User talk:MrOllie/Archive 3

deletion of links to podcasts from the show Little Atoms for Mary Roach and Ophelia Benson

Hi. I recently added links to the mp3s of podcasts for Little Atoms shows. I can understand that there may be some aversion to linking directly to the mp3 files, so when they were deleted I thought, no problem, I'll link to Little Atoms' own page with background info and the download link for the podcast. But that was deleted too! Was it perhaps a mistake? Perhaps you thought I had simply replaced the original file. I didn't. I was trying to rectify what I figured may have been a shortcoming on my part. Miriam e (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Allen J Scott

Dear Mr Ollie. This is Allen J Scott. I believe that you are the person who has tagged my wikipedia entry with:

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

It is correct that I have provided most of the material in the article. However, I have put a note in the talk page acknowledging that the information comes from me. More importantly, the information in the article is in no sense evaluative. It merely presents factual information that can be immediately verified from other sources. Could you please delete the tag? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.183.116 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Three quarters of the article is an honors list, and as it stands the article is not referenced by third party sources with a reputation for fact checking so readers can't 'immediately verify from other sources'. Since you don't see these problems, I would strongly suggest that you stop writing about yourself on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

www.eye-sim.com

Dear MrOllie,

I am quite new to wikipedia and I am not completely up to date with the external link protocol, I apologise if I have broken any rules. However, I do believe my website is applicable to the following wikipedia entries...

[1.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeglass_prescription [2.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity [3.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception

My website is a visual acuity simulator, you can learn about your eyeglass prescription and view a simulated image of someone's natural eyesight. I have recently added a baby eyesight simulator whereby you can enter an age and see an image blurred to correspond to that age. I feel this new feature makes my website suitable for the following page...

[4.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_vision

I feel particularly strongly about [1.] and [2.] as there is currently an existing 'blur simulator' link present and my website includes many more features.

I hope I have reassured you that I am not trying to spam wikipedia, I would just like to add my knowledge and improve the previous pages.

Many Thanks, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe yeeha (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add links to sites that you run or are otherwise affiliated with. Per WP:EL we do not link to people's personal sites. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Allen J Scott

Mr Ollie. Allen J. Scott here again. Thanks for the reply to my post. OK, I see your point. In the circumstances, I would rather delete the whole article than continue to have the distinctly incriminating tag "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" attached to it. I did indeed try to delete the whole article at any earlier stage when I found that I could not get rid of the tag, but my request for deletion was rejected. Accordingly, could I please ask you to delete the whole article? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.183.116 (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

VladaPUB

Mr Ollie,

You errased few of my links, and non of them is spam. If you consider that list of all control codes for Rotel devices in spam on page about Rotel devices, I am not sure what to tell you !

ALso, you have errased my company from List of companies in Serbia ?!?! WHY ??!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladaPUB (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding external links to sites you are affiliated with to Wikpedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie , I have add MY company to list companies in Serbia, as my comapny is in Serbia ! Where is problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladaPUB (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you adding external links to your company on any page you think is related. That's not appropriate. In the specific case of the List of companies of Serbia, list articles are supposed to be navigational aids to existing Wikipedia articles. You company did not have such an article. Many companies on that list didn't either, so I understand you getting the wrong impression there. I have cleaned the list. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, I need to write article about my company on Wiki to have it on that list ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladaPUB (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You should start by finding some sources that meet the required notability criteria. Without those, any such article would be quickly deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to start article about my company ? Is that right way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladaPUB (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if you have the independent sources I mentioned. - MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Petry Biography, Hidden Histories

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

I have made some factual changes to the biography about myself - Michael Petry

This seems to have flagged up your internal conflict of interest warning

I have only corrected or updated information - i.e I am now a Dr in Arts etc.

I also tried to correct an error on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installation_art

and to add an internal link to the Bibliography which lists my book Installation Art, and shows only my 2 co-authors but does not list me. This MUST be corrected immediately - you can check the ISBN to see that I am the co-author - I tried to add Michael Petry to this to create the link.

I also added a statement to the history section that noted that in 1990 the 3 of us founded The Museum of Installation - a registered Charity in the UK, again a verifiable fact with the UK authorities and noted that it was the first such museum in the world on the topic, and that jointly we wrote Installation Art - mentioned below, which was the first book on the topic - again this is verifiable by an ISBN search. Can you please make these corrections as soon as possible.

I also edited an article on Hidden Histories: 20th Century Male Same Sex Lovers in the Visual Arts - which seems to have been taken down as it was seen as an advert - yet the book mentioned to is out of print - i.e not for sale, and the exhibition that it was associated with at the New Art Gallery Walsall was in 2004, and was free to the public in any case. The book and exhibition were landmarks for the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Trans) community as it was the first ever book, exhibition to openly state members of the arts community who were same sex lover in a major Governmental institution anywhere in the world. I hope you have not taken this down out of any Wikipedia institutional homophobia, and would like an explanation for this. The article linked internally to many of the artists biographies on your site - was this the reason it was taken down?

Yours Dr Michael Petry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpetrylondon (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I tagged Michael Petry because it has way too many external links, appears to be promotional, and in general reads more like someone's resume than an encyclopedia article. The article on Hidden Histories was deleted because it was promotional in tone and didn't meet our requirements for inclusion. The mere fact that the book is not in print does not change the fact that you wrote an overly positive article that seemed to be here for the sole purpose of raising the profile of your work. Since you don't seem to realize the problems with your edits, I would suggest that you consider our guideline on conflict of interest, and please stop editing articles about yourself, your place of employment, and your works. I would also suggest that you ask whoever is operating affiliated accounts such as User:Robbieek1 to cease as well. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The tone of Hidden Histories was rather flat and lacking in adjectives and was purely informational about an historic exhibition for the LGBT community - which you do not seem to understand. Yes I was the curator and author but that is beside the point. If you want additional 3rd party information on it I am happy to provide but to delete it completely smacks of homophobia. If you want to edit it so that it sounds wiki-esque fine but I would ask that you put the main body of it back up as it provides information for many and can be traced back to the New Art Gallery Walsall - who can verify that it took place. I am sure they are a reputable external party, unless you are implying they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpetrylondon (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gallery is not independent of the article subject, so it does not establish notability per Wikipedia's policies. Established notability is a requirement. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well certainly Routledge is independent of the Museum and as seen in their book - Gender, Sexuality and Museums, edited by Amy Levin - which contains a chapter on the exhibition. Or are they not a reliable external source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpetrylondon (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You know very well that that chapter is not independent, because you wrote it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you fail to understand what sort of publication a Routledge book is, by its nature as in the science publication Nature, people are requested to publish only after independent review by professionals in the field and that the process is transparent. Which can not be said for Wikipedia, where there seems to be no independent much less transparent review of documents, institutions, or publications. I mean to cast no aspersions on yourself, but unless you or any other wiki editor is a great polymath, how can you decide which publications function more professionally than yours? Which by the millions (is this too small a number?) of mistakes on your site, and your unwillingness to allow those who have the information to correct them explains why a citation in a Routledge book (or in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, where I was also asked to write on Hidden Histories) is considered to be a true independent, verifiable and transparent one, whereas as I am sure you are aware, a citation from Wikipedia is less highly thought of. I see from your page you are dealing with Atoms, Serbian companies, glass, Clickjacking, the visual arts and much more, yet there is no transparency about who you are, what or if you have any qualifications or if the views you take are those of your own or also Wikipedia.

I imagine that this conversation will not go anywhere and from the site I do not see how to escalate this to a higher editor. Could you kindly provide me with an email to such a person should they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.221.200 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We decide which sources are reliable by developing a set of criteria for such and applying them as uniformly as we can. I have linked the guideline before, but here it is again. Similarly we decide which topics are notable for inclusion by developing criteria for that and applying them as uniformly as we can. The place to attempt to get a deletion overturned is Wikipedia:Deletion review. You are free to open a discussion there, but I will again warn you that without independent sources you are unlikely to get the article restored. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Comitari Web Protection Suite from the Clickjacking entry

Hello recently you have deleted Comitari WPS from Clickjacking and marked this as a promotion while it isn't the case. This is the only free solution and it's very important information for Wiki readers. Please advise how to rephrase this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlominar (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It would best to start by finding independently written and published sources such as newspapers or magazine articles that are about your software. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ref blenko project

hello, i was making a page on blenko project, and i was informed by other moderatoers that the best way to do is to include a neutral statement in the blenko glass company page. i have been doing that, and you have been deleting it. Can you please let me know why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyb5b (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you numerous times, you need independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the promotional part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyb5b (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

hello you removed my last piece with citation from news paper calling it spam. How is that different from including blenkomuseum.org ? FYI: The Blenko Museum - - this is not a museum but a front for a very successful Canadian who lives in NYC and sells Blenko, his entire income is from sale of Blenko. He uses that name to confuse people. Vyb5b (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is other promotion in the article, that is a reason to remove that promotion, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

hello you removed 3 external links from the blenko page. Blenko museum (and Blenko archive) are private companies owned by the same individual. Blenko collectors is group of collectors. Blenko project is the only website that documents the work of glass factory workers. Can you please put them back or let me know which External linking law they violate? Vyb5b (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point 11. We don't link people's personal pages or fansites. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

67.22.17.108 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you, I am making a new website for blenko project. will send it to you before putting it up. also, do you work for wiki? if so, can you help with editing and screening of articleS? 67.22.17.108 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for recent PTSD edits

I watch the PTSD article closely, and have been (and will be) a major contributor to it. I want to express appreciation for your quick response to the recent inappropriate edits which were in effect advertising several hotlines. It's very helpful to have this vigilance 'lurking in the background'. "Live long and prosper." Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aortic Valve Replacement

MrOllie, I'm confused as to why you removed my external links from the Aortic Valve Replacement article as they were under the external links section heading. I do not own the website, but it's been very useful for my father who just had an aortic stenosis surgery. XtropyXtropy (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a frequently spammed site that exists to sell a particular book. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Archive_9#Reliability_of_external_links_.2F_cardiac_surgery_linkspam. -MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Green Marketing Information

Hello Mr. Ollie,

Yesterday I discovered that, I believe, you removed materials concerning "Green Marketing Myopia" on the Sustainability Marketing Myopia wiki as well as "20 New Rules" from the Green Marketing wiki. I added those materials on behalf of my boss. I thought that since the "Green Marketing Myopia" source was the first published article about the topic, it would only benefit readers to link to this for more information on the three authors who organized and published the idea.

As for the new rules of green marketing added to the Green Marketing Wiki, I added it believing that, again, it would be beneficial to the readers. I have read the New Rules Of Green Marketing book and thought that readers who are perhaps researching how to market green would find this of interest and use. Also, the book was recently named a "Top 40 Sustainability Book" by the Cambridge University (UK) Program for Sustainability Leadership, which I thought would make it a more credible and trusted source.

May I ask why this was considered self-promotion? If it's not something that can be up on those wikis, how may I go about sharing this type of information with those interested in the subject?

Kristen

Green31569 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you do not add anything else to Wikipedia 'on behalf of your boss'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Ollie: I am still not aware of why you removed the material. Many books are referenced on Wikipedia and I do not understand why ours was removed. Was it due to the fact that the account is linked to the author of the materials. I'd like to better understand so that when I reference other materials, I do not make the same mistakes. Thank you. Green31569 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was both due to the apparent conflict of interest, the pattern of multiple references to one author's works the fact that the tone of the additions was promotional, and the obvious point of view inserted to start with. That you thought inserting that was appropriate only indicates that your ability to edit on this topic in an unbiased way is hopelessly compromised. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have further educated myself on the topic by reviewing the criteria of posting references on Wikipedia. I apologize for making the posts come across as biased and promotional. In the future, I will ensure to cross-reference with other independent sites as well as post the material in a way that does not promote the point of view, but rather comes at it with more of an objective angle. Do you have any other suggestions for posting in addition to what I have here? If not, thank you for your insight. Green31569 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You erased my link

Ok why did you erased my link? My link is legit and not advertising. I will post it again. Stop doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fakenstein666 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO. We don't link forums or fansites. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why cleaned out so many lines from the 2 tables?

Dear mr Ollie, You removed a lot of lines fro the 2 tables on the List of job scheduler software page, with this edit comment: clean out all nonnotable list entries per WP:SAL extlinks per WP:EL) Can you specify why? Regards,

--Henk.Wiersema (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the stand-alone lists guideline and write the article first. List articles are meant to be navigational aids to other Wikipedia articles, not a dumping ground for software products that are not notable enough to meet the inclusion criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About Magnagr

Hello there.... I've been noticing that you have been reverting User Magnagr which is highly appreciated. I just wanted to fill you in... he has a long history of vandalizing articles such as Radio, Nikola Tesla, AC motor, Induction motor, Tesla coil, and many others. I have added all of these articles to my watchlist because of him.

In fact, he has numerous alias which he goes by. He previously used the name Altes2009 before he changed it to Magnagr. If you check, both use the same IP address. Like you, I have continually reverted his edits as has Hertz1888. He has a long repeated history of not accepting consensus on the content of articles. What do you think we should do about him?Yoganate79 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

rm website refspamming Foodpairing

Could you please ellaborate on you edits at Foodpairing? SKSSM added some references at the wrong place, I made some text to fit it in. Why is this refspamming, what is refspamming for that matter? Drobbere (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

refspamming is adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia articles while calling them 'references'. Those links weren't referencing anything, they were there to promote the sites in question. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that these links are not references according to the definition. I think you would agree that when talking about certain online tools, and pointing out the differences between them, it would be interesting to somehow reference to them. How should that be done? Drobbere (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Given our guidelines on linking to external sites, and original research I'm not sure that should be done at all. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External link on Assembly Language

Hello Mr. Ollie, I saw that my external link was removed from the page Assembly_language: X86 Assembly Tutorial (EN) I just want to make available much material (manuals, tutorials and practical exercises) for the Assembly, not to advertise my site, but only to share content in a way completely free of charge. Moreover other External links in the list do exactly the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterProf (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, that article's links section is tagged because if fails to comply with our guidelines and policies. Please don't add more links there. In particular, please do not add links to your own site to Wikipedia. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All right! Thanks anyway, MasterProf (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Planview Enterprise entry removal

Hi there, my entries on project management software list have been removed and I'd like to understand for what reason. Thanks and regards Glenarvan s (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We generally only list topics that have demonstrated notability in the form of sources from newspapers, trade magazines, and so on. - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how could I demonstrate this - is an official whitepaper such a document of credibility, or a webpage? Thanks and regard, Glenarvan s (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The sources must be independent of the subject. Whitepapers (which are written by the developers of software) are not independent. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

May I provide you some links to independent reviews just here, or how does the verification process work? Thanks for your support, Glenarvan s (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Either add them as reference tags to the list, or start a new article and add them there. Make sure that any reviews you use meet the guideline on reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk)

Thank you! Glenarvan s (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Siemens AG /* Bribery case */

reference 65 did not have anything to do with the bribery issue and therefore were removed. therefore change was made to correct earlier mistake.

All details including the change can be verified on Siemens AG' website. Look up the quarterly published/updated document "Legal Proceedings".

Correct-500 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes You Made

Mr. Ollie I do not understand the rationale for the comments you added to the article. This is an article of an expert in the field of broadband technology and has significant sources. The specific issues: 1. The picture that was removed is not in any way a copyright violation and appropriate documentation was provided when it was posted. 2. The sources in this article are adequate and the changes you earlier suggested were made to ensure that the sources were complete. 3. There is nothing that is in conflict with notability. The subject of the article has been written about in a number of sources to include newspapers, books, and has also widely written about the new technology, to include broadband, access to broadband, and the meaning of the digital divide. 4. The issue of bare urls is not grounded since the majority of the sources are from news organizations like the Atlanta Journal Constitution, colleges, reputable organizations involved in digital technology, and published books.

The subject of this article has been writing about the digital divide since 1997. What is the issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMaam (talk • contribs)

My only issue is that you seem to be a single purpose account that is adding references to somebody's self published book to other articles. I don't know what picture you're talking about. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please No More Additions

First, Thank you for your response. I believe you are wrong I would like to suggest that you do not add any more comments to this page. This is an article on one of the most important proponents of access to broadband for those who have little access. If you were to research this topic, you will find that this is much more than what you see. Please do not add anymore comments to this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMaam (talk • contribs) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone may edit or comment on any article on Wikipedia, I will continue to do so as necessary. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of List Entry on rapid application tools

What ist to be done that the entry does not get deleted?

Javaeu (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Near Death experience page

You keep removing my link from this page. The link is to a discussion in NDE research. There are also several books listed on that page which are inappropriate and definitely selling a product. The link to my page discusses a book, but the page is dedicated to an examination of the subject and problems it faces.

Please do not remove my link again. I find your removal of my link inappropriate, specifically in noting many of the 'off the wall' books, references, and links on that page which have no validity.

Wbilly3814 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book. The existence of other links that don't comply with the guidelines is a reason to remove those links, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I add my book to the 'further reading' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbilly3814 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book. - MrOllie (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Image addition

Hi MrOllie,

I am looking to help the recently appointed wikimedian in residence Daniel Mietchen improve the amount of scientific content added to Wikipedia. As with a lot of scientific research, the sources need to be cited and linked to. Can you tell me how I can do this without falling foul of the rules for which you rejected my edits?

Thanks,

Mhahnel (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding scientific content is great. You should do that without also advertising websites that you run. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I just need to know how. The site breaks up larger publications into smaller publishable units. The figures need to be cited, under conditions of their licenses. Does this mean that I cannot upload the figures and we must wait for other users to add this content. Specifically I cannot do this? Thanks for the speedy response Mhahnel (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just cite them to the original source. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do Mhahnel (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SIPs

Any reason that you have removed the edit that I placed on the SIPs article to include info about the UK SIPs market? I added four references, three of which were to independent bodies.

Thanks

Peter —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

It would be best if you didn't insert references to organizations you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not affliated to the BRE or UKSIPs? Are you saying that info on SIPs in the UK can only be written by people who are not involved with the UK SIPs industry and therefore will not know any information on it? The information and references that I put on the site were informative and to give people an idea of SIPs in the UK, which the article at present pays no reference to at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter m keogh (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're not the same Peter Keogh whose company was a founding member of UKSIPS? What a small world. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your sarcasm, much appreciated. No I am not, that is my father, but as you will see if you research a little further than the surface, the UKSIPs has 50 plus members, of which the company that you reference is one. Are you therefore maintaining that an independent UK Association with 50 plus members is not a suitable reference point for a wikipedia article? And even if you do maintain that, which I will be disputing, are you also arguing that the BRE, an independent government body is also not a suitable reference? And I don't see how any of this affects the content of what was edited which was merely giving context to the UK market for SIPs, which thanks to this lengthy discussion, is still entirely unreferenced on the wikipedia page.--Peter m keogh (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) You've now deleted references to the US SIPs Association another independent body, which provides very useful, independent information to anyone interested in SIPs, can I ask for what reason you've removed the link to them?--Peter m keogh (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will maintain that an addition to an article that merely notes that a trade organization formed, added by one of the organization's memebrs, really shouldn't have happened. Besides that the fact that a trade organization exists might be interesting to an industry insider such as yourself, but this is a general audience encyclopedia. Perhaps you are too close to this subject to have a clear view of it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't what I wrote though was it? I wrote that SIPs were also prevalent in the UK, something which is otherwise un-mentioined in the article, making it very America-centric and ignoring a very large part of the SIPs story. The "trade organisation" reference was to put in context the growth of the industry in the UK in recent years. Can you now answer my other two questions, why have you removed the reference to the BRE, a very useful reference for people in the UK interested in SIPs and also clarify why you've removed the reference to SIPA, a vital reference point for anyone in the US interested in SIPs? I think you've been over-zealous on your editing of this article, removing very useful and resource full references. Peter m keogh (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have failed to respond to my last comment, I will be raising a dispute on this. Peter m keogh (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User marked as having conflict of interest

Hi MrOllie You have marked my username as having a conflict of interest. I do not completely agree with this. I am an editor for a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. I am simply adding references from our journal that are relevant to existing content on Wikipedia. I do not see that this is a conflict of interest, and in fact believe that readers will find the links to our scientific publication useful. Other wiki users are equally welcome to post other reverences, I do not completely understand the issue. I welcome your thoughts on how to comply. thanks, JoVEscied (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the editor of the journal, and you're adding links to the journal, but you don't understand why someone might think you have a conflict of interest? Please do not systematically add links to websites you are affiliated with. When one account has a pattern of adding the same link over and over, it presents an impression of link promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I just reverted back to JoVEscied's revision on the amyloidosis article. Abdominal fat pad biopsy is the first tissue that is biopsied in the amyloid workup (it's much less invasive than a kidney biopsy, for instance) and the prior version of the article didn't reflect this.

I see that you've reverted a number of his medical contributions - I understand that we need to be aware of COI, but I would urge you not to reflexively revert edits without looking at their content simply because he's published on the topics. We should be encouraging people with real knowledge to contribute!

Cheers Wawot1 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for any uninvolved editor to restore such links, especially in cases like this where they are borderline (or better than borderline) appropriate. It's still not a good idea for the editor of the journal to be adding the links himself, though. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're implying that these edits are borderline appropriate.....in addition to the amyloidosis edit, several of the other edits were simply adding references to statements that were already in the article. Again, I understand your concerns about COI, but you have to look at the context as well as the content of the edit; these are hardly examples of egregious POV pushing. Wawot1 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wawot1 for adding this back. While I am posting articles related to specific articles published in our journal, I would like you to know that I have nothing to do with the research itself. I simply have found that these articles are relevant to what is already posted. For instance, I posted something for thermal imaging for diagnosis of melanoma. This in no way benefits my journal, rather it shares the techniques with a wider audience. (as an aside, I am a she!) JoVEscied (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the gender assumption! Wawot1 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You sell subscriptions. You have a financial motive to drive traffic to your site. Please do not add more links. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We sell subscriptions, but the articles I've posted are open access. Anyone can see them without having to pay anything. JoVEscied (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie. We try to be a respectable encyclopedia, and it isn't very ethical to let users link to themselves in citations in such a manner. Some isolated cases are ok, but all of your edits have been to link to your journal. This really isn't appropriate. You are welcome to contribute in a manner that doesn't involve promoting yourself. ThemFromSpace 20:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, Themfromspace - according to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Overview editing when there is a potential COI is discouraged, but not forbidden. To quote: "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously." JoVE editors are very knowledgeable and, so long as they engage responsibly, should bring significant value to content. Is there something you would suggest they should do to ensure responsible behavior? (full disclosure: I am one of the founders of JoVE.) Nikitab (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The COI guideline has a nice section on Avoiding COI edits. Point #3 is particularly relevant. - MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As the editor also added or corrected information, apart from adding citations, the outright reverts by MrOllie seem inappropriate. I do not have the expertise to judge the quality and appropriateness of those edits, so I've asked the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to contribute. —Ruud 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is consensus that sourcing of medical articles on Wikipedia needs to be held to a high standard, and there is guidance at WP:MEDRS. Although the idea of a online video journal is attractive, it has not yet attained even "a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy" (as required by WP:Reliable sources), and certainly does not reach MEDRS's preference for secondary sources. Given sufficient time, JoVE may create a respectable impact factor and earn a reputation as a reliable source, but I don't see that now, and could not support using the site to source statements on Wikipedia. I must remind you that the burden rests with the editor who adds text to demonstrate it meets WP:Verifiability via a reliable source. Consequently it is probably unwise to simply reinstate edits[1] which have been challenged without bringing some further evidence to support the reinstatement, otherwise you create the appearance of engaging in an edit war. Have a think about whether self-reversion would now be appropriate in this case, or whether you intend to justify the text you have re-added by reference to MEDRS-compliant sourcing? --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Beanies / GamezArena Deletion

Dear MrOllie... my argument as to the deletion of Beanies (and therefore GamezArena, because if Beanies is a noteworthy game, then its creators are a noteworthy company) lies solely on the fact that the articles were written in 2002 because that is when the game was created and released.

You said:"It was claimed on the talk page that this game was featured on several high profile websites, but these articles appear to all be down now - I cannot verify one way or the other. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)"

Well, if Weird Al's only references were:

on Monday, August 8th, 2011 - reference number 116 - Billboard

on Monday, August 8th, 2011 - reference number 119 - Grammy Award Winners - retrieved December 14, 2006

Then by your reasoning he would not be a noteworthy performer and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Never mind that one of those links had supposedly shown that a song of his made it to the top of the charts and the other that he had won a Grammy Award... those pages don't exist anymore so it must be spam. Those two references happened not even 5 years ago and we are discussing a game that was created almost 10 years ago by an independent game development company and was special enough to get mention on those "high profile websites" that can no longer be confirmed due to the times.

One of the references was to the Internet Archive to a page that was dedicated to the people/sites that felt the game was important enough to mention it on their own sites. One of those being Netscape which as a browser has stopped being made... in 10 years, when you can no longer find a download page for the Netscape Communicator, will it be less noteworthy in your opinion? Now then, if I am to take into consideration your objection(s), I would have to logically come to the conclusion that you believe those links on that page (saved by a robot by a source that could not have been manipulated by GamezArena) were not valid at the time they were placed there. GamezArena simply had the hopes that, when none of it could be proved one way or the other, they could submit their site and games to Wikipedia and use the Internet Archive / Way Back Machine's archive of that page as a notable source. Yes? Well, if that is the case then I think GamezArena deserves a place in Wikipedia for a ten year attempted con. I would give them all kinds of commendations for having planned something for so long.

Your whole argument sounds a bit too far fetched to me. Plus, the part that I am really having trouble understanding is on May 19th, 2011 KillerChihuahua (a Wikipedia Administrator, 7 year Wikipedia Member, 4 year Wikimedia OTRS, Member of the Wiki Mediation Committee, and member of the Puppy Cabal =0P) Declined Speed Deletion with the following:

(Speedy deletion declined. Appears to be notable game; claims made, history given, claims of special status (first in several categories, etc.) Not a speedy. (CSDH))

Now, 3 months later... nothing has changed and you say it is spam, vandalism, and who knows what else. It seemed kind of weird to me. So, I started looking into your recent activity... and I am beginning to think there might be something personal in all of this... maybe?

Ryneaux (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the AFD discussion. Comments you make on my talk page will probably not be taken into account by the administrator who closes the deletion discussion. I will say here that you should be aware that speedy deletion and the regular deletion process have different standards - many articles that cannot be speedily deleted can be deleted via deletion discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MrOllie, I am aware of all that, and I have done so. However, I am attempting to talk with you about this as well. Is your response a way of informing me that you do not wish to discuss this with me here on your talk page? I was under the impression the "talk" page was meant for such things.

Ryneaux (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer that discussion be kept in one place. The AFD and/or the talk page for GamezArena necessarily have discussion on this topic, so please keep it there. - MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

I see you're on it too: TeleVisions (talk · contribs). I am unwilling to block right now, since I've only just warned them--let's see how it goes, and if it persists, and you catch it before I do, drop me a line please. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PDF (Portable Document Format) page

I see you have again removed my note about Adobe's influence over ISO 32000 citing a conflict of interest and that I am a member of Appligent's PR team. The note I added makes NO reference to Appligent and Appligent has no influence on Adobe. The note is a clarification of how the ISO works (one company, one vote; one country, one vote) and demonstrates that a long-standing controversy of Adobe first owning and later unduly influencing Acrobat is false. If that's not appropriate for Wikipedia, I'd like to know what is. ShawnaMcAlearney (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Shawna McAlearney

If you want to discuss how ISO works, the place for that would be International Organization for Standardization. If you want to discuss how ISO works as it relates to PDF, you should have a reference (and not one on appligent.com) that talks about that specifically. Otherwise we run afoul of the policy that prohibits original research. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BioCIE

Dear MrOllie, BioCIE is very, very new. So new that it is only used for one conference article, and one more paper under recension. Web site for this software is under construction, and it will be finished in next five days, I hope. It will be free, so there is comercial interest does not exists. Only desire is to improve fluorescence microscopy by using this simple tool. Main idea was to test if there is an interest for such software. Main website will be prepared soon, and software will be available to download. Please wait for few days before delete the page... You will see, it is usefull piece of software. Regards, Enzo1320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo1320 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's too new to have a Wikipedia article, then. Feel free to resubmit it when it has been written about in independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical Writing outlink

So only the special people like IEEE are considered "professional groups" and allowed to have links? Technical Communication Professionals is, if you had bothered to investigate, a professional organization for Technical Writers. We have managed a listserver for professionals for several years. I thought Wikipedia served everyone not just the elite. PsySciGuy (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to serve everyone, but it's not here for everyone to promote their websites. - MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is true, then please REMOVE ALL professional society website links - that would be fair. And treat all professional groups equally. Apparently "promoting their websites" is OK for IEE but not TCP? Upon just what do you base this opinion and to whom do we appeal? PsySciGuy (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You can raise the issue at the external links noticeboard to get input from more editors. - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Paris crime

Hi

A quick question about your edit of the Paris Crime page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&action=history

I appreciate that scaminfo, lonely planet & tripadvisor blogs, etc. are not reliable sources, but there are no central governmental resources which would provide this information. And if you have ever fallen victim to one of those scams - you would appreciate that they are a HUGE problem in Paris and also other countries around the world. The mission of Wikipedia is not only to empower and engage people, but also provide them with useful information that will help them in their everyday life.

I would actually be bold enough to suggest to all wikipedia admins to include a short paragraph/section on scams in popular tourist destinations, as this is considerably more important, than knowledge of cycle rental schemes or educational programs.

Please let me know what you think.

Kind regards

Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipikas1999 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the relevant policies and guidelines are pretty clear on this: If we cannot reliably source information we should omit it, regardless of the value we might think it could have. - MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Globe

Mr Ollie, Can you please explain whats wrong with the statement I place in the Virtual Globe about 3rd Planet. If you have visited my web site, we do have tons of articles and the product and the launch date is real. What do you expect us to write about the company in WIKI. Or is it simply that only an outsider can contribute to WIKI and we can only put FACTS in when its launch. Or simply we need to rephase the wording? DO advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.141.152 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to have sources that are independent of your company. Linking your website is improper, you should have a reference in a reputable newspaper or similar. Even then, it would be a very good idea if you proposed content on the talk page and left it for people who are not associated with your company to make any actual changes. - MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I just tried adding the references link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-rubin/travel-planning-goes-3d-3_b_888538.html from Huffington Post but the WIKI seems to revert to your edits. Can you help advise on how I can post them again. Do I need to create a new entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.14 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's someone's blog, and so does not qualify as a reliable source. I suggest you do not post it again, given your conflict of interest. If someone with a very strong journalistic reputation (like, say, CNN) writes about it, then you should suggest it on the talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is frustrating, Huffingtonpost is one of the most highly read site in USA. What about a non-for-profit organization like PATA.ORG, with 40 offices globally and a leader in the tourism industry. Do you think they are not reputable? http://www.pata.org/news/3rd-planet-introduces-3d-tourism-marketing-tool. I have seen more content coming from WIKI from less reliable source. If the policy is to have someone else put the post on WIKI, then I can begin to imagine how the process can be easily managed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.14 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is widely read, sure. It also hosts people's personal blogs, and what you have linked looked to be one of those. No, Pata does not help, either. Your company is a member of that organization, so they are not an independent source. Look, your company just isn't notable yet. That's fine, it's just getting started. We don't have a deadline here, come back when you have started to get wider notice. - MrOllie (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Proxy List

Hi MrOllie,

I'm who recently modified the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_list

You said that old one was better but it was wrong when saying that a proxy list has only proxy IP addresses, it has ports too. I corrected that and added problems and uses. The problems was directly copied from the reference source that I put and then I explained a little more.

Please tell me if you have other reasons for removing my contribution to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.32.239 (talk • contribs)

Your reference didn't actually cite the content, the mention of ports is more technical trivia than a needed correction, and, frankly, your grammar was not acceptable English. I'm afraid that your edit didn't represent an improvement to the article in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. I agree that my grammar could be not the best one. Can you tell me some example of something that I wrote with bad grammar and how should I wrote it right? Why you said that my reference didn't cite the content? The "problems" was explained in the reference site, I copied from there. Then I tried to explain a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.32.239 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your response. My reference do cite the content and my grammar could not be the best but neither not acceptable I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.32.239 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consult the verifiability policy and how to identify reliable sources for more information. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of links to useful technical information has no merit.

And you can't hide behind wp:linkspam as an excuse. You leave all sorts of other links to white papers (that are useful) from other companies, yet you target Analog Devices exclusively. Are you working for Crystal Semi or some other competitor?

The fig leaf of wiki-lawyering does not cover up your obvious POV in deleting references that are relevant and practical that happen to come from a commercial source. Have you even bothered to look at the white paper that the link points to? 71.169.189.170 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are other inappropriate links, that would be a reason for you to remove those, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about the link and if you were 1/2 of an electrical engineer, you would know that. You haven't answered a single question asked of you. You're just covering up your ignorance. 71.169.189.170 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So which is it? I work for Crystal Semi, or I'm not ' 1/2 of an electrical engineer'? - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Could be both, but what is obvious is you have something against ADI and you have no idea of technical merit. 71.169.189.170 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Semi probably employs a few non-electrical engineers. —Ruud 20:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought they got bought out years ago. :) - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems they did. —Ruud 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly a pattern of deleting appropriate links to technical information, judging by this page. Silverstarseven (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual for people to react strongly when their links are removed. I'm curious: what prompted you to break a 10 month absence to comment on this? - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not an honest player, Ollie. this is appropriate technical information that is relevant to the content of the article. 70.109.188.195 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Decision making software article

Hi MrOllie. As we have been chatting about at Talk:Decision_making_software, what should be done about the list of software at the decision making software article? Paulwizard (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page already, barring some evidence of notability (indiscriminate surveys don't really help) it seems best to leave them out. - MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are citations or reports of the respective software's use in refereed journal articles sufficient to establish notability? (As revealed, for example, via Google Scholar.)Paulwizard (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly? It depends on if they are trivial mentions and how independent of the software the journal authors are. - MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Naturally. So, how many non-trivial, independent journal articles that cite or report work done using the respective softwares are required to establish notability? Supposing that some of the softwares on the list that you removed pass this test, then would you like to see these articles (presumably a subset?) referenced in the Wikip article (decision making software) in order for the list (after deleting softwares that do not pass the test) to be reinstated? (It seems to me that such referencing risks cluttering the Wikip article - but your call.) Paulwizard (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than talk in hypotheticals here, if you have independent sources, post them on Talk:Decision_making_software. - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

IllusionMage

Hi, I was wondering about the PROD. I removed the tag for now, but please feel free to reinstate it if you still feel it's proper. As I'm sure you've read, IllusionMage is a scam selling free software for a price. I'm sure you also agree that the software in question, Blender is notable. I just came across a discussion on Facebook where someone asked what Illusionmage is and whether it's worth buying. I pointed them to the WP page (that's how I discovered it was PROD'ed).

My point is that some users may look up Illusionmage to check up what kind of software it is (as I do regularly with software I consider buying), and find the information given now. This probably leads them to not wasting any money on this scam, and so Wikipedia has fulfilled its mission to educate people (and make their lives a tiny bit better in the process.) Asav (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it has no third party reliable sources. If it doesn't get some, it will almost certainly be deleted sooner or later. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I already added an article from BlenderNation, but obviously this is not something you'll find outside the trade press, as in mainstream news outlets or peer-reviewed publications. Asav (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Image at Frozen section procedure

Pathology Innovations created the image you have on this page. Why wouldn't you site it appropriately? Please look at pathologyinnovations.com and all of the educational content on there (that you are missing here) before removing more links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeters1 (talk • contribs)

That's not what the uploader of the image claimed. He said it was his own work and was published under CC-By-3.0, which means the attribution we already have on the image's description page is sufficient. If that user was actually uploading something in violation of your copyright, please email info-en-c@wikimedia.org explaining the situation and someone will help you get the image removed. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They have a picture of a cryostat with part of a Precision Cryoembedding System (the chuck), which is a product of Pathology Innovations - this will not make sense to anyone trying to learn about frozen section unless they are aware of Pathology Innovations' systems. I don't know why or how I have to convince you that Pathology Innovations is a thought leader in this field... If you let me, I could put a ton of valuable information on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.20.173 (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me or anyone else of that. What you do have to do, though, is refrain from promoting your products and/or books on Wikipedia. It would be great if you added valuable information to the page. As a subject matter expert, it should be a simple matter for you to cite information to reliable sources which are independent of yourself and your company. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

TURF Insight

Dear Mr Ollie,

This article is written to explain about the new paradigms in Information Retrieval, Natural Language Processing, Enterprise Search Technologies, Personalized Knowledge Discovery and Semantic Search that are introduced by Xurmo Labs through TURF Insight.

TURF Insight, more than a product, is an open platform on which thousands of developers are being encouraged to develop applications that are powered by the information retrieval APIs that TURF exposes.

Similar articles about other companies in the same space, with sometimes no notable presence at all, are being encouraged on wikipedia. Hence it would be a bias if this page is deleted.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Even this talk page message sounds promotional. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Ollie,

It is quite easy to be unfair here. I do not think the objective is to be unfair. It is about equality and fairness in terms of representation of information. When it is quite clear that all major search providers have a place on wiki, with more than enough promotional content on their pages, it would be inherently unfair if the reader is not given the opportunity to know that there is another option as well. Let us not take an elitist approach here. That is not why we all have donated our hard earned dollars to the wikimedia foundation.

Let me take an example here. Let us see the page of Autonomy Corporation. If what I have written is promotional, surely the Products section on this page is as promotional if not more. It is an endless discussion. My intention is to have a productive conversation. I have already removed a whole lot of actually useful information on how the technology works and accomplishes what it does, lest it might be considered as "promotional". I am prepared to do even more. Just point out your objections.

But I am not prepared allow a firm to be excluded from a place where every one of its peers has one. I hope you understand. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there is other advertising on Wikipedia, that means we should remove that advertising, not add more. I would also suggest that you read the guideline on conflicts of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already pointed you out to one. Please do go ahead and remove it too. I have removed all content which might be considered as promotional from the page. The COI does not apply to me as I am an academic who was so enthralled by what they have done that I thought they deserved a place here, when I found that I could not learn more about them from wikipedia. All the information I have posted here is the information I collected when I made a direct site visit of their office with my students. It cannot get better than that. I am no armchair critic or promoter. I verify and see my facts for myself. Sandeep999 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of verifying facts: You do realize that Wikipedia retains past versions of a page, right? - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have enough moral authority here. You just removed my entire piece without a comment. The revision history aspect is applicable to you too. Play fair Ollie. That is all that is requested. I think the others participating on these pages have the same opinion as well. Sandeep999 (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I assure you I didn't blank anything on purpose: The Wiki software does that once in a while when people edit at the same time. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Incoterms

Hi Mr Ollie. Let's discuss about Incoterms page. As I mentioned I spent personal money and hours to make the information that costs normally 75 euro plus shippping available for free at wikipedia. Don't you think that I have a right to put a link on my web site in exchange for that? Also, it was not necessary to kill separate pages for 11 terms. They contain incormation from offiical guide of International Chamber of Commerce. Also note, that the rating of all articles was high and people found the information valuable. Thanks for reconsidering your decision and reverting my chnages. I am not sure what is the right way to communicate here Igorch (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be blunt, but no, no amount of work you do or money you spend for Wikipedia will entitle you to link your website from here. The '11 pages' that you mention were all sourced only to your own website, which is not suitable to establish they they should have independent articles per our guidelines and sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, could you tell me which particular clauses of rules, guidelines and requirements did I violate. Let's leave emotions and discuss rules. If I violated rules, I won't do that again. I just want to aviod the misunderstanding. The material that I created on the internet (my site) and then on wikipedia is unique and relevant. I am not sure how far you are familiar with international tarde rules, but the link represented the only source, which is by the way free of charge for users who comes to the web site. Anyway, I look forward to receiving particular clauses that you think I violated. I hope we can resolve this situation to the benefit of Wikipedia readers who rely on the international trade related information. Thank you.Igorch (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The general notability guideline says that if there are not multiple, independent and reliable sources for a topic, we don't have an article on that topic. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the argumentation or evience that with respect to the Summary of terms table (see Incoterms) the source is not reliable. The source was Incoterms Wall Chart. For your information here is the feedback of international trade professionals on LinkedIn. Example. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorch (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear if you read the reliable sources guideline. We need sources published by parties with a reputation for fact checking (such as newspapers or peer reviewed journals), not the self published websites of small consulting companies. - MrOllie (talk)

What is the evidence that our company has no such reputation?Igorch (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Does your company publish a newspaper? - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But it doesn't mean that there are no international trade professionals who can properly interpret international trade legislation. Let me stress again, the information is unique and very specific. This is not football club or academy award. Such materials will never be published by newspapers because there are no such newspapers for international trade professionals. Is there any other concern that I can address? Igorch (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If this information will never be published by anyone but you, that pretty much settles it. *multiple* sources are required to have an article. In the case of Incoterms, if we don't have a source that complies with the guidelines the answer is that we remove the information, not that we leave it there with a noncompliant source. One of our core policies forbids original research, which means that one person cannot simply come up with new information and put it on Wikipedia, it *must* be published by independent parties first. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for link, now I clearly see the point. The rule is the rule. Please also delete Summary of Terms section of Incoterms because it is entirely based on my wall chart (you can trace it in history) and contradicts to the policy as well. Thank you.Igorch (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Summary of Terms myself as it contradicts to original researchIgorch (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Project management lay out

Hi MrOllie, could you take a look at the latest discussion on the project management talk page, and comment. User:Tony1 doesn't seem to agree on anything I say, for example my first and latest statement:

• Wikipedia is an interactive medium, and figures can be read by clicking on them
• With lay-out we should look at FA as example

Now I know lay-out design is no exact science, but these are simple basics of Wikipedia article design. Could you comment on this. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Angel investor

While I don't disagree with your edit, there is a lengthy discussion about it here. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh! I didn't think to look. Well, if he still cares and puts it back in, no harm done. - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User marked as having conflict of interest

MrOllie, I just realized that the discussion on contributions by one of the JoVE editors has been removed without my having a chance to respond. With respect to your reference about COI guidelines, what you referenced stated "we have some advice for minimizing problems". This is advice. Not linking to appropriate content in that particular instance would have been a disservice to the readers. With respect to credibility of JoVE, I am very confused on [[user:Rexxs|Rexxs]'s perception of JoVE - it is an academic journal that is indexed by PubMed and articles from JoVE are cited in the likes of Nature. I will respond to Rexxs' on his talk page.Nikitab (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me be really clear. What User:JoVEscied was doing is called Citation spamming. If it goes on too much you run the risk of the account(s) involved getting blocked and the links getting added to the blacklist. No one wants that to happen, so it would be a really good idea if you guys backed off and let references to your journal be added organically over time by wholly uninvolved people. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, thank you for clarification. Let me try to be just as clear. If I understand correctly, you cite COI to justify removal of careful participation of a PhD-level contributor from a credible academic journal who did not hide her affiliation. You have not actually looked at content, evaluated its merit, nor have you seen anything except for COI that may justify its removal. According to Wikipedia, COIs do not preclude participation. COIs do, however, mean that contributors must be extra-rigorous, careful, and honest about participation. Our editor has done that, yet her contributions have been removed ONLY because of COI. This is not moderation, but indiscriminate exercise of power. If we were talking about something trivial, I would "back off". But we are talking about referencing biomedical research in the primary encyclopedia of our time, which has impact on propagation of information and, consequently, on speed of biomedical research and, consequently, at the risk of sounding cliche, on humanity. Again, let me be crystal clear: our mission is to accelerate the pace of biomedical research. Ability to help propagate valuable knowledge through Wikipedia I see as very important for biomedical research and its benefactors and I see the impact of our journal being measured in human lives affected. So please tell me: what do we need to do to so that my editors, who are extremely knowledgeable about science and are disconnected from the business unit at JoVE to ensure that they are not biased in how they operate as editors, can contribute to Wikipedia and their contribution is evaluated based on content and not just their affiliation? Because "backing off" at the expense of slowing down research that will reduce the number of people who die from malaria, HIV, or any other number of diseases does not seem like a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitab (talk • contribs)

Her contributions were not removed 'only because of COI', they were removed because of a combination of factors, incluing COI, citation spamming behavior, and the source's failure to meet the very stringent guidelines documented in WP:MEDRS. We welcome contributions from subject matter experts. As subject matter experts, I'm sure that they are familiar with many people's work in their fields, published in many different sources. I would recommend that what information they add to Wikipedia be cited to sources that they have no professional relationship with. That would nicely demonstrate that they value 'propagating valuable knowledge' more than promoting one journal in particular. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, I disagree that you demonstrated any credible reason for removal besides COI. Please cite which WP:MEDRS requirements were not met or where there was spamming behavior and either I (or the editor) will clarify or we will "back off" in the unlikely event that we do not meet some requirement or if I find that our editor engaged in spamming behavior. With respect to referencing sources other than JoVE, I will leave that decision up to my editors and request that information is evaluated on based on merit and not on perceived COI.Nikitab (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand how adding 7 links to the same journal in under an hour is citation spamming, I'm afraid anything else I might say here will not be productive. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Each of those links was carefully chosen by the editor in question (a PhD) to be relevant. Please show where any of the editor's contributions were not relevant/valuable. I disagree that it is good moderation to remove content based on assumptions without looking into subject matter. If you and I do not reach an agreement, what is the process to resolve this disagreement? Nikitab (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External Links

What external links are you referring to? Please do not automatically label someone as "Spammer" without proper verification. Look at my contributions first, we are all editors here. The only link I put was on E. Dynkin page for the Dynkin School. This is related to the Dynkin biography and is by no mean considered as "advertising". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronKauf (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You restored a link (twice) at Malliavin calculus to a site that has been spammed dozens of times by a variety of accounts and IPs. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisit to your: 35 Decision making software article

MrOllie, as you suggested (stored in your Archive 3), I have posted sources at Talk:Decision making software to support the Notability of a subset of the software in the list that you removed from the decision making software article. What do you reckon? Paulwizard (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

EPUB

Hello, MrOllie.

Your removing of non-notable items from EPUB is now being discussed in Talk:EPUB. Perhaps you might want to participate. Fleet Command (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Addison

Hello, Mr Ollie.

Firstly, did you ever read my edit summary of 17 June 2010 or my post to the talk page the same day? These deny the accuracy of 2 April 1793 as Addison's birthday, because there is no good evidence for it. The best we know is he was born in April 1793. That's what the Dictionary of National Biography says.

It appears you didn't read what I wrote, because a month later, on 16 July 2010, you reverted my edit and restored the birthdate 2 April 1793, but without providing any evidence.

If you do in fact have good evidence for 2 April, could you please provide it? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[your turn]</sup> 11:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Press release

Hello, I see that you deleted my contribution. While I have no strong preference on whether example sites are cited, I do have a strong preference that not mentioning the #1 way press releases are submitted is a huge oversight. They are submitted via websites and my contribution strengthens the article. Without it, the examples shown, such as fax, mail, etc. are inaccurate. So, my text improved the article. If this is something you wish to challenge further, state your case in the discussion page of the page. --Adam00 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Mr Ollie,

I can understand your comments however you seem to have deleted two links (Christmas Pudding and Toad in the Hole recipes to our site by someone else (no idea who they were but presumably you should contact them before you delete) which we simply corrected as the links became broken when we changed our website url structure. We have also added information and comment (not links) on other pages (eg Mrs Beeton regarding her contribution to animal welfare and local food which havent been deleted? Regards localfoodie9 Localfoodie (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A strange concept of spam

Dear Mr Ollie,

This page about Creative Commons is full of references and link that are wrong, partial, old, not up-to-date, broken-links... I can't understand why you don't want to add the book by Simone Aliprandi that is the only book available about CC licenses usage. Simone it is a activist quite famous in Italy, and he does that kind of things not for a self-promotional purpose. The book has been also cited on the CC official social networks. So, since you have the supreme power to do this, please add it to the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.3.53 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to it per WP:ELNO points 4,5 and 11. Spamming is a behavior: when a couple of single purpose editors appear and repeatedly add a link, that is spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of new book from Peter Fader's page

Hello,

I work for Professor Fader and he asked me to add his book to his wiki page. Can you explain why you removed my changes?

Thank you, Nicole Berlucchi http://wcai.wharton.upenn.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.124.103 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it was advertising. I suggest that you check the guidelines on conflict of interest. Please do not make more promotional edits in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I at least put that he authored a book? That is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.124.103 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Why are some external links allowed and other not? I see plenty of other travel sites that are listed in the external links of a lot of pages like off2colombia is almost on every colombia city external links... if one is considered spam then they all should be considered spam and removed.

User:Annefrank22 —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

We apply the guideline on external links to determine what should be linked. - MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

documentary

I am really interested how you managed to evaluate the content of my site addition in just only 3 minutes. It seems to me that you kind of auto-spam without weighting the real value. Compared to some existing links there is always new content and valueable follow up reads to the wiki article. The existing links are not only outdated but also link to illegal content. So where is wiki policiy here? Your effort to identity spam is appreciated but in fact you seem to miss the real spam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.111.104.162 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.143.189.164 So please comment on both issues. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.121.42 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it does not take very long. I suggest you read over our guidelines on conflict of interest and external links. If you find spam in Wikipedia, please remove it, but it's presence does not mean that you should add your site as well. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the existance of the guidelines that is why I would appreciate if you could tell me the specific reasons for the removal. And why the existing ones don't break the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.16.82 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

External Link Removal

Hello. Thank you for interest in keeping Wikipedia clean and resourceful. At EyeBagsTreatment.com, we specialize in keeping our clients healthier and younger looking. We go under tedious research and find our methods to be very resourceful. Although our website has ads related to the subject, we are not using Wikipedia as a way to enhance our ranking on any search engines because we know that Wikipedia uses a nowfollow link system. I have made some revisions on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periorbital_dark_circles#Treatment and I hope you can allow us to keep our treatment up on that section. Healthykoreanguy (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I see that you have flat out ignored my request, though it contributes in more ways than others. There are so many "treatments" without proper citing yet you keep them. What's the deal? This is not professional, this is just bullying against small informative sites. Thank you for reading and I hope Wikipedia and its volunteers work to improve the internet, not censor it with the wrong kind of discretion. Healthykoreanguy (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has high standards for documenting medical claims, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. Your site doesn't come anywhere close to meeting them. - MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. So why is it that "peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, Mayo Clinic, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources" but our website is below "high standards" and cannot be used as a secondary source? Like stated before, we did tedious research - and the ironic thing is, the site is made of collective information derived from these peer reviewed medical information resources. Peer reviewed medical information sources are allowed, yet when another source gathers information from those sites and places them under one site so the reader can navigate better, it is beneath your "standards." Thank you again for reading, and I hope we can work something out as our sources are very reliable and the information is accurate-to-date.Healthykoreanguy (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Are you saying that your site is peer reviewed as well? - MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PMFJI but... HealthyKoreanGuy, if indeed you originally obtained your information from WebMD, Mayo Clinic, etc., then you should have no problem providing references to the specific pages on those sites that support whatever you're trying to add to Wikipedia. Anyone can make a claim that "I got all my info from reliable sources" but without citations to those sources, that is just another case of {{citation needed}}. It is precisely because those sites are large and perhaps difficult to navigate that WP requires citations to specific pages therein, so that the references can be easily checked. Jeh (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DOCSIS citing from Blog

Hello Mr. Ollie. I added updated my user page to provide professional background. I have been in the cable industry for about 20 years. I have served on the the DOCSIS and SCTE standards bodies in the creation of numerous specifications. Much of what I have put in the reference blog is personal experience gained through troubleshooting DOCSIS and RF networks. That is what differentiates my blog from any other source and why it is used by global cable operators as a training reference. So what I will be referencing is not learned from any reference. If I speak of some that is available from a standard, I will reference the relevant standard. But when speaking of troubleshooting, there are not standards for that. Bsv109 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)bsv109

If there is no other reference for it, then I'm afraid that per our sourcing guidelines and our policy on original research, the information should not be on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I will leave the additions I am adding to the site, but remove the references so that you do not delete the work as I believe it adds value. - Bsv109 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Mr Ollie,

I didnt see any response to my comment on your talk page about the removal of links (Christmas Pudding and Toad in the Hole)to mour website which were added by someone else and simply edited by us to correct the broken links.

Thanks localfoodie Localfoodie (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who added them, per WP:EL the site shouldn't have been linked in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the rules you mentioned "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link" I would have thought that, if only as a matter of courtesy, you would at least have informed the individuals who added the links to give them the opportunity to respond. Localfoodie (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's really not how Wikipedia works. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Jime

Hello MrOllie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Jime, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup> 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

MeeMeep - article proposed for deletion - Non notable company/website

Mr Ollie - thank you for your feedback on Article: Meemeep. As a new website, we are still developing our online presence. We have updated some content, our external resources and added some categories to the article, which we hope improves our notibility.

My question to you is whether it would be more prudent to withdraw out listing until full launch of the site in mid October, or whether you believe we have addressed the concerns of notability.

Jodieemmett (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Kind regards Jodie EmmettJodieemmett (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that meet the sourcing guidelines. We need newspapers, independent trade magazines, stuff like that. Categories have nothing to do with notability. It might be better to let it go for now if you anticipate better coverage in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Ollie - we do anticipate more coverage at launch, so will remove the article, with a view to re-instating it when we have more reputable external resources. Thanks Jodieemmett (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)JodieEmmettJodieemmett (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

UrbanIndianSF

Aloha. It looks like you were on spam patrol when you reverted all of the edits made by UrbanIndianSF (talk · contribs), however, if you look at them again, it appears the user was adding relevant further reading sources and was legitimately trying to improve the articles. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Roebling Legacy

Hi. I just wanted to follow up on this. I noticed your removal of this from many places. A number of these I agree with, since if the Roeblings had nothing to do with a structure, the reference has no place there. However, for structures they worked on directly, I figure it belongs. I've put it back, properly formatted, into Brooklyn Bridge, Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, and added it to the appropriate Niagara Suspension Bridge. Are you okay with this? - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think this guy's self published book belongs on Wikipedia. Google the publisher, 'Princeton Landmark Publications', despite the fancy sounding name it really is just Zink publishing the thing himself. Given the wide and rather indiscriminate spamming the book and website were getting this morning I would ask you to revert it again, but I am not going to edit war with you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I hadn't realized the book was self-published. I suppose the question becomes, is it any good? I mean, if you look at this book, which was also self-published, a self-published book can contain useful stuff. But I haven't seen this Roebling book. Have you? - Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't. Worldcat says it's only held by 4 libraries, none of which are local to me, and I'm not really interested in shelling out $50 for it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the $50 price, which put it right out of my consideration. <shrug> - Denimadept (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Autin-Grenier

Hello. I did'nt understand the reason why you reverted the editing (another contributor's) specifying publishers in the P. Autin-Grenier page. Did I miss something? With the best.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting the latest sock account of an author who bulk inserts references to himself in Wikipedia, I didn't notice that he'd made useful changes to that article at the same time. I put them back without his spam addition. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Logan1939

Hi Mr. Ollie - I did not know how to use this talk stuff - but took the time to figure it our after I received the accuasation that I was engaging in edit warring - being a pacificist this was not my intention. I sent the following message to the editor at the 100,000 edits level which I copy below. As you can see I bungled but still don't see what the problem is - your constructive comments would be appreciated. Why is a reference to a blog that I do not write illegal and why is a reference to a peer reviewed book that I wrote displaying bias or is a conflict of interest. This is not a pleasant experience and is a bit of a turn off for contributing to Wikipedia which I love.

Logan1939 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)logan1939

I find it difficult to follow what is happening with your messages and I certainly do not wish to engage in edit warfare

the message I received I interpreted as a warning - I enclose it below

I cannot see how I could be introducing bias by adding two references one to a blog I am familiar with and the other a book I wrote which was peer reviewed. I did not remove anyone else's material and I dispute with respect the decision to delete my material which I thought was due to an automatic computer generated signal as in entering the reference to my book I made my name into a hyperlink. Please explain to me how I violated your rules by showing a distorted view - I provided no view - just information - pure fact - a reference -

With respect as I am a greater admirer of Wikipedia and a supporter and even tell my students to make use of it in their assignments for me, I do not mean to engage in disruptive behaviour but I really do not understand my alleged violation - especially the reference to the blog.

Again with respect I feel I am dealing with Wikipedia Big Brother

How do we settle this dispute between the guy who deleted my entry and myself as a McLuhan scholar - I worked with the guy for god's sake and published with him - I think I am a better judge of what belongs in the article than the editor - please advise.

Logan1939 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC) logan1939

Was the above a response to my query - it seemed boilerplated to me Please explain why I cannot refer to a blog that I did not write and why I cannot refer to my own book which has been peer reviewed - how can you exclude the contribution of a former colleague of McLuhan and not trust his judgment when McLuhan did Logan1939 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)logan1939

We generally do not link to blogs, see the external links guidelines. Refering to your own book and editing your own biography is the conflict of interest - it is understandable that you believe in your work and that you want to share it with people. But as a subject matter expert, it would be far more valuable to us if you would care to write content that is sourced to the wide variety of authors and journals that you are no doubt familiar with. - MrOllie (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

deleting thoughtful contributions

MrOllie

Why would you delete my reference additions without considering them individually and without explaining yourself in each case? Each of my contributions has added substantial value to an existing page. I am a serious student of art and I have nothing to gain personally from these contributions save to enrich the dialogue by suggesting thoughtful references. I do not understand your actions at all. Please explain your logic in each case. This would seem common courtesy. UrbanIndianSF (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversal of changes (blog references)

Hello Mr Ollie I noticed you reverted some changes I made to an entry earlier - based, in my understanding, on the fact that links to two blogs (and three blog posts) were made. I have read the policies with respect to links to blogs - those that were added are towards blogs maintained by well known and well established thought leaders in the domain (business rules management), with multiple independent references to them from other sources relative to the same space. I do not know what other qualification is needed, and think the requirements as stated in the guidelines are satisfied. I will try to understand this better, as I really want the information related to this domain in Wikipedia to improve from what it is right now. If you could give me some additional guidance on how to make reference to authoritative blogs, I would appreciate it! Thanks. Casmrvlive (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)casmrvlive

Per sourcing guidlines, we should only use people's blogs as sources when the authors work has been published in independent, reliable publications. I checked google scholar and didn't find any publications, so I think these blogs probably do not pass muster. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the policy, however the author of one of the blogs appears in Google Scholar in a patent as a co-inventor, as well as a reference from a book, and the author of the other blog referred to has both a book and an article reference. Please let me know whether there is a number of publications limit. Thanks - Casmrvlive (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)casmvlive

I am mystified by the interpretation of the guidelines. One of the blog authors referred to is an industry expert with significant market presence and trade publications, in addition to patent references findable through Google Scholar. The other blog author has books published, findable through Google Scholar, as well as references already in the same entry. On the other hand, the entry in question has blatant references to products that do not even refer to the field in question. I understand the beauty of crowd sourcing, and the importance of some discipline, but this has me mystified. Thanks. Casmrvlive (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)casmrvlive

Hi Mr Ollie Link added on aeroponics was on Wikipedia for months before it was first removed. It is a good resource for aeroponics and Wikipedia readers seeking more information on the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlildragon (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of an edit

I have been notified that you have removed a recent addition I made to Wiki, on the basis that it was an "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material". I wish to inform you that this term (Freckle) has been used in the Office of the Chief Information Officer in South Australia prior to November last year, when it was first added to Wikipedia. This Office is a leading agency within Australia in the adoption of ICT, and the encouragement of the use of social media. I draw your attention to recent awards bestowed upon us for developments such as the Open Technology Foundation. Further research will also show you that this Office has also been instrumental in other similar fields, including Yammer (a blog site for Govt employees), and SAGE (an internet site providing extensive information about Govt matters). I appreciate that you may not be familiar with those of us "down under" but I can assure you that we are at the forefront of technology.

I made the addition again, in the belief that Wikipedia is intended to reflect (inter alia) emerging colloquialisms, especially those arising from the use of social media. If I am wrong, and this is not what Wikipedia is about, then please advise me accordingly. If, however, I am correct, please either re-instate my entry, or advise what sourcing or citation you would like to see, in order to be convinced that the entry has merit. thank you Digitalags (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Digitalags

Anything independently published with a reputation for fact checking. See WP:RS - MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

To clarify, were both references to my IRC index reverted simply because I added them, regardless of how much use they would be to others? T4nkirc (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversal of changes (links to wind power consulting company)

Hi Mr Ollie,

I am brand new to editing the wiki. I noticed our company, DNV, was not listed in the wind consultants categories so I added the link to our wiki article. Please help me understand why it was removed and how to get our company listed here. Thank you. DNV Wind Energy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Again COI

Dear MrOllie, I undid your revert in real-time MRI and temporomandibular joint. The references I add are factual materials referring exactly to the concerned subject. They are not biased point of view. Readers of Wikipedia have the right to be informed of the neutral source and reference of the presented subject!! This is also part of the original intentions of Wikipedia.

And once again, COI of the author alone is not a good reason to revert something!

Zhangshuo517 (talk) 21 September 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

I disagree. Please stop inserting yourself into Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

deleting external links

Hi Mr Ollie, Please can you explain if this external link is OK or not after you deleted all the external links on the value proposition page. I've read the external links guidelines as you suggested and think the link I reinstated is OK but am worried about touching anything now. You removed all the links and I think most were links to people/companies blogs, so that's fair enough. The one I reinstated, and previously changed the link to as the link was broken, was to a page showing the visual diagram of the value proposition builder. Since this is referenced in the article, I thought it was OK to link to to show the diagram. If OK, I'll undo your deletion. Please let me know. thanks Siztrust 18 September 2011

I have put a link in to the model but as a reference rather than under external links, as it is a direct reference to the model and shows it in diagram form. I could lift the diagram (with permission of course) and put that into the article instead? Anyway I'm sure you'll let me know what's correct. Siztrust 21 September 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

Looks like someone else removed it as redundant. Given that it seems to be a self published site put up by a company that's trying to sell something, it would be better to leave it out entirely. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for feedback, Siztrust 22 September 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Your reversion of my link appears inappropriate

Hi, I've had the link to my site removed on several occasions, and believe that this removal is inappropriate. According to your reference:

"Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product"

The page for my link is none of these - it is a free site with information for the lay public on relevant medical topics. Its information has been repeatedly used and appreciated its users. The article to which my link leads concerns the proper use of the stethoscope, and is a concise and well-written collection of information integrated from several reliable sources. It concerns a topic that I not only have some professional knowledge of and practice on a daily basis, but one on which I consult regularly with other medical experts (MDs and PAs).

Most importantly, it concerns the practical application of medical topics referred to (but not fully explained) on this Wiki - and wikis, as you know are often full of bombastic technical jargon with which the typical reader is not only not helped, but often confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkubin (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point number 1 tells us that if content would be present in a fully fleshed out Wikipedia article and you seem to agree that it would be helpful if the wiki article explained it, the information should not be included as an external link. Since your information is integrated from several reliable sources, it would be helpful if you would grow the encyclopedia by writing here and citing those sources, rather than inserting a link to an external website. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Zealous deleting of links (Domestic Violence)

I added a link with high quality discussion to external links because the existing external links were so poor in quality (my opinion) and seemed narrowly focused on one axe to grind. How did they get on there but my link is picked off quickly. Is the actual content looked at, or is it reflexive. You have tremendous power, are you conversant with the subject area? I realize some type of fence must go up on a controversial topic but it seems that the fence has gone up after a great deal of junk was already on there. I am a thoughtful person trying to add to the discussion, not a spammer. There are no commercial aspects/ads/ or anything on the link

Michael Samsel LMHC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.186.106 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You should look over the external linking guidelines and the conflict of interest guideline, and please refrain from linking your own sites in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

COI

Hi, I undid your revert in MRI. COI of the author alone is not a good reason to revert something!

Martin.uecker (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Please stop inserting yourself into Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Real-time MRI, MRI". Thank you. --Martin.uecker (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been closed because of lack of discussion elsewhere. But I received some supportive comments from other editors

and one of the links in question has been restored by some other editor. I still believe that I have been acting in compliance

with wikipedia policy. I quote from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:

Citing yourself

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies"

Photographs and media files

"Wikimedia Commons encourages parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files, and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use, and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.uecker (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you have omitted the paragraph after the one you pasted above, which reads 'Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page.'

That means that you upload the file to Wikimedia Commons (which is a separate project from Wikipedia), but you should not include the image in Wikipedia articles yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this recommended as the "best approach", but it does not say that this is not allowed. Especially considering the advice about "editing in an area you have .. academic expertise" above, which seems to imply that I do not even have a conflict of interest. But I will now be more careful and do it this way. Martin.uecker (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that means that when you write about the general topic you work in, you do not have a COI, for example when you cite papers by other experts that you are familiar with but that you did not have a hand in authoring. When you cite yourself, you will have some amount of conflict of interest and restraint should be used. Thanks for your cooperation, we do need more experts here, we just need ones that are willing to move beyond their own personal work to help build the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the paragraph about "citing yourself" should be changed, because it states exactly that citing yourself is allowed (within reason). Also, I wonder where the conflict of interest is exactly: As a scientist, my motivation to publish my work seems to be fully compatible with the goals of wikipedia. Of course, one might be biased towards your own work and I agree that this is some conflict of interest, but this is a conflict of interest which every other wikipedia editor also has: He might be biased towards his own contributions. Martin.uecker (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

it's spam?

Hi MrOllie, I do not think that improve an article with external links to related solutions is wrong. I can also understand that you do not like my link or you don't know this software, but why you removed all links existing? Who reads this article wants solutions on how to solve the problem, removing these links you do not give them suggestions. The link I reported is not a commercial product but open source, licensed under AGPL. Yes, is spam when you try to sell something, but no when you inform the community that exist free and open solution to solve the problems (in this case, the implementation of data validation). I hope I explained my point of view correctly and sorry for my bad English.AltiMario (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We generally do not link to solution providers (see WP:EL). We do not really draw a distinction between open source projects and commercial ones. It doesn't matter to our policies whether you are trying to sell something, only that you are promoting something - even if that something is free. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your explanation but you deleted only my link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_file_database (in "Practical implementations" section). Only my link is spam or promotion? Following the same line of logic you should be delete all other links, not just mine. I'm wrong?AltiMario (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DRN thread and Martin.uecker

Hi MrOllie, this is to let you know that there was a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard in which you were named as an involved party. The discussion has since been closed because there wasn't any discussion on the talk pages of the articles concerned, but I thought I should leave you a message anyway. When I was investigating the case, I saw this edit where you said that Martin.uecker was a single purpose account, despite them only having made 11 edits when I last checked. It seems natural to me for a new user to edit in areas in which they are interested - was there a specific reason that you thought they were an SPI? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius <sup>♫</sup> 14:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because of his 3 main space contributions, two of them add a redundant reference to a paper by M Uecker. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see how you could think it was a case of self-citing, but the content in question was MRI videos and images, not a paper that they were involved in writing, which I think is a different animal. (I do see that the videos/images were also published in a journal paper that he was involved in, though, which could have lead to the confusion.) In any case, reverting it without leaving them a message was probably a little WP:BITE-y. I have a feeling that they might leave a message on Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging, so we can await further developments there. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius <sup>♫</sup> 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Drury page

Question: Line 26 - you deleted every one of the references to work stating something to the effect of being poorly referenced. Instead of deleting everything, why didn't you go through and validate references rather than delete them all? Atsme (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Because much of it was unsourced, it was badly formatted, and an awful lot of it was trivia that shouldn't have been there at all, sourced or not. - MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I see a few listings that may possibly fit as unsourced, but not all of it. I also think the years he toured with great performers like the Eagles is important to list in Wikipedia, and far from trivia. The fact his photography was exhibited in Carmel is very relevant, and not trivial information for Wikipedia. It's an Encyclopedia - it should provide as much information about the subject as is possible. Mr. Drury is also a composer, and has composed music scores for motion picture, commercials, and international nature documentaries, the latter of which was referenced and sourced. I don't understand why you suddenly decided to delete all of it, especially such important information. I could even understand why you would try to delete my references to his writing music scores for the documentaries I produced, and if it makes it more acceptable, someone else can reference it, but I've already been through all this with Admins & editors on another dispute, and the general consensus was that it would be ok for me to add reference material, but not external links. I look forward to your reply. Atsme (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

First, lists of one off compositions in commercials and such are trivia. That's the domain of directory sites such as imdb or allmusic, not encyclopedia articles. Second, I'm not sure what discussions you had with other users, but I think it likely that you developed a misunderstanding somewhere. If it was not appropriate for you to add links to your site as external links it is rather unlikely that it will be OK for you to add those links as references. - MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the pages of other artists, like Don Henley for example. The Timothy Drury article is incomplete, and barely even covers his accomplishments. Review Don Henley's site which is much more complete. It includes an entire Trivia section so for you to say a list of Timothy Drury's major accomplishments are trivial is inconsistent with Wiki policy. Henley[[2]] Atsme (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

It's really not surprising that a Grammy winning artist would have a larger article than a session musician. - MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There are Grammy winning artists who have fewer other accomplishments than what Mr. Drury has accomplished, so if that's your reason for deleting information, I find it unacceptable. I will take the necessary steps. Thank you for your replies.Atsme (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Come up with some reliable sources, and leave out the mail order DVDs and commercials, and I'm sure your 'necessary steps' will turn out fine. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Corel a Subsidiary of Electronic Arts?

Hi MrOllie,

Some annonymous user changed Corel page, stating it is a subsidiary of Electronic Arts.

I found no clue to that relationship on the web.

Thanks,

SergioMacGyver (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Invention Page - need for additional citations

Hi, I see you are reviewing the Invention page. At this top of this page is a message stating that someone feels the Invention page needs more citations. I don't know who wrote this message. Rather than this general message, it would be much more useful to know specifically what parts of this Invention page the person feels are not cited or not properly cited. Without this more specific information, it seems like the problem or the perception of a problem will never be resolved. Can you offer any help? Thanks!BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to look in the history for the person who added the tag, I have no idea. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Digital signage - resolve contention

Wikipedia asks for experts to contribute information of interest to the larger public, which is what I attempted.

Facts, Sharp introduced the first 3D screen, no glasses required, Toshina introduced the first large 55" 3D screen this year, which goes on sale in December. ViewPoint 3D is the first 3D digital signage system, produced by Sentel Advance Systems, a UK company. Currently this is the only 3D DS system, with 3D content creations, playback and management.

Isn´t that of general interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, your attempts to promote your own software are not of general interest. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is our own software, but does that in itself mean it is not of general interest? Are you affiliated to a competitor? If we are the only company supplying a dedicated 3D Digital Signage software, people will want to know about it because 3D is clearly more attention-grabbing than 2D signage. Sharp and Toshiba both have references to their new 3D displays, why can´t we have a reference to our 3D signage system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

When you get the kind of coverage that Sharp and Toshiba get in independent sources, then Wikipedia will probably mention your software. But likely not until then. - MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancient ports on Red Sea

Hello, I do not understand why you removed my contribution adding a list of ancient Red Sea ports. This is useful info to my mind. Pls explain. Artreve. —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

We generally do not use people's self published websites as references, see the guideline on sourcing. You should also read the guidelines on external links and conflict of interest, and please refrain from adding links to your own websites in the future. Thanks for your cooperation. - MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Entry on software factory

Hi Mr Ollie,

New at this so I wonder if you could give me some guidance? Understood that we have to be careful to be be neutral, but my entry seemed to me a statement of verifiable fact. If you can suggest what we should do to make the content acceptable, please let me know.

Also, the external links were to 1. US Patent Office, and 2 a paper in the public domain. Can you tell me why these were not acceptable.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebdewhurst (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE, just because things are true does not mean that they belong on Wikipedia - the main purpose of mentioning EASA and/or the patent seems to be to promote EASA. Please recognize that you have a conflict of interest here and realize that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company, nor should you be linking to promotional whitepapers you have written even if they are in the public domain. Since you are new to the Wikipedia project, I would suggest that you find something unrelated to your company to edit to learn the ropes here. Editing with a conflict of interest is very tricky. Thanks for your cooperation. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam or Not

A couple of genuine references I had added with some correct changes in the existing articles were deleted. It's always editors' choice and I do not wish to argue about it, even though I know that what I added was correct.

On the other hand if editors permit me, I can give a lot of examples of the real spam by means of not only the reference links but also external links on Wikipedia. In most of the cases it will be by big and commercial websites.

I am not sure how the editing works and what are the policies.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by HimanshuJains (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You've added links to your own website to every article you have edited. We consider that spamming. Please read over the guidelines on conflict of interest, external linking, and sourcing. Please take notice that self published sites such as yours are not considered appropriate sources on Wikipedia. If you find spam by all means remove it, but do not take the existence of promotional links as an invitation to add more links to your own sites. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Not every link to our website, some link(s) were added to other website(s) also.

2) There may be a good informative website and if the owner refers to that, do we just filter it out because the owner referred to it without considering that the reference is good enough? In that case all Wikipedia links should not be there. 3) Spam is something which comes in bulk and without adding value. At least that is my understanding. Wikipedia is a great cause and I do not take it just as a website or a great website but as a great cause and I understand the difficulties in keeping out the spam but still some more refining of the process may be good. HimanshuJains (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HimanshuJains (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of online backup services

You deleted my addition to the knowledge base for reasons unknown to me. Mac Life would say that they are indeed notable as they were awarded Best Mac Software and Best of Show at MacWorld 2011. Please explain to me why you deleted my contribution to the greater good. Source: http://www.maclife.com/article/features/macworld_expo_2011_maclife_awards 98.64.4.28 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)bmxholmes

I have yet to hear back from you within a reasonable time while you have addressed numerous other concerns. I would appreciate an expedited response as I feel that two way communication within this community is the best way to improve it and you are not participating. Bmxholmes (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)bmxholmes

Business Intelligence

Hi, can you please explain "rm non ref refs" in the following edit you made? Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=452761004&oldid=452759229 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batra (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

They were references that only verified the existence of a book and did not actually provide a citation for any encyclopedic information in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your response. My intention was to add some real world examples of BI usage and cite the source as evidence of these real world examples. Would it be more appropriate if I provided more details around the use cases I mentioned and then cite the reference instead of mentioning the book I got the use cases from and then citing the book as a reference again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batra (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Hello MrOllie,

I wanted to just drop you a line and apologize for editing your page. I'm new to Wikipedia, and just figuring this thing out. When I spotted the history tab, and realized you had deleted my external link to my company website already once, I immediately reverted my edit (which, I was sure I had done before, so why was it not there, I wondered... until spotting the history tab), which you will see. I decided to investigate further and found THIS page, and thus, am writing this note.

So, my apologies. My intent was not to spam, and I wanted to let you know.

All the Best, Dee Sicklesteel (I'd put my company name, but I'm sure it will be deleted anyways. Suffice it to say, I work for a board portal provider) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsicklesteel (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're deleting information

Take time and check the article carefully. What you're doing is deleting information. The official Homepage of GelSheet is not a spam-link. GratisPC (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

When you keep reinserting it, Wikipedia guidelines consider that to be spam. I am deleting information deliberately - our policies require that information have independent sources. The list entries you are attempting to include do not. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct. Take a look in the history and check EXACTLY my changes. Than you will see that you're wrong.GratisPC (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted References

Dear Mr Ollie, I notice you have deleted all links to our ekobai.com and some other sites related to sustainability standards. I was not fully aware of the bounds of what you consider spamming; but understand links to particular articles may not be appropriate. Certain links to our site are VERY relevant to the topics we commented on as ours is the only site on the web which lists the extent of companies certified to Fairtrade for example. I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the links installed prior to today (Oct 2011) and I will instruct our content editor to refrain from news links and we will simply refer the link to the home page of the relevant organisation being discussed rather than our summary article. Regards Dylan Tanner, CEO Ekobai.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtanner ekobai (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your self published B2B directory does not appear to meet our requirements for sourcing, In addition, I notice that every single one of those links was added by your account, I would highly recommend that you look over our guidelines on conflict of interest and link promotion. I'm sorry, but I will not be reinstating any of those links, and I would highly recommend that you not do so either, and that you refrain from linking your site in the future. Thanks for your cooperation. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Harsh Environment Computer

Hello MrOllie,

As a new user to Wikipedia, I have been working hard to follow the guidance of the experienced users such as yourself to get a new page up on Harsh Environment Computers (generally a fixed device) as these are a very different class of computer to a Rugged Computer (generally portable device).

Below are a number of links showing the difference:

(list of links removed)

You have reverted my edits. I have discussed this with one of the bureaucrats who kindly helped me with getting my user name changed, which I believed to be the problem. He has suggested that I may need to get some more links etc. I thought I was doing the correct thing last time by putting in links however was accused of being a spammer.

Would you be kind enough to help me understand what you are looking for and guide me please.

Kind regards ActPerspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActPerspective (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are all vendor links. We need specific kinds of sources, in particular we need sources that are written and published by independent persons - people with nothing to sell and/or no financial interest. The problem(s) with your article are more about the impression of promotion of the products of STX electronics than about your former username. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comments MrOllie. This is very helpful. I will track down those independent links. Is there a method that I work with you and get feedback to make sure the content is suitable?--ActPerspective 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActPerspective (talk • contribs)

I have updated the page with extra links as you have requested. I would also like to point out the the industry drives all of these devices. There are many commercial links I can add to demonstrate the clear difference between an HEC and the Rugged devices. The most obvious is the pictures contained in the 2 different articles. One is portable and one is not. You have asked me not to add these commercial links so I haven't but can do to strengthen this article further. I believe this will happen over time as others contribute to build this article. I would also ask that instead of deleting this article again, that you help and guide be to get it to a point that you are satisfied. --ActPerspective 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActPerspective (talk • contribs)

I've removed it again. What you added were all reviews of specific products, with one exception, which was a repost of a press release. You also left in the inappropriate mentions of STX products. What we need is an independent source that directly addresses this topic as the topic on it's own - not an article about some specific product. At this point I would strongly suggest that you spend some time editing topics that are unrelated to this industry so that you can 'learn the ropes' and get a sense of what the sourcing and notability guidelines really mean. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So why is the Panasonic Touch (clearly banded in the description) book pictured in Rugged Computer all the all of the links to external commercial companies (and they are All commercial) that make up that article? All of the different links that where list show that there is indeed a harsh environment computer and through the picture that was on Wiki clearly showed a distinct difference between one that is a portable device and one that is very different. What is you objection to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActPerspective (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OpenSearchServer

Mr Olie You put a warning with a deletion on the article Open Search Server I just took at updating the article and add some references and then I deleted your warnings. Please let me know that is filling your expectations. If not I will work the text again.Raphael Perez (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding sources, they're still a little thin, but definitely enough to prove notability. I agree that deletion is no longer appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion

Hi,

Why did you have remove my contribution on Comparison_of_web_server_software ?

JL1978 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)JL1978

You removed a well-cited valid statement without explanation.

You took out the following sentence from the Scientific Views section on Happiness.

In the 3rd Edition of the Handbook of Emotions (2008), Michael Lewis says "happiness can be elicited by seeing a significant other".

I have no idea why you removed this sentence. The Handbook of Emotions is considered the standard reference in its field.

I don't have the time to go back and forth with re-corrections, and you are discouraging me from contributing to Wikipedia.

Everyone Else (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Predictive Analytics

Hi again, i'm writing in response to your changes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predictive_analytics&action=historysubmit&diff=453107749&oldid=452539093. Your comment implies that you removed references not used in the article but I had added a paragraph about compressing the raw data into a feature vector space which helps in the search for patterns that are not otherwise found when using the raw data. I had provided two references for this content. Please advise. pb (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing one's own work does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest

I edited contributions that are within my area of expertise, and the book I listed, which I wrote, is a peer-reviewed monograph from a respcted university press. Its absence in the article is a gap that should be filled. The proposed COI should first have been posted on the noticeboard.Here is the COI guidelines which I have followed:

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others, as in a review article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoadria (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As you said, 'Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.'. All of your edits are to add your book to further reading sections, with a bookstore link, which is not, allowed. We welcome expert contributions here. As an expert, I'm sure you are familiar with a variety of sources. I strongly suggest that it would be more helpful if you contribute some text with a citation to someone other than yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: September 2011 Comment on my talk page

Hi, since receiving your notification I've been going over my activities on Wikipedia. I've also been asking round about how my contributions could have warranted such a complete stripping from someone in your position. I understand now why you saw the links and comments I added (and which you cited) as advertising or not constructive. But as a person who uses Wiki both as a reference and as an editor, I see myself is kind of helping people understand the information they are finding here.

I completely understand how you found the 5 cited links to be "spammy"...however, as I was looking, it seems every contribution I've made going past two years has been reversed or deleted. It's very disheartening to find that, and am coming here for some more clarification on each of the reversals your deletion bot program did.

I have three questions because of this:

• Question 1:

(a)Am I banned from editing on Wikipedia or (b)do I ask you before making any edits again?

• Question 2:

Is every edit I make from now on suspect if it contains a link? As an example, An article I'm really proud of researching and writing and even got it posted is gait trainer. Although those reference links and external links were not noted in your citation list, they were still all erased.

• Question 3:

Is this removal bot program attached to me personally? Does it use a review criteria? If it is general program, on who else has it been used?

Working on those related pages was a real labor of love for me, as were all my contributions regarding adoption and adoptee-rights. Is everything I do an ad in Wikipedia's eyes now? Whereas I had thought I was a part of a community, I'm receiving mixed signals even in correction of my wrongs.

Please understand I want to proceed in the right way; but when I submitted original content pages which were reviewed and accepted by editors in that section of Wikipedia, and have been a regular contributor for a long time here, I had thought I was contributing in the project in the correct way too. I wanted to just communicate to you that my perception after considering the full situation is that you have enacted a blanket ban on my contributions, both from the past and in the future. I'd just really like it if you can shed more light on this, and reconsider. FauxClaud (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No bot program was used. If you refrain from linking your own sites, sites of your clients, and/or mentioning your clients or products your clients sell, you shouldn't have any more problems. - MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My questions were separated and numbered because I needed you to shed more light. It is unclear from your answer what I can do to convince you anything I contribute in the future is not an ad, going by your response. It is against the policy of Wikipedia to bar the entire marketing industry population for pursuing any interests whatsoever as an editor in Wikipedia. And also impossible to arbitrarily judge the interests of an individual as commercial and insincere. Your list of "don't mentions" communicate that I should simply not contribute on Wikipedia, since I won't edit what I don't find interesting, and any average person's interests will overlap by some degree with their profession. Honestly, how could I switch my editing contributions to something like war history (just to convince you I'm not inserting advertising because my day job happens to be marketing) when I have no interest in that subject??

• your own sites
• sites of your clients
• mentioning clients
• mentioning products clients sell

Knowing I legally cannot publish a constantly refreshed list of those clients who are served by my employer, how can you then judge whether my contributions fall within this broad and ambiguous scope? Before I worked in marketing, I edited Wikipedia. Why then are my interests now all tagged in your view as "clients?" Please please address the remaining two questions I put forth above. My thoughtful consideration of your input can only happen if you offer it in detail. FauxClaud (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, this will be easy. Just don't, for example, try to sell insurance, or link specific stores in general article topics, or repetitively add reference after reference to the same law firm's self published site or some used car dealer's blog Instead, try referencing your contributions to independently published news sources, such as The New York Times, or perhaps academic journals or books published by reputable publishers such as Simon & Schuster. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you so very much for your help! I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FauxClaud (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dentures & Dental Implants

Hi, could you explain the reason behind deleting the citations I left - the dentures problems sections requests a citation and the dental implant healing time link tells of a pioneering new technique being used to decrease healing time - the latter links to the translation of an article published in the Spanish publication Tiempo so quite noteworthy I'd have thought

Dave ashworth (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements for medical claims, which you can read at WP:MEDRS. Tiempo does not meet them, nor does the denture clinic website the translation was hosted on. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

YouMinds Composer

What's wrong with the new Software entry: YouMinds Composer? Could you please specify what I have missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemaxo (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OpenSearchServer

Mr Olie, you added a message in the OpenSearchServer page as I commented it myself. I would like to know for how long this comment will remain on the page ? Of course I am open to modify any wording or cotent of the page if needed. Regards Raphael Perez (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-paracy article

Hello!

You deleted information which I placed to the article "Anti-paracy". We discussed Hadopi law and special resources organizations which fight against piracy (especially in music industry) on the seminars with the experts from music industry. This infornmation is very usefull. Why did you delete it?

Thank you for the answer.

Elena Rynkova — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.30.20 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

why do you want delete all about trytek?

This list contains other indie developers. Trytek is one of them. Sorry i don't see the problem at all. Bassjobsen (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability for guidance on which topics get articles and which do not. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well okay i do understand, i wrote the pages with great caution. I hope someone else can add Trytek to the list of indie developers Bassjobsen (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal

You removed a paragraph I entered on the Science section of the Soul page. Please discuss this at the "discussion" section of that page or reinsert it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill360360 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lightweight web servers

• Just noticed your undo... Alright, I missed the warning: only web servers with a Wikipedia page are allowed. Fair enough. But in this case, why did you remove KLone too? Strange.
• In your opinion, are the others not sufficiently notable or do they simply miss a Wikipedia page? (I can change that.)
• Last but not least, I've added a TODO list in commentary at the bottom of the page. These web servers are fairly notable (eg. QNX Slinger Embedded Web Server) but nobody has taken the time to add them to Wikipedia... Your opinion on this list? (BTW, I noticed that http://labs.oracle.com/features/brazil/ is missing.)

DavidBourguignon (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

IMVU PAGE

How much do they pay you to keep people from posting links to things like dogtagsdc.com exposing the real nature behind IMVU.com? That link is an open letter to the media addressing their system security flaws that have never been addressed by Jenny Rutherford, VP of IMVU Marketing. Users have a right to know they're being victims of online pedophiles, sociopaths, and companies with trademarks and copyrights have a right to know they're victim as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogtags (talk • contribs)

Wow, are you saying I could have been getting paid all this time? Sign me up. - MrOllie (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what part of Wall Street you support. Its definately not the paying user. Dogtags (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogtags (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Computer assisted gaming

Mr Olie, I don't understand why you removed my edits and consider them spam. Even all references I've found to wikipedia articles computer vision, object recognition have been removed. There is no commercial promotion in this. Panzer Combat II is open source and all other examples I could find about the subject have been added as well. Do you have other examples of this kind of games I can put instead, I don't. Please provide some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovandevelde (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies draw no distinction between the 'commercial promotion' and the promotion of open source projects: there should not be promotion going on here, period. Examples are unhelpful in these instances and should not be there at all, since they mainly serve to promote those particular games at the expense of others.- MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In which instances examples are unhelpful? I can find many examples of other games on Wikipedia (most of them commercial) for example on the same page :

The four main programs that can be used to play a number of games each are Aide de Camp, Cyberboard, Vassal and ZunTzu. Aide de Camp is available for purchase, while the other three are offered free. Vassal is in turn an outgrowth of the VASL (Virtual ASL) project, and uses Java, making it accessible to any computer that can run a modern JVM, while the other three are Microsoft Windows programs.

Don't see any difference with these examples, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovandevelde (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That there are other unhelpful examples is a reason to remove those examples, not a reason to add more. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is certainly not a reason to add links to a project you are associated with. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could You please identify the part of WP:EL You consider applicable here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided points 4, 11, 13, and 14 all apply, as do the policies on undue weight, link promotion and conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I studied Your list. Nothing directly applies to Ovandevelde's edits:

1. WP:ELNO #4 - dubious, invalidated by good faith assumption.
2. WP:ELNO #11 - no blogs, personal pages or fan sites.
3. WP:ELNO #13 - absolutely opposite.
4. WP:ELNO #14 - no list were linked.
5. WP:UNDUE not applicable to examples.
6. WP:SPAM doesn't qualify.
7. WP:COI until You know that links are added by the person, related to this content, why do You cite this?

I thing the edits should be restored until discussion happens on the talk page.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and will not be restoring this advertising. Further, WP:ELBURDEN is quite clear: 'Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.' We do not restore links pending discussion, only when a consensus in favor of inclusion has been demonstrated. - MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Uzbl

Please refrain from further vandal edits. Instead removing my ref per WP:SPS as You claimed in edit summary, You removed text by other editor with no possible constructive editor. It's unacceptable practice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read up on what vandalism actually is, and you'd do well to read [[WP:NPA|this as well]. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. And most Your edits constitutes vandalism as described in lede of Wikipedia:Vandalism. A special minor vandalism, when You arbitrary delete some portions of text You don't like and place an irrelevant edit summary with no explanation on talk pages. Don't get me wrong, I don't complain about the removal of my good faith additions of WP:SPS. I just really ask You to pay at least some attention to what You delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nation Brands Index

I would appreciate your reasons for changing the updated information which is all 100% factually correct. Is it because you don't want the Index to have exposure, or is it because of my wikipedia publishing protocol? Kic26 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You can actually find an answer in here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah thank youKic26 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I repeat that all information is factually correct. If you were to go and investigate it yourself you will understand that. There is no promotion benefits or bias by me. Wikipedia is for ALL to be able to put their view across. Therefore I will continue to revert (without external links if this helps), until such a time when someone can come along and prove that they are inaccurate. Please do let this content beKic26 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

'Factually true' is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for putting text onto wikipedia. We cannot have an excessive level of detail about one person's commercial endeavors, especially not when it has a promotional tone. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have completely cut this down and added in references from countries who use the studies. You'll find that this information is now a 1/3 of the length of the old information that was on this page for the last 5 years. I don't believe this information is promotional, I believe it to be necessary to all those who study and work in this sector because the NBI is unique and highly regarded research that validates global perception of nations - without it the sector of Nation Branding would be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kic26 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrOllie for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly am I supposed to be a sockpuppet of? - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I wanted to actually find someone who could help me establish that, as You evidently are WP:SPA. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wildly misinterpreting that essay, which is why your investigation was closed as a fishing expedition. I doubt you'll believe me, so I suggest you find someone you trust to explain to you why it doesn't apply to this situation. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, You've taken my actions as an attempt at warring. It's not. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate Your comment on this essay regardless of my attitude towards Your editing practices. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm serious. Find someone else and ask them. - MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with Mr. Ollie; that is a complete misinterpretation of WP:SPA, and to accuse Mr. Ollie of sockpuppetry is patently ridiculous. OhNoitsJamie <sup>Talk</sup> 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Simon Anholt changes

I am new to editing Wikipedia pages. I heard Mr Anholt's presentation to the European Parliament and have gathered a great deal of updated material to be able to upload this page, which I and colleagues view as totally appropriate. In fact if you look at each independent source you'll find it to be real and correct with impartial views. I will revert to my changes, but remove the external links in the copy - if there is other advice you can give please do. For your information the old copy seems totally out of date - Mr Anholt is an advisor to over 40 governments at presidential level, not a 'British government advisor'.Kic26 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you to take special care to not add content which is promotional in tone. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All information is factually correct. If the tone needs changing please have a go, though the facts should not be changed at all. Would it be possible for you to not simply delete the well thought through work, but to constructively adapt it. If you look at other examples such as Sir Ken Robinson, you'll find the tones are very similar. Please give examples of what you would change and how you would change it, specific to this Anholt postKic26 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged several claims as needing citations, that would be a good start. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look again, I see that you removed all of the citations that were in the article. Why did you do that? - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I did what you suggested and added in lots of citations. I didn't remove anything - unless you are referring to removing the two notes you put in "citation needed", which I replaced with the citations. Is this not right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kic26 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You removed all the old citations on October 17, here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. I'll look through and add some of them back in - it will make the information quite long, but I'll give it a goKic26 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kic26 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of link

Not sure why you served a uw-spam1 notice on User talk:213.162.68.64. I've restored the external link they added to Martin Hansson, but left the template category on their page - you might want to reconsider it. Since that time the IP address has themslves removed links from pages without any clear rationale... Best, Dsp13 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a video streaming site that specializes in documentaries. IPs in that range added links to it to 20 or 30 pages. Sometimes you see link promoters remove other sites like that after they get warned. I'm never sure if they're taking the external linking policy to heart, or if it's Sour grapes. - MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external link to Summa Logicae

On what grounds did you remove the link to the Logic Museum? It is a bona fide site. Quisquiliae (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Meg Pokrass

I hope this is the accurate way to communicate. It is hard for laymen to Wikipedia even with the intricate directions to understand the drill here. Please let me know the status on the Meg Pokrass page. This is of interest to people at the National Book Critics Panel. There is a bit of surprise about this, description of the current indie top online and print literary journals as low subscriber mags/blogs is curious. Sure they are. Has it ever been otherwise? These journals are brought into universities and taught to MFA programs. Look into these journals please. BLIP magazine recently published mary gaitskill, Ann Beatie, and TC Boyle. in the modern independent literary community, the journals that Meg Pokrass has been published in are considered top tier to teachers in the field. Names of teachers at the Universities can verify, they need to be asked. Is high subscribership a qualifier of importance? That means that writer for Reader's Digest are important? Low subscribership, for literary journals, such as Ploughshares and the Paris Review are standard. It has always been so in the world of literature. Lit mags are not popular and do not sell ads.

Re: nominations as qualfifiers, Meg Pokrass has over 3 Pushcart prize nominations, and 4 Best of the Web Nominations. Pushcart can be verified by the president of the National Book Critics Circle Awards upon request. sincerly, Ben-Toby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What we need are references that provide some biographical information that were written and published independently of Pokrass and her coworkers. Where she has been published (She wrote these pieces, thus they are not independent) and awards she has been nominated for are only relevant if they have generated some press coverage that we can use to source the article - in this case it seems that such coverage does not exist, so this article topic does not meet the requirements spelled out in the notability guidelines or the author specific guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the biographical information for Pokrass was written by co-workers to the best awareness of independant literary professors and other authorities in the field (National Book Critics Circle). It would be impossible if you look at the range and depth and variety of what has been written about this writer. Can you, sir, prove to us that Pokrass has hundreds of co-workers that are doing these writings about her? Not understanding why this could be assumed, or further... proven. This is the crux of the matter, her published stories and poetry, teaching for Dzanc Books... Dzanc is a large and growing imprint Independent Publisher run by Dan Wickett, President of Dzanc Books, Ann Arbor Michigan. Her stories are being taught in many established university writing programs including Prof. Brad Watson at the University of Wyoming, and others. Pokrass covers so many areas in the writings and publishings of her work, that to state all of these editors are "co-workers" is illogical, unprovable.

Again, e-mail addresses of these editors and publishers to ascertain a non-co-worker status in writing are available. Here you go: http://www.newpages.com/bookreviews/archive/2011-10/#Damn-Sure-Right-by-Meg-Pokrass- interview at New Pages by book reviewer independent.

Here are more: From Fiction Writer's Review by Lee Thomas (independent) http://fictionwritersreview.com/interviews/burst-of-inspiration-a-flash-interview-with-meg-pokrass

Pokrass received digital writer spotlight at Media Bistro/Galleycat (independent)here: http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/meg-pokrass-digital-writer-spotlight_b1387 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pushcart Nominations typically are not in the press, but names and e-mails of editors who nominated Pokrass are available upon request.

Pokrass is a panelist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned coworkers because you appeared to be trying to use blip magazine as a reference. I can't 'look at the range and depth and variety of what has been written about this writer.' because you have referenced exactly none of that on her article, as is required. As for what you've linked here: it looks like you've got three blogs. Blogs do not help to establish notability. We don't accept emails for verification either, we need published material. Have you got anything with an editorial board, preferably that was printed on actual paper? Not everyone gets into the New York times, of course, but something like that would be ideal. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, since you have access to what seems to be a great deal of unpublished information about this writer, I would like to remind you to read and carefully consider the guidelines Wikipedia has on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Other references include Jane Ciabattari, National Book Critics Circle President. Ms. Pokrass serves as a panelist in the San Francisco Bay Area for the National Book Critics Panel Discussions, Dorianne Laux, poet and professor of writing, David Abrams, Book Reviewer NBCA, Bob Hicok, Professor of Writing at Virgina Tech.

Apologies for knowing so much about this writer, I am a most ardent reader and teacher of her work, and I am among many. I am also connected to university of wyoming and other universities (references by request) where Pokrass short stories are being actively studied as contemporary short-short classics. The publishing world, as we are all too aware, is changing. Like it or not, most literary journals, including Paris Review and Ploughshares, or moving into the online world, the internet era. Though Ms. Pokrass has had many print publications to her name which was your questions. Those that I know of they are as follows:

Print Magazines which have published recent work for Pokrass are to my knowledge the following: Gargoyle, Gigantic Literary Magazine, Pank, Big Muddy, and from recent information offered to me by Prof. Brad Watson at the University of Wyoming, soon to be appearing in Yalobusha Review (University press from Univ. of Mississippi) and McSweeney's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC) ,

You do understand that when I (or anyone else on Wikipedia) types 'reference' we mean a citation to a book or article, right? I'm asking for references and all you're coming back with are people's names. That's not usable on Wikipedia. I will also repeat that I'm not interested in a list of who has published her, I am interested in independent sources that may be used as article citations. - MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

some here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-12/books/29645952_1_book-passage-tamal-vista-blvd-corte-madera http://bookcritics.org/calendar/events/the_next_decade_in_book_culture_san_francisco http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10146232-damn-sure-right— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs)

You're getting closer, but sfgate is what we call a 'trivial mention' - she needs to be the subject of the piece, a mere mention of her name is not sufficient. You just got done telling me about how she's a panelist for the National Book Critics Circle, so obviously bookcritics.org is not independent. Goodreads is an indiscriminate listing of books that relies on user submitted content - does not meet the sourcing requirements. If these are the best sources available, I suggest you use your energies elsewhere. - MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: a few of us here are wondering/curious Mr. Ollie, if the National Book Critics Circle Award blog, Critical Mass, is not considered a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoby (talk • contribs)

Certainly not an independent one. - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pump and Dump

I don't see how linking to a site that shows current pump and dump scams/promotions going on in the market place can be considered spam. This is a highly relevant link, and if you look it is updated on a daily basis with information about current and past pump and dumps to protect investors from microcap fraud. I would think this would be a more beneficial link to readers than a link to IMDB Boiler Room page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abarlam (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO points 2, 4, 5, and 11 for starters. This is also a site that has been actively spammed by IP editors in the past. Please do not add this link again. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RAE Internet Inc.

MrOllie

All of our competitors and partners have articles in wikipedia. If they are noteworthy, why are we not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsterne (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they have multiple citations written by independent sources and your company does not. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, I need some help here. There are many sites that link to RAE Internet's site. If I add these links will the article qualify. Some other editor is now claiming that the article violates a copyright.

As an open content site, I am the maintainer of GroundReport.com as well as a reference point, I must say wikipedia is very hard to access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsterne (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sites that link to your website will not help. We need independent sources that meet our guidelines. Newspapers, for example. - MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Meg Pokrass, Wikipedia Guidelines Problems.

The above flash fiction writer emailed me earlier this evening that regardless of the information and efforts of several submitters, her Wikipedia page never seems to meet with your guidelines. I respectfully request that you provide a posting by a flash fiction writer whose qualifications meet with your specifications. If you can do this, I'm confident that she will be able to comply with you requirements. I am mindful of the toll gate review needed to filter out invalid submissions and respect your responsibility to perform this important function. Perhaps you are not familiar with the flash fiction genre of literature, but I assure you Ms Pokrass may be the most well-known writer in that field. And, a query to any of people, editors and other flash fiction writers know of and respect her work her work. She directed me to her page in question and it appears well-documented to me. Pardon my asking, but do you know of the flash fiction literary genre? littlebrooke (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lydia Davis is probably a good example. MacArthur Fellow, Academy of Arts and Sciences, pieces in the New York Review of Books and the SF Chronicle, etc. I have discussed with Bentoby in the above section how her article is not 'well-documented' at all. If Pokrass is the most well-known writer in the field, it should be a simple matter to provide the required sources. Why has that not happened, then? - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

List of academic databases and search engines

I would like to understand why you removed an entry for the chemistry database Reaxys. It is a legitimate database.

Thanks for clarifying Fabienne (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mortgage Brokers vs Mortgage Specialists

Can you please clarify why you removed the note explaining the differences between mortgage brokers and mortgage specialists in Canada as POV? You can see that the distinction written is backed up by banks: http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/mortgages/frequently_asked_questions.html CasaGURU (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)casaGURU

Warlords (game series)

As You failed at reading the edit summary, I'll explain here why I revert Your move.

You didn't explain why You think this section isn't relevant. At the same time, the relevance of this section clearly follows from the text. Furthermore, the insufficient (for the separate article) notability of one of the entries in the section doesn't indicate that it shouldn't be included.

If You have any concerns about the section in question, please start a thread at the talk page before making Your at least controversial moves. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I addressed this on the talk page. Additionally, you should know better: if we delete something, that does not mean you take the same nonnotable content and try to install it somewhere else. - MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pezzuto spam

It seems the user behind the Pezzuto spam is back, but this time as I.pezzuto (talk · contribs). There's a discussion about this on ANI here that I mentioned your name as you've seen this before. Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

KLone (web server)

Hi, you proposed KLone (web server) for deletion on the 15th. I deleted it, and the article's creator has since contested and so the article has been restored in accordance with the policy. If you still believe the article should be deleted, you may take it to AfD, but you can't PROD it a second time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

changes made

Updates added and some wikification made . I trust this meets your seeming new criteria, as this page had been posted for sometime now - thanks, John Johnkjr (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)JohnkjrJohnkjr (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It still looks pretty out of step with our usual style. This isn't a 'new criteria'. Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of work to do, and noncomformant articles are not always noticed immediately. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Specificity would be extremely helpful in this situation, as looking at your link proved less than helpful. By specificity, I am referring to the exact objections that you have relative to wiki style deviations. In searching comparable figures on Wiki, there are numerous analogies that can be seen in a topical search. Your further help is much appreciated - thanks. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.58.163 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The most pressing problem is that I don't see any substantial, independently written, reliable sources on the article. Having those is a bare minimum for having a biography at all - without them the article could be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain, I understand. Have you looked at the ( repsected/viable) sources/links and have you even googled this person for verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.58.163 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done both. On the article, the sources do not appear to be independent - she is a professor at USC, so USC's site would not be independent. Nor would the sites of any of the projects she has done or collaborated on. Googling was not much help to me in finding sources since she has a common name. - MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I find myself wondering if we are discussing the same person - Christiane Robbins is not a common name - in fact there are very few in the USA. If I am understanding you correctly, you are looking for more external reviews to substantiate these projects and achievements - is that accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkjr (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC) In fact, in googling this name, I have since found out more .... wow, this is curious, indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkjr (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for biographical sources that were written by people with no personal or professional connection to the article subject. Note that these must be about the person: 'reviews' of her works may build notability for the works but do not build notability for the person. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, your request reveals a bias somewhat as it requires archives to be uploaded and posted to the web. I believe that the sources added speak to notability - which far exceeds those required by others cited and posted on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkjr (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

I'd appreciate your helping me out here as this is verfied and I'm not sure what else needs to be done here. I need to run now but will be back to this later this evening - thanks- Johnkjr (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)John

Warlords 3rd Opinion

I have responded to the request for a 3rd opinion on Warlords_(game_series). The other editor has responded and we are waiting to hear what you think. Mishlai (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

laminate flooring page

Hi,

On the 10th of November, I edited the laminate flooring article (as Sahin Demuynck). You undid the adaptations. Could you tell me what was wrong with the adaptations I made?

Thank you very much,

kind regards Mashaxin (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

self-promoters again

Just a heads-up: I've added a section to User_talk:Janhunt regarding their self-promotion which you've addressed before. (cc-ing Chrislk02 and Orange Mike likewise.)

Regarding your Talk-page prefs: wasn't really expecting or needing a reply, but feel free to delete this and move to my Talk page if you prefer. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

3D Home Architect

Hi there, I have removed your PROD from this article; it is not eligible as it was previously deleted by AFD here. It is also not eligible for WP:CSD#G4 as the new version is substantially different. I would advise you to take it to WP:AFD if you feel it is non-notable. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the AFD, it was a different article about an entirely different piece of software that happened to have the same name. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first was about "computer software for designing a home", this one is a "property designing program." Like I said, try WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

logicmuseum.com

Hi, I mentioned you over at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#logicmuseum.com. If you can remember any additional context of this situation, I would appreciate it. Thanks, John Vandenberg <sup>(chat)</sup> 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nation Branding

Please can you advise why the start of this Field cannot be recorded for the students who consistently try to find out. If you will not allow named references (Simon Anholt has been on this page for over 5 years and no one except you has had a problem because of its truth), please remove Richard Griffiths name also, as well as the reference to two companies (Futurebrand and Bloom Consulting). Please can you also advise how you would go about inserting the following valuable information:Most commentators seem to agree that Nation Branding aims to improve country standing as the image and reputation of a nation can dramatically influence its success in attracting tourism receipts and investment capital; in exports; in attracting a talented and creative workforce and in its cultural and political influence in the world. Although nation branding is still a developing field in which scholars continue their search for a unified theoretical framework, the concept seems to have been pioneered since 1996.Kic26 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I did revert the futurebrand and bloom consulting stuff (it was only added shortly before your post). If you see promotion, please remove it, but the presence of promotional content in an article is not a reason to add more. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments. I do understand your point that the 'program' mentions for both Mr Griffiths and Mr Anholt could appear as promotional as you've pointed out. Other pages do include practitioners, so I'm not sure I wholly agree, but I will amend for now and see what other editors think. In the first para, noting that this field was instigated in 1998 by Mr Anholt (with proof given) and since then that most governments have developed bespoke departments dedicated to Nation Branding, importantly demonstrates the speed at which this field has grown - it is not promotional, so I ask that you leave this first paragraph in. Thank you.Kic26 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles written by Mr Anholt aren't really proof of anything - we need independently written sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of references via google, so I've added in a few - I've kept in the papers written by Anholt to prove they were actually written. I have dropped the sub-topic 'country of origin effect' down because it's only a minor part of the overall context.Kic26 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You've added a couple of wikis (which are not considered reliable here), and an interview, which is not independent of Anholt. Unless you have something that is truly independent and was subject to fact checking and review, I'll be removing it again. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now added citations as requested and considered reliable.There are thousands on google scholar.Kic26 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of link.

Just curious as to the removal of the link I just received notice of. I was just curious as to the definition of advertising and spam for Wikipedia. You cite the following:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.

So this left me curious. The site you removed my link from was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrivener_(software). The author, Keith Blount, of this page is the developer of the software on which the article is based. The links are to its commercial page which he is obviously affiliated with. These links attract customers to their site for a commercial return on their product. As far I can tell, in violation of all your terms and policies.

The next link following that: "Take Control of Scrivener 2, an ebook published in May 2011", authored by Kirk McElhearn is a commercial link directly to the sales page for his book.

I guess I am just not following the logic as these two links and the entire section itself was designed as an advertisement. The link I had was simply a link to allow those who wanted to use this software to do so at a discount. One I might add is offered by the author of this section (Keith Blount of Literature and Latte). I share my love in this software because I truly believe in the product. You will find no advertising on my site for any other writing software, the majority of articles being about writing and Scrivener how-to posts. That being said, I understand after reading your references that mine was in violation and won't be re-added. Sorry for the violation.

I am sure I am overlooking the obvious, I am new to Wikipedia, so thank you for taking the time to explain the discrepancies.

S.M. Worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.M. Worth (talk • contribs)

You were correct about the McElhearn ebook, I removed that as well. Scrivener's official page is an exception to the guidelines, please review Wikipedia:External links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Otzarstock

Back in 2009 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND by an IP who says he can add third party sources, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

About page protection

Hi, I think there is a new socketpuppet entry to add for the Nagios page. I added a talk about it at [[3]]. Thanks a lot :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naparuba (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Link promotion

MrOllie I need your help. There seems to be a double standard here. I'm not a "sockpuppet" thanks though. I read and responded to you MrOllie and have not gotten any response on either of my posts. You simply told me to follow the rules I had already been following. and told me to make notes, which I had already done. Why is one product listed as a "compatible replacement" and the other cannot be listed a a "compatible replacement". Can you help me to please understand? To me this should not be the case.

I posted my question and thoughts on the subject in the wrong place. I do need your assistance to figure this all out though — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC123twytom (talk • contribs)

One link is to another Wikipedia article, the other is a link to an advertisement for commercial software on another website. I'm surprised that you don't notice any difference between those two things. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see the difference a bit. I just wonder why shinken gets to advertise on the Nagios page. The author himself stated that he did not use the Nagios code as a guide. He stated it is completely different software. It's even under different licensing than Nagios. It's different coding language, different licensing, and it is unrelated to Nagios other than being reverse compatible. The product I listed is also reverse compatible to Shinken. I figured it was relative.

The other thing I didn't like is that shinken can be listed as a "reverse compatible replacement". Why can't Nagios and Icinga be listed on Naparubas page as the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC123twytom (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For Shinken, it reimplement all Nagios logic (and so it's reverse compatible), when Nagios and Icinga don't have some important Shinken features. That's why they are listed on the Shinken page because the whole spirit is the same in the monitoring, but you can't just replace Shinken by theses ones, so the "reverse compatible" is not true. That's all. Regards. (and thanks MrOllie for your help on this case and rule helps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naparuba (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Naparuba, as the author of Shinken I'm not looking for your opinion as you don't follow wikipedia rule in creating your own page. I'm asking MrOllie who dosn't seem to want to have dialogue with me. I will continue to pursue the correct page content, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC123twytom (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what you think of Shinken or it's author. Please keep personal attacks on that project and it's author off of my talk page. I'm also not terribly motivated to engage in dialogue so long as you are drawing false equivalence between a factual see also link and uncited claims that your product is 'the industry standard in monitoring' or 'most powerful interface' - MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

LinkSpam

I noticed on 8/23 that you removed an external link on the Sobel Filter page as linkspam (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sobel_operator&action=history). I'm guessing this is because the linked site is not from a "notable" source? However, in many other articles like this one, that describe a computational algorithm, external links to code implementations of the algorithm (which this is) have remained for quite a while. This was actually a pretty useful link for anybody trying to deal with the Sobel filter (I noticed it was gone because I was trying to find my way back to it through Wikipedia!) How is notability applied when linking to, say, open-source implementations of algorithms on Sourceforge or elsewhere? Every algorithm I can think of that has a wikipedia page has a (few) external links to implementations from non-notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.218.2 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO, we do not link to blogs. If you see more such links on wikipedia, please remove them. - MrOllie (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Links to the weblog: Image processing is fun!

Dear MrOllie:

I received your message that you removed my link. I think it is a great resource as it explains the Sobel filter nicely, in my opinion. It also has detailed code for the implementation in Matlab, which can easily be translated into any other language. I sincerely suggest that you please consider reinstating the link.

Truly,

Prashant Athavale— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantva (talk • contribs) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Incidentally, I just observed that all the links to my weblog from various image processing wikipages have been removed. I really think that the blog is useful to new people trying to understand the subject. The posts in the blog are mathematically rigorous and accurate to best of my knowledge. If there are any mistakes, typos in my blog I would be more than happy to make changes to them. So, again I would suggest you, please go though the blog and consider putting the links back to the wikipages. -Thanks.

Per WP:ELNO, we do not link to blogs. You especially should not link to your own blog - see the guidelines on conflict of interest and link spamming. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie:

According to the guidelines you posted above:

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

There is a clear exception to the blogs written by a recognized authority. An academic is considered as a recognized authority according to wikipedia guidelines. I suppose, I qualify as one. It is more convenient for me to write on my blog than on wikipedia, as I can have some literary freedom. There is no COI as I am not promoting a product.

Best

Prashant Athavale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantva (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As you quoted above, 'recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.' You do not meet those criteria. Also, COI does not require promoting a product, promoting a blog is just as much a COI. - MrOllie (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I liked it, Prashant. I'm glad I happened to notice it before he deleted it. 38.96.218.2 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Joshua J Davies

Sorry

Hello! I though you became inactive on Wikipedia lately. As now it seems I have a chance, I would like to apologize for my behavior in our previous interactions. I was fairly new to Wikipedia and was wildly mistaken about many thinks; and I'm very sorry if my wrongheaded comments offended you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has a learning curve to overcome. I'm happy you stuck with it and are now doing good work. - MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fire safety

Mrollie, today you deleted a link i had placed in the fire safety page , and i understand that as i have read the guidelines,but you also redirected fire safety director to the fire safety page those are two completely different things as fire safety directors are only located in certain places and carry out fire safety plans. can you please explain why you would do this? i took my time writing that and you just deleted the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestrella (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your article had no sources that meet our requirements, and also was specific to NYC. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Ollie i did not undo your edits this time but i have some questions for you... who are you to wikipedia that you say "meet OUR requirements" and you say the page was specific to NYC (when it is not there are fire safety directors in NYC, Chicago, FLorida, and Los Angelos) but why are you not redirecting and deleting a page that is about a building in NYC (191 THIRD AVE-its a worldwide encyclopedia right?) but instead editing it and taking people's contributions to the article out??? You should do your homework on a certain topic before going around and deleting other people's work. thank you for listening to me and i hope you find time while your going over other peoples hardwork to answer me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestrella (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you. Are you referring to 919 Third Avenue, where your 'work' consists of changing an existing reference to nyail.com to fsdtips.com? - MrOllie (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So i guess your nobody to wikipedia since you couldnt answer that. and Im sorry it was too complicated for someone like you to understand, i was speaking of the fire safey director page you completely deleted when i spoke of work. as for 919 third ave isnt that specific to nyc????..... and if you knew the sites you would know that nyail hasnt changed anything about FSD's since 2000 and alot stuff changed since 9/11 dont you think?!?! anyways hope you have a great day sitting on your computer alone going over other peoples work as if you wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestrella (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

InsideScience Contributions

Dear MrOllie, I am writing on behalf of the InsideScience project at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology but I am not representing any interests. My mission is only to make accesible good science content. I apologize if my link contributions were misunderstood, perhaps you thought I am making publicity because I mencioned the project and the KIT on the contribution? Well, mencioning the KIT or the InsideScience project isn't absolutely necessary. Not at all! It is the content what is important. All our films are evaluated by independent public at film events (I can send you the results), scientific magazines like Spektrum der Wissenschaft (partner of Nature) and german scientific tv sites like hyperraum.tv are working with our content, there are also bloggers like Anke Schmid on knowciety.de who are speaking about our work. The Wikimedia Commons project via Mr. Daniel Mietchen has also asked for our scientific films and many will be uploaded soon. Please take a look at the film "Do robots go to heaven? A Journey through the future of robots in society" I hope you'll realize that video is a useful enhancement for the wikipedia articles about androids and humanoid robots because of its interdisciplinary perspective.

I propose to publish the link without mentioning the authors. Just so:

• Do robots go to heaven? A Journey through the future of humanoid robots in society

Thanks in advance, InsideScience (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On article weight and co.

Dear MrOllie, thank you for the explanation. I think things on water use in early hominin evolution are a little more complicated, but I will just accept what you said. Thanks, --Torrubirubi (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems other products are also linked so I thought links were allowed.

Sorry for the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartpacker (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

blog links

Hallo I Just noticed that you marked one of my links as spam. Yes it leads to a blog, but the info there are cited from Academic books and the source of each is written. Strangely there are some services in internet which offer 18,000 wiki links , they are inserted in a spam manner and the articles do not even make sense,,,,and they do well in ranking sites,,,,but I wanted to do something really useful by adding useful links in the right place. Anyhow if you still consider my links spam, please tell me so that I stop adding links to Wiki manually and stop wasting my effort. mayfarouk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayfarouk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As the guideline I linked on your talk page says, we do not link to people's blogs. If you have information to add, please add it and cite it to the 'Academic books' directly, rather than via a blog. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

LOCAL STORE MARKETING PAGE .....

PLEASE SIR CLARIFY MY DOUBTS ON THE LOCAL STORE MARKETING PAGE TELL ME THAT WHY MY TEXT IS BEING REPEATEDLY REJECTED BY YOU ...

REGARDS RISHU JAGGOTTA (Rishu.jaggotta (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

Grammatical errors and improper sourcing, mostly. Please discuss this on the article talk page rather than continuing to edit war. - MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ext link removed from Patterns in nature

Hi MrOllie, I see you've clipped a link from Patterns in nature, with the remarks COI and ELNO. I know it isn't a CoI as I added the link, not anyone associated with bentamari.com: indeed, I've never communicated with them; and having read WP:ELNO, I'm not sure which of the 20 sections might apply. The purpose of the link is to allow readers to look at examples of natural patterns beyond what we can hope to provide here at Wikipedia; bentamari provides an interesting selection of fractals, trees, cracks, waves and biological patterns, which (on revisiting now) still seem highly relevant to the subject. Would it be all right if I restored the link? with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was added here, by a single purpose IP which has been used only to add that site to various articles and to edit the Tamari-related article at Economic Simulator . - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how odd, that must be right. It does look as if he's been spamming. Shame, there were good photos on the site. Well done for noticing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is my link not relevant to the article ? Ben Tamari, 01-10-2012 (Ben Tamari (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

srh_fsc Forest Stewardship Council conflict of interest

Hi,

I received a notice from you with the edit summary 'Notice: Conflict of Interest.'

Prior to editing the Forest Stewardship Council page I read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. As a result I set up my profile which clearly states that I work for FSC.

Some of the content in the Wikipedia entry about the Forest Stewardship Council is very out of date. Other parts are inaccurate and cite non-reputable sources (or indeed have broken links).

As such, I am editing the page to bring it up to date. Wherever I make a claim about FSC I cite a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srh fsc (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you were really abiding by the guidelines on conflict of interest, you would not be softening and/or removing criticism of your organization. Please don't do so again - I would suggest you consider the Streisand effect. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not 'softening criticism'. I am correcting erroneous claims made about FSC, like the fact that SSNC withdrew from FSC membership, when in fact it has only withdrawn from Swedish membership, not international. Further, the section about criticism misleadingly separates Rainforest Foundation and fsc-watch, when in fact they are run by the same person, who has long attacked FSC. fsc-watch (which is referenced throughout this wikipedia entry) represents the opinions of the authors and is not grounded in academic or independent research. Surely this cannot be viewed as objective opinion either. Further, he case relating to the Algonquins does not have to do with an FSC certified forest management unit. The issue is being resolved outside the FSC system. Also, the section about having to have 'a deposit of a security of US$1,000' is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srh fsc (talk • contribs) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevant or Spam ?

If my links (and my writing) is not relevant - it is a spam. Ben Tamari, 27-09-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Tamari (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Action game, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Nczempin (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to Twinkle you; it seemed to fit. I assume a misclick; that looks more like WP:AGF. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please end the senseless bickering in the sex club talk page

Kindly remove emotion from the discussion, give others a chance to chime in(like the others who created the page in the fort place for example), stop playing the card of the biased irrational folks who agree with you and calling it a concensus, it is not. Allow that there are those with expertise on the subject to whom you should defer, or at least give them the opportunity to chime in before making arbitrary censorship to the main page again. Thanks in advance Cosand (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

reply to your response

I am not sure if you're watching my talk.page, but I just posted a reply to your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jkietzma thanks loads for your time and consideration. best Jkietzma (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Teammetz Questions

Per your request to leave details on my user page, and suggestion to provide a reminder here at your user page, please see the following for additional clarification requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teammetz ==T-Metz (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing of complete commits, even thou only fragments are subject to refusal

Hi MrOllie. You rejected some of my edits completely even thou there were improved according to your feedback. Could you instead just remove the rejected fragments instead of other contributions such as formatting, rewording and additional information? I guess that is more productive than resubmit whole parts each time? Thx, TimurLenk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timurlenk1980 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed speedy on My Life at First Try

I ended up removing the speedy on this book because I ended up finding enough sources to show notability, which honestly sort of surprised me. With how non-notable some of the other stuff is, I just sort of assumed that I'd end up finding zilch but no- there's sources for this. Now as far as the author goes, I'm not sure that he'd actually pass muster for notability. The only big concession is that since his ff novel does seem to be notable, it would probably merit a mention somewhere in the flash fiction article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on if you consider something novel length to really be flash fiction, even if it does have very short chapters. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinokast

Hello. I notice you removed some video links from several articles (Carnival Against Capital, etc.). I presume your reasoning was because some of them didn't work, you thought they were all dead, so did a search and removed all the ones you could find. However, it only took me seconds of checking the Kinokast site to discover that they had merely changed their video URLs. Please be more thorough checking in future before removing apparently dead links. Also, you need to use edit summaries when removing material from articles. Thanks, — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I was removing them because it appears that the videographer was inserting them himself. - MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Canon photograpic equipment links removing

Dear MrOllie! I'm still waiting for your comment upon the subject. I hope that this misunderstood will be clear! Pf soycd (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

New backup software entry removed.

Please let me know, if you have any comments on the 'New backup software entry removed.'

59.92.168.150 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_owned

Hi Mr. Ollie,

In June of this year I added the following section to this page:

Bulk REO properties are released by banks to clearing companies, who subsequently release a list of the bulk REO properties to pre-approved bidders at different times of the month. Bidders are allowed to review the lists for a specific period of time, which is typically from 48-72 hours. This is a very short period of time and the properties are not typically able to be viewed as they would be if they were individual REO properties.

This is a except from details I wrote about this process at http://bulkreotape.com/how-banks-release-bulk-reo

The information is factual and the link to this page was in existence for quite some time, but was recently removed. What did I do wrong / what can I do to get credit for what I wrote and or how can I restore the link?

Warm Regards, George Wagner (Wagnerg123 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for the detailed information, but it is very difficult for me to determine the exact problem from the general rules as it pertains to me and the reference link I had placed long ago that is now gone. Can you please be more specific? I really do want to be able to operate the right way here, it's definitely not easy :) (Wagnerg123 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

You receive credit for what you write via Wikipedia's history tab (this satisfies the credit requirement specified in the license you agreed to while submitting the edit), but in this case I have removed your text. In the future, please avoid linking to cites you are associated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New backup software entry removed.

Remove my contribution 1 more time and going to report you for this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kordosoft (talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know the reason for the new backup software entry removed. If you can let me know the reason for the removal, will add again appropriately. New entry was added from the IP: 59.92.192.86 122.172.17.7 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Link deletion

Hello, I'm Vincent. I add the link http://www.population-image.fr as External link because this library propose some tools related to Image processing and Image analysis. Moreover, the license of this library is under MIT license allowing reproducible science. In Image processing web page, we can find others External links pointing on other libraries. So could you explain why this one as to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarielVincent (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from linking to websites you are associated with, per WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello I'm Kenneth [[User :Kennethpositive|Kenneth] if you would have really checked out the promises page you can tell it was written for SEO purposes an does not belong in here if you are going to remove my link as there is a commercial link on the links portion also on the sober companion article there was a commercial link to "Sober Champions" which i removed myself and if are going to remove links then you better check out the content of the articles and I question if you are removing links for the benefit of the wikipedia or you are a SEO geek protecting your own interest. I read Mr. Vincents comments which make it even more obvious. I also did a through review of the "Sober Companion" page and I noticed links to 4 other sober companion companies on that page in various sections and you did not remove theirs but mine. It might just be that obvious that you are an SEO person on here and anymore removing links I will report you and your behavior and also bring this up on various media outlets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethpositive (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe that, here's a link to the proper place to report such things. Enjoy. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Information and reference removed - solar food dehydrators

Dear Mr. Ollie,

You recently removed a section I added to the solar food dehydrators. Specifically in the paragraph -

"Some solar food dryer designs employ a separate solar collector to generate the heated air, which is then directed into a food chamber or cabinet.[4] Other designs combine the collector and food cabinet and allow direct heating of food.[5] Backup electric heating can be incorporated into some solar food dehydrators to provide an alternative heat source if the weather changes."

This paragraph speaks to the design of solar food dehydrators. The information I added on multiple sided absorbers I believe fits in. It is a significant and important distinction in design. Perhaps the link should have been to http://solarfooddehydrators.com/benefits/ page where design is written about specifically. I understand this site promotes a particular product, but reference 5 See the SunWorks Dryer described in The Solar Food Dryer, http://solarfooddryer.com, does as well. This is where this type of information is located.

Thank you for your consideration.

--Danceswil (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, that other link wasn't appropriate either. I removed it as well. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Link deletion

I would appreciate it if you would discuss your opinions before carrying out actions. I have re-read the policy and have amended the post as per the guidelines. i.e. link removed but the post reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitscience (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your service, link or no link. Please do not add advertising again. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're mad?

I don't understand why you keep reverting my contribution when you don't have any ideea what's about ?!? going to report this abuse to wikipedia support team cause I'm tired of mad people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kordosoft (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the proper place. Enjoy. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed incubatr.com profile entry

Don't understand why incubatr.com was marked as spam. It's a new site that has business directory of business incubators, you recently removed the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_accelerator. I don't see how that site is any different than the other directory for seed accelerators listed there (SeedDB). 82.44.21.175 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, one major difference is that seed-db wasn't spammed to a dozen articles by a single IP. - MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

About a dozen articles, all about incubation or incubators, with direct links added to the relevant entry in the incubatr.com directory that provides more information about the topic in question. There are only about a dozen business incubators out of about 800 in our database that are on WikiPedia currently so there's no chance of this being spam. We're trying to make it easier for people to learn more about incubation and find incubators. We read the Wikipedia external links requirements carefully and don't see how the links we added conflict with the policy, apart from the fact that a dozen links were added in a single day. Would you consider reinstating those links? Thanks. 82.44.21.175 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from you, can you please respond, will you reinstate the links? If not, can I appeal to get other Wikipedia editorial management opinions about whether those links are appropriate? I will understand if the links I posted do not conform to Wikipedia standards, but I'd to understand exactly the reason, right now it seems very arbitrary, like the only reason is that 12 links were posted on the same day. Thanks for your consideration. 82.44.21.175 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You can raise the issue at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I'm not going to put them back, I think they're promotional and don't comply with our guidelines for external links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Deepak and Gotham Chopra entries

I don't understand why my links and references to other Wikipedia pages are being deleted. How can they be promotional if they're simply being linked to other Wikipedia pages. I even included outside references. I'm not promoting the film, simply trying to make the profiles more complete. Apparently that isn't allowed. Gavinbriscoe 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)gavinbriscoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinbriscoe (talk • contribs)

Are you employed by snag films? - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not employed by Snag Films. I just thought including the distributor would make the entry more complete. Gavinbriscoe 15:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Gavinbriscoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinbriscoe (talk • contribs)

Wow, amazing coincidence, then, because they have an intern [that shares your name]. Perhaps you're related? - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

contribution on influencer decision making cycle in eCommerce

I am an new user and I keep trying to change what is request. but Mr Ollie keeps deleting send the same message. I need some advise what to do. Can you help. Hscheel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hscheel (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been adding promotional content about Henrik von Scheel since 2007. I advise you to find some other topic to edit about. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Link to CloudForge on Git (software) Page

Why did you revert my update to Git (Software Page) and remove the Link to CloudForge as a Source Code hosting provider of Git? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb79 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you added an external link to a commercial site to a list of links to other Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Link to reflectance calculator on Fresnel equations Page

This external link seems to be in line with the others on this page. any reason for the delete? 216.70.253.58 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)user1

Warburg Institute Iconographic Database external links

I've seen three mythology articles (Daphne, Apollo, Marsyas) where you've removed an external link to this image database. Why? The Warburg Institute is a scholarly institution, and these links are to a large database of images for each myth—far more images than we could feasibly include in the article, and far more than we have even at Commons. This is precisely what an external link is for. Please review WP:ELNO: I don't see that the WIID meets any of the 20 criteria for links to avoid, nor have you named any of the 20 in your edit summary. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Prompted by my students and colleagues today/yesterday I added 4 more entries on Derek Walcott's reading list but they were deleted - did I do something wrong? 109.157.185.131 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No. I have restored your contribution. This editor is removing legitimate content without giving a reason, and he needs to start explaining himself: that is, he needs to cite a specific reason in his edit summary as to why he thinks the contribution is impermissible. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of links to chroma-shift.com (Steganography)

I checked the links you cite and indeed it appears that Wikipedia's policy prohibits links to sites (or is it merely "links to pages") that promote products. What I don't understand is why then Wikipedia is full of links to product promoting sites like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, etc. The other thing I wanted to point out is that the link was to the demonstrator page of our product that provides free services to anyone interested in what chroma-shifting JPEG steganography looks like. A last point I wanted to make is regarding the external links Wikipedia policy summary you posted on my talk. Is that written by you or provided by Wikipedia? There is a part in it that appears inaccurate or misleading: "links to web sites with which you are affiliated". If this is related to affiliate links as defined here, this is probably not the best way to say it. Cheers! --Lonwolve (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, third link in "Steganography tools directories" subsection of "External links" section of Steganography tools article (http://www.cotse.com/tools/stega.htm) also contains promotional stuff to commercial software. Would it be OK with you if just link my site to one of those directories and provide the link to the directory in the Wikipedia article instead? I also see an external link in the Digital watermarking article that basically promotes the author's book on Amazon (petitcolas). What about that one? --Lonwolve (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no response for me? --Lonwolve (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Giving up on Wikipedia

What's the point of trying to add useful content on Wikipedia when MROlie just reverts the changes you make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.97.168 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure adding links to your website is useful to you it is somewhat less useful to Wikipedia. If you have non-promotional edits to make in the future they will of course be welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

I see that for this edit you gave the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by 79.123.81.115", but you gave no reason for reverting, nor did you explain on the user's talk page, or the article's talk page. What was the reason for the revert? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:91.17.176.197, it's a brand new website that's being repetitively added by IPs. - MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Having seen the discussion on that talk page, I see why you reverted. Perhaps a link to that discussion in the edit summary would have been useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

MicroTokenization - Submission

Hello,

You are very much discouranging me from being a belive in this site. MicroTokenization is a brand new data security never before seen. It has been vetted at the highest levels of govenment and is still undergoing top security protocals. Webster's distionary is looking at making it a new word.........It is underrging formatting......

What is the issue here with including it within the deffinition of "Tokenization for data security"? What is the problem ? StevenRRusso (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Steve Russo

You need third party references. Newspapers, peer reviewed computer science journals, stuff like that. You also need to make sure that you write in general, not about specific products. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

External Link

Please explain why you have removed my external link? You suggested I read the guidelines. I have read them and it is in compliance with the What to Link section. Please point out where it is not in compliance? The link was added at the request of many of my students because it offers easily readable source material, and because it give the reader an option to create an eBook from the source material referenced in the Wikipedia article Kama sutra. You mentioned that it does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia, yet it is the very source of the article. Please explain. Nphar 12:30, 16 Oct 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.233.116 (talk)