has no knowledge in that area. If you do have such knowledge please put specific objections on the talk page or encourage users with expertise to do so (and please restore the destroyed text). Thank you!

P.S. The only issue Red King left there is the argument that Dividend Tax is "unfair". The economists would tell you that fairness is mostly in the eye of the beholder. More substance is needed to explain the benefits and problems of Dividend Tax.

108.26.227.246 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The text in question isn't very well sourced, and is clearly written in a non neutral and non-encyclopedic style. You must work this out on the talk page, do not continue to attempt to edit war this into the article. - MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please specify which statements there are not explained with the links given. It seems to me all are clear or explained in the links. You say they are not in neutral style. Could you please explain which statements you find biased there. (Or do you consider the very fact of giving arguments against to be an indication of a bias, even in the section clearly named so?!) You suggest to work out something on the talk page. But please point out what exactly is unclear, biased, or otherwise needs to work out. If your objections are not arbitrary and prejudiced one would need something specific: what to work out? Thank you. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Example:

Another issue is the tax effects on economic incentives. The taxpayers are [unnecessary line break] interested in the post-tax income, while it is the pre-tax income that forms [unnecessary line break] national resources. [What's your reference for this?] Any mismatch between the actual income as perceived by [unnecessary line break] taxpayers and the taxable income distorts economic incentives by providing [unnecessary line break] tempting ways to boost their difference. [What's your reference for this?] It promotes tax planning to [unnecessary line break] maximize the post-tax income to the detriment of the pre-tax one. [What's your reference for this?]

Et cetera, et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary! I fully agree that line breaks are unnecessary and would be glad to eliminate them. They are not visible in my browser, but I can take extra care when restoring the text. But I would like to take care of all specific objections before doing so.

Otherwise you indicate three statements as unsupported.

(1) "The taxpayers are interested in the post-tax income, while it is the pre-tax income that forms national resources."

[What's your reference for this?]

What kind of reference needed to say that taxpayers are interested in post-tax income? Please explain what else they could be interested in. Or do you see as unsupported that the national income includes the taxes collected? They are not thrown away but are taken for public use. What support is needed for these statements?

2) "Any mismatch between the actual income as perceived by taxpayers and the taxable income distorts economic incentives by providing tempting ways to boost their difference."

[What's your reference for this?]

Again, the statement is obvious but is quite elaborated in the link tax planning in the next sentence.

(3) "It promotes tax planning to maximize the post-tax income to the detriment of the pre-tax one."

[What's your reference for this?]

Tax planning is the reference elaborating this (also quite clear) statement. (This link was broken in the first version, but repaired in the later one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dividend_tax&oldid=949313417 108.26.227.246 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please keep this on the article talk page where everyone involved will see it, my user talk isn't the place to work out content issues. - MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You have more patience than I have. I welcomed this editor and suggested at their talk page what they needed to do to reach the standard expected and got a threat for my troubles. From the above, it doesn't appear that they have learned anything about the value of cooperation over confrontation. I for one won't waste any more time on them. Meanwhile, thank you for confirming my assessment of their proposed text. --Red King (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Either they'll see the light and we get a properly sourced addition, or they don't and the article ends up semiprotected. Either outcome is fine as far as I'm concerned. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I received a message from you accusing and suspecting me of being paid to edit Wikipedia articles. Well I am not. The only agenda I have is to provide updated information on my own personal interests. I just haven't had the chance to edit many pages yet because I am only just starting this. It would be great if you could leave it all alone and recognize that the only edits I am making are useful ones that provide more sources and context. The only edits I have made so far are all connected to each other; because it lies under the same subject. I would be fascinated to know how, for example, my edit about female pickup artists would strike anyone that someone is paying me to make edits. What that article is missing is gender equality and the recognition of female activity. Don't stamp on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'sources' you have been adding are promotional and do not meet our sourcing requirements, which do not allow for the use of self published books and blogs. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited out a 'promotional' source and replaced it was an unbiased up-to-date one. If you actually looked at my edits, you would see that I removed someone's 'Texas PUA Lairs List' with a list of global 'lairs'. My first edit attempt was to add a new page for a book. Now I have abandoned that because it does not have the required source coverage. So what's the problem? BE SPECIFIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Replacing one spam link with another is not an improvement. - MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You are reverting my edits to suit a link that quite obviously seems to benefit you, what you just said above is no excuse. Useless argument. That's against the rules that you first accused me of. The link you are reverting to is biased. You are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I had already removed the link you were complaining about before your latest revert. Personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your history here tells me a lot. You're clearly purposefully messing with the progress of new information on lots of articles. Nobody personally attacked you. Stop coming up with false complaints and leave information alone. Every edit you make is about reverting other people's changes. I have escalated a dispute and complaint about you so that someone can clean up your mess. Don't bite the newcomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed spam links from lots of articles. Somebody has to, since we do not want Wikipedia to be full of advertising and crap sources. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not even the point. You are reverting ALL changes. You won't permit the mention of female PUAs. You won't permit the mention of lesbian and bisexual artistry. You won't permit the female perspective. You are biased. I have not posted any spam links. You have, however, reverted changes to allow one. Even the minor edits I make you are reversing. The edit history shows it all in black and white. You are also harassing my talk page by issuing multiple sections instead of one. Perhaps you should UNDO that. WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Make your changes and cite sources that meet our sourcing guidelines (that means no PUA blogs), and you won't have any problems from me. Don't add unsourced stuff, and don't link unreliable junk. The stuff I'm leaving on your talk page are standard warning templates, designed to get you to stop edit warring and start reading Wikipedia's policies. - MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add this tool in the same way that the other tools are in the list. It is possible? I'm violating some rule? 84.33.120.208 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a list of tools that have preexisting Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest to include Revision: 14:38, 8 April 2020? I agree that the content is misplaced in section "experimental treatment", as it relates to lab work. Would creating a new section for "pre-clinical research approaches" be acceptable? Biomedical pages extensively refer to mouse studies and other pre-clinical work. Please advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CwAresearch (talk • contribs)

I would suggest not including it. Wikipedia is a place to summarize stuff after it becomes commonplace, settled science, not a place to share news about cutting edge developments. Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of work to do - and if you've seen other pages that are based on mouse studies and other primary sources I think it is likely that no one has noticed that stuff yet to remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point and will not pursue this further. The downside of not including cutting edge science is that Wikipedia might get boring when it comes to biomedical information. A lot of my students are getting a first exposure to different biological concepts and their relevance to diseases in wiki. This approach to only present settled/old science will be less attractive to them or to the general readership looking for what could come next. I just hope the big clean-up you refer to is not going to be too damaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.225.103 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

MOE NORMAN -- "Way Ahead Of His Time!"

Hello Mr Ollie, I'm the person who added a paragraph on MOE NORMAN.---/ Moe and his golf swing is considered "strange" by virtually the entire world of golf. -- However, recent research conducted by yours truly reveals that Moe (and Ben Hogan) -- via trail and error -- hit upon the true underlying "Cubic Science" in the swing! No doubt,this explains Hogan winning "64" pro events and Moe winning "55!"

Nevertheless, Moe was thought to be an "usual" person and perhaps a bit "slow" -- even autistic. However, his "formula" for swinging a golf club lives on as "Natural Golf" offered at the Graves Golf Academy!(see YouTube)

In any event, my comment is intended to "wake up" the world of golf to Moe's intellect and significant contribution that "one day" will be appreciated by all who play the game. --You might say, Moe was way ahead of his time!

To learn more about me and the research on Ben Hogan I've been doing since "1985" -- Please see my website: HealthyGolf.net You will also find much praise for the Moe Norman Legacy.

Thanks for listening. -- Dom Esposito, PhD -- Founder of "HOGAN'S CUBE" & "GOLF WINDOW". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdomhere (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As indicated on your talk page, we can not just base this on your opinion. We would need sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements.. Before you ask, personal websites do not meet them. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I'm new at Wikipedia and recently I edited the article Precision Agriculture by adding the official definition aproved by the International Society of Precision Agriculture. In my opinion, the best description of a term is by using its official definition. As there is a scientific society behind PA, I think it would be better for the readers to have it written in the article. I also included some links to the conferences listed in the Conference section.

Could you please tell me why did you revert my changes, which I consider they are clearly an improvement to the article. As I mentioned, I'm new to Wikipedia and maybe I'm missing something.

Gratefully

Àlex Escolà Alex Escolà (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted those changes because they were inappropriate for the lead section (which is supposed to summarize the main article), added an inappropriate external link, and served to promote ISPA. Anyone can start a society to support and promote anything - that does not then make that society's definition an 'official' one. We need independent, secondary sources that show such additions are being covered with appropriate context. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. The evolution of technology and continuous changes in agriculture and in many other areas make new names appear every now and then. Precision Agriculture, precision farming, smart agriculture, agriculture 4.0, satellite farming, digital agriculture, etc, etc, etc. The problem here is that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE and WHAT ARE THEY NOT. My opinion is that a scientific society is very important to define what is included and what not. For your information, ISPA is not a "a society started by anyone". It has the support of all the international academics researching on Precision Agriculture,which is not small. You can see the figures of the conferences organized by it and the figures of the huge amount of scientific papers published in journals such as Precision Agriculture (Springer) or manyothers. I was not promoting ISPA, I was just expressing there is science behind Precision Agriculture and that it is important to know all those experts have worked together to issue an agreed official definition for PA. I'm a very calm person but I think your words are offensive. That was my first contribution to Wikipedia and I'm very disappointed. I thought it was a serious project and your position on that specific article makes me doubt about the whole. Alex Escolà (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If all these people support this definition, no doubt some of them have echoed it in a peer reviewed publication, which would meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. You should cite it to that. - MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on that. However, things are different here. Such peer reviewed publication will cite the definition in the ISPA website and describe the process mentioned there. You don't need a scientific paper to accept it... Alex Escolà (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We need some secondary source, though, (very preferably written by someone with no connection to ISPA) to know that ISPA isn't just publishing a definition no one else is taking notice of. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you say makes no sense... A democratic society representing the majority of researchers on PA runs a process to reach an agreement on what should be the definition for PA for a couple of years, ending with a proposal which was approved by the democratically elected direction board, and now you ask for someone with no connection to ISPA (what is "no connection" for you?) to write a different definition... Don't worry, no more edits from my side. Keep your nice article and forget about me... Sorry to make you waste your time. Alex Escolà (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to write a different definition, but to support ISPA's definition. Wikipedia runs on secondary sources. I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated, but the Wikipedia community has developed policies such as WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR for a reason. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. What was wrong with my ref.? I checked out the author of the sourced article, Schlichting, before editing. It seems pretty good bibliography to me. I'm told by another editor he is considered one of the top Swiss experts in the subject. Why TW? Cheers Philcroix91 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The content in question already had a good source (pcworld), and you added a news aggregator that gets its funding through sponcon. We don't need to add redundant cites to lower quality publishers. - MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow!Who gets funding through sponcon? That's a pretty serious accusation.Philcroix91 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I come in peace, and would like to work with you to improve the Wikipedia entries for UWP, UWP apps, and the Windows Runtime.

I understand why you reverted my changes to the UWP page, so I would propose we move some of the content I added to that page to the better-suited "Universal Windows Platform apps" page. My main issue is that the Wikipedia page for "UWP" itself is incorrect and redundant considering these types of applications may be created to use the Windows Runtime and Win32/COM APIs. UWP is NOT an API itself.

Thus, I would appreciate it if you placed a banner on the top of the page for UWP which mentions the content is outdated. Also, we need to figure out a way to better promote the "UWP apps" page from there.

That way, I can move my additions to the appropriate page, and we can improve the definition of this application category for the masses.

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia the world's best encyclopedia.

-Luke Blevins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke7553 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. I put a see also template that shows up at the top of the article to direct people to the app specific article. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie. I'm fairly new to wiki editing, maybe only made a dozen edits so far. Do you know if there's any specific global articles on lists like the software one in Virtual Studio Technology? Looks like until 13:59, on 27 August 2019‎ there was software listed that had no wiki articles for it. The user who removed them mentioned "uncited"/"non notable" as the reason. I was aware of the need for citations so I did put a citation next to my entry. Actually just after publishing I went to make a new article on that software before I learned that without specific history or other non-summary information it would not meet the criteria for having its own article.

I feel it's notable enough to be in the list, but not notable enough to have its own article. Open to your feedback or if you have any specific global guidance for these sorts of things. Cheers PlaterAndy (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria are largely up to consensus of the editors maintaining the page, but "Every entry has its own article" is a very, very common criterion. On those lists that are composed of article-less but referenced entries, the references generally have to be reliable as wikipedia defines it (see WP:RS), and independently written. Obviously every software out there has its own web page written by the author(s), so the existence of something like that would not serve to narrow down any lists. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers PlaterAndy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Richard Haw and I have recently published a biography of John Roebling -- the first in over 50 years -- and I have tried to add it to the "further reading" section of several Roebling-related pages recently. Each time the submission has been removed/deleted by you. I'm not sure who you are, but the book is published by a reputable pubisher (Oxford University Press) and would surely be of use and interest of anyone interested in John Roebling and his bridges. Is there some reason why Wikipedia would want to remove useful information from its pages? I've always thought Wikipedia was interested in the most up-to-date material. Honestly, I'm a little mystified by all this. For more information on the book please see: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/engineering-america-9780190663902?cc=us&lang=en&#. Many thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.200.24 (talk • contribs)

As a subject matter expert, Wikipedia would be happy for you to help is build out our articles - but Wikipedia is not a place for you to publicize your recently published book. You're doubtless familiar with a range of sources published by others. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia why not write some content and cite some of those? - MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources cited by the Wikipedia article are all poorly researched and out of date, so they really aren't worth citing. As is the entry on Roebling generally. As I said, this is the first biography published on John Roebling in over 50 years, incorporating tons of new research. I get that you wouldn't want people to use Wikipedia for people to publicize their books, but what if those books were published by reputable scholars through reputable presses? That has to be a better form of validation than what normally gets posted. Best as I've always understood it, people just post their own material. Everyone I know who has a Wikipedia page wrote it themselves, for example. After this, I'm actually at a bit of a loss to understand how anything gets posted or updated, without being deleted. Oh well. I'd actually be interested in fleshing out the Wikipedia page on Roebling, but I'm also not sure why I'd put in that much work just to find myself deleted by ... well whoever you are. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.200.24 (talk • contribs)

Sometimes people can flout the rules and get away with it, but writing your own page is a problem per WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ollie,

I added an external link to the following page

on the following wikipedia page.

Old_English_Bulldog

The link i added is important because there is no reference to Old Tyme bulldog in the article, but to explain, it is a breed that has been reintroduced into the UK to try to breed the original characteristics of the new extinct old English bulldog. The link is to the breed information page of the old tyme bulldog and is a very useful and relevant link, this is not for any type of promotion apart from information, also given that this page already appears as the first result on google search results above this wikipedia article, simply type 'old tyme bulldog breed' to verify. I am myself the owner of a old tyme bulldog.

Thanks alot, David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.73.169 (talk • contribs)

There is a link to Olde English Bulldogge, which is the page for the recreated breed and has plenty of references. - MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This article you have referred to above is about a recently created American dog breed. As stated in the article, For the traditional breeds from England, see Bulldog and Old English Bulldog, this is the page where i added the external link. Since dog breeds vary from America and Europe and because this particular breed is originated in England surely the link is very relevant and had been placed in the correct page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.73.169 (talk • contribs)

That page is for an extinct breed - if you have one, it is obviously a different breed since your dog is apparently not exinct. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a link directory, so placing an external link isn't a good means to publicise a breed. If you have multiple sources that meet our guidelines (and ukpets does not) you could write a new article on the breed. See WP:AFC for details on how to get started. - MrOllie (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That page is indeed for an extinct breed, and mine is definitely real, unlike the new 'AI 3D animals' that has just launched on Google search results, check it out btw its pretty amazing. I agree that Wikipedia isn't a link directory and apologies because this is my first time to contribute, as i'm sure you wouldn't want to scare people off who are trying to contribute something positive to the community.

The extinct breed page that you refer to above has a section called 'others' where it lists several other recreations, including the Continental bulldog, Dorset Old Tyme Bulldogge, and Olde English Bulldogge. All of those links have their own dedicated pages but the old tyme bulldog just redirects to Bulldog_type#Alternative_bulldogs. So i guess that a page has not yet been written on it?

Regarding the sources that meet your guidelines, i was browsing the following dog breed pages on wikipedia: Dogue_de_Bordeaux Rhodesian_Ridgeback

and i found that the site pets4homes were referenced as a source in the main content. Can i ask why ukpets.com does not meet the sources criteria for wikipedia but the site below does?

Thanks, David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.73.169 (talk • contribs)

You should go by the guideline at WP:RS, not examples you may find elsewhere. Wikipedia is a large site with a lot to do, and volunteer time is limited. Sometimes bad sources are added and no one notices for a while. - MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please explain me why adding a state-of-the-art book (in which I am coauhtor) from a well-know publisher, related to linked data visualization, into Linked Data page, is a self proportion?

Best, nikos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikbik (talk • contribs)

Self promotion. By listing your book on various wikipedia pages, you are promoting yourself. We don't do that here - see WP:COI and WP:CITESPAM - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ok, so, your opinion is that this book is not suitable/valuable for the Linked Data entry. Just because I promote my self.

Thanks, nikos

The links I added were from genuine website which actually mentioned the channel numbers of those channels. The websites which were there in wiki of similar nature and non of the sites are channel's official website. As you removed my additions regarding channel number details, I thought to put official Twitter handle tweet which contains program details. The link at present talking about programs are unofficial.

My earlier additional information was removed in name of promoting some site, in next edit I put official twitter handle that also removed telling disruptive edit! Hence at present though the channel is available in many DTH, wikipedia is stuck with wrong details of channel number (dish tv 003 is wrong) and also no mentions about its availability in other dths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankaromkar (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:RS. The site you were using does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. That there are other bad sources being used is a reason to fix those sources, not to add more bad sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You reverted my revisions claiming them to be fringe. I provided contemporary literature from reputable sources for example, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and Royal Society of Great Britain. Please explain how these are fringe views. Undoing your revert.Prototypehumanoid (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, could you please explain to me, why you reverted the add on of map of cognitive biases (April 21.)? This is current research from the university of St. Gallen, providing a map and a typology of 187 cognitive biases based on research papers, helpful for researcher and practitioners? And it would probably also be useful to publish this link on the wikipedia entry "list of cognitive biases". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.176.217 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, this is a gentle reminder to visit my talk page to continue our conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter9970 Thanks for your contributions in keeping Wikipedia information credible. Regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter9970 (talk • contribs)

That conversation appears to have run its course. If you have any questions about Wikipedia I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Teahouse. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, may I ask why you consider this image unhelpful? In my opinion it's a great schematic demonstration of Scrum of Scrums. Many people find visual representation of this topic extremely helpful and easy to understand.

llunnaz 13:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)llunnaz

It adds no useful information, and included a promotional external link. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

the articles for most design patterns have examples in more than one programming language. Why shouldn't the builder pattern?

Volwen (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Where a language has structures that render the implementation unique in some way, it might be appropriate to have multiple examples. But C# and Java are so similar the added example was redundant. Other articles likely have redundant examples that should be removed as well. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, I'm responsible for trying to get a page called CaseTalk up. I've started the draft, mentioned my COI, en before I could react, the page got removed already. The relevance is that there are two tools available that support the modeling method FCO-IM which is used in educational institutes. (1) A freeware version of earlier prototypes which is not actively maintained since the beginning of this century. (2) A tool called CaseTalk which is offered for free for educational purposes. The COI is that I'm the maintainer of this product now since 2001. I've tried to align the text similar to other data modeling tools on the market. So I'm not sure how to proceed in getting this listed without people tagging and removing it as advertorial. I'm trying not to be that. Can you help or give advice? Regards. Marco.wobben (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Gryllidia, and I had nothing to do with your draft getting deleted, nor have I ever read it. I'm not really sure why you're asking me. Without knowing any specifics, all I can say is that if your draft keeps getting deleted as advertising you're probably writing in an advertorial style. I suggest you collect whatever independent news articles you're basing the article on, read them thoroughly, and try to imitate the neutral tone they are most likely written in. - MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I would like to understand what is the reason to take the reference link out of my revision of the Customer Acquisition Cost Article? Is it because the original article misses source links? Just trying to understand to get this corrected, as the information included in the previous Customer Acquisition Article was partly just wrong. Thanks in advance. André Wehr —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

1) We do not use marketing materials, such as vendor or consultant blogs as sources. See WP:RS. 2) This is your own business website you are linking, and you apparently have a history of trying to promote your business on Wikipedia. This is a violation of our conflict of interest guidelines, which you can find at WP:COI and WP:PAID. Please don't add any more links to your business. - MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie

First of all, apologize for the contribution without an understanding of the guideline. And the confusion & misunderstanding that my editing caused.

I noticed that you removed and updated my contribution to the pages. I would appreciate it if you can provide instruction on how to improve the OpenCV/Deep Learning related pages with the following

- Is it not OK to mention OpenVisionCapsules. OpenCV has carried out the effort OpenVisionCapsules to address the fragmentation issue of the Computer Vision/Deep Learning/Smart Vision IoT industry. I am a volunteer at OpenCV.org, which is a non-profit organization. You can find OpenVisionCapsules on OpenCV.org website here: <links redacted> - "Comparison of compatibility of machine learning models". I also noticed that the row for OpenVisionCapsules is removed but the other two rows are kept. Noticed that OpenVisionCapsules is the first proposal in the industry to address the interconnect issue for computer vision, deep learning. if that is removed, then the whole table is useless.

I would like to communicate and make sure a good understanding in place before proceeding with any further contribution, so I can avoid wasting everyone's time. Thanks for your patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenli2000 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not OK to add mentions of OpenVisionCapsules across Wikipedia. Wikipedia draws no distinction between advertising of open source products and advertising of proprietary software. If and when that project garners attention from independent sources, someone with no COI may write about it. But what you've been doing here so far is inappropriate promotion and is exactly the kind of thing that the COI guidelines are set up to discourage. If you are here to help us build an encyclopedia rather than to promote software, I suggest you select a topic unrelated to your professional (or "volunteer") interests. Preferably something that has nothing to do with machine vision or image processing at all. - MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed for the fastest vandalism reverts in the west (yee-haw!). If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn page for installation instructions. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. Your feedback is much appreciated! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I notice that you removed our tool Sonargraph from the list of static analysis tools in Sept 2019 while a bunch of our competing commercial tools are still there. We have many users and customers worldwide and also provide a free version called Sonargraph-Explorer. Universities and scientists are using our tools too. How can I get our tool back on the page? For some reason the predecessor of Sonargraph named Sotoarc is still there. Sonargraph is much more relevant because it is the successor of Sotoarc. More info about our tools is on <<link redacted>>. A more recent scientific paper also mentions our tool: An ontology-based approach for documenting and validating architecture rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azitzewitz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a list of tools that have a preexisting Wikipedia article. I'll also note that you refer to it as 'our tool' - you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use with regard to paid editing and/or conflict of interest. You can find more details at WP:COI and WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We used to have an article about Sonargraph, that was also deleted. I just wonder how all these other tools pass the hurdle. They are often also entered by the very people that created them. So my question is about fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azitzewitz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Without looking at specifics, either they have the required sourcing, or it is just that no one has noticed and nominated them for deletion yet. But eventually it'll happen. - MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I mentioned us being sourced in scientific papers (one ref was given as an example). And who would mark us for deletion? A competitor? How do you maintain a complete list of static analyzers if some are deleted and some are not? Now the list does not represent a good answer for people who want to know what tools are available. Sonargraph is on the market for almost 15 years now with many happy users. I added the text about Sonargraph and kept it completely neutral, no marketing or advertising language. What I am learning now is that you cannot use Wikipedia as an entry point for tool research. What would happen if one of our users created an entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azitzewitz (talk • contribs) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have redirected Ulugbekhon Maksumov to INKAS ? Ninjaediator (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I see that you rejected my edit to Coffeemaker in which I added a reference to the Aeropress device. Your note reads "this is not a place to write about particular brands". My intention was not to highlight the brand, but rather to cover a type of coffee maker using a different brewing principle than those already listed. (I have no connection with the company or other interest in it. I arrived at the page looking for information on how brewing using this device, which I had received as a present, differed from other methods.) To my knowledge the Aeropress is still under patent protection so the brewing approach is unique to the company. While I respect your intention in rejecting my edit, I would appreciate your advice on how to include information about this brewing method while remaining generic. I believe it is of value to the article to include reference of some sort to this brewing method for the sake of completeness. Stephenkca (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just a type of Cafetiere, which are already covered in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. A cafetiere uses a screen mesh to separate grounds from liquid coffee after several minutes of brewing. The device in question uses a piston to force the liquid coffee through a filter under pressure after a very low brewing time (as low as 10 seconds) AeroPress#Contrasts_to_other_immersion_brewing_methods. I have read it claimed (with some justification, to my taste buds) that this method reduces the acidity of the coffee relative to other methods, probably because the water temperature used is relatively low and the contact time with the grounds short. - Stephenkca (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The brewing time is only shorter because the coffee is more finely ground. The device is just a cafetiere with a paper instead of a metal filter. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you'll be convinced, but: a cafetiere comprises a beaker, which holds hot water and coarsely ground coffee, and a mesh plunger, which presses the grounds to the bottom of the beaker, after which the coffee is poured off. The Aeropress uses finely ground coffee and air pressure to force the liquid coffee through a filter into a cup. I started to write that this makes it more like an espresso machine than a cafetiere, then noticed the entry Espresso_machine#Air-pump-driven, which uses the Aeropress as an example. I have put a couple sentences into the stub entry for Espresso machine in Coffeemaker that I believe will help lead a reader in this direction without referencing the specific branded machine. I trust this is an acceptable solution.Stephenkca (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

An Aeropress is most definitely not a cafetiere. A cafetiere uses the filter primarily to separate the grounds from the brewed coffee and partly to push the grounds through the water, and the coffee is poured off from the top of the vessel; an Aeropress uses an air-tight piston to force water through the grounds and the coffee is ejected under pressure from the bottom of the device. Dricherby (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Ollie, I see my edit rejected on Cloud Storage for Paid Advocacy. I want to specify that I'm not getting any direct or indirect compensation for editing that thread. My only purpose was to add Cubbit in that thread in order to create our Wikipedia page (that will be online soon). I hope this can solve this and my edits can be reviewed again and accepted. Marcorutini (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Mario, I am an engineer from Poland. I am interested in software, in particular CAD software, I want to transfer my knowledge. I have written or modified several articles about CAD software. Among other things, about ActCAD (I moved from Polish Wikipedia), IntelliCAD, AllyCAD. I see that you are interested in electronics and IT. Could you join the discussion, review or improve the listed articles. I need help from someone with IT interests. Very, very please. And thank you. ZengaONE (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Ollie, for being vigilant about this most important requirement for Wikipedia to be objective and not a tool for commerce. I am a new editor as of yesterday, and I had indeed been aware of Wikipedia policies and support them - but I can understand how it might look otherwise.

My contribution was meant to be fair and above all, factual. It was designed primarily to warn and inform Canadian consumers of financial planning services, who unfortunately are faced with many more charlatans trying to sell them a product, than professional planners who can provide a competent comprehensive financial planning service and are held to strict oversight by governing bodies like the three professional associations mentioned.

Yes, my entry was created on behalf of the Institute of Advanced Financial Planners, who have always been leaders in this field. In the past, I have also been contracted to provide services to FP Canada and am very familiar with them as well as the IQPF also mentioned. My client was also concerned about bias, so they edited out as much as was put in. It's also this concern that prompted me this morning to substantiate the final claim with a link to FP Canada's own site to show we weren't just making this up. In my view, the information we posted was not exaggerated or skewed, and I know it was well researched by senior practitioners in the field who hold both the R.F.P. and CFP professional designations.

I can only guess the comparison of those two designations was the issue that caused you to remove the entire entry. As I said, I understand your concern, but can we not work together to correct any apparent bias, while keeping it informative to readers? Can you help me understand what parts specifically caused you to remove the entire submission? Universe All (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Universe All (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PAID - your edits were in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Please make the required disclosures and use talk pages from now on. You can find guidelines at Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide. - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you were objecting to specific content. I feel foolish and do appreciate your guidance. Obviously, I missed those disclosure requirements, and I now plan to state "I am an occasional freelance advisor to the IAFP (Institute of Advanced Financial Planners)" on my User page and in edit summaries.

I don't understand what you mean by "use talk pages from now on." Is that not what I am doing right here? What am I missing? (Are you "watching" my User talk page?)

Also, after I add the disclosures, should I re-submit the entry, or can it be revived from what I previously submitted? If the latter, where do I find the latest version you removed so I don't have to re-create it? Universe All (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you should not 're-submit' - as a paid editor you should not be making these edits yourself. Instead, you should be making suggestions on article talk pages for unconflicted editors to take into consideration. (This is a user talk page, not an article talk page.) Please read the COI guidelines I have linked thoroughly, this is all explained there. - MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK - I believe I finally understand. Thanks for persevering with me.Universe All (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry for the delay - I have now created a User Page with a detailed Disclosure statement. I will also add appropriate disclosures to any edits I might suggest to page authors. If this is satisfactory, I would appreciate removal of our correspondence from your Talk page if that's acceptable to you, since it contains specific information that I was not aware would be made public (again, pardon my ignorance as a novice).Universe All (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Ollie! I've seen a lot of edit wars on the CipherCloud Page and also read Talk Page. I did a few edits in the Lead Section to remove all the promotional and redundant information while leaving only vital and most neutral facts. If it still looks promotional (the Lead section), please, let me know . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:5C3F:C420:EFE6:F25F (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mr ollie, as per your message I have added disruptive links. can you please tell me where. Yes, I added links but it was a very relevant one. And I added a link for the betterment of people. because about the place I have added the link it's a very confusing for locals here. You sitting there in your hometown and deciding what is relevant and what is not. please think before removing any link. I'm not somebody who is self-promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirajsinha16 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are spamming links, including changing proper references to point at your own site, which is vandalism. If you keep it up, you can expect your account to be blocked and your URL added to the blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Ollie. I saw that you had reverted my edit to the Bubble sort page as described here.

I saw the reason that was cited by you for the same as WP:ELNO].

I went thought all 16 of these guidelines and found the link I shared to not be in violation of any of those 16 guidelines.

In fact, in my view, it is a helpful resource that would help the reader to deeply understand the topic.

Lastly, if you see the existing interactive demo link in the article, you will see that it violates points: 7 & 8 of the WP:ELNO guidelines. The link is based on a Java Applet which is no longer widely supported. My demo is based on HTML5 which is the most widely supported medium available right now. If you see fit, I recommend that you remove that link and add mine.

I request you to let me know what I am doing wrong. As a side project, I want to make such visual demos in the field of computer science and share them here on Wikipedia (if that would be helpful).

Awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoj badami (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You should not be linking your own site. ELNO point 4, 11. You have a history of spamming links on Wikipedia as well - if you are here to build an encyclopedia, I would suggest you do that. Wikipedia is not a link directory, your primary activity here should not be to add links to your websites. - MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for taking the time to respond. At the outset, let me say that before this link, all my other contributions can be described perfectly by your statement: "You have a history of spamming links on Wikipedia as well". If you see when I made those..that was many many years ago, when I was younger, stupider and hungrier.

Once again, I ask you to have a look at this link that I am sharing right now. It is on topic. It helps the user. It does not even have site navigation. It is just focused on this topic. It delivers genuine value.

Let me also share with you some images I have shared with Wikipedia of a structure in my home town. This is a more recent contribution to WikiPedia. As you can see its not spam.

All I am asking is, please don't judge me by the spammy things my former self did. Look at what I am trying to do right now, and evaluate that contribution on its own merit.

Is the Bubble sort article not more helpful with my contribution? I truly and genuinely think it is. The code that makes up the demo is also open source on GitHub as you can see from the link. I have no commercial motive.

I hope you can see that. Also, I do want to make many more such open source demos and share with Wikipedia. Since I cannot stick in HTML code, they will be external links. To keep things honest, I am putting up the code on GitHub open source. What else can I do to redeem myself?

Asking you to re-consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoj badami (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a link directory. If you want to be a productive member of the Wikipedia project, you should be contributing text to articles, reverting vandalism, or doing something that builds content here. See Wikipedia:GettingStarted. - MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Will not further try to convince you. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Thank you for the work you do.

Just one question, just like we can share images, how can I share something like this? An interactive HTML tool. Is there some place to share this? Maybe an IFRAME embed like YouTube videos etc? If there is no such place, then maybe there should be. I started this project in order to make these interactive demos that teach concepts.

Here is the project on GitHub. https://github.com/scotch-bright/ExpWiki

As you might notice its called ExpWiki (Explanation Wiki)

Anyways, thanks again. Even if you don't accept my link, please note that the current demo link is out of date and will not run on most machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoj badami (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to add citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.141.184 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ollie, I'm new to editing pages in Wikipedia so I'm not sure I'm doing this properly. I don't have a financial stake in editing the Stefanini page, I'm just an employee trying to share knowledge about the company. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, here I just added information about the history of the company and its philantropic activities because to be honest, I'm proud that my employer is helping educate young people in difficulty. Can you help me figure out how to make sure I bring valuable knowledge to this page without getting my content always removed? Thank you so much in advance for your help! Kind regards, Aline Aline.feron (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As an employee, you are a undisclosed paid editor and in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Even setting that aside, you are turning that article into an advertisement, which is not appropriate writing for an encyclopedia. See WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and especially WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie, I am from quality management domain, i believe i have good understanding of the domain. So, tried to add related page links at the places where citation needed which may help better understanding of users. Today, as i can see, all my citation links are deleted at one go. Now able to understand the exact reason for deletion in spite of following the Wikipedia guidelines. I feel the links are reverent one to the Wikipedia page and they are as per guidelines. Let me know your suggestions so that it will help me to work in future. Thank you in advance for your help! Kind regards, Ashwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwin4591 (talk • contribs)

You were spamming Wikipedia with links to a vendor's advertising pages. Don't spam Wikipedia any more and you should be fine. - MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Entrar no anonymous Alan.sub (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please maintain a neutral stance. In a market where one brand nearly achieved a monopolistic position, it appears legitimate to list and present (in a non corporate way) an alternative brand to the general public. By deleting my page you just discourage any competition for customers in Europe, that are unable to find clear information about this brand, apart that from its official company's website. Other users shall improve the page if not deleted. Goodwillgames (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with the books that I added in the article those are some of the well-known books in the urban design field. the link I added was to my thesis which I spent years exploring the concept of placemaking and getting to bottom of it. I thought it would be beneficial for the readers. I have no financial gain from it since I don't run any ads on my website I just share my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharindu Manawadu (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't link your own websites, it is not allowed here. If you keep it up you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Ollie. First of all I acknowledge your zeal in keeping wikipedia a good and serious tool for the diffusion of knowledge. In this sense, I cannot understand how come you just deleted the section on scientific racism in Brazil that I added to the wikipedia without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely based on a doubled blind checked paper in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology such as the Journal of the History of Biology. All the content in the section I included and the references I quoted were product of serious research and were published in prestigious scientific journals, all these contents had been reviewed by experts before publication. My interest was not self citing but just supply wikipedia with good scientific contents in an aspect that had not received any  attention within the entry "scientific racism",. i.e. scientific racism in Brazil and its ideological consequences in this south-american country. I hope that you reconsider your attitude. I apologize if I have mistaken the way or the appropriate forum to answer to you but I didn't find any other way. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is built on secondary sources added by neutral parties. The sum of your activity on Wikipedia so far has been to cite yourself on a number of articles. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of sources from many different authors. If you are here to build an encyclopedia and not simply here to cite yourself, why not write some content based on those other authors? - MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I AM NOT JUST CITING MYSELF BUT I AM ALSO ADDING A LOT OF HISTORICAL SOURCES WRITTEN BY OTHER AUTHORS. IN ADDITION, I AM SORRY BUT IF YOU GO TO PLACES SUCH AS GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC LIBRARIES , YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND DEALING EXPLICITLY WITH "SCIENTIFIC RACISM IN BRAZIL". You can check it if you whant. S I insist: you just deleted the section on scientific racism in Brazil without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely based on a doubled blind checked paper in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology such as the Journal of the History of Biology, AND THAT IN THAT SECTION I QUOTED MANY OTHER HISTORICAL SOURCES WHICH ARE NOT MY OWN WORK!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If no one else has written on this topic, it is likely that Wikipedia should not cover it at all, see WP:UNDUE. Citing yourself on multiple pages as you are doing continues to be inappropriate, even if you happen to cite others as well. I should also mention that at this point you are edit warring with multiple other people to keep citations to yourself in Wikipedia, which is a good way to get blocked. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unaware to American customers like you, in Europe and in the world, one of the main coffee manufacturers is this company Jacobs Douwe Egberts. In the list of its products on the Wikipedia page there has been in RED for years below product called L'OR for which I made my research and created a page in Wikipedia. I created over 20 pages in a number of fields and majority achieve an average of 300 readers a day. L'OR would possibly generate the same. Your deletion appears moved to allowing one single brand to retain a nearly monopolistic position in the market. Goodwillgames (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote an article that looked like an advert, and it got deleted. It happens. Write a better article next time. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really: less than 5 minutes after I crated the page, and while I was attempting to expand it you already speedy deleted it or lobbied to have it deleted. You removed all links from other pages in an attempt to block me for working on it, or to allow other users to contribute to it. I could not even save it in draft, as you were in a rush to delete all. Let users write better articles allowing a reasonable time to expand them. I have created a number of Start pages and several stubs (plus a few still need assessment), while looking at your contributions you did not create a single article. How dare you to say "write a better article" if you don't have a single one published? Goodwillgames (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy, it just wasn't a great article. If you can't produce a fully fleshed out article from the first edit, you should use WP:AFC and/or the draft space instead. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted with many thanks. I will wait to read one of your articles. Hopefully it will be great. Now let me and other users expand mine. It's regrettable to know that experienced Editors such as you just act of out of impulse, no research, no reading through, nothing, just "the page is not great" and is deleted immediately. Even advising promotional an article about a well established brand for which however just Wikipedia is missing a page about. Unable to recognise if an article might be promising, and if the user is a serious contributor or a spammer. Goodwillgames (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Goodwillgames: I have restored this article to Draft:L'OR so you can further work on it. Given I wrote an article on Bravilor Bonamat, it's certainly possible to write about coffee machines. I would, however, draw your attention to the fact I used the Articles for Creation process for an independent reviewer to accept the draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here, but if I see another edit like this I will request you are topic-banned from musical instruments, broadly construed. Last warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a good cite or not, an external link with a prominent 'Buy now' button is obviously not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I would like to thank you for taking the time and making Wikipedia a better and more a reliable space. I am a researcher and I know many people in the field and I follow them on a daily basis. Furthermore, I would like to add, I do not have any sort of friendship with any of them. I do appreciate your comments, however please do not delete others contributions based on your assumptions.

Best Regards, Parse— Preceding unsigned comment added by Par3nic (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines - selfpublished ebooks are almost never usable. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I notice you've removed an illustration of GPT-2's natural language processing from several articles on unsupervised machine learning, neural networks, et cetera as "unhelpful". The reason I chose to add those images was because they demonstrate the principles in question being successfully applied to a practical, real-world task that's easy for the reader to see and evaluate (i.e. completion of coherent sentences from a prompt). I think that this is important to understanding the relevance and impact of these technologies. I agree that GPT-2's text completion is not a full representation of what neural networks can do -- if you know of any freely licensed images that better demonstrate the principle, that'd be excellent, but otherwise I think it'd be helpful to have *something*. { ${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$ } 21:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine for a sophisticated reader who knows (or can guess) what's going on in that screenshot, but to the lay person, it is just some text that's likely very difficult to read squeezed into a sidebar, that uses terms that aren't defined in the article they're reading, and that text really doesn't have much to do with what they're reading anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

<<image removed>>

I did wikilink the technical terms in the description, so that a curious reader could easily figure out what they meant, but I can still believe that the description text is pretty dry. It could definitely be improved -- although I think that the text in the image itself provides a pretty good idea of what's going on in it as well. At any rate, I'd prefer revising the descriptions to removing the image embeds, and if you think the description is dreck, I'd be glad to go through it and try to figure something out (maybe on the talk pages of the respective articles). { ${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$ } 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(FYI, I've requested a third opinion for the discussion on Talk:Artificial intelligence). { ${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$ } 22:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, your reversion appears precipitate. There was and is no promotion intended - the person is quite unknown to me either personally or through any third party connection. The author you reverted is an early commentator on the topic, curator and deputy director at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London during the 1960s and is arguably a notable omission from the article. Please reconsider your recent deletion.--Po Mieczu (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed deletions. No justification offered. Are we looking at bias, perhaps? --Po Mieczu (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Top posting on a list and adding multiple works by the same author to a bibliography tilt the weight of the article and tend to promote that person. Please select one citiation, or bibliography entry, or list addition rather than adding a half dozen all at once. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MrOllie! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

• Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
• Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

• Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
• Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

• Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

• Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

• Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

• and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion that my additions to Wikipedia read as promotional is absolutely understandable. I went back and edited my entries to be sure they were factual only. But to follow behind me and still delete every post simply because they are additions to LGBTQ rights leaders' pages is offensive. I simply added that these historical figures have appearances in a queer history podcast. Now every edit I post gets deleted. (Redacted) is offensive to not just myself, but to keeping Wikipedia and history accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaphena2010 (talk • contribs)

WP:NPA. Your edits were reverted not because 'they are additions to LGBTQ rights leaders' pages', but because they were advertising a podcast. - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read my message above? I adjusted them to be purely about their appearance in the podcast, not an ad. They are listed as appearing in movies, TV, and other podcasts as well. Stop stalking me. I'm new here, so I'm still figuring out how to communicate on here. (Redacted) What I posted was factual, not an attack. You are overlooking your own attacks on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaphena2010 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you keep calling people names and/or advertising on Wikipedia, you can expect to be blocked. Please do read our policies on these subjects, which you can find at WP:NPA and WP:PROMO. - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not calling you names. (Redacted) It's clearly a fact, not an insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaphena2010 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Diaphena2010, do not attack other editors. Calling somebody homophobic is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Be WP:CIVIL and see WP:PA. Ed6767 talk! 19:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Ollie. I'm hoping you can offer advice on how to update the page "Financial Planner". It appears the original author has not responded to any messages since 2008. Furthermore, he discloses on his Simon123 User page that he is an "Independent Financial Advisor", meaning he had a greater conflict of interest when he posted the original article than I do as a representative of a national non-profit regulatory authority. Can you suggest how we can provide impartial information on the subject of financial planning when suggesting this through Simon123's Talk page is futile? If the only method is by direct edit, would you be willing to review a draft to ensure it meets your standards? Otherwise, what would you do in our position? Universe All (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest you bring this up at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

I appreciate your message, thank you for giving me a heads-up about the edits. I disagree with the reasoning though. The information added to the page was valuable to readers and completely in line with both the rules and the rest of the page. It also took some time to research and represent the truth. The linked articles were also written by an industry expert who speaks from the first-hand experience and who experience is consistent with other sources. Please feel free to add additional sources if you'd like but don't delete useful information. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A-modest-contributor (talk • contribs)

Self published sources such as blogs are not acceptable sources, outside of a few limited exceptions, none of which are applicable in this case. You can find more detail on Wikipedia's sourcing standards at WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

After Greeting, I made some changes in the history part of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing) and others in the biography of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatim_Zaghloul) and all changes were removed. Could you please tell me the reasons for removing them? Thanks, Amany N Mohamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amany N Mohamed (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Message board postings and patents are not usable sources, please see WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. We need secondary sources published in reputable press outlets, peer reviewed journals, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I reviewed the historical part of Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing [1] and it is clear that there is information without sources or references so I need a clear reason why did you remove my additions although I mentioned many sources and reliable references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amany N Mohamed (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That there is other improperly sourced content is a reason to fix that content, not to add more improperly sourced content. And press releases, forum postings, blogs, patents, and documents from legal proceedings are all primary sources and should not be used. Stick to things like newspapers and peer reviewed journals. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I mentioned information about Dr. Hatim Zaghloul's patents and it is a clear fact from a lot of resources and references. And, I am committed to citing sources on Wikipedia standards please I need more explanation about removing those additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amany N Mohamed (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources, and should not be used as they perform no fact checking and do not help us gauge the prominence of the information (See WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie, I noticed this warning and I've seen some spam links on various talk pages indicated with an S subdomain like "http://s.domain.com". Does this have some Wikipedia purpose I am not aware of? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is just a way to insert a non-working link that is findable through Special:LinkSearch in case the spammer switches accounts. That makes putting together a report for the blacklist much faster. Some use 'spam.whatever.com' instead, but I find that they're less likely to be removed if they don't contain the word 'spam'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Kruskal's algorithm: Hi! You have removed the external link to the interactive algorithm visualizer (MInimum Spanning Tree Algorithm Demo: Prim vs Kruskal]). I checked, the link is useful and does not violate prohibitions. Please explain to me the reason for the removal. И.Е.Мазурок (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point #1 - it is redundant with the animated example already displayed in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of a linear correlation between the higher heating value and lower heating value is far from being redundant. It is not only relevant to the section under which it is being discussed, but invalidates previous misunderstandings about whether or not conversions between the HHV and LHV are possible. This correlation presents a strong validation for such conversions, and is justified by an exceedingly large quantity of data. Surely its relevance is self-evident?

This edit seems to comply with the following:

- Wikipedia's Verifiability with regards to self-published sources: It states: 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. - this edit is by a subject matter expert from a publication appearing in an independent, reliable publication.

- Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of self-published works: Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - The this edit is produced from an established expert in the field, and is cited by an independent peer reviewed journal article.

It is not yet known by most proponents in the field of combustion theory that such a correlation exists. In fact, some experts in the field have denied that such a conversion between the two entities is even possible. It has been the subject of many disputes when either definition (i.e. HHV in place of LHV) is employed for various endeavours. If need be, the following can be added to supplement the inclusion of this information:

- Provide additional significant viewpoints for using such a correlation, by making reference to reputable literature sources that report on the standard methods that should be employed when reporting on the measured higher heating value (i.e. on an ash-free and dry basis), and

- Provide an open source graphical representation of this correlation with statistical information shown.

Or else, a preferred solution should be proposed that the material being shared herewith rather be included elsewhere than simply be excluded, as the latter is not justified. Or else, elaborate on what consists redundancy with respect to this inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdmerckel (talk • contribs)

Feel free to take it up on the article's associated talk page, but per WP:COI you really should not be citing yourself in this way. Also, if 'it is not yet known by most proponents in the field of combustion theory' then that information should not appear in Wikipedia either. Per WP:DUE and WP:NOR, Wikipedia is for summarizing widely known information, not for informing people about cutting edge work. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Praveenkrify (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Hello Ollie,

Thanks for your message, actually I'm updating the Wikipedia external links which are not opening (404 error) with the appropriate links. Recently I have updated, "Learning Management System" page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_management_system page because citation 16 link is not opening https://www.stratbeans.com/index.php/lms, instead of that link I have updated another Learning Management <<link redacted>>

Please check and let me know whether I'm doing anything wrong.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenkrify (talk • contribs)

Replacing the preexisting sources with spam links is not appropriate, even if the preexisting links are 404. Because this 1) Prevents someone else from coming along later and fixing the link properly and 2) It is adding links to a company's advertising materials to Wikipedia. You're not fooling anyone, you've been adding this same company's link for years. If you keep it up the URL will likely be blacklisted eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you erasing my edits? I'm not spamming.--RPbPost (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't use blog posts as sources on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources The exception is precisely for situations like this where this is the only type of source. --RPbPost (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop being so heavy handed and uninviting. Instead, try be helpful. --RPbPost (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That exception is for folks like award winning scientists who also have blogs. It does not apply in this case. Making sure that Wikipedia complies with its own sourcing and reliability guidelines is helpful. Ignoring those guidelines is not helpful. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You're ignoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Those are the only sources that exist on this topic. If they don't count in your book, then why don't we delete the whole page then since it can't be sourced? --RPbPost (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not understanding the guidelines. WP:ABOUTSELF applies if we were using a person's blog as a source on an article about that person. It can only apply on biographies or articles about organizations. If you really think the article should be deleted, see WP:AFD, but be sure to look at WP:POINT first. Your 'only sources that exist' argument doesn't really hold water, though. We already have a couple of reliable sources cited in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Thank you for your feedback and heads-up about my edits on this page. I tried to add a valuable piece of text that the article was missing and I though it would be a good idea to link to the page (in the References) that contains even more useful information about actuators. I'm strongly sure I didn't do anything wrong.

Can you please let me know how I can return this piece of text and add the link in the References (or elsewhere on this page)? Should the piece be changed/edited? Here is what it looked like:

"There are four types of linear actuators: electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and piezoelectric. Electric linear actuators utilize electricity to create linear motion. More specifically, rotational motion is generated from an electric motor which turns the lead-screw within the electric linear actuator. This rotation of the lead-screw then results in the linear motion of the acme nut drive, which drives the linear actuator rod forward." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Volokhina (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't add that text to the page, as it is contradicted by the rest of the article - the article lists more than four types of actuators. We also don't use vendors or sales sites as references, for obvious reasons. I'll also note that in this case you were in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use - please see WP:PAID and don't add links to your employer's websites in the future, that is linkspamming. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie With Ref to: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ollie, the link provides more detail on the content I just added. Since Parkour discipline is ever extending it was missing some crucial information that is part of the discipline. Why I am saying that? I am a certified practitioner of the Mouvement started by David belle and the founder of Pakistan Parkour association. And yes it also gives value to the website but that wasn't the purpose of adding it to the piece otherwise I could have done it on some other page that was not relevant.

Let me know how to add it back.

Cheers --Sharjeelashraf (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The link is a blog, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. We're not here to help you get clicks on your amazon affiliate links. - MrOllie (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Mr.Ollie,

Thank you for the warning. I thought that we were getting closer to a consensus today on an adjective for Santa and then things suddenly went sideways. May I humbly suggest that a "full edit protect" (or whatever the correct terminology is) be placed on "Santa" until things have calmed down a bit. That would force all to discuss proposed edits in the Talk area and reach consensus before changes are made.
I haven't mentioned it in the Santa Talk page, but the Wikipedia entry for "Easter Bunny" appears to have continuously described the character as folkloric since mid-September 2014. "The Easter Bunny (also called the Easter Rabbit or Easter Hare) is a folkloric figure..." The entry for "Leprechaun" likewise refers to them as being from Irish folklore continuously going back until Oct. 2009. In the earlier entries there are concurrent references to Irish mythology as well. These observations are from the WayBack Machine.
There appears to be an individual who takes exception to my presence in the Talk board despite my best efforts and good intentions. I am hopeful that others can step in so I can step back. This would hopefully de-escalate the situation. Merry Chirstmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that folkloric works. Legend is also used in the lead of similar exaggerated figures, like Johnny Appleseed or St. George. But the consensus process is about trying to find compromises that are acceptable to as many people as possible. WP:RFPP is where you would request page protection, but I'm not sure that there has really been enough edit warring for that, it tends to be deployed more when there are many editors involved in the war. When it is only 2, admins will tend to resolve that by blocking accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

“just add a picture”, tourist brochure ?? Kawruhnusantara (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A selfie with a Manta? The photos you added didn't do anything but hype the place as a vacation destination. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like you to delete the edit history in AFPSLAI and copyright violation notice so the temp page may be published as an article. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

We'll need to wait for an admin to do that. Looks like there's a bit of a backlog on copyright vios right now, but I'm sure they'll get to it eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to state that I am not financially promoted en that I added the info because it could be useful to the reader.

With kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misslydia1996 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, adding religious material and linking to religious websites is generally not appropriate here, nor is using self published sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am *** not *** proposing a new iterative solution of the Tower of Hanoi problem. Point 1. Indeed, in the proposed addition to the web page, I did not write any (either iterative or recursive) solution. Point 2. The solutions already present on the web page do *** NOT *** have a proof of their correctness. On the contrary, the iterative solution which is written in my paper (which I mentioned in my proposed addition to the web page) is correct "by construction", and the proposed construction of the iterative solutions from recursive ones, works also for the cyclic and generalized version of the Towers of Hanoi problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Pettorossi (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I add some links in Wikipedia which contains important data and information for the referal related to that page. It will be good to provide an elaborate and unique information along with wiki for your readers. solely purpose of that link is to provide further justification to the added page and not for advertising. So be kind and guide me through the matter, how to readd or provide this to viewers Ashish kk 007 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The site you're linking does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for either sources or external links. I suggest you look over the sourcing guideline carefully and base your additions on acceptable sources, such as newspapers or peer reviewed academic journals. - MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I would like to know who has defined Wikipedia as being a secular encyclopedia? I'm wondering also why there are so many religious articles, then? Thanks in advance for your answer. Kind regards, Ralf Lubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Lubs (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There are many articles *about* religion, but the articles themselves are not written from a religious perspective. In your case, the bigger issue is that we do not use self published sources or allow editors to write based on their personal knowledge. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Mr Ollie. I do understand now the item of self-published sources as being a policy. I'm not yet quite sure to have thoroughly understood yet what is meant by "personal knowledge" or "original ideas," though I do believe that I can roughly guess, at this stage of my new journey with wikipedia, what you mean by that as opposed to "summarizing" published content, which, actually, is also a creative process producing something new. However, I am really swimming with "the articles are not written from a religious perspective." Would you please clarify that to me, as well? Thanks, Ralf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Lubs (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We would generally write something like 'Christians believe that God is Great' rather than simply writing 'God is Great'. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MrOllie, but why do say that this is written from a non-religious perspective? Is this not rather an etic perspective versus emic perspective? Ralf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Lubs (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Thanks for your tireless work. You are probably the most impressive spam buster I have seen on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie,

this is in reference to the article binomial options pricing formula model. please refrain from deleting already accepted versions of this article that make reference to articles discussing the closed form solution.

The topic was discussed and approved in talk page of that article. Furthermore, since you are not even an expert in that section, i'd appreciated that you stop reverting this page altogether.

(Danielkda (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

I've read the talk page, and your description of it bears no real resemblance to what went on there. On Wikipedia, we base content on secondary sources, not primary sources. Also, User:Bitalgowarrior, among others. But I expect you already knew that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your take. it's not about my opinion. it's not about me disagreeing either. it's about clear factual results that were agreed upon, by experts and practitioners of the field for example User:Ronnotel approved. That primary source that you try to eradicate was cited by other sources and also published. I have no affiliation with User:Bitalgowarrior. If you have suggestions about how to constructively move forward without an edit war, that would be a step forward. (Danielkda (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

Ronnotel doesn't have the authority to 'approve' things in such a way that they must remain forever, no one does. And he also has blocked several single purpose accounts for promoting this same person. - MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to see your false reasoning. Nobody 'approves' changes, so your current changes also reflect something is missing. Removing recent development in this area is not something that should be done. You behavior is destructively compulsive. I checked the history and it appears that Ronnotel never blocked any attempts of discussing and correctly referencing the sources that you blatantly removed for your hidden agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkda (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I proposed to find a way to reach a consensus but all you have engaged is an edit war with false accusations of puppet sockets. I would suggest to leave the article as it currently is. This was the version before you started to wilfully remove references and topics on which you certainly don't seem to be an expert in. (Danielkda (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC))

That's just blatantly incorrect. is just one of several. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please undo the revert on Cathy O'Brien. She is not a conspiracy theorist but a survivor of governemnt sanctioned slavery. Her testimony is uncontested before Congress. The write-up I did was extensive with many citation. It was unbiased, sticking to facts and her testimony which is a matter of public record. Censoring such testimony is extreme bias against victims of extreme criminal activity. Please undo it, otherwise you show your alignment with the criminals themselves in censoring accurate information in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyCaprice (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We have to go with what the mainstream sources say on Wikipedia. This isn't the place to fight criminal conspiracies. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please undo your revert on Predicate Crime. While my update did not include ALL details around Predicate Crime, it had some key information with relevant source information where the term is very commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShmegGT (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't use vendor advertising materials as sources on Wikipedia, that is considered spam. - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited an external link because that link is broken link but didn't add my link on Outdoor recreation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhaqi (talk • contribs)

That an existing link was dead does not make it OK to add an inappropriate link. - MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why were certain technologies removed from the list? If anything, we should look for additional tools and technologies to be added by the community, so that we can have a thorough list here? I see you removed ones that are extremely popular, but do not yet have a wikipedia page on them? Should these be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNeutron (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia lists generally include only items that have established notability via a pre existing Wikipedia article or with equivalent sources. Could you explain what connection you have with composable.ai and/or Andy Vidan ? - MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm a data scientist. If there are no pre existing Wikipedia articles for a given topic, what do you mean by equivalent sources? Is it preferred to leave a stub in its place, not include the entry, or create a new Wikipedia article on it? This section of the Data Science article is missing a ton of information. There are probably 50+ "techniques" used, probably a dozen or so useful programming languages and scripting languages that are used by data scientists, etc. How do you recommend all these be included? Or should they not be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNeutron (talk • contribs)

I'm not really inclined to answer your questions if you don't want to answer mine. I recommend bringing any inquiries you have to Wikipedia:Teahouse. - MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle unexpectedly reverted your edit while i was reverting the user Archiensjejwje's edit. Extremely sorry once again TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. - MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie

I will try and find a published specification for the WhisperGen - the 11% efficiency becomes part of the actual specification of the device Basically 100% heat IN - and 11% power and 89% heat OUT

I will also look up the other Stirling Combined Heat and Power Generators in production - I expect to find similar numbers

It's not "New Research" just a simple interpretation of the actual published figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan Cairncross (talk • contribs)

Please read the policy at WP:NOR. We don't interpret published figures (beyond 1+1=2 level stuff), and we couldn't generalize results from one engine to all engines without a source either. - MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

Good Day! I have just received below message from you and I am wondering why I have received it.

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)"

I did replace a deadlink which was in "Domestic Trade" with a similar article with more appropriate details. Hence, I would like to know what's inappropriate and disruptive editing I have done. I have not done any editing after replacing the deadlink but waiting for some free time to add some data to freight forwarding article which I have seen with lack of details. As a logistician, I can assure you the article contains reliable data. Thus you are saying its spamming Wikipedia which I totally don't understand

I would like to hear from you soon on the inappropriate message you have sent

Many Thanks Rgds Jayathmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayathmi (talk • contribs)

It is inappropriate when multiple accounts spam the same site across Wikipedia in an obviously coordinated way. This is grounds for adding the URL to our blacklist, which will very likely happen if it is added even once more. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mrollie,

Thanks for your reply and understood what has happened after speaking to my team. I have instructed the team and they will not do any editing further. Since the link I have posted is a replacement for a deadlink, appreciate if you can check the possibility of restoring it. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Jayathmi (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie

I created an entry titled Afghan Box Camera that was now finally erased / merged with Street Box Camera. Sadly I was trying to clarify the differences between the two. The current Street Box Camera is a complete mess and historically absolutely incorrect. I have conducted interviews with the leading experts in the field in Europe, Asia and Latin America for my master degree. The Streets Box Camera is a mix of completely unstructured and inaccurate entries. I tried to created first the Afghan Box Camera page as there is clear information available by Lukas Birk and Sean Foley two researchers who's profile I am also editing as they have done extensive historical work. After that I want to clean up the Street Box Camera entry - even the term is actually not correct and add information on different areas of Box Camera photography around the world with all its names. After that I would like to Create another entry called Minuteros as the Box Camera photography in the Spanish speaking world is enormous and deserves its own category, with references in books, online etc. There is huge amount of work and research involved in this, and the first step has basically been erased right now and what is left is the rather mixed entry "Street Box Camera". Minuteros already exists on Spanish Wiki as separate entry. I am new to wikipedia and creating entries so I tried to follow all the rules. My major is photographic history and I focus on several areas of photography that have been left in the margins and only a few people have worked on it. I don't know if this erasing and merging of Afghan Box Camera entry can be reversed by you - it is just a shame that there was a lot of absolutely accurate information on this type of photography in wiki. I also just saw that my first biographical profile of Lukas Birk is place in doubts. I have conducted several interviews with Birk for my research. I dont know how else to references a living person. I have done as much referencing and research a possible. Ok, thanks and please re-consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographichistory (talk • contribs) 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't have two article on what are on the same topic (your own editing stated that these are two terms that refer to the same thing). If the older article is incorrect that is a reason to fix it, not start another article on the same subject. Your new article also had quite a few sourcing problems - please stick to published, secondary sources such as peer reviewed journal articles, published books, newspapers, etc. In particular, you should avoid citing blogs and wikis as sources. (See WP:RS for details). Per WP:NOR you should not cite or refer to interviews you have conducted yourself when writing articles, stick to published sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, Just wanted to ask if you could have another look on the external link recently deleted on the "Soundscape" page: soundscapedesign.info The link goes to a webportal built as part of a PhD thesis on the topic of soundscapes, the page is non profit. Thanks

[edit] I have now reintroduced the link. If you find it to be irrelevant, please add a motivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljudplanering (talk • contribs)

See WP:ELNO. We do not link to 'webportals' or other personal sites. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the link. I have looked through the guidelines and as far as I can tell, soundscapedesign.info clearly corresponds to all rules mentioned. The website is not a personal website, it is a broad collection of examples and research on soundscape based on a publicly financed PhD project. It is stated in the guidelines that "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" I believe this should apply. I cant find any restrictions on webportals in the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljudplanering (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of how it was funded, that is clearly someone's personal site. If the PhD in question is an expert in this topic (and you are unrelated to them personally and professionally, of course) it would be better to build out the article by citing their peer-reviewed work rather than just linking to his site. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not a list of external links, after all. - MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that the first priority of wikipedia should be to build articles, which is why I have made significant contributions to both "soundscape" and a full article on "quiet area". However, in addition to the text itself, I believe linking (internally and externally) is one of the major strengths of wikipedia, so that the interested reader might find more information if they are inclined to do so. This is perhaps especially relevant in the case of sound. Wikipedia is great in many ways, but the truth is that other web initiatives are better faclitated when it comes to presenting sound and video (allowing embedded codes from dedicated media suppliers like vimeo and soundcloud). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljudplanering (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The cleanerbot has vandalied and edit, please fix it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patent_troll#Vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_troll&type=revision&diff=966184885&oldid=966109946

I added Apple suing HTC and some stupid "CleanerBot" vandalized it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_troll&type=revision&diff=966184885&oldid=966109946 It's false advertising to say "Anyone can edit" when bots go an screw the edits up. Apple copied swipe down notifications, you don't see Android suing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.205.44.26 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You added a context-free sentence without a source. It was rightly removed. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of vandalizing, you could have did this and got a link and put the link there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.205.44.26 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Can you please elaborate on the reasoning behind the recent edits to the MFEM page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MFEM&type=revision&diff=966330285&oldid=965572617 ?

The sections and links that were removed were added carefully to be both informative and minimal.

For example:

• Not mentioning major efforts like the Exascale Computing Project and SciDAC, or well-know projects like SuperLU, SUNDIALS or OpenHPC may look quite strange to anyone familiar with the field.
• It is also inappropriate to skip GLVis from "Accurate and flexible visualization with GLVis, VisIt and ParaView" as it is actually the native visualization tool.
• The external links were curated to provide specific additional information to interested readers. I will argue that the article is less useful without them.

Cheers, Tzanio http://people.llnl.gov/tzanio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.15.103.187 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

1) We don't add external links to organizations or projects simply because they are mentioned in an article 2) Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, we do a single link to the top level official cite, not a whole set of links to various pages on that site 3) I did remove some org mentions as well as de-linking them. Since they had no supporting secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, please also see our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and paid editing. Certain disclosures are required for someone in your position to edit Wikipedia pages relating to their professional interests. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not my point. The links were added to the text in the first place because they were significant. Not even mentioning the Exascale Computing Project, arguably the largest effort ever in high-performance computing, may imply to the reader that: a) the article is out of date and/or b) not well-informed.

Ok, but can we keep the link to the GitHub code repository -- it is a separate site?

I agree that ideally there will be Wikipedia pages for all of these, but in their absence not mentioning them at all seems like a worse choice from a factual perspective.

Noted. Just to clarify -- my position in these edits has been to serve the reader and provide them with the minimal useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.15.103.187 (talk • contribs)

Re: Exascale - If you can provide a reliable, independent source I have no issue with adding it back for you. Re: Github - it really doesn't matter that is a separate site. One official link is what Wikipedia's guidelines have settled on. Otherwise many articles would have lots of links to various social media presences, and the Wikipedia community has decided minimizing linking is better. Re: serving the reader - I don't doubt your good faith here, but Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines we apply to keep the tone, style and content standards consistent, and that is important to serving the readers as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There are about 35K results for "exascale computing project" on Google, about 1.5K on Google Scholar and about 1.7K on Google News. There are also brief mentionings of it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_(supercomputer). Is this sufficient?

What will it take to remove the "This article has multiple issues" warning on the top of the page? Maybe this is specific to the nature of scientific computing projects, but it is unlikely that someone completely independent of the project will be able to provide up-to-date accurate information about it. My opinion is that the readers do want to hear from the developers. Many other similar scientific computing project pages on Wikipedia have been developed in the same way and none of them has a similar warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.15.103.187 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent sources are required, and the article will need to be rewritten based on what they say (when/if they are found). If no independent sources exist, then the article will probably be deleted. If there are other articles that don't comply with policy that is a reason to fix or tag those articles, not to let this one ignore policy. - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Thank you for clarifying and helping me understand the Wikipedia policies, MrOllie.

I sincerely apologize for breaking the COI rules. I now understand that I shouldn’t have edited the article directly. In the future I will make sure to log in and only suggest changes on the MFEM:Talk page.

I am not used to this process, so I will appreciate your help and advice how to fix the article.

One idea is to revert to the version that was accepted: "14:18, 3 September 2018‎" or maybe the version from "11:49, 21 June 2018". I can then suggest changes supported by independent sources on the Talk page.

Alternatively, I can list supporting evidence for the statements on the current page by addressing them individually on the Talk page. We will be happy to remove or replace any objectionable content -- just let us know which one.

It will also be great if neutral parties verify and edit the article. Can you suggest someone with knowledge of applied mathematics or software libraries that is also experienced with Wikipedia?

Tzanio (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think reverting would help much at this point, the problematic links and such have already been removed, and the state it was accepted in really wasn't any more suitable. I imagine the reviewing editor failed to notice that so many of the source's authors were associated with Lawrence Livermore. I suppose you could try asking the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but they tend to run more to pure math than applied. - MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll list the supporting evidence on the talk page and ask for help. Tzanio (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the formatting of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MFEM#Discussion_of_the_current_content came out very well. Please let me know if you have any suggestions how to improve it. Tzanio (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr Ollie

Why are you removing my edits from Wikipedia edits under the pretext of unreliable sources though I am adding proper references. You should also check the references before simply removing for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthbrol (talk • contribs)

You're adding citations, but they are to unreliable sources. Wikipedia does not source things to blogs or company marketing materials. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - most of the stuff you might find on google does not qualify. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell me which part of my update was not neutral and I will adjust. Thank you. 2603:9001:7009:9700:B1E0:79EC:FEB7:11FC (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it. You have been reverted by multiple editors so discussion belongs at Talk:Donovan Bailey - MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's really not good to just revert all edits of someone just because you found 1-2 links inappropriate. Except one link on SEO page, all other links are highly similar to other references and in fact my reference is having more detail than the existing ones. It's really strange that you're just trying to increase your number of contributions.

• Newspack is new product by Automatic. I added it on Automatic company's project list nicely. You removed it. If you don't know about updates that doesn't mean it is spam.
• I usually follow 2-3 sites including GSM arena and found them to be added on mobiles page. GSM Arena has spammed the whole page but, I think was not visible to you while the one which I added you simply deleted it without having a proper reason. A site that adds 1000s of links on the same page is not spam and a site that was randomly referenced for only 3/1000 times for different mobiles is a spam. What a sight!
• For TIA, I've prove of Google KP for that reference. Strange you reverted it again just because you felt proud of finding inappropriate link.
• For List of Revolving Restaurants, I referenced Sun Dial. Show me a person who conclude it as a spam.
• For Website and SEO, I accept the fact it should have been at a better place. But this is really pathetic to see Wikipedia is lead by people who are running for numbers.
• It's like I should go back and instead of adding resources, start reverting the edits that are closely or exactly similar to the ones I added especially.

And yes, I know a lot more that adding a link to NoFollow, content edited by anyone like you and others, and so on is useless.

Alert for others who are viewing this user talk: Please do report the people who are misusing the rights of editing.

Stay happy by keeping the old content way old and so-called updated with wrong information. This is the fact that people are now moving away from Wikipedia and relies on blogs than this pathetically edited information for no cause at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AqsaShawaiz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Every single one of your edits included a spam link as a reference. If you'd like to re-add the content in question using sources that actually meet our guidelines, have at it. But if you continue to use spam as references you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I understood that spam or promotions are not acceptable here and so my edit in the shutterstockpage has just now been removed from your end. I just have a doubt, one of my links was for shutterstock site contributor login which was not covered in the original article. That too is a problem, sir? I was editing my own page sharing informations about me. check Johnits04. Suggest please that is ok, or that too has issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnits04 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie! Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia tidy. I would like to revisit some of the items you removed from Comparison of data-serialization formats last July in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_data-serialization_formats&diff=prev&oldid=907829979 . Specifically, I believe that Cap'n Proto, Perl's Data::Dumper, and PHP's "serialize" are sufficiently notable to be retained. Even if you disagree, there are a few dangling footnotes related to Cap'n Proto that we should remove. --Rob* (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything I removed had neither an existing Wikipedia article nor independent sourcing, But if you want to restore any of the entries with either or both of those things attached I would have no objections. - MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

hello for the page i was working on i think it was tik tok lets work something out here what about i work a little on it then you can work some more on it im sorry about reversing that edit soo suddent on you? --Kreba4 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were removed because they lacked sourcing. Add reliable sources (such as newspapers or peer-reviewed journals) in your edits and you should have no further problems. - MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

you just deleted my contribution on blood letting as a measure to reduce iron stores and availability in the body. As I referenced, there is very credible research on the subject (see below).

Can you please explain it to me?

I think Wikipedia is great, I am actually donating 500 USDs a year to it, but this is really putting me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrigi19 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution consisted of Synthesis of published material, which is 'combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to add a claim that bloodletting works, you will need to provide a single WP:MEDRS-compliant source that makes that exact point. I'm sure I am far from the only editor who would have this issue with your addition, so please direct any followup to Talk:Bloodletting for group discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Please read the following source I provided: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17583479/ There, you will find the whole thesis in one quality research paper. And please reactivate my contribution, or else explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:21B0:644C:1BB0:DDC8:62A3:D1AB:2ED9 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ollie: I am again entering the scientific findings on iron and pathogens in the blood letting article, as you do not seem to have any justification to delete the entry.

WP:MEDRS isn't optional, your sources are insufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ollie: Which source is not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:21B0:644D:C3F3:8C97:769E:8846:852C (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss this with you - on the article talk page, once you stop edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ollie: This is exactly, what I am asking you for days now, to start to state objective arguments, because up to now, you have not provided any such thing. Please write me a just as well sourced answer to prove your view. If not, I will just again and again put up on Wiki, what science has to say about the subject and if you continue to delete these findings I will take further steps to stop you.

The article talk page, once you have stopped edit warring. If you keep edit warring you will almost certainly be blocked and/or the page will be protected from further editing, and the matter will be moot. - MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping keep this article clean: Comparison of agent-based modeling software. Two questions:

1. Is there a reason we can't include projects without Wikipedia articles? Some projects without articles are still highly respected in the multi-agent research community (like SCRIMMAGE, Mesa, ARGoS) and probably better than some of the projects which DO have an article (note how some of them haven't been maintained in years). Not to mention that some of the linked articles are really low quality, e.g. no inline citations (Cougaar) or written like advertisements (AnyLogic).
2. Font size: any reason we can't use a smaller font? It looks really awkward unless you have a very wide monitor (which I don't). There's too much data in some of the cells which makes the rows really fat. Many other comparison articles use the smaller font and it looks way neater, see for example Comparison of relational database management systems, Comparison of digital image metadata editors, Comparison of deep-learning software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtledaat (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard list inclusion criteria is that entries should have an article, but some lists go for equivalent independent sourcing instead. requiring an article is almost always better. If you find articles that are unsourced or sound like advertisements, you can fix that, or apply an appropriate maintenance tag, or in extreme cases use the deletion process. Re: Font size, if I recall correctly table font sizes should only be made smaller if the table has so many columns it won't fit on screen. It does (barely) fit at the default size. In that table's case dropping a column might be better - 'user support' is so samey it isn't showing any meaningful differences. - MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you tell me please are you deleting all the links I'm adding? I'm a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, I've been a donor since 2012. Now you are telling me that my links are Spam. My links are not spam. Please read all the articles I'm linking. They are all relevant articles and contributes to readers to know more about the subject they are reading on Wikipedia. It's so unfair that you are treating me like a criminal because of that. Please, revert your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylighter88 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

'A prolific contributor'? Your account has made 16 article edits, all of which have added a link to the same website. That is spamming as Wikipedia defines it. - MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the definition of spamming by Wikipedia: Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.

I have not incurred any violation of Wikipedia policy. All the links I placed were to verify the article content. Please show me one single link I placed that has nothing to do with the content on Wikipedia where it was placed. The intention behind these links is to broaden readers knowledge and support the information I have placed in the Wikipedia articles. All those links are relevant, too relevant I would say. I think that you just saw that all those links came from the same website and you just assume that it is spam, you didn't read them. Please revert your decision, it's so unfair you are doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylighter88 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to return spam links for you. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, be so kind and stop adding irrelevant and useless links I'm removing as I'm reading through. Think please about the meaning and the difference between words with same spelling yet different meaning, then leading to wrong wiki pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I've also reverted his edits as the sources were obviously promotional and borderline spam, which I suspect is why you reverted them. I did go back and then remove the incorrect wikilink after noting that industrial plant (correct link) was wikilinked shortly after. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed the bad sourcing but not the Wikilink, as you guessed. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I know Donovan personally and am not being paid by him, I wanted to report that there is some inaccurate information on the page.

The following is incorrect/could be removed:

- parents ethnicity - half sisters name - minor grammar fixes

In regards to what could be added:

- recent business ventures - awards

Also, because there are some information that is wrong could the page be taken down all together?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalists123! (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a process for editors with conflicts of interest such as yourself - you can make suggestions at Talk:Donovan Bailey and attach the {{request edit}} template to gain independent review. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more details. You should probably be prepared to explain why you, as a person who is not being paid by Bailey, have shown up to make some of the same edits as an account with the same name as a PR firm immediately after that account got a warning about paid editing - that is quite a coincidence! - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

hello, you undid my edits to the open source business models page, I was wondering why you did that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIr Young Griff (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V, we can'ts source a section to a self published blog entry like that. - MrOllie (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is only Wikipedia link for helping researchers find download page of database why are you removing it? Shivam9935 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO, WP:NOTLINK - Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help people find download pages. - MrOllie (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering why YouTube links (in my case, some interviews) weren't allowed for sourcing. YouTube has proven itself to host pretty relevant information. Sorry, I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, and couldn't find the answer in WP:RS. hydargos (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have declined your request to speedy Aimeos under G4, as it isn't "substantially identical" to the deleted version. However, I would encourage you to take it to articles for deletion to establish a consensus for the notability (or lack thereof) of this "successor project of the Arcavias software". If (as I expect) that results in delete, please ask the closing admin to salt both Arcavias and Aimeos, since it looks like there's been a substantial amount of COI editing and meat/sockpuppetry involving this company. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ehh, OK. I was hoping to avoid the sockpuppet parade that happened last time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: FYI, just started the AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You just reverted the 'Computer-aided_design' page after I added three entries to the list. I'm in the process of evaluating these programs. Is there some reason they should be kept secret? nanoCAD progeCAD the free verson of nanoCAD Pnadams (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of programs that already have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The grease duct insulation is mandated by NFPA 96 standard. However the generic product mentioned are misintrepating the concept of testing. Can you undo the edit removing the brand specific details as the details mentioned herein are not appropriate as per testing standard Rajesh Mukundan (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to restore your advertising for a particular vendor. - MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, hope you are well.

Ref external links on the Corfe Castle page - there is no "Official" website and the existing link is actually the Corfe Castle Chamber of Trade website. Also, the website has not been updated since 2017 so felt it better to rename the link.

The other website corfe-castle.info was setup in 2019 to help promote Events in the village, but has also been used to update visitors about current Covid situation and what shops and services were open or offering home delivery during lockdown. I thought it contain some useful (up to date) information that could not be found on the Chamber website.

I am happy to leave the links as they stand, but would welcome your thoughts on changing them back to my suggestions.

Kind regards - Davinian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinian (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not link to sites whose purpose is to promote anything, see WP:EL. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to act as a travel guide or to assist people planning vacations. If you're interested in contributing to that sort of thing there is en.wikivoyage.org - MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest all links be removed as the Chamber of Trade website may be out of date but was only used for promoting the businesses in the village. The YouTube and National Trust link would perhaps be better in the Reference section? Davinian (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd already removed the chamber of commerce link. We only put things in references if they are being used to cite specific content in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you have already removed the Chamber link - the National Trust link could be a reference to them taking over the Castle and Purbeck estate when it was left to them after Henry Bankes died in 1981? Davinian (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

JimmyFarmer (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Just want to know something. Why did you delete the additional information regarding NDVI? I have added unique information about NDVI limitations at different growth stages and have linked it to the source website I referred to. The info is precise and non-repeating. Can you explain to me why you did it?

Best,

Jim

JimmyFarmer (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Per our sourcing guidelines we do not use vendor blogs as sources. Because a series of brand new accounts have been adding references to EOS's blog wherever they can, I expect if this keeps up the site will end up on the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Raidillon (talk)

Hello MrOllie,

You deleted the links I added to the pages "1936 Hungarian Grand Prix", Autodromo de Sitges-Terramar" and "Race Track" because you tought these links were inappropriate. Well, it were all links to relevant articles about the same subjects, so what's inappropriate about that? You better check the other links, there are links that are reconected to irrelevant websites that are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs)

The presence of other inappropriate links is a reason to remove those links, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It were NOT inappropriate links! You not even read my message properly... These links were on Wikipadia for a long time and nobody thought they are inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:EL, which I just linked for you. Linking to someone's self published website isn't appropriate per our guidelines on linking. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles I linked comply with point 3 of allowed links:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Moreover: Except the website I linked on the "Race Track" page today it were articles I linked for a long time ago. Nobody thought they are inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you stopped there and did not continue to 'Links normally to be avoided' point 11, which bars this sort of site. As to your claim of longevity, Wikipedia is a big site and volunteer time is limited, sometimes it takes a long time to notice that inappropriate additions have been made, but someone gets to it eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie

On the Data Management page you removed a citation. The citation has been outstanding since 2016. The reason given, which I understand, is that the citation could be viewed as unreliable since it is from a company website. The reason I'm appealing that decision is 2-fold:

1. The remaining citations on that page are from IBM. Which is effectively a consultant blog.
2. Other wikipedia pages on more modern topics, and I would include Data Management within that category, do allow citation from corporate blogs. I will use the Digital Marketing page as an example. There is a shortage of academic literature on these subjects hence it makes sense to use company literature instead. It would be commercially damaging for companies to publish unreliable literature.

Thanks! Poolydata (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Poolydata

If you have found other sources that do not meet our sourcing requirements, that is a reason to replace or remove those sources, not to add more stuff that doesn't meet the sourcing guidelines. It would be commercially damaging for companies to admit that customers don't need their products, so there is an obvious conflict of interest in such sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, there isn't anything I saw in the guidance stating company articles aren't allowed as a source. On further reading of the guidance, it's not clear why the citation was removed.

p.s. I appreciate the editing of the site to prevent it from becoming a spam factory. Poolydata (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Poolydata

When you said we don't add external links like I did, should I add it as a footnote? I want to have clarity on what I did that was not correct. Thank you. Ihaveadreamagain 17:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't add external links just because the organization in question was mentioned in the article. Interested readers should click on the Wikilink for OSCR and follow the official site link from there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I read your comment about removal of the "Rotating Proxies" section I added on the "Proxy Server" article. Okay, I won't re-add content again; I'm still learning. Your reason for removal was "unreliable sources," which I gather is related to the two footnotes leading to proxyserver.com. I need to learn more about what constitutes reliable sources. I would consider the blog's owner, ProxyMesh, to be reliable in this field, and the definitions of rotating proxies and levels of anonymity don't seem controversial to me. Would it be acceptable if I cited two or more sources for each of those references, one being ProxyMesh and the others being different proxy service firms that can corroborate the terms in the article? Thanks and regards, Doubtnot93 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't use blogs as sources, particularly not self published ones, and definitely not ones set up by a company that is trying to sell users the thing being written about. See WP:RS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, you removed an entire paragraph from the Financial Planner article (the paragraph accurately describing FP Canada). If I hadn't returned to the article today to update it, I would never have known. Did you leave a note somewhere on a Talk page? (I can't see one.) And there's no record on my Watchlist, which includes this page. What am I missing here?

Is it not reasonable for an original author to be notified, preferably with some explanation of why factual material was removed? If you have a good reason for the deletion, I'm open to hearing it. Tom Bene (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The text struck me as promotional, which was my concern with your COI edits in the first place. I'm sure it was on your watchlist. There is no requirement to notify editors on talk pages. Most edits are not discussed anywhere. You have no special rights as the 'original author', see WP:OWN. - MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right - the article was on my Watchlist, which I didn't have properly configured for notifications. That explains why there's no need to notify the original author! So thanks for your patience with a new user. I am curious as to whether you found the section on the CFP designation derogatory or too complementary, as it mentioned both the advantages and disadvantages of the CFP for consumers. Tom Bene (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I would like to state my case for why the image should be reinstated.

The image is a clear visual of the distribution of mortgage terms across all outstanding residential mortgages in Canada. It helps readers understand the popularity of the 5-year fixed-rate closed mortgage term. It has no logo, watermark, or any other visible affiliation or endorsement of its source. Indeed, it clearly states that the data is from Statistics Canada.

In addition, this information is not available in a visual or easily understood form for consumers. Other sources on the internet use outdated information from before 2015. Statistics from Statistics Canada (and the Bank of Canada) are often less accessible to regular users and no recently updated chart directly comparing mortgage term popularity is available.

If you have an issue with the relevancy of the content to the article, that's fine. But the content that I added, in my opinion, contributes to the reader's understanding of mortgage loans in Canada.

Bsl4canadian (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you related to wowa.ca in some way? Are you employed by them? Why cite them instead of citing Statistics Canada directly? - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am an employee of wowa.ca. I make research, aggregate data, and make content for wowa.ca. The content that I have sourced from wowa.ca and added to Wikipedia is content that our team spends hours if not days curating and I personally feel is worth contributing. For example, the chart was the result of a recent research project. None of the content I added explicitly endorses or references our company. We are also sometimes one of the only easily accessible sources for information like the property taxes of small municipalities in Canada. Due to copyright reasons, however, I can't add content sourced from wowa.ca without attributing the company as the source. You can disagree with my usage of citations (which I admit is likely not the most rigorous) as well as whether or not my contributions are relevant or add value to their articles, but the site and the content that I sourced from it is good. Bsl4canadian (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, linking your employer is not good. See also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - you have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not paid to put the content up, but I can see how blurry that line can be. My point is that the website is not spam, the content has value to Wikipedia users, and neither I nor my colleagues are attempting to subvert Wikipedia's guidelines through excessive link-spam. We research Canadian mortgages, property taxes, and government programs (amongst other things), and we create high-quality content. If we feel that the content is valuable to Wikipedia readers, then we add it to relevant Wikipedia articles. Most of the content we add is related to the company because that's what we specialize and spend most of our time on.

You can contest my citations and my content, but you shouldn't outright claim any and all content from wowa.ca is spam. I would be open to discussing the merit of each of my contributions, but they should stand otherwise.Bsl4canadian (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Spamming is about behavior, not content. When multiple accounts show up to add citations to the same company in every one of their edits, that is spamming as we define it here. We also do not split hairs about paid editing - you are paid by wow.ca, and you are adding links to wow.ca, therefore you are a paid editor. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you guide me as to how I can contest this designation? Bsl4canadian (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You can raise the issue at WP:COIN, but I don't expect you will like their answers more than mine. - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it's pretty clear that I have a conflict of interest. What about the designation of "wowa.ca" as spam? Bsl4canadian (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Spam blacklist additions and removals are handled at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, but I believe they don't accept appeals from people associated with the site. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Could you let me know how I should disclose my COI? I've added a section to my talk page stating my COI using the provided template. In addition, how should I move forward with contributions that are based on company content? Do I need to request for a whitelist of a specific resource/URL (e.g. in the case of images or charts)?Bsl4canadian (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, all your questions should be answered there. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I understand your concern about the COI and suspicious behavior of me and my colleagues, and I have added my COI disclosure to both my talk page and my user page. I still strongly believe that the content I added adds value to the articles and that most of the citations were necessary. The real estate industry in the US and Canada is infamous for being opaque and full of under the table dealings. My company is one of the first to try to aggregate data and explain concepts in a way that empowers consumers with the knowledge they need to properly and effectively conduct real estate transactions. As a result, we are often one of the only sources for data and visualizations. I will review my previous contributions and suggest them to editors more involved in real estate and finance for approval. No hard feelings. I know you're just trying to do what's best for Wikipedia and it's difficult to look too much into each case. I believe I am too, by helping readers get access to more information. I sincerely hope you change your mind about the outright blacklisting of our site. Bsl4canadian (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to pull you into this, but there is a conversation on the wp:ANI page that involves you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated on Wikipedia's guidelines for posting images. It explicitely states that the use of paintings are okay.

"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated."

Additionally, the creation and use of my own content for an article is permitted:

"Making images yourself [edit] For further information, see: Commons:How to take pictures and Graphics tutorials You may upload photographs, drawings, or other graphics created with a camera, scanner, graphics software, and so on. When photographing or scanning potentially copyrighted works, or creating depictions of persons other than yourself, be sure to respect copyright and privacy restrictions.[further explanation needed] In order to maximize images' usefulness in all languages, avoid including text within them. Instead, add text, links, references, etc., to images using Template:Annotated image or Template:Annotated image 4, which can also be used to expand the area around an image or crop and enlarge part of an image—all without the need for uploading a new, modified image."-- Benjamincookart (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The image you're trying to add in no way illustrates a ghost call. - MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read the article. I have personally received silent calls from numbers that come up as “potential spam” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamincookart (talk • contribs)

Ghost calls and silent calls are not the same thing, as the article makes clear. - MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

“ A ghost call is a telephone call for which, when the recipient of the call answers, there is no one on the other end of the call.”

This would result in a silent call.--Benjamincookart (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Read the whole thing, don't just skim until you find a sentence that you think supports your argument. - MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have. I assume you are referring to the part about “silent calls.” I am using the term silent to describe the lack of sound rather than a specific call. There is no evidence that my experience was not from a ghost call. A silent call (without sound) could be a telemarketer but it could also be a ghost call.--Benjamincookart (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you know it is not called Sparkle City, dickhead. Hhdhdhd (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Recently, I have added Bahmni in open source EMR list and you have remove it? Any reason for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillarAnand (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a list of things that have a wikipedia article, the items you added did not have articles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie, Those page edits on 15 Marvin Glass invented toys and games were the only ones on my list to do. I have been a Chicago toy and game inventor for 30 years and have been working for over 20 years at the invention studio that Marvin Glass & Associates became. I have worked for and with many people who actually invented these toys and games. In my book are nearly 100 personal interviews with the partners, inventors, modelmakers, employees and clients of Marvin Glass & Associates who invented or worked on these toys. Thats the source material, from the mouths of the actual inventors, modelmakers and clients, as well as patents and other references that are thoroughly cited in my book as chapter endnotes that number around 1,000. For example, you incorrectly state that William Schaper designed the Ants in the Pants game when in reality the truth is the man who invented it, and is on the patent, is Jeff Breslow who worked as an employee at Marvin Glass and ended up becoming the managing partner of the studio around a decade later. It was actually one of the very first games Jeff invented at Glass as a new employee. I interview him in the book (and he was my boss for over a decade), as well as the people who saw him invent it, yet you seem to want to perpetuate misinformation because my book is the source material. I thought it would be easy to add your original change of putting the book under a "further reading" section instead of massive overhauls to each page. Would you like me to send you copies of the actual pages in my book about these 15 items? I would be happy to do so. Many have numerous extensive pages on the subject matter instead of just a couple sentences or paragraphs on Wikipedia with incorrect information. I am not well versed in the code language of editing on Wiki, so I copied and pasted your original change which I thought was fair under "further reading". But now you have taken everything down. That's unfortunate. I'm not going to fight you on this and will let you perpetuate incomplete or false information, but I don't understand why if someone else cites my 600 page book with source material then it would somehow be ok but if I do it myself then its spam. In this specific case of these 15 toys and games, you are doing a disservice to the truth. I hope you would reconsider your hasty reaction of taking down all "further reading" sections on these 15 pages. Harrygreb1 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Re 'your original change' - that was not me. As to the removals, see WP:EL, and especially WP:COI and WP:PAID. You should not be listing your own self published book on Wikipedia, nor should you be making links to your own web sites. Even if someone else were to attempt to cite your book, it is a self published source and probably would not be acceptable per our sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the the external link: fromAleppo Codex? this site of Bar-Ilan University, is the most important site that deal with the Text and the Masora of the Aleppo Codex. Although it is in hebrew, the Aleppo Codex itself is in hebrew, and this site is the most important to those who want to understand it. You can see more about 'Mikraot Gedolot Haketer' project, here. Noli1001 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It was redundant with links already present and with material hosted at Wikimedia commons. - MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is the only place that you can see on the manuscript: 1. The verses on the top of each column. 2.The beginning and the end of each chapter. 3. The text of the Aleppo Codex verses the text of the bible. 4. an explanation of all the Masora notes of the Aleppo Codex. This is a results of a work of 30 years. I will appreciate if you will reconsider your decision. Thank you. Noli1001 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn"t answer. is it OK to put it again? Noli1001 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not OK to edit war to restore external links. If you really think it belongs there start a discussion on the article talk page (not my user talk page) and see if anyone else agrees with you. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could i get a response to this issue please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalists123! (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_10#Donovan_Bailey_Page - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie.

You removed ICY.EMAIL webmail provider from Comparison of webmail providers for not being 'notable' enough.

I would argue that this is a list comparing various webmail providers by their features, not a notability contest. It this case the notability is secondary, primary is the information value. The webmail provider in question (ICY.EMAIL) offers features comparable to, if not better than, many of other webmail providers on the list, 'notability' of about 50% of whose isn't any better than that of ICY.EMAIL. I would therefore argue that the entry should stay there, as it is a valuable contribution to the comparison table.

Then you went on a deletion spree over my older contributions to Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia is a single most wonderful thing that happened to Internet since its conception, but some people here are too negative, too territorial, always poised to negate any contribution of anybody else however objective or valuable they would be. After all, destroying is much more easier than creating, isn't it true??? So by all means, go ahead and revert/remove/delete all my previous contributions and articles going back to 2010 or beyond - maybe I will consider doing the same to you - but I think that Wikipedia should be about something bigger and better, not about this petty parochial tit-for-tat attitudes. Have a nice day.

NeonPuffin (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a table of stuff that already has Wikipedia articles. At the time you added the entry you had messed up the page's title, so the link didn't go anywhere. I suppose you could put it back, but that article badly fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria so I expect it will be deleted shortly either way. Any other articles you have created that lack independent sourcing will be deleted sooner or later as well - this has nothing to do with 'tit-for-tat' and everything to do with the sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

On Social News wikipedia

Hi,

I added another website to the website list on Social News' Wikipedia. Why was it deleted?

So you want me to talk to you friendly. Ok. NPOV? Why not. But what about you? You telling me while undoing:

1. ebay listings are not reliable sources, but there's no any reference to such ones 'ebay listings' at corresponding link. is that NPOV or YOUR OWN opinion? What is it based on?

2. Same about "we do not rely on ...ebay listings". Who 'we' are you talking about? "We, a king"? Really?? No any related information about ebay listing exists at links provided by you. Where did you get it from?

3. Still same question have to be answered by you: How can ebay listing not be reliable source of ebay sell event as one as other auction event can be approved by another auction listing url?

4. If you are not agree about only blog used as reference - delete it and corresponding phrase, why do you delete all of it if there's more 6 approving links there? From my POV that's exact vandalism from you side. Got too high? Please be more specific while editing and reviewing a posts.

So. Please answer below questions before continuing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

2. We is Wikipedia and the editors who work on it.

3. See WP:UNDUE, just because it happened doesn't mean Wikipedia writes about it. If it was covered in a reliable source (for example a major news paper), then we would write about it.

4. All of the sources were improper, so after deleting all the corresponding phrases nothing was left. - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

1. You want to tell me ebay or other auction (that case) site is 'questionable source'? But I'm not posting some comment citation from there as reference I posting exactly link to a page approving a selling operation itself and description of lot it had. That's exactly a primary source of event it told about.

2. Doesn't it have to be written somewhere? I don't see ANY reference about ebay is not reliable source from any link you posted. Have I guess your (Wikipedia and the editors who work on it) mind thoughts or maybe it would be a good thing to be eligible to READ about that somewhere? Where exactly can I?

3. Hmm... First that fact was posted at Jumanji page without any approving reference much longer then one day at Jumanji page until today when I told: "WTF why is it here if don't have approve as my addition do?". After that it was deleted. But I found a PRIMARY source - place where event is 'leaked' right from - ebay lot and other auction lot that approves that information. About "major newspaper" - how can I guess what is it exactly? That fact appears everywhere at the internet, there's some links:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/redeye/ct-redeye-xpm-2014-01-24-46573980-story.html on January, 24th, 2014: "Jumanji board prop used in movie on eBay, at least $60,000"/"It also comes with a certificate of authenticity, and after 189 bids, the going price is $60,400." - (is CHICAGO TRIBUNE enough MAJOR NEWSPAPER for you EXACTLY to prove a FACT????????) however telling NOT about it was bought already but about BIDS ARE STILL OVERCOMING (there will be 4 more till auction will be finished at January, 25th, 2014 and price will raise to $60,800). That's a NEWS linking to PRIMARY SOURCE - AN EBAY LOT LINK:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Real-Rare-JUMANJI-board-Screen-used-carry-board-w-COA-signed-by-Johnston-/251425585636

SAME AS I POSTED AS SOURCE REFERENCE (same lot but with some link difference because exactly below one is no more available)!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU TELLING IT'S NOT RELIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, PAL??? NEWS TELLING IT'S RELIABLE and YOU telling it's NOT. So... Do you really think YOU ARE RIGHT that case????????

https://heyckm.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/real-jumanji-carry-board-sold-for-over-60000/ on January, 31th, 2014: "Real Jumanji Carry Board Sold for Over $60,000"/"The board eventually sold for $60,800"

with picture posted of ebay lot:

https://heyckm.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/f9e5845e5f27a883731c16e8a9c6c9ea.png where we can see a seller user changed his name from that time from joejohnstonsketchbook (according to image) to neon_galaxies (according to freshlinks that still works I provided at changes you undid) and have 432 more feedbacks till now.

https://screenrant.com/jumanji-trivia-facts-robin-williams-rock/ on Jan 16, 2017: "15 Things You Didn't Know About Jumanji"/"The Original Jumanji Game Board Sold On eBay For Over $60,000"

https://www.eightieskids.com/20-facts-you-probably-didnt-know-about-jumanji/ :"20 Facts You Probably Didn’t Know About Jumanji"/"In fact, one board used in the film sold in 2014 for a massive $60,800."

https://hookedonhouses.net/2020/05/11/jumanji-house-1995-parrish-mansion/ on May, 11th, 2020: "Jumanji: A Look Back at the House from the Original Movie"/"The original Jumanji board from the film reportedly sold on eBay for $60,800." linking to:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113497/trivia : "Jumanji: Trivia"/"The Jumanji game board was very popular throughout the years, to the point where a screen used board was sold in 2014 for $60,800."

but all of that (that telling about ALREADY DONE selling operation) is NOT newspapers and IMDB is NOT reliable source.

But according it have a wide spread and posted by everyone as a fact it's highly probable it really had a place.

Moreover I DID NOT used that sources because that not looks like reliable (as of POSTED RULES of Wikipedia about reliable sources) but I USED EXACTLY PRIMARY EBAY AND OTHER AUCTION LOTS source as prove of that fact but you still tell me I have to come up with some (possibly fake) news to find and place at Wikipedia INSTEAD OF PRIMARY ONE YOU ONLY (NO ANY PRINTED PROVE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA EDITORS DENY EBAY AS RELiABLE SOURCE EXISTS!) to confirm a fact everybody talks about already more then 6 years in a row. What's wrong with you, pal? Check it (information) by yourself, lose YOUR OWN time to find a true, and not just click your only f'(rustrati)'ng automated link "undo" because EXACTLY "YOU THINK SO" (and NOT Wikipedia editors allover the world), obviously faulty.

4. If you think information have to have DIFFERENT view (other sources) - BE MY GUEST - EDIT MY CHANGES. But RESPECT work someone do while you are do NOTHING about that theme, just clicking numerous 'undo' without even thinking what you do. I'm not paid worker. So don't think I have to prove you things posted and proved(my way) when you can check is it true ON YOUR OWN before making some 'undo' you like so much!

Now I'll just 'undo' your 'undo' even if I'll be blocked. Want to change? Be my guest. You have here ALL APPROPRIATE INFORMATION CONFIRMING THAT UNIQUE FACT HAD PLACE AND WAS POSTED AT MAJOR NEWSPAPERS (as you wish!). Let's see what you are able to by yourself except clicking 'undo'.

85.238.102.82 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're having trouble understanding what is and is not a reliable source, you can try asking at WP:RSN, but you're going to hear the same thing there: blogs and selfpublished listings such as ebay aren't used on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you miss the difference between a PROVED fact and unverifiable information that need additional approvement. Fact is proved. EDIT as you like with corresponding links posted here, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie,

I see from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits

on 27 Jul 2020, that after at least 12 years you have just reached -- from deleting what I painstakingly added to Wikipedia -- a milestone of 100,000 edits. Congratulations.

Maybe now you can stop your arbitrary removal of Wikipedia additions just to rack up your edits number. It's going to take you at least another 12 years to hit the next milestone of 250,000 edits, so find some other pathetic accomplishment to concentrate on instead.

Perhaps you

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur14829343/

could work on your IMDB reviews, particularly since the ones you have aren't very good, even after 13 years there.

Or perhaps you could move out of your parents' basement and get a real job, one that doesn't allow you so much time to edit Wikipedia. Maybe even start your own business. (I guess you starting a family is out of the question, since that would require a woman.)

At least get some experience that would qualify you to decide what a "reliable source" is.

72.86.32.24 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't harass whoever that IMDB user is, it's not me. And use sources that meet our guidelines such as news papers and peer reviewed journals and not someone's self published blog that looks like it was designed to the best standard of HTML that 1991 had to offer and you shouldn't have any further problems. - MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP is clearly incorrect, as the next milestone is 200,000 edits, not 250,000 edits. BD2412 T 23:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Poor attention to detail. Sad. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello ! why did you UNDO my section ? Eliran t (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It was unsourced and better covered by the links that already existed in the see also section. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie,

Can you clarify your reason for the undoing of fixing the broken link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telematics#cite_ref-telematicstandard.org_9-2.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousaxolotl (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to link to a vendor's copy of it rather than the official one, which seems to be hosted by ISO these days. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but the official one doesn't exist (404) on the web anymore, hence linking to a vendor's copy. Curiousaxolotl (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It does, on the ISO site, as I just mentioned. I've already updated the link to point there. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for updating the link.Curiousaxolotl (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

Can you please explain why the edit to ALPR was removed? Your comment says it sounds like a sales pitch, but it was simply a description of what a rapid deployment trailer is capable of from a technology standpoint. There isn't even a reference to a specific company, so how is it a sales pitch? I also have an image that I attempted to upload, but the system would not accept for some reason.

Jenoptikdragon (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)JenoptikdragonJenoptikdragon (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just like I said, it read like a buzzword laden sales pitch that had been lifted from a product brochure someplace. Are you a professional marketer or sales person by chance? You may be used to a non-encyclopedic style of writing. In my experience such folks are the only ones who will use the word solution like that - unironically, anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

None of this copy was lifted from a brochure. Most ALPR manufacturers offer some kind of mobile trailer utilizing various ALPR technologies. There is nothing in the old, or new updated version, that mentions my companies name, references my companies name, or has any backlinks or word definitions linked to my companies name.

Regards,

JD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.20.145 (talk • contribs)

It still reads like an advert, and it is unsourced to boot. It will be a lot easier for you to write neutrally if you start with a neutral source and summarize what it says - that is what we're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

Since I'm new to this I appreciate the info.. however, NONE of information contained in the preceding paragraphs under "In Mobile Systems," is sourced in any way. The preceding paragraphs lay out the technology used, some of the challenges, etc., and that is exactly what my edit did. Why does it have to be sourced if none of the information preceding it is either? There is not a lot of info on these types of mobile ALPR "solutions," let alone neutral sources discussing their benefits, which is why I'm trying to get the technical details up on Wikipedia. If I eliminate the "rapid deployment trailer" label, would that make it less of a sales pitch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenoptikdragon (talk • contribs)

That other content lacks sources sounds like a reason to find sources, not to make the problem worse by adding more unsourced content. The way to make it sound less of a sales pitch would be for you start with a neutral source and follow it, rather than writing from your personal knowledge. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

At 14:40 on 21 July you said that Wikipedia doesn't use blogs as sources for the type of information I was citing. WP:RS helps me understand this. Now I want to ask if the two citations I had made, to define a rotating proxy and an elite-anonymity proxy, are necessary at all. That's because in the existing "Proxy Server" article I find definitions of these terms by other contributors which, without inline citation, apparently meet the reliability standard. One is the opening paragraphs, which define a proxy, and the only thing I add to that in my proposed addition is that IP addresses may rotate. As to anonymity, the subsection titled "Access control" includes the definition of "elite or high-anonymity proxies" which I was also attempting to add.

May I rely on these internal definitions which already meet editorial standards? That is, may I re-add my section on rotating proxies without any inline citations? This would provide the information on rotating proxies without any suggestion of self-promotion by the blog. What would you say?

Thanks and regards, Doubtnot93 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the place for article specific content discussions is Talk:Proxy server. You should ask about these additions there as other users may wish to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could let me know why you removed the two entries I added for this topic? If I'm reading it correctly, it's because there were no articles? But each site is packed with articles. Thanks. Bast2020 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of things that have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, MrOllie. I copied my comments to Talk:Proxy Server with a few changes because I am writing to different addressees now. Doubtnot93 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to gain an understanding of why you put a source from my text on the spam list and why you removed the image. I in no way have mentioned the source explicitly anywhere in the text and yes, while I am affiliated with the company, we had spent weeks researching and conducting our studies hence I do not see why it should be treated any different from what you claim as appropriate sources. The image was based on our own study and does not display any logos or symbols that are affiliated with the company; I added it because it was a great resource for readers who gain a better understanding from visuals. I had improved the text section with information that were from various sources, and yet you have deleted and spam-listed a source that had contributed to the content as much as any other sources I provided. Our intention is to inform as we conducted the studies for that exact reason and thought that more people could benefit from the findings (thus leading to me posting it on Wikipedia), and not to market.

Please reconsider your actions. While I do see your point in removing some links to the website that were associated with the tools on our website, I think putting the website on the spam list is extreme and we should be able to reference research that we ourselves conducted. Our content has helped many people on the website and it makes no difference if one of us posts it or someone outside the company posts it given that we do not explicitly market or even mention the source in any way. Cat906474 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had this conversation with one of your coworkers. You can ask them to fill you in, or look in my talk page archives. - MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I talked to my colleague and we are both still not convinced that your action was proportional to the mistake. I am willing to recognize that there was a mistake but you should have discussed it with us first so we can fix it before putting us on the spam-list. I added the citation with complete understanding that I should not be biased about WOWA. I was not paid for this and I would not do this if I was not sure there would be beneficial for a wikipedia reader; they were links to content that were based on our research, they were needed and necessary. If you find a better reference to any of my content or my colleague's content based on our own company's research feel free to replace it with a new citation but I do not expect you to be as knowledgable in the Canadian housing and taxation system as our researchers. Please remove us from the spam-list so we can continue to share our research with the world which was why we conduct them in the first place. Cat906474 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys have been getting warnings, for example on User:CanadaRE's talk page back in January. When such warnings are ignored and new accounts appear to insert the same links, that is when the blacklist is used, to stop the proliferation of new accounts being used to avoid scrutiny. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, my colleague and I are sincerely not aware of this user and this information is definitely new to us. Rest assured, if we had previous warnings then we would have not made these mistakes. Regarding the mistakes we recently made, as we are a proptech start-up making free content for Canadians, many of our team members are enthusiastic to share what we are building to the Canadian audience. We do understand your points and I will talk to the whole team in our next meeting and will let them know that we should be much careful about our future contribution to Wikipedia. However, I have two requests: please remove us from the spam list as we were honestly not aware of any prior warnings and will keep your warnings in mind when making future contributions. The second request is to ask for your guidance in how we can contribute to Wikipedia without violating wikipedia terms: some of our content is unique as we conduct our own research, and it is honestly inevitable to put our own research team as the source; around 30% of the citations that you recently deleted had no other alternatives. Thanks. Cat906474 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys are producing primary sources, that is new information. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, both to ensure that everything has been vetted by third parties and so we can evaluate the proper weight to give. The way to get your unique content onto Wikipedia is to get it cited by secondary sources first (in your case I think that would mean peer-reviewed articles in economics or accounting, or major newspapers), then cite the secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We are not a primary source (except a very small portion of our contents) – we do not originate our own data. Rather, we are a secondary source and our research is based on data from reliable primary sources only to ensure the accuracy of our content. For example, we collect data from official municipal government sources for our property tax pages where we then provide analyses of the rates and trends across time. Similarly, our analysis of the Prime rate and the Bank of Canada’s Target Overnight Rate are based on data provided directly by the Bank of Canada or Statistics Canada, a government agency. We state these sources on our pages where necessary. However, the data that we collect is rarely available from a single source and no other sources in Canada have aggregated data about and analyzed many of the topics that we cover.

Our research has been covered by over 200 news and media outlets including The Canadian Business Journal, MarketWatch, TMXMoney, and Urban Toronto. Their editors have found our content to be both credible and valuable. We will engage with Wikipedia contributors and editors to evaluate our content before posting, but our website and our content do not belong on the spam list. So again I am asking you to remove our website from your spam list. Cat906474 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, With all due respect, the current entry for Real-time databases is inaccurate. Would you please fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Find-the-evidence (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I also just saw that you reverted the changes on the Street Box Camera article. I am not quite sure why. My changes have clearly better references and are actually coherent. The current entry is absolutely incorrect. There are three history box I am quoting that can easily proof that. Already the first sentence" This type of camera was first used in small towns and villages where there were no photographic studios. " is historically incorrect. The camera was first used in cities (as most modern inventions) and spread from their to the country side. And I give references to that in comparisons to no references right now. If there are any specific parts you don't like that should be changed or you think dont work - please let me know but the entry is once again a mess.

Even the title is wrong historically. "The street box camera or kamra-e-faoree is a handmade wooden camera." Kamra-e-faoree is only a specific term used in Afghanistan. There, as I stated, are dozen of other names that mean the same. It is simply nonsense to just say Street Box Camera is called Kamra-e-faoree. I spend the last year researching this topic from all the sources available. Sadly there are only a few books for this marginal type of photography and a lot of it is written by individual on blogs. A lot of it in Spanish as the camera (called minuteros there) is used a lot there. Thanks for reconsidering. best Photographichistory (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your latest edits still contain numerous references to blogs, personal sites (for example afghanboxcamera.com), wikis, vimeo videos, and so on. You need to scrub all the stuff that is cited to self published sources. Please read WP:RS - this is the same guideline I linked for you last time you came to my talk page with this question, please read it and stick to what it says. If the only source for a given fact is a blog, we need to leave it out, not cite the blog. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, I recently created the entry for the photographer and researcher Lukas Birk. As stated in the Talk this entry is part of an MA degree, I am currently creating several articles sourced from this research. I am also trying to improve entries on photographic history that has been kept in the margins such as Street Box Camera Photography (that description is actual not accurate and I tried to improve the historic context). This is my main MA research and the reason why I am writing about Lukas Birk is that he is one of the main contributors of the history of Street Box Camera photography. Trying to find out more about him I realised there is no wiki article - so I composed one with all my reference. Various moderators have stated this to be a PR piece. I am not quite sure how to resolve this. You recently added as well some questions on the content. I have given numerous sources of newspaper article, publications and references that state the credibility of the person written about. I suppose writing any biographical article has some form of promotion as the article talks about a specific person. I am relatively new to composing and adding to Wikipedia. Any advice is very appreciated as I tried to work as closely to the guidelines as possible.Thanks Photographichistory (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You've added some stuff about Birk's work, or stuff that quotes him, but this is not the same as sources that are about Birk. We need sources that are substantially biographies of the individual. When you try to build stuff based on sources that are related to him (his own sites, or stuff that is regurgitating press releases about exhibitions, etc) or are fundamentally just publicizing his work, promotional tone problems are inevitable. If editing the article is actually part of your degree program, please see Wikipedia:Student assignments. Part of your problem may stem from the fact that writing for an enyclopedia is fundamentally different from writing research papers (which we aren't supposed to do, see WP:NOR) or essays (see WP:NPOV). You can find specific details at Wikipedia:Student assignments. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you undid a section I added to the Nonrecurring Engineering. I see "unreliable blog sources" as the reason. I've been reading about proper citation in Wikipedia, my question is, are all blogs unreliable? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia Edits, I appreciate your time to answer this. JohnFerber21 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A small number of blogs are reliable, but the vast majority are not. An example of a reliable blog would be something like The Volokh Conspiracy, which is written by a well known law professor. - MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)