User talk:MrOllie/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny G, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of external link

Its ok. I thought it would be a helpful resource for a definition and I was just citing the source. Thanks for the info Jmilles54 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Toggl

Thanks for noting the issue with the Toggl page. I am working to locate additional information to expand the article. Its presence in an article, though, is necessary for the software to appear in Comparison of time tracking software per the comment listed there. It clearly belongs in the comparison. Marklyon (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Without the proper sources to demonstrate notability, it doesn't belong as either an article or an entry on the comparison list. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Paymenex

Hi, I have removed the images in question, as a newbie, trying to find my way working with some images, I hope its ok now stay? let me know if you have any further concern Fulginic (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your direction

Thanks for your direction, I am still a newbie to wikipedia, Sorry it is act of newbie, but I think the page is ok to stay as it is an academic research project that will be useful to new students in that field Fulginic (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Somafm Drone Music link reply

Hello, I've replied to your comment on my talk page; I apologise if you're monitoring it, it wasn't clear from your message; feel free to delete this if you do. :) --Tpapastylianou (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

re: Reinstatement of obviously wrong statement

thank for for your advice Fasol (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Toggl

Thanks for noting the issue with the Toggl page. I am working to locate additional information to expand the article. Its presence in an article, though, is necessary for the software to appear in Comparison of time tracking software per the comment listed there. It clearly belongs in the comparison. Marklyon (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Without the proper sources to demonstrate notability, it doesn't belong as either an article or an entry on the comparison list. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Paymenex

Hi, I have removed the images in question, as a newbie, trying to find my way working with some images, I hope its ok now stay? let me know if you have any further concern Fulginic (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your direction

Thanks for your direction, I am still a newbie to wikipedia, Sorry it is act of newbie, but I think the page is ok to stay as it is an academic research project that will be useful to new students in that field Fulginic (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Somafm Drone Music link reply

Hello, I've replied to your comment on my talk page; I apologise if you're monitoring it, it wasn't clear from your message; feel free to delete this if you do. :) --Tpapastylianou (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

re: Reinstatement of obviously wrong statement

thank for for your advice Fasol (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"inappropriate" external link

Hello, I'm Savlook1. I wanted to let you know that You removed an external link with description electric machinery structures that relate to the topic! --Savlook1 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savlook1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

dealerbid

Hi, I have received a message from you regarding removal of some citations I created.

I am a writer for the automotive sector and have been for a number of years I write for both a trade publication (published by Emap) and a number of automotive news sites. The information I added were all to news articles I have created regarding the launch of new motor vehicles or the latest motoring news. I have only ever placed a citation to a page that had the information I was adding missing. For example details of Porsche's latest award. All the information I create is unique and I take pride in trying to study and keep on top of all the latest motoring news both here in the UK and abroad. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but see it as a good opportunity to not only benefit readers with additional information and updates that are missing but also as a way to hopefully improve my reputation as a writer of quality informative pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.240.251 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The site you are adding links to, dealerbid, is not a acceptable source for Wikipedia. If you have written for a reliable publication with a good reputation for fact checking (Motor Trend, Newsweek, Nature, etc) citations there may be useful. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not here for you to help build your reputation as a writer, I'm afraid. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

About VNC and OnlineVNC software

I am the author of the project OnlineVNC.com. You removed the reference to the project from the wiki without any reason. I ask to restore a reference to the project as it relates directly to the VNC subject here - Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.85.17 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore it. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Comparisons such as that one should index only those topics that meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. - MrOllie (talk)

In that case, i ask to specify what point of wikipedia violates this project (OnlineVNC), that it can not be in a comparison table. You allow in the table in general the products related to the VNC and throw out other solutions that are relevant to the topic of Remote Desktop. I do not know why!

editing

HI, I have seen some of the new information I have included has been removed. Could you please explain the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsicoFS (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiversity is not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits canceled

Hi,

I am not sure I understand why you removed all the edits I did on the business plan page. Is that a copyright issue?

The 2 sources I added were very relevant and neutral: the video is from someone with years of experience in pitching business plans and being pitched business plan and the other one is from an article I wrote which combines years of writing/reviewing business plans as a professional investor and investment banker.

I am fine with you removing the link to my article as long as you also remove the content (which I think you did) as I am happy to contribute but not without the credit for the work.

I think you should nevertheless remove the part of the article on the "elevator pitch" and the section on "open business plan" which are off-topic.

The Business Plan Shop (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle_tracking_system

Hi,

This is in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_tracking_system Can you please clarify the reason to revert the change I have made. I gave reference to a open source (crowd sourced) software. This has no commercial/personal benefit. It will be useful to the people to know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkrishna (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talent Management

This is in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_management Can you please clarify the reason to revert the change I have made to correct remake changes that were made in 2008? The credit for the coined term is not historically correct and is properly cited. Davidvwatkins (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Davidvwatkins

The source you cited supports a coinage year of 1998. The existing text has someone else coining the term in 1997. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the other party has claimed. The specifically say, following a 1997 study. There is no 1997 study with the term and it is not referenced. They are claiming that there was a study in 1997 and sometime thereafter they are incorrectly claiming they coined the term.

Even though it is not relevant to the argument, the other party is not claiming that the study in 1997 had the word talent management in it. The term in the marketing literature was used in 1997 and put in this specific marketing publication in 1998. The publication is the proof that the term was in use by Softscape. There is no such proof by the other party.

I am requesting that you allow me to make this correction as it was documented back in 2008 with the associated citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvwatkins (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you updated the reference with "War for Talent". You must now understand what I am attempting to clarify. The war for talent was published in 2001, Harvard Business Review Press; First Edition, First Printing edition (October 1, 2001) see AMAZON. The study refers to a 1997 to gather data, not the use of the term Talent Management in a book that Mckinsey published in 2001. The customers that were part of their study were also the same customers Softscape was communicating its marketing message. The year long study in 1997 refers to the Talent War not Talent Management like their book in 2001. The "War for Talent" is the term Mckinsey coined per their Wikipedia page and is not properly referenced as well. "The war for talent is a term coined by Steven Hankin of McKinsey & Company in 1997", and a book by Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod, Harvard Business Press, 2001 ISBN 1-57851-459-2. It is inaccurate to make any assumption that in 1997 and unnamed person in Mckinsey in an unknown publication coined Talent Management when it was Softscape who coined it in 1997 and shows the proof by a marketing brochure with a copyright date of 1998. - Davidvwatkins (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confused. 'The War for Talent' was an article that was published in McKinsey Quarterly, which reported on the results of the 1997 study. I'm looking at a copy of it right now, and it does use the term 'Talent management'. Michaels et al. later wrote a book expanding on the premise of the article in 2001, which carried the same title. I'm also a little fuzzy on how you're turning a brochure with a 1998 copyright date into proof that you coined the term in 1997. - MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Did You Remove My Edits?

You seem to have removed my additions to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_job_scheduler_software.

What is the reason?

Thanks Mike4mazz (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Mike4mazz

Such lists generally index existing Wikipedia articles, they are not places to place external links or promote software that doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Updates to Tivoli Software Page

Hi MrOllie

Now that we have updated the Tivoli Software page with references and removed promotional content, is it possible to remove the old comments at the top of the page:

"This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (March 2012)"

"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (May 2013)"

PierreCoyne (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

karafilis.net

These EL link changes appear to be a hosting change for the same link from the same author, rather than just crass link-stealing by the competition. You might decide they fail EL and remove them altogether, but I don't think it makes much sense to simply revert the change. Unless there's something really subtle going on - I haven't looked in that detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I don't think the blog satisfies EL at either URL, so I've removed them. Thanks for catching that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

Indeed, I am changing the links from my old blog posts to the new hosting because I want to reflect the changes and proactively mitigate any future broken links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekarafilis (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ISL Light removal

Hi MrOllie,

You have removed ISL Light from the list, I believe it was a misunderstanding since it is the main product from ISL Online: http://www.islonline.com/customers/references.htm winner at a independent test http://www.islonline.com/remote-support/compare.htm Please undo this change, Kind regards, Ursusss (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Such lists generally index existing Wikipedia articles, they are not places to place external links or promote software that doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I agree that genereally such lists index existing Wikipedia pages, but I believe that is not specially claimed. ISL Light was on the list for a few years until 19:29, 24 August 2013 when it was deleted on: 15:21, 28 August 2013. It fullfill the Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, that is why I would ask you to put it back on the list as an independent listing to assure the objectiveness of the list itself. Thank you, Ursusss (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No. ISL Light was deleted by our AFD process, so the presumption is that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I would kindly ask you to verify this presumption, I believe it was just a misunderstanding and we can put it back online, BR, Ursusss (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think it was deleted in error the place to raise that is Wikipedia:Deletion Review - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bauxite residue

Dear Mr Ollie, I wondered why you have taken down the article on Bauxite Residue? It was balanced, informed, well documented and completely different from the emotive Red mud article. I had planned to add further supporting references. Over 110 million tonnes of Bauxite residue are produced annually so it can certainly be considered a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia and worthy of its own page. I have worked in the area for some 42 years so am not unacquainted with the topic. Sincerely Ken EvansKenevans (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We already have an article on this topic, it is at Red mud. You should not start a duplicate article because you find the existing text 'emotive' - that is called a POVFORK and it is against Wikipedia's policies. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ollie I didn't write the 'Bauxite residue' article because the 'Red mud' one was 'emotive' but because it was poorly researched with little factual detail about the background, composition, how created, how it is dealt with and uses. 'Bauxite residue' is the more appropriate term now adopted by the scientific and industrial community. As you know I had also amended the Red mud article to provide more information and more papers from scientific journals rather than newspaper articles; this you also removed. The Bauxite residue article was not a duplicate but far more comprehensive and. Surely you want Wikipedia to be a well balanced, referenced source of information. Sincerely Ken Evans Kenevans (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

openHAB

Hi, i am wondering why you consider my editions inappropriate since openHAB is a solution that either implements the given protocols, technics or incorporates them into its service structure. Especially on the EnOcean page a reference to openHAB perfectly fits into the row of system like Fhem and AgeControl. Best Teichsta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ISO 9000

I recently added content on this page under 2000 version. I do not work for the company whose link I posted. I have been doing research on ISO regulations and found the content. The full content is "Document your quality system: ISO 9000 Requirements include: (1) approve documents before distribution; (2) provide correct version of documents at points of use; (3) use your records to prove that requirements have been met; (4) develop a procedure to control your records." I wanted to give proper credit to the site where I found it. Please put the link to mastercontrol.com back on the page as a correct source of information. The information is true and correct and still on the page. Thank you Jmilles54 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're telling me this, I haven't edited ISO 9000. I took a look at your site though: It's a sales page for compliance software. Whoever it was that did remove it was correct in doing so. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

why have a web encyclopedia if you can't properly reference sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmilles54 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Sorghum bicolor# "linkspam"_that_isn't

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sorghum bicolor# "linkspam"_that_isn't. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links

This link is provided as an additional resource to perform certain calculations mentioned within the associated article. One of the reasons someone would refer to an encyclopedia article would be to learn how to perform a certain calculation or gain more information on a topic. This link not only provides a calculator resource for various calculations but also lists other references someone may be interested in. I have noticed other educational calculators listed as external links on various articles. I believe this link is appropriate to include with the associated articles.Bubba58 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Quadruple-precision floating-point format

Hello MrOllie,

This message is related to your edits on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruple-precision_floating-point_format

You have removed link I added to the page as inappropriate, left message on my talk page but never responded to my answer. So I decided to post here.

One of the sections of the page is about quadruple precision support in compiled programming languages (Fortran, C/C++). Link provided (and banned by you) gives additional information on quadruple precision support in high level programming language for numerical computations - MATLAB. This is the most appropriate information for the topic of the page.

Besides, link I added was discussed and approved by professional community & key maintainers of the page. See for example Vincent Lefèvre comments at the end of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quadruple-precision_floating-point_format Kletka (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, links to websites such as that one that are there to get people to buy specific software are not appropriate. I removed it again. - MrOllie (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the link there is not meant for buying. It provides information on existence of specific software which makes possible quadruple computations in widely used MATLAB system. Software from the website can be used for free (within limited period of time). Many people use it that way, solve their problems within short time and never buy it.

By removing the link you just disable people to solve their problems efficiently (as I said, MATLAB is used by many people and the referenced software is the _only_ way to use quadruple precision in MATLAB at the moment).

If you don't really care about it - then remove all pages from wiki which mention commercial software as well, MATLAB itself and many others. All such links can be interpreted as meant to sell the software in one or another way.Kletka (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed addition to definition of BMS

I made an entry that corrects the definition of BMS specifically for portable power systems (that they include other functions like charge control and authentication), and as an expert on the subject I feel that I have authority to make such an addition. The reference was to the book specifically on BMS for portable systems. What is inappropriate about such a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgenij b (talk • contribs)

First - you didn't 'correct' anything, you added a small detail. Second, you cited that small detail by including a link to a bookstore sales page for a book you wrote - that is not appropriate. As a subject matter expert I'm sure you are familiar with a wide range of sources from many authors - I suggest that you cite your Wikipedia content to sources that you have no relationship with, and that you avoid links to sales pages in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no other book that specifically treats BMS for portable systems, therefore it is the best reference that I can find. Besides, it is useful for the wiki-readers to have such a references in this page as no other reference to portable systems BMS is present there at the moment. There is a reference to equivalent book for automotive systems BMS, so I don't see why there should not be one to much more prevalent portable BMS. I changed to reference to google books link which gives information but does not refer to sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgenij b (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

As the original author of this wiki page, I follow it closely, and I noticed the recent edit disagreement.

I do understand your reaction to seeing an author linking to his own book. Yes, I also happen to have read that very book, and to find it to be very much an appropriate reference on BMSs, worthy of being linked to by this page.

Therefore, forgive me if I stepped in, edited this wiki page to include authentication (a subject that my original wiki page neglected to mention), clarify "protection" to include (indirectly) charge control and, yes, to reintroduce a reference to Barsukov's book.

I trust that you will agree, and I do hope that you will not revert my edit, other than correcting any mistakes I may have introduced, for which I apologize in advance.

Thank you,

Davide Andrea (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is borderline, especially with the google books link instead of a bookstore. It turns out where were lots of other problematic references and links on that page, including a link to someone else's book at a bookstore, so I culled those but left the new ref. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

I was clearly mistaken, and it appears that our respective views on how the interests of the visitors to this page can be best served are opposite. My goal when I edit a page is to give the user correct information and direct the user to the most appropriate references from which the information was gathered. Your goals appear to be different. As a long time editor of Wikipedia I know that the system is stacked against people like me, and in favor of people like you. Therefore, I bow out and wish you the best. Have fun.

Davide Andrea (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MrOllie,

thank you for restoring the reference to the portable management book. This part of the story is now well referenced. However, there are generally two types of BMS systems: high voltage (above 20V) and low voltage. Above book is dealing with low voltage systems common in portable devices, but design of high voltage systems (used in automotive and backup applications) is quite different and has many unique challenges not covered by the book. To address this area it would make sense to include a reference to "Battery Management Systems for Large Lithium Ion Battery Packs", which is the only published book that gives comprehensive overview of such systems, while using the link to Google books http://books.google.com/books?id=o-QpFOR0PTcC to avoid making it commercial. If you agree, would you please add this reference to the page, since I don't feel very sure about what I can or can not add at the moment. Evgenij b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr Ollie,

could you please address the issue of absence of a reference to automotive/large size BMS source? It has been pending for over a week... Evgenij b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction to a link

Hello Mr Ollie,

Thank you for your message about my 'adding a link' to the 'Beach Replenishment' page.

I think the original link must have been made some time ago, and I noticed that it wasn't working so I made a very slight correction. The actual page remains the same, only the address.

I honestly believe that the link is a most useful addition to your page and has been there for some time and should be left in place. I have absolutely no commercial interests in the matter and only made my website as a hobby.

Kind regards, Ammonite35 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a site with a documented history of linkspamming. The links shouldn't have been added in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Records management article reverts

Hi Mr. Ollie, I logged back on to edit and found that you reverted all of my edits. May I ask what what was wrong with the edits? Thank you. --12.149.39.84 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I noticed I wasn't logged in when I posted the question. --SunShines123 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Check the history again? I didn't revert any of your edits, I cleaned some stuff out of the external links section. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry! I saw a huge volume of deletion in the history and just assumed you had undone all my edits because I'd made a lot of edits a couple of days ago. Then I ran into a meeting before checking the details. I spent some time understanding what you did and I'm fine with the changes. Thanks for the help. Should I automatically delete link sections like that, too, or should I get someone like you involved to help if I come across things like that? --SunShines123 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

When you find a really huge list like that, the usual practice to select what strike you as the best few to keep, and delete all the others. If there is a DMOZ.org category that covers the topic that is often a good choice. If you're unsure about a specific link, there is the external links noticeboard for those sorts of questions. Nothing on Wikipedia is unreversable, so if you goof it up someone else can always come along and fix it for you, no worries. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Great to know. FYI: there are some dead reference links in the article, too. I'd like to either delete or update them with proper links and references but it might force me to reorder the text, because existing text sometimes refers to things that just don't exist anymore. --SunShines123 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Raman article reference revert

I am wondering why my edits were deleted?

This is part of an assigmment for a class I am taking on Global and Cultural Perspectives. I would appreciate any feedback and insight you can give. Monikaspang (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Our policy on Due and undue weight, we need to use secondary sources and make sure views are weighted appropriately - your addition used a primary source and gave the appearance of promoting the views of Prof. Raman. - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Niyama and Karma

I was wondering why my entry relating to Karma was deleted. I need to edit a Wikipedia page as part of a class assignment and could use all the feedback possible. Thank you! Smartin24 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Our policy on Due and undue weight, we need to use secondary sources and make sure views are weighted appropriately - your addition used a primary source and gave the appearance of promoting the views of Prof. Raman. - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

World Vasectomy day - Removed external link?

Hello Thank you for your message. Just couldn't tell which link you have removed. The ones I added seem to still be there. Many thanks for feedback.

Simplytatydesigns (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

CRC-32 JavaScript implementation

Hi. Thanks for your message. Not sure on which criteria you decided it is not appropriate. I find it very useful to have links to sample implementations from Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia for this all the time. This article already had a C++ sample implementation (only partial actually, as it does not implement custom polynomial). I'm not sure how a JavaScript implementation (complete, with custom polynomial) is less appropriate. I think all programming languages should be listed here (just like with most, if not all, other IT related articles). I also find it very useful to have links to pages where readers can actually see the algorithm in action. Especially when the linked page is clean, fast and ads-free. Not sure how much you know about IT, but I believe, by experience, that the link to CRC-32 JavaScript Source Code you removed is utterly useful and appropriate for an article about CRC. As an IT professional, keen user of Wikipedia, I thought these links were missing here, and hopped it would be helpful to other readers. Anyway, I suppose you're the boss, so you decide, I'm not sure I want to spend time arguing about that, I have these links bookmarked now, so I'm happy. Have a nice day! Best Regards. Tchev1 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,
Could you please clarify what should be done to make the ConceptDarw PRO software added to the list of network diagram software? There is no article in Wikipedia, but the network diagramming is one of the major uses of this software. Thank you.

AnnaKorlyakova (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism link

Dear MrOllie, I added a link on the plagiarism page earlier today, which you deleted. I'm new to this, and would like to know what I did wrong. The online course is an open, free resource, created by university staff with help and inspiration from Jude Carroll, a internationally well known expert on plagiarsim, so I can't see any reasons for it not to be included. Should I have made a reference to it in the text itself, not just in the External links section? Sincerely, Mariann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlo000 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BMS Section

MrOllie, would you please explain why you removed the link to "Battery Management Systems for Large Lithium Ion Battery Packs"? It is important to have it since existing references don't cover large/automotive battery packs at all, and I don't have any relations with its author either than having read the book and knowing him as an expert in the field (as anybody active in this field would) so it cant' be a COI. Nobody who has not heard of Davide Andrea has any business of writing in the section about battery management, so how can this dilemma be resolved and the book reference provided?

Regards, Yevgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgenij b (talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Health_administration

Hi, I added a few valuable links to the Health_administration site which you removed. I wondered why? a) is wikipedia only for americans or do Europeans have there space as well?? b) Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society - has not really that much to do with the topic. I know them very well as we collaborate a lot. Why not removed them? c) European Association of Hospital Mangers is the world largest organisation in this field. What is wrong in mentioning them in this context? They outperform the American College of Healthcare Executives in both numbers and scientific output d) Health Management is the most comprehensive website portal promoting management and administration and best practices at least in Europe, perhaps even world-wide. I do not really understand where the Journal of Health Administration Education can level up. I would kindly ask you to check the sites properly and feel free to revert your reverts. If you have any questions let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarolt (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

prediction market

Hi,

I do not understand why you reverted the changes for the prediction market page. You state "duplicated text and added inappropriate external links". I don't see what was the duplicate text, nor innappropriate external links. I cleanup dead prediction markets, and added 2 links to new ones. There is not a lot of prediction markets: some are with real money, while others are with virtual money. I think it is worth to see the difference.

I'm new at writing wikipedia article. I would be very happy that you provide me with guidelines. Your comments are more than welcome.

Thanks, --Fgarcin (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

hi,

Thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on how to edit an article. It helps a lot.

I saw that you completely removed the section on non-profit prediction market. You claim they are "examplefarm". I disagree.

Prediction markets are a specific type of betting websites. There is not a lot of websites implementing a prediction market, and this number is even lower for virtual-money website...

For fairness, you should either 1. remove all references to implementation of prediction market (including commercial websites), or 2. create a section for non-profit prediction market (and I can contribute since I've the list of running websites.).

I'd be happy to get your feedback on this issue.

regards,--Fgarcin (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link directory or a website listing. Lists of examples such as these are generally unhelpful to readers - we need to explain, not to provide links. - MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation. Please remove the "Public prediction markets" section from the main article to be consitent with wikipedia rules.

I've seen many "list of X" wikipedia pages. Do you think it would be possible to have a wikipeda page listing prediction markets with their properties (virtual vs real money, type of algorithm, ...). If it is not possible, another option would be to have an external link pointing to a list of prediction markets. I do believe this would be useful to the reader because when I reached wikipedia's prediction market page for the first time I was also looking to a list of current implementations with their properties. What do you think?--Fgarcin (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Intensive care medicine

Hi, me again. * International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is the world's most important meeting in this field. Set up by Pr JL Vincent way before he has founded ESICM, the European Society. He is the most cited critical care specialist (except you would be able to name someone else); just search at pubmed. Some 910 citations..... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vincent+jl Thnxs for your explanation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarolt (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie and thank you for your contributions to WP. I put the EL's you removed from Intensive care medicine on the talk page with explanation. I think the article needs substantial improvement and there may be material at those links of value. I will try doing some work on the article in the near future. As I said on the talk page I agree with your edit, I just wanted to preserve the links and allow for some discussion. Perhaps a list should be made and pointed to? Well the point of this post is just to let you know so I'll stop rambling, discussion of that article belongs on it's talk page anyway... - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

List of mindmap software

Hi, I've been trying to add WiseMapping open source project to the list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software but you reverted the change. Could you please explain what the problem is ?. Why do you think that http://www.wisemapping.org could not be part of this list. ?

Regards, Paulo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.5 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article on Wisemapping was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's inclusion critetia. The list article you are attempting to modify only indexes software with a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be removing encyclopedic information simply because it has bulk

Hello, this is to let you know that I strongly disagree with your assessment that changes such as this are spam. Your edit summaries also read is if your objection is simply that there is bulk to this material. Wikipedia is a very, very, long way from being complete, and adding substantial material is necessary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's spam because it's an employee of the organization adding links to it while contributing nothing else - that is the definition of spam on Wikipedia. Even otherwise good content is sometimes spammed in this fashion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does the evidence come from that this person is an employee? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cwrdiversity.org/about-us/ down near the bottom of the page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

MultiOTP PHP open source class speedy deletion nomination

Hello MrOllie and thank you for your contributions to WP. I'm pretty a novice about the edition of articles on Wikipedia and I have followed your advise and rewrited the article in a more encyclopedic way and by checking any links to be sure that none of them promote directly a commmercial products. I checked several other articles about the same topics and I didn't see any structure difference. Any comments welcome, I'm always interested about improving my articles in Wikipedia. Strong authentication is a hot topic, and I'm pretty sure that an open source class providing these features in a well known language like PHP is good to be known from the community.

Regards, --Hilitec (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rugged computers links

Hi MrOllie,

No worries! Good call on that one actually. I think the first article referenced is probably sufficient to validate the statement.

Could use your help actually, if you're interested. A few of the references are broken & need replacing. Found this more neutral article on the same site that might be a better choice for reference 4: http://buytough.com/military-laptops-buying-guide.asp

Or maybe we should just link to something like Panasonic? http://www.panasonic.com/business-solutions/government-defense-solutions.asp

Ref 6 & 7 also need to be re-sourced or replaced.

Any help is appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpleSamster (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Buytough seems to have a history of spamming that page (see its talk page archives), and that specific link is still attempting to funnel people into their sales, so it needs to be avoided. Relying on panasonic as the manufacturer is a little better, but still problematic. What we really need are news sources or trade magazines that don't derive revenue from selling these devices. - MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for the feedback. The page could definitely use some updating, and there's still some promotional stuff that needs to come off of there. Might be helpful to get some more official or third-party references in there if possible. Some of the language without citations can probably be removed.

This page is tricky because there's not a lot of "official" stuff out there on Toughbooks, & most of the noise around it seems to come from various niche forums. Wondering if it might be worthwhile to carefully pick & choose the most non-solicitous content from a couple of the more official resellers. Open to other ideas, though.

Let me know if you find any other resources for this page. I'll keep digging for better/more up-to-date info in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpleSamster (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

about Frankenstein novels

why don't you take a look at this article from the American Library Association's Readers Advisory

http://www.ebscohost.com/novelist/novelist-special/horror-then-and-now

Noticed which book they paired with Shelley's Frankenstein? It wasn't Ackroyd's Casebook of Victor Frankenstein but my book which you refused to add as a derivative Frankenstein novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveZeltserman (talk • contribs)

I'm happy your promotional efforts are bearing more fruit elsewhere, it sounds like a good book. - MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't through any promotional efforts on my part, and I seriously doubt it got into that article because of anything my publisher did. It had nothing to do with any sort of promotional effort on my part to get Monster added to Wikipedia's Frankenstein page, because really, how many people are really going to find it there? The only reason I cared about getting it there was because it belongs up there. No other reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveZeltserman (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Simulation / Simulation in Education / Virtual Coachers

Hi MrOllie, I am new in trying to help to enrich the Wikipedia content but my first contribution was fully undo by you and I would like to understand what I made wrong. May you help me to understand? Thank you --Jpardi (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined PROD

Hello, MrOllie. You proposed Uranium Backup for deletion. I have had to decline the proposal, as a previous PROD was declined in July 2009, and, as you no doubt know, that makes the article ineligible for another PROD. However, you may well stand a good chance of seeing the article deleted if you take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Paymenex

Some time ago you nominated Paymenex for speedy deletion as spam: [1]. I deleted the article, but, following representations from its author, I restored and userfied it. My feeling is that it is now much improved, and I have returned it to article space. However, I am just letting you know, so that if you like you can check and see whether you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Editorial Calendar Article

Hi,

As the original author of the editorial calendar article, I was curious your reason(s) for reducing a number of links to three?

I had added a fairly wide range of links based on my experience with clients who needed different ways to track their content, from pen and paper to folders to spreadsheets to actual dedicated software like HootSuite. I also tried to link to articles with real depth and something to add rather than a surface overview.

In any event, I'm just curious your reason(s). Thank you!

TimSlavin (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Flirtbox in dating sites list

Why have you removed flirtbox? What is the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm1978 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That list is intended to be an index of Wikipedia articles, not a list of every dating site on the internet. - MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Applied Sustainability

Would like to start a conversation concerning the pig pong game we have been playing between versions. Wiki is about compromise and more importantly, collaboration. If my contribution it falls under pro-mathis puffery, then I am happy to site other articles in support or simply take the content down.

The problem is that this emerging discipline is so new, the explicit use of the term Applied Sustainability is rare at best. Lastly, I do realize that my personal relationship with applied sustainability, that is I have been a practitioner for over 10 years now, may present a conflict of interest is some ways.

Love to work with you other than just a "reactive" and very unproductive re-posting game. Collaboration is key!!

Lets call this moving away from the prisoners dilemma to a tit for tat (game theory)... Ill extend the first olive branch!!

Best, J. Eric Mathis (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You could make an excellent start by not referring to yourself as a 'nationally recognized practitioner of this emerging field', not linking your social media profiles, not citing an unpublished book, not citing blog posts, and keeping references to your own name closer to 1 than the current '20'. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure... I will take out the philosophy section all together... But the definition can be a collaborative development right? J. Eric Mathis (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2013

Also, Wikipedia is written for a general audience. Sentences like 'These impacts or causative bifurcations of a particular material-social assemblage relate to a variety of material conditions both within and outside the social sphere.' Might make sense to a subject matter expert, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm also unsure about why you added so many references to 'Sustainable Williamson' - Wikipedia generally does not link to blogs, let alone contain paragraphs about them in articles on general topics. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Mimi So

Hi MrOllie - With your reversion to this page, you have removed two citations to print magazines, two to reputable paid subscriber online magazines, and two to official results from a national sanctioning body. Could you please share your rationale? Surely I could not equal your dedication, but I respectfully propose that a discussion, or at least a comment, is warranted before undoing any editor with a history of starting many diverse articles, and making improvements to hundreds of pages.--Nixie9✉ 22:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing that you have been active on WP for two days, but have not found time substantiate your reasoning for seemingly unsupported deletions of citations, I have reverted your edits to this page. Of course, I hope not to trigger an edit war. I invite you to engage in discussion if you feel there is a justification you want to illuminate.--Nixie9✉ 00:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  As we discussed last time you tried to add this, it needs independent sourcing. None of the sources you cited mentioned Mimi So. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Undoing my contribs in 'Comparison of database tools'

Hi,

you've made undo of my post in 'Comparison of database tools' section today. I would like to know the reason why. Please explain.

Sincerely, Oleg Fedorov (talk)

Such comparisons should index only pages that meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'm aware that there is a lot of stuff on that comparison as it sits that is improper - I am working on cleaning it up. In the meantime, more improper stuff should not be added. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you point any entry in 'Comparison of database tools' section that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Because we're planning to add some new contents there and your advise will save both your and our efforts. - Oleg Fedorov (talk)

"Technical Support" article "Remote PC repair" section

I would remove completely this section as it's definitely used by "technical support" scammers to mislead victim by using reference to wikipedia as trusted source. Or at least add information about Tech support scam to it Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:62BE:1:6670:2FF:FE78:C23A (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Undoing my contribs in 'Online_skill-based_game"

Hi MrOllie,

you've made undo of my post in 'Online_skill-based_game' section today. Could you tell me please why?

Sincerely, Fungamer 79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you added references to web sites that don't appear to meet wikipedia's inclusion requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

xendpay

Why has my article Xendpay been speedily deleted? I appreciate that it was there was a similar article that was deleted before but I did include references from reputed sources including Forbes magazine?Dreamdharma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of a tool from 'Comparision of time tracking software'

Hello,

I see you deleted the tool I posted (Time Tracker Professional) on 'Comparison_of_time_tracking_software'

What was the reason for the deletion? Jeremy0X05 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

See any of the nearly identical questions above. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Purgamate

Hello MrOllie, I am wondering if you could help me. I am attempting to add Purgamate to Wiki. You Stated that the reason for deletion was that I did not use a credible source. I included purgamate.com which is a social media website dedicated to the community of people who are pending a divorce. Why is that not a credible source? Thanks nothshsoreshawn, aka Shawn Northshsoreshawn (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You can read about what Wikipedia considers an acceptable source at the guideline on reliable sources. We need something like an academic paper, newspaper article, etc. Social media sites and other self published sites do not qualify. - MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We have U.S. Copyright for all of the content and graphics on the www.purgamate.com site. The copyright number is 1-743686431. Also, Purgamate is accepted as a word on Urban Dictionary. I believe that the US copyright office is a credible source.

Thanks nothshsoreshawn, aka Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northshsoreshawn (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't actually read the guideline I linked above. I suggest that you do. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of entire contribution

Hi MrOllie and thank you for your concern. I will reiterate what I have said to Ronz. I have read the COI and am not in violation of it. Many of the changes I made to these articles were adding valuable content, improving readability, removing existing advertising, and providing reputable scientific, published references in support of stated facts. I am an expert in this field and would appreciate it in the future, that if there is something you do not agree with or you feel violates the COI in some way, you deal explicitly with that item rather than wholesale reversion of my entire work. Thanks CocoaNutt (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)CocoaNutt

Revision of Facial ANimation

Dear MrOllie, i disagree with your action of keeping deleting the real-time animation section of the facial animation page. The world needs to know the techniques for real-time animation. I'm sorry these are coming out of industry instead of academia, this is how research in this field is going. I think it is better to inform people as opposed to ignore one of the most current and evolving fields of the entire animation world. Please revert your changes. Happy to talk more. Thanks. Stefano Stefano001 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My contribution removed

Hi MrOllie, Why have you removed by contribution in Comparison of VoIP software? I am not an Wiki expert but I have followed the same patern than other contributors in the history list, so what am I doing wrong? Thanks! feu 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoislaflamme (talk • contribs)

my external link in Taoism, Neidan, Tao yin

Hello MrOllie, I consider that external links that I added can be added, because they are relevant to the theme of Taoism, and allow to find out more information about it. If I am wrong, can you, please, specify the specific reason why they can not be added? --Vitalii Lishchyna (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding redirecting Catalyzer

This is to inform you that I have posted Catalyzer as a company.The same is redirected to catalysis. Could you revert it.

SunilSunil Reddy M 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilreddym (talk • contribs)

Without nontrivial coverage in independent sources, the article will surely be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Undo of edits to Decision Analysis page

Hello Mr. Ollie. Could you explain why you undid my edits to the Decision Analysis page? FYI: I'm a professional decision analyst, published author on the topic, Fellow in the Society of Decision Professionals, and the reference I added is used to teach the subject in the School of Engineering at Stanford University. Thanks. John Celona John N Celona (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See the guidelines on conflict of interest and the policy on original research. You should not add books that you have written or statements about your own opinions to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I understand why you might think there is a conflict of interest. Regarding my book, I sold the rights to it many years ago and do not receive any money from sales of the printed version. Further, to broaden its educational use the PDF version is available for free under a Creative Commons License. The book is in fact owned and the free version available from SmartOrg [[2]]. These are the same folks who have the SmartOrganization book already listed. Regarding the second statement, it is a quote from my book, which I think means it doesn't run afoul of the original research policy. I note that the statement preceding my proposed addition does not cite a source. If it did, I would be very interested in knowing the source of this critique. Please advise if this addresses your concerns or we should discuss further. Thank you. John N Celona (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the company

Hi,

I have a question. Regarding "Comparison of online backup services" page. I made some changes yesterday in the "GFI software" line. But today I see that it is deleted.

Can you please explain me the reason of deleting it?

Thank you.

Veronika.iaso (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That software product didn't appear to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. That list only indexes products that have a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability tag guidelines

I'm curious about the process or tradition behind notability tags -- who removes them? I hoped to find some guidance on Wikipedia:Notability, but it seems to describe only the process for their addition. Should anyone editing the page remove them when they feel page is "notable enough?" It's unclear to me as I see pages with {{notabiliy}} tags over a year old -- my expectation is that in that time the page would have been improved or deleted. Emaste (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone may remove them, once third party sources have been found and cited. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of entries from the 'List of Home Automation Software'

ok, i think i've understood your point. I now readded an entry which now complies to the given link rules. Teichsta (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your entry is still not linked to an existing Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

I you think what my editing is not valid, I will not mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreyOGL D3D (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

deletion of the link from Playground entry

I've found the information useful being a carefully crafted and well-researched infographic about playground safety. Why do you think it is commercial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyshack (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External link removal

Dear MrOllie, I can't agree with the removal of external link I added, because I suppose it's not against the external links rules. In my opinion the external article linked to the defensive driving wikipedia page enrich the subject with the theory in practice. Cheers, carp_in_sky carp_in_sky (talk)9:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's advertising for a software company. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, as I understand Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization. If you decided removal of my external links to my new books on amazon.com, then I decided to remove my contribution added several years ago on wikipedia, i.e., introduction to the Hole Argument Wikipedia page :`` In general relativity, the hole argument is an apparent paradox that much troubled Albert Einstein while developing his famous field equation. Btw, I created for the first time this page. Merci! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle1881 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I contested your deletion of Pinoy Auto Trader

A tag has been placed on Pinoy Auto Trader, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

- It is not promotional in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyshack (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of online backup services - Norton Zone deletion

Hello Mr.Ollie,

I've restored my edit from Comparison of online backup services that you deleted. My edit added information on Norton Zone. I am curious why you deleted it. The entry was well cited and is a valid entry for the page since it is a service very similar to numerous services on the page.

When doing research about online backup services, I noticed that Norton Zone, a relatively new service, was missing from the page. In an effort to be a good Netizen, I spent a significant amount of time putting together the information to add to the page. To delete my efforts without so much as an indication as to why is discouraging. It is an action that discourages me, or other people in my situation, from wanting to ever take the time to help make Wikipedia better. All Wikipedia contributors need to start somewhere. And some us wish we had the time to do more, but we do what we can.

If you feel that my addition is an invalid entry to the page, please let us discuss why. If you felt it was short of citations (which I find hard to believe since I provided more citations than any other entry), please let me know and together we can add additional citations. If there are concerns with the formatting, please assist me in correcting them.

Kind Regards,
DilbertWannaBe

It was removed because you added it to the list without writing a standalone article. I see that you have now written that article. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, adjust your Twinkle configuration

Hello Mr.Ollie,

I have restored the last editions to Comparison of file archivers that you deleted using Twinkle. Along with two contributions from other editor, you deleted the column of the lz format, the only one of the four compression formats used in ftp.gnu.org that was not yet in that list, and that certainly belongs to it.

I have also restored the last editions to Lempel–Ziv–Markov chain algorithm that you again deleted using Twinkle. In this case you deleted the only known reference to a natural language specification of the compressed format, while leaving in place original research that happens to contain errors.

I am especially careful when editing the LZMA page because of my close connection to the subject. But automatically deleting my contributions does not help to solve the multiple issues in it. Ant diaz (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, my edits were deliberate. Given your close connection to the subject, you should probably avoid using yourself a source on these articles. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In Comparison of file archivers I have just used the sources cited in the Wikipedia pages of those archivers. It is true and verifiable that some of those archivers can read (and write) the lz format. Therefore, if you do not restore the lz column, someone will eventually add it and your contribution to the article will be then reduced to noise in the article's history.

The case of the LZMA page is even more dishearthening. The page has multiple issues marked as such. It lacks citations, includes sections about unrelated topics, and the sections about the compressed format are full of original research produced by interpreting source code. Attention from an expert is requested in the article, and the talk page states that "It would be great if Igor Pavlov, Lasse Collin, or other people with direct implementation experience reviewed this".

Sure the reference to the "Stream-format" chapter of the lzip manual is not ideal for Wikipedia (it is a primary source) but its neutral point of viev is guaranteed by its mathematical nature and, AFAIK, it is currently the only one available. The article itself states that "no complete natural language specification of the compressed format seems to exist". Please, remember that the LZMA article is not a biography of a living person nor is about some controversial issue. It is a technical article about an algorithm. In this context it is ridiculous that the only expert with direct implementation experience willing to improve the article is not allowed to even adding technical references to it. Ant diaz (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of crowd funding services

Why have you removed my contribution of Monday 28 October on Comparison of crowd funding services? --PanderMusubi (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

GFI Software (now GFI MAX Backup) deletion

HI, Now I am confused. Why GFI Sotware (now GFI Max Backup) was deleted again? We have in wikipedia article about GFI software. And it was like this before my last changes for a long time. Now we only want "GFI Max backup" in brackets. Why it is forbidden and can not be published?

Thank you

Veronika.iaso (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That list should index Wikipedia articles about backup software. That the entry persisted for a while with a link to a software company (not a software product) was an oversight. - MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It was exactly like this before I changed it on 23 of October. The link from this list redirected exactly to GFI Software page.

Veronika.iaso (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pinoy Auto Trader

Hello MrOllie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pinoy Auto Trader, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  13:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

CAM editor

Hello MrOllie, I've removed your prod notice on the CAM editor article. I've added additional sources which should save it from wp:Afd. It seems to be used fairly extensively by the NIEM people to generate information exchanges across the USA states. Ignore that comment I made yesterday. scope_creep talk 13:30 03 November 2013 (UTC)

That's because Webber, the software's author, sits on the NIEM Technical Architecture Committee. All of the citations you've added come from Webber or an organization he's affiliated with. I think if it goes to AFD it is still very likely to be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of external links to testing frameworks on Behavior Driven Development page

I added a link to the BDD framework Chorus in the external links section of the page on Behavior-driven development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior-driven_development

I noticed that you reverted this change on 19th September, also removing all the links from that page to other BDD frameworks. I understand why you did this having reviewed relevant guidelines. - but these links were actually very useful for people who would like to find a suitable BDD framework to use with a project. It would be good to find an alternative place to put them.

I'd like to create a new page listing all these frameworks. (List of Behavior Driven Development Frameworks) This approach has been taken in many other similar cases, e.g the list of unit testing frameworks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks

This list page could then be linked from the main BDD page.

Before I spend the time to create a list of BDD frameworks page, and restore to it all the links from the main BDD page which were removed, I'd like to be sure that you won't revert my changes this time around. Does the suggestion of creating a links page seem acceptable to you? If it is not acceptable, could you suggest an alternative approach we could take?

Janick388 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy on link directories, any such list article that is composed mostly of external links or list entries without Wikipedia articles will probably be deleted. I suggest you move the list to a site that is dedicated to hosting link directories - dmoz.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Would it then be acceptable to add an external link from the Wikipedia BDD page to the list of frameworks on dmoz.org or an equivalent? The motivation here is that it is very beneficial to people considering a BDD driven testing approach to have a link which suggests where they can look to find an appropriate framework. A good percentage of visitors to the BDD article page will most likely fit into this category.

The page I had in mind would include more information e.g. tables of relative features/capabilities rather than purely a list of links. Since that would seem to be more in the nature of original content as opposed to a simple list of links, would it still be covered by NOTDIRECTORY? I not sure that sort of content would be possible on dmoz at a first glance. There are certainly a large number of hugely useful pages of this nature which already form part of wikipedia.

Janick388 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Indoor Cycling

You are repeatedly deleting substantive edits under the guise that a small part of my edits "outed" another editor by using his real name. But it does not break Wikipedia rules to use someone's name when they have already used it themselves. The editor uses his real name when editing the Wikipedia pages, so we can also use it all we want. It's also relevant to my point that he is posting under a conflict of interest and promoting the page for the purposes of supporting his company's lawsuit, not for creating a neutral page about the subject of indoor cycling. I have explained all my edits thoroughly in the talk page, and it's nothing short of vandalism for you to repeatedly delete both my edits to the main page and my explanation of the edits in the talk page. Theready199 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of remote desktop software

We have noticed that Winflector product entry on 'Comparison of remote desktop software' page has been removed. This product is available and actively developed. Could you please restore the Winflector entry? Thank you. Bozenap (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that it is available and actively developed is not enough. It must have third party sources that meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Winflector entry has been introduced to this Wikipedia page by a reliable person, and was up-to-date and accurate. Winflector is listed in similar comparisons, for example socialcompare.com/en/review/winflector. The page is just 'a comparison of remote desktop software available for various platforms' - Winflector is a kind of such software, which is available, so its entry increases the value of the comparison. Bozenap (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Internet Security Awareness Training

I am the author of that page. The external links have been in there from the beginning, and are extremely useful for the people that are looking for a service like this. Please stop taking them out? Thanks ! Sjoerdat13 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links such as those are not in keeping with the criteria for external links. Many things that are 'useful' are not in scope for Wikipedia articles, in particular, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a directory of services or external links. - MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of time tracking software

Hi, on October 14 I added BillingTracker to the table of the 'Comparison of time tracking software', to make the table more complete. In order to do that, I had to first create a new page for BillingTracker. I created the BillingTracker page by following the format used by BillQuick (BQE Software),which is on the table.

I cannot understand why you removed the entry for BillingTracker in the 'Comparison of time tracking software' table, and I don't understand how to improve the BillingTracker article since it follows an existing model and has supporting links that justify its claims (e.g. it does not appear to fall under 'section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion'. Any help would be appreciated. (it seems you removed both on October 14.) Jeremygerber (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, I tagged it for consideration and it was deleted by someone else. G11 means that the article was deleted because it was written like an advertisement, not because of any issues with it's structure or sourcing - those factors may or may not have been sufficient, the evaluation didn't get that far because it was an advert. I would suggest that you review wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and refrain from adding articles about products you are affiliated with in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Code Review Tools

Why did you undo my changes to the Code Review Tools page and delete some of the tools listed there? This page used to be a great source of information and now you have diminished it to a very reduced set of the code review tools available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanfunk (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I removed them based on our guidelines on external links and this relevant essay, and the giant yellow edit notice that pops up when you edit that list. - MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a question according this page. Recentely I've added some paid code review products without the external links. I think that this information will be very usefull for users. Why did you undo my changes? The list of code review tools you have left is very poor and they have low functionality! Please review your decision! - Peter Laskin (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As the bright yellow box that shows up whenever you edit that page states, list entries should have independent sources that meet our guidelines or be a link to a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok! But what's wrong with paid editions of code review tool. These editions are much more popular and necessary for users then free versions that you've left. You simply cut the very import part from the whole range of the most important code review tools, I think that people should know both free and paid versions. And as I've told paid versions are more popular among professionals, as they are really better. Speaking about "independent sources" you can type the names of these tools in google and see that they have a lot of mentions in "independent sources". Simply type: Code Collaborator, Crucible, Review Assistant if you don't believe me... Or I should find and type the links from "independent sources" here to you? Speaking about external links on the page (I've read you previous discussion with Nathanfunk) - all what we do is for users' comfort. If you think that there mustn't be any external link to the page - delete them. But in that case user should copy and paste product's name to google search in order to find the detailed info! I thought that wiki is targeted at user's comfort! Am I right? - Peter Laskin (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I am Peter Laskin. I have already written at you talk page my opinion about code review page. Please look through it. My work deals with programming so I've written from the point of a person who works with these software. Peter Laskin (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop adding software to that list. As the large yellow edit notice informs you when that page is edited, those entries are not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, I would like some elaboration on why my additions to the Source Code list on 3 September 2013‎ were removed. I believe I inserted a reliable third-party independent source. I had links to AccuRev's website stating that they support these code review products. So, I was not just using "the software developer's own website". You had removed my addition of Crucible and CodeCollaborator. Yes they are websites and not doctoral papers but the other references are websites. If I linked them in an incorrect way I would love to learn, fix it, and use it as an example for others. What kind of reference would be required, is a doctoral paper required, or something from the ACM digital library? Furtchet (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lines removed

Hi, by using the query : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software&diff=570544104&oldid=570542857 It seems that you have removed lines that concern a software reference (akrdc) i have added few months ago. Is it an error ? or is there any reason ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrofthejungle (talk • contribs) 09:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of such lists is to serve as an index of Wikipedia content, not a place for you to place external links to your software products. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Crowdfunding Edit

Hi Mr Ollie, Please can you let me know why you removed my addition to "Crowdfunding" on 17 October 2013‎? Thanks, SWills SWills244 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Single person article

Hello there! Regarding your edit on the Single person article, could you please provide an insight why "love-shyness" isn't appropriate there? Which AFD you're referring to? If it's about the linked article being deleted, then it's about just removing the link, not the wording. Please advise. — Dsimic (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a neologism, so we should avoid using it. In any case it was redundant with the 'emotional issues' and 'social fears' already mentioned in the sentence. - MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, it makes sense. — Dsimic (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WiseMapping

Back in April 13 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding: LLBLGen_Pro

• "This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2014)". There's no basis for this, as the delete discussion proved there are enough. You keep on hammering this point but there's no consensus that this is a problem.

• "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (January 2014)". No it's not, it's a dry sum up of simple facts (verifiable even). Nowhere is marketing-speak used. Again, your opinion which is stated as 'fact'.

• "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (January 2014)". Why is this a problem? Isn't the person who actually wrote the software the one who can contribute the most? I think it is. Same goes for the main researcher who is the known specialist on a topic T and that person is then not allowed to contribute to the page on T because s/he has a close connection to T. Duh, it's likely the person who knows the most about T.

I must say I sense there's some hidden motivation on your behalf to keep pressing on till LLBLGen Pro's page is purged from wikipedia. As if life gets better because of that. --Otis Inf (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

These are routine tags that indicate that there are unresolved issues and that sources identified during the AFD have not yet been integrated. This has nothing to do with deletion or being 'purged'. - MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nagios page - Nagios Plugins renamed to Monitoring Plugins, new URL @ monitoring-plugins.org

Hi, since you've been protecting the Nagios page from actions harming the spirit of free speech, I just wanted to give you an update on a recent happening in terms of the Nagios Plugins project used by Nagios and its forks. The official website at former nagios-plugins.org has been compromized and the project moved to https://www.monitoring-plugins.org and also renamed itself to "Monitoring Plugins". The full story is here: https://www.monitoring-plugins.org/archive/devel/2014-January/009417.html

While I would edit the article myself, it wouldn't look that good, especially in terms of my relationship to Icinga. It would be nice to see that updates reflected somehow in the Wikipedia article, but I'll leave that to the Wikipedia community and you what fits best here - stories always have two sides. Dnsmichi (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Troubling, but to write about it on Wikipedia we'll have to wait until independent journalists publish about it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sdcraigo

Dear Mr. Ollie:

I apologize for my poorly executed efforts to correctly cite a reliable source for Sam Ursini's inclusion in the "Notable People" Category for my town.

I am on the Board of Directors of the Rancho Santa Fe Association, and I believe, as do many people from our town, that Sam Ursini is both an aviation pioneer and a war hero. I'm not sure why there would be a problem with his inclusion.

I submit the following for your reconsideration:

Sincerely, Craig McAllister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdcraigo (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. You are edit warring with another editor at the Rancho Santa Fe article, not me. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie: Sorry about that. Craig

copy.com

Why is copy.com removed 19:43, 21 August 2013‎ from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_hosting_services I Think that copy.com = dropbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dcboz (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they are two different companies. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Floors To Your Home

Last October you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Candy infographic

Hi Mr. Ollie, I thought that was a great infographic on the top 100 candy manufacturers in the world and a perfect fit for that wiki? Is there anything that I could improve on to make it fit better then? Thanks Jmilles54 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That link was removed by User:Seaphoto, not by me. I'll answer your question anyway, though: That was as clear a case of commercial linkspamming as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. If you continue adding links like that, it is very likely that the sites in question will be added to the link blacklist and your account blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Facial Animation page

Dear MrOllie, I did not add promotional material to the "Facial Animation" page. I added real facts about the avancements in the facial animation field. I have rewritten that whole page from scratch last year. It was in a state of confusion and it was lacking all the newest technologies. The same way I added FaceShift I'm adding Mixamo as both are spin-off of stellar academic work and have resulted in the commercialization of unique technologies. I have read the COI documentations, published in my life over 50 articles and several patents, so I understand scientific merit. Please do not revert those changes because it would be harmful to the facial animation knowledge base. Thanks.

Best regards

Stefano001 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you had really read and understood the COI guidelines you would not be inserting references to your company on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

GameVox article

MrOllie, Unfortunately http://www.uspto.gov/ does not allow linking of Trademark entries. This is why I used two different trademark websites for reference. Would these not be considered as "reliable, independent sources."? Or is the issue that I need more? Thank you for your time Nobleben (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks do not help to build the case for notablity - any company or person who pays the fee can get a trademark. We need articles that are about this software in publications, such as newspapers or magazines, that have a reputation for fact checking and for exercising editorial control over content. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pricing info

As the person who made this edit (even if half a year ago), you might like to chime in within this discussion, on related matters. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks for the pointer. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit almost a year ago?

Why did you revert my post on Posteo in the comparison of webmail providers? Belchford (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)belchford

Because Wikipedia lists are for indexing content, not for advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to youtube on ellipse- polar coordinate

First- I couldn't find the + you mentioned for creating a new section. I hope this works. You removed a link I put on youtube in the ellipse value. Wikipedia does not explain the derivation of the polar coordinates. The video does it in a simple and clear way (pedagogic but not novel of course). The value on Wikipedia does not explain why the different definitions are equivalent. It refers the reader to Dandelin spheres, which are beautiful but not directly accessible to many viewers. I provided a link to a simple, straight forward explanation and it was also removed. I now realize that links to youtube from Wikipedia are hopeless as 3 editors already removed my links to different values which provided important useful information to the readers. This is very unfortunate since it makes a huge resource of information and pedagogical material (by numerous people) inaccessible . If you have ideas how to implement videos to Wikipedia or make links that will stay there I will be very happy to hear. Otherwise I give up. I think you guys have the wrong approach: you ask yourself- is this verifiable? This is the wrong question - information on Wikipedia is never reliable. It could be very helpful though. You should ask yourself - is this helpful.

Best, Boaz Katz Boazkaka (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

You left me a message on my talk page last week. As you recommend in your welcome message, I responded on my own talk page. Having not yet received a response from you, I am leaving you a message to request that you respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Fta09peter (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of webmail providers

I am in no way affiliated with those services (nor posteo nor polarismail), but since i've been doing a lot of research on mail providers, i added them, as i feel they should be on the list. And why are other providers listed, if they're not supposed to be advertised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.76.97.16 (talk • contribs)

You added external links. That comparison is an index of Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mixamo

Dear MrOllie,

I'm writing you this as it seems like you have some specific reason to take down anything that involves Mixamo.

I take as an example the 3D modeling page.

There are several commercial products there: TurboSquid, The3DStudio, CreativeCrash, CGTrader, FlatPyramid, NoneCG, CGPeopleNetwork and DAZ 3D, Cinema 4D, form•Z, Maya, 3DS Max, Blender, Lightwave, Modo, solidThinking just to name a few. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS REMOVE ANYTHING ABOUT MIXAMO? Specifically the technology that we developed is unique in the world. The demonstration of it is that in many cases it originates from Stanford University. For 3D modeling for example, Fuse (developed at Stanford) is the ONLY character creator that allows users to integrate their own content. This is a revolution. Mixamo is the fiorefront of the technology. Mixamo is the first company IN THE WORLD to integrate machine learning into ANIMATION. This is a historical change in the animation world.

We have an endless list of talks and many patents granted that prove the novelty and validity of our approaches, which mean WE ARE RELEVANT to Wikipedia users as we represent the PRESENT and FUTURE of animation, with over 200,000 developers/artists.

We tried to make the contribution very non-marketing. If you think it should be changed I'm ok improving but please stop removing ALL our contributions even when they are approrpiate or i will report you.

Thank you for your understanding. I'm just trying to be treated in a FAIR way.

Stefano

Stefano001 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)stefano001

I appreciate that you have tried to be very non-marketing, but you are failing at this. Please stop inserting references to your own company and technologies to Wikipedia and leave it to established, neutral editors. Per WP:UNDUE, your products simply do not merit mention in general 3D articles. If you feel the need to report me, please do so. I suggest the administrator's notice board. - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefano001 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)stefano001

You have not answered my question about why other commercial products can be mentioned there. Your judgement of "our products not meriting mention" is completely flaw. For some personal reason you hate Mixamo. If you did some research you would understand you are wrong. Want to do a 5 seconds test? Try searching on GOOGLE for "3d character creator". Who is the #1 entry? Fuse. Surprised? If you want a Fuse page to be written by an independent writer we can do that but I would recommend you reconsider removing one more time an appropriate reference. This is stellar research work that came out of Stanford University you are deleting. The first and only character creator that allows integration of user generated assets. I hope you are technical enough to understand its importance. I have 20 years in academia (including Stanford University) writing articles and peer-reviewing work of my colleagues, so I have the integrity and the knowledge base to write about this. Please revert your edits.

Thanks

Stefano

You have personalized this dispute to such a degree that I do not believe you would listen to any further answers I give you. I suggest you visit the noticeboard to get input from additional editors. - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nagios XI removed from Comparison of network monitoring systems

Hello,

Not too long ago, I added Nagios XI as a monitoring solution to Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems

Yesterday I noticed, my edit as gone and it seems you have deleted it. Can I ask why?

Grtz

Willem

F1regiver (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nagios already has a listing on that comparison. We shouldn't have a second listing for the XI variant. - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie,

I can assure you that there is a big difference between Nagios and Nagios XI. This should definitely not be considered as the same monitoring solution. Could you please reconsider this?

Willem

F1regiver (talk)

copyright of text on article about OpenHAB

Hi and thanks for reviewing the new article about OpenHAB. You are right that text parts are identical to texts on www.openHAB.org - the reason is that I wrote both myself, i.e. I am the only author and thus own the copyright. I expected in this situation, this would not mean a problem? If it does, I can try to reformulate things on Wikipedia, please tell me if I should do so.

Thanks, Kai (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, see the guideline on conflict of interest. It would probably be best if people connected with your organization would not write about OpenHAB - leave it to neutral parties, please. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Raybarber (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr Ollie, on this and many other subjects, I see time and time again your name appear as removing information on the basis of conflict of interest. I note that in minority of places that has actually had some use, so thank you, but in many other cases it does not, for which i take umbrage.

Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organisation? Shortcut: WP:BFAQ#EDIT An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organizations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page. Likewise, if you have content which you think should be added, please discuss this on the talk page. Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must follow our policies. Note that the guideline very strongly discourages direct article editing if you have a financial conflict of interest; see WP:NOPAY. You are expected to allow other editors to revise your contributions as they see fit. If you follow our basic rules, your edits may be accepted by the community; if you don't, they may be reverted. You may end up being blocked if you attempt to insist on your version or otherwise hinder the collaborative efforts of your peers to reach a version of the article based on the consensus of the community. For more suggestions see the essays: Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, Suggestions for COI compliance, and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

The above guidelines for articles in Wikipedia does not say you CANNOT write articles about yourself or your organisation, it just says 'You are discouraged'. I note in the instances where you remove information it is often where industry experts are writing about a subject matter. Wikipedia is improved by having experts writing about topics that are new and likely unknown to other people so that individuals may find answers to their questions. To believe that it is completely unbiased and never from sources that are related to the subject is not possible. Saying that an expert on snails shouldn't write about snails is obviously nonsense, as is asking someone who is an expert on some piece of technology not to write about it; they may be one of the few who can.

I do aree it is heavily incumbent on them to show neutrality in this and of course the best judge of that is not someone who does not know the topic, but actually for others who are experts in the field to come along and edit and update the content to gain neutrality. How can that ever happen where topics just get removed? I do not believe that the majority of your efforts are helping to build a better Wikipedia.

I have no idea of your motivations or why you spend your time effort and energy in Wikipedia doing such things, as you provide no information about yourself, so its very difficult to verify your reasons or motivations for removing information because you personally don't feel that it meets with Wikipedia requirements. Wikipedia also suggests that you always state for the record, your affiliations, background, employer etc to assertion such matters.

I would ask that you spend a little more time adding and writing and a lot less time deleting…

I will continue to monitor and assess. Raybarber (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Raybarber

I would ask that you spend a little more time adding neutral sources to your own articles (Kaseya Network Monitor has zero independent citations) and a little less 'monitor and assess'ing (whatever that means) my talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Crowdunding

MrOllie - I apologize for the mistaken undo. It was ARubin who undid the citation and restored material with no citation. It was claimed that it was an "odd defintion" however the definition seemed to be POV and not verified. The replaced definition is directly from a cited/verified source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.189.179 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like you should take that up with him. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

why was ECS removed from HA page ?

hi, as ECS is a home automation program, why can it not be listed in a Home Automation wiki page ?? what is the purpose of such a page, if not to list such products ? why are the other commercial packages "ok", but not ECS ?? thanks, mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgilmore2 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Database Workbench

Contacting you regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Database Workbench (I am familiar with the software and by accident I stumbled upon this draft Wikipedia page) that you had reviewed in the past. I fully understand your initial reasons for declining it (references were mostly lacking), but I spent some time improving it and added quite a few references, including magazines and books, and have updated the overall style of the article. I think it now would be suitable for main space and could move it to there myself (although I have been an active editor since 2006, I never worked on "Articles for creation" before.... shame on me I guess), but wanted to check with you first. Do you agree if I move it there, or do you want to do it yourself?

Best, --Reinoutr (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure if you are active these days, but I improved the article a bit more and probably will move it to main space tomorrow. If you have any remaining comments, let me know. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As you seem to be away from Wikipedia for a while, I will proceed with moving the article to mainspace. If you have any other comments on the article, I will address them afterwards, just let me know!. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Home automation

Hi, please can you provide more information about why you have removed the new table I added. Comparison of home automation software. This is information that a lot of people all over the internet have been requesting. Thanks. -- zcapr17 (talk)

Wikipedia policies say that we don't build directories of software and/or external links here. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more details. It may be an often requested list, as you say, but it will have to be hosted on some other web site. - MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

MrOllie, you are misinterpreting the Wikipedia policy. How is the comparison table I've added any different to the other 9803 valuable software comparison tables on Wikipedia? E.g.

Comparison_of_video_player_software

Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems

Comparison_of_raster-to-vector_conversion_software

Comparison_of_accounting_software

Comparison_of_web_server_software

Comparison_of_audio_player_software

Comparison_of_DVD_ripper_software

Comparison_of_commercial_GPS_software

There's thousands of them. How come all of these haven't been deleted too?

Thanks. -- zcapr17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are comparisons of items that have existing Wikipedia articles - we are allowed to index Wikipedia content in ways that are not used for external links or unlinked software items. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Software design pattern / External link to w3sdesign.com

Hello, I think that the w3sDesign Patterns website contains encyclopedic and accurate material that is relevant to the understanding of the subject. Please visit the site and see what it has to offer. I would like to add a link to it.

Best regards Serv49 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias against small companies?

You are attempting to delete all articles written about Goverlan. Goverlan is a legitimate company servings over 110 countries and 17 industries. It seems that you are biased toward larger corporations. This is a 16 year old company with a proven track record and large client base. Numerous independent reviews and articles have been written about Goverlan. It is most definitely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps your attentions would be better focused on LANDESK, which was flagged in 2009, but has miraculously escaped deletion for 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmh337 (talk • contribs)

Thank you random new user, I'll take your 100% unbiased and independent opinion into consideration. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello MrOllie. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References in Migasfree

Hi MrOllie.

I have included references in migasfree page.

Thanks.

Albertogacias (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_code_review

Why have "Distributed Reviews" been removed by you today from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_code_review

?

It would be helpful to understand which properties a Software must have to be published there.

Mstrap (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

'rm link spam' - arbitrary and unjustified

Your removal of several links to Neu seems unfair and arbitrary, e.g:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_artificial_intelligence_projects&diff=prev&oldid=641452365

This is a multipurpose framework and it lives up to what the link captions described it as being. Basing a decision to remove based only on the number of links is not a good reason. The links were carefully added in places next to other software which do similar things so what is wrong with this? This framework is the result of several years of work and it is made available under a free BSD-style license. By removing all these links you are preventing many people from discovering this as a software solution. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:680:15B:550E:8863:8CE9:CA26 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to host a directory of links for people to discover. I suggest you list your project on a site that is such a directory - dmoz.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That is understandable in general, but certain Wikipedia entries are specifically designated as a listing of software projects and links, and that is where, and only where, I added my links, e.g:

[AI Multipurpose projects::software packages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_intelligence_projects]

[Comparison of database tools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools]

There are several links on such pages – how are the many links here any different than mine?. I believe I am right in doing this and consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines. Why have you singled me as being 'link spam' while numerous software and links are 'allowed' to be listed here? Is there someone else I can talk to about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.222.187 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up at the external links noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I spent some time reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines today. Your removal of my links and labelling them as ‘spam’ has little valid basis.

While it is true that Wikipedia in general is not a collection of links, there are several designated places where software links are listed, labeled ‘External Links’, or ‘List of Neural Network Software’, etc. It is not a sufficient reason to remove something simply on the basis of there being ‘too many links to it’. From what I can tell, this seems to be your reason main impetus for doing this and possibly how you have detected my so called ‘spam’ in some automated fashion. My framework was listed on several pages because it provides a valuable solution for many different purposes, e.g: neural networks, databases, artificial intelligence frameworks. My links were placed in a proper place alongside other similar software. Why are the other listings allowed there and not mine? My framework is high-quality, well-documented, and provides a genuine solution in these areas; it is free software available under a BSD license. Why do you want to prevent me from getting the word out about it? Honestly, what harm am I doing here and what gives you the authority to do this? Your reasons seem arbitrary and you seem to have singled me out for subjective reasons rather than looking at the facts and consistency of how other link listings existed on these pages. I am re-adding my links. Please try and look at this a little more objectively, you can refer to my documentation and code on github and verify that this is a valuable tool in many areas, thus many links, not ‘spam’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:680:15B:550E:8863:8CE9:CA26 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is singling you out. I don't think WP is the best place to "get the word out" about your software. Dawnseeker2000 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I've had some time to think about this and I am sorry for my initial reaction. I understand your point of view too. I still feel strongly that my framework should be allowed a spot in the 'external links' section and other places alongside other software which does similar things because I believe my framework provides a viable solution in these areas. If you'd ever reconsider I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.222.53 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

external links

In April 2014 you removed a link to http://www.british-sign.co.uk/british-sign-language/dictionary/%7Ctitle=BSL Sign Language Illustrated Dictionary) The link was added again recently and on Sunday 18th Jan when adding a new link to a university based free dictionary I removed the above only for it to be immediately reinstated by Sladen. Can I check if policy regarding external links to commercial sites has been changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.89.235 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NuGet article - notability issues

Hello Mr Ollie - Can you clarify why you feel NuGet doesn't meet WP:NOTE? Teh klev (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It references no independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

RhodeCode

Hi MrOllie. I did a through job of updating the RhodeCode page as an independent. This is my first ever wikipedia edit and I am proud of it. I fixed several errors and cleaned up the text. I don't know what beef you have with these guys but note this is a project I took on as independent user of their tool. For you just to delete everything speaks volumes about your impartiality. If you have a specific issue with something I wrote there than call it out or ask me a question but its not right you just trash someones useful effort toward making Wikipedia better. And there were errors on the page that needed to be fixed and stuff that didn't belong there. I fixed all of that. I was planning to do more of these types of edits on tools I use so so I can contribute back to a site which has helped me so much. So if there is something specific than tell me as good feedback toward my effort. All you did was trash the whole edit. On the other hand if you are one of those guys who just likes crapping on everything so be it. But note that when you do this you just make people not want to contribute. That is exactly how I feel right now. Congratulations if that was your intent. If not than tell me specifically how I can improve my edits and make contributions to Wikipedia. Karen (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karensage (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What you did was replace the page with a PR puff piece, removing all mention of the licensing problems and adding unsourced commentary like 'used by market sector leaders in over 80 countries and 10,000 users to measurably increase software development productivity' Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally, not as advertisements. We can't have that, especially on an article that has a history of being edited by company employees. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As i mentioned I do not work for RhodeCode. I am a user of their tools. I will source the user stuff as I did pull it from a PR or remove it as it sounds like you would prefer. The licensing issue made no sense at all. There is no licensing issue on RhodeCode. So thank you for telling my why you had issue -- I do thank you for that. And that is helpful. I will make some fixes now. Partly I just went to another tools page Atlassian and copied their approach to writing the page. Thanks again, Karen (Karensage (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

The licensing issue makes a lot of sense to me - any time a GPL project turns proprietary it is a big deal, and AFAIK most of the independent writing about this company is actually about the licensing dispute. We can't simply remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: WP:PROD on Atlassian Stash

Greetings - I just dropped the PROD tag you had added on the Stash article and replaced it with maintenance tags for single source and citations. I came to this article looking for info on when Stash was first released, which I feel is valuable information to have. Atlassian's other products have some pretty good writeups here, and it doesn't feel right to throw out the work that's been done on this one. Please message me if you want to talk :) K_arunamon^Talk 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

List of code review tools

can you explain why you reverted my edit on List of tools for code review? Both tools I added are valid and I went through the process of digging through their websites to identify the list of repositories they support as well as languages and pre/post commit support for code reviews. I read the talk page there and someone else suggested that the page is only a list of 'notable code review tools' and while this may be true there is nothing on the article suggesting this and both systems I added are in wide use and notable they just don't have their own wikipedia page yet. Several weeks ago I was looking into possible code review tools and the first result in my research was always this wikipedia list page, however because it is incomplete I missed several possibilities that I could have investigated. This is what prompted me to add them to the list page. Thanks! Randyaa (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the giant yellow text box that appeared when you edited that article: 'When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no reliable independent reliable sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed. The software developer's own website is not an independent source.' - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 148,000 results for ["kiln code review"] which one would you like to use? Instead of being so harsh with your responses and edits, perhaps a small comment and some time to allow us to find a reference would be appropriate? Wikipedia doesn't need to be such a hostile place. Randyaa (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Most google hits are not suitable sources. I suggest you have a look at the notability and the sourcing guidelines and write the article first. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Would [Evolution, Part 1: DVCS as Code Review] & [Evolution, Part 2: From Prototype to Beta] work? they clearly discuss the fact that Kiln is a code review tool and describe how they came about. Randyaa (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not independently written, and it is a self published blog, both of which disqualify it it terms of establishing notability. I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines I linked above, as well as our guideline on conflict of interest and Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the reference I added? It's a published book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethx (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't discuss the software in any detail - an entry in a bullet point list isn't sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly misinterpreting Wikipedia's policy on this matter. Read WP:LISTN in its whole entirety, it does not say that that every item needs to have an article, but that is just one form of selection criteria. You are purposely misinterpreting an optional style as a set rule, while such optional styles need to first be explicitly stated in an introduction to the list and only after a consensus is reached on the talk page WP:MOS#STYLEVAR. You seem to claim ownership of the page WP:OWN and instead of trying to finding a consensus, you are engaging in a slow edit war with other editors WP:EDITWAR. Dlpkbr (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am hardly alone in this 'misinterpretation', consider the contents of Wikipedia:Write the article first. - MrOllie (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Promote your approach here adversely affects the development and content publishing. The popularity of this case of fashion and glossy magazines. Opening Wikipedia we usually want to see the whole picture and not just a list of tools that could be mold. I wish you to look at the world in a new way with Wikipedia, and that in spite of its popularity it can also be covered with mold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.19.95.236 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: dbForge Studio

Hi MrOllie,

My name is Jordan. I'd like to discuss the issue occured on this page - dbForge_Studio

According to the Wikipedia rules, software is notable if it has been recognized as having technical significance by reliable sources.

There is a review of dbForge Studio for SQL Server:

Though, self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Mr. Greg Low can be considered as expert and his review represents his own thoughts and opinion, but it's not Devart's promotional activity. As a proof, please, look at the references

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanS22 (talk • contribs)

Looks like this article has since been deleted by someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Singleton External Links

I think a link to Dp4j.com/Singleton page should be listed in the External Links of the Singleton Pattern page. Dp4j is a Java tool for injecting Singletons' boilerplate code. It is the only Java tool that does this in Java for the Singleton design pattern as described in an ACM DL paper on the @Singleton annotation from Dp4j. It is a useful external link, if not directly discussed in a section of the page itself. Simpatico qa (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links on Wikipedia are for providing information to a general audience - articles about what a singleton is are appropriate. Tools, which would only be used by engineers who already know what a singleton is, are not really appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The page discusses different ways of implementing the singleton in Java. Shall we then also mention the @Singleton option there as well? I think this will be very consistent with the purpose and context of the page. Is not it? Simpatico qa (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The page lists some multi language concept implementations which happen to have examples in Java. Java specific implementations aren't helpful. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a way to implement the Singleton Pattern that uses Java annotations since Java 5, and is described here. But you think it will be helpful and enriching for the reader to be aware of it in the external links at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 05:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't be any more clear: No, that link does not belong on Wikipedia- - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Home automation software

Hi - you reverted my addition of openHAB to List_of_home_automation_software. I'm not sure that's right. I understand the article on openHAB was deleted last year; partly because of concerns about notability, and in part because the article had been written by one of the contributors to openHAB. I am not a contributor to openHAB (just someone thinking of installing the software). The notability concerns probably no longer hold - in the last year or so, openHAB has had a reasonable degree of coverage in the press (e.g. Fastcompany, Forbes). Also - and this may just be my ignorance - is the existence (or not) of an openHAB article relevant to whether openHAB is included in a list of open source home automation software? Particularly when QIVICON is already in the list, and QIVICON is based on the same underlying code base. LeContexte (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Most lists on Wikipedia are navigational aids and should link to other Wikipedia articles. The article on Openhab has been deleted four times in total, usually for being basically spam, most recently just a few months ago. If you want to write a new non-promotional version, that would be very welcome, but do keep in mind that any forbes ref you find that has /sites/ in the title is actually somebody's blog and won't help build the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

noted - thank you! I'll see what notable sources, if any, I can find LeContexte (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Sciencescape

Hi! I noticed you reverted User:Soyuzman's contribution on Sciencescape, which changed company name to META. I'm guessing that was a revert due to the unsourced claim. In the future could a description be written explaining why you reverted the content, since it wasn't obvious vandalism? I think that would make it more obvious and clear for other editors to follow why content was removed. Thanks! Appable (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Peer-to-peer_lending#United_States

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted an addition I made based off of information from an article in Forbes. Could you please elaborate on why this change was made?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekirkut (talk • contribs)

Any forbes.com URL that contains /sites/ is not actually a forbes article - it is a blog hosted on forbes.com. At any rate, I removed it per WP:UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dorothy Gale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Gale

I noticed you axed a referenced example of a song published with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers that is named after and talks directly about the articles very namesake. I wanted to ask you why this was done please. Thanks for your time on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.7.34 (talk • contribs)

I removed it per WP:UNDUE. That article is not a place to promote a little known band. - MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankenstein in popular culture: Revision history

It looks like you removed the recent addition of a wiki'd piece of music that references Frankenstein from the "other derivatives: music" section of the "Frankenstein in popular culture" article. I believe the addition was added to an pre-existing list of musical pieces, many of which are non-referenced (and potentially non-relevant). Just wondering why this removal occurred and where contributors can publicly review the objective criteria needed for a relevant item to make said list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadillacula (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:UNDUE. That article is not a place to promote a little known band. - MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure, in this case, that this was a correct removal under WP:UNDUE. Apologies, but I truly believe the inclusion was not about the band but rather only helps to show the disparate materializations of the articles namesake across a great variety of mediums. I think this is on point for "in other media" type sections. Also can you provide any non-subjective context that defines "little known" with regards to any entertainer? I ask because the band in question was verifiably credited with writing and recording the theme song to an internationally syndicated genre-defining reality show. A credential that Mindless Self Indulgence, Space Mandino, Crass, Jose Fors, Toy Love and Glass Wave arguably could not compete with. If a lone omnipotent contributors unfamiliarity or lack of research on any given subject constitutes fair use of due and undue weight, than can we at least get some consistency with the other entries? Please reconsider your position or help eliminate the other ganders. Thanks for your interest in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadillacula (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Highly accelerated life test

I respectfully disagree that the links are inappropriate. They contain links to valuable technical articles that explain different aspects about Highly accelerated life testing.

Drdoom13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdoom13 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy Sport Deletion

Mr. Ollie,

 I saw that you deleted all the information that I posted about fantasy sport claiming it violated the conflict of interest. I see that a "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked. " However, I respectfully disagree that inputting the work of a faculty member at my university is undermining the integrity of wikipedia. All of the work that I had inputted were from peer-reviewed journals that have already been published and thus the work has been double checked for accuracy. 

I feel that the fantasy sport wikipedia page is lacking information and the academic provided some of the missing data. Additionally, the fantasy sport wikipedia page is lacking any academic work and the referencesI had added were some of the top academic articles and journals on fantasy sport. Is there anyway to work out a solution where some of the academic work is listed on the wikipedia.

Thanks.

LisaVCUCSL (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)VCUCSL

Response to talk

Thanks - have responded on my page as you requested Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipSJones (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie - I have responded on my page as you requested. Thanks and best regards. 11:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingenieria-logistica (talk • contribs)

Revert on List of Managed DNS Providers

Hi, I saw that you reverted the addition I made to the List of Managed DNS Providers page. The addition is a managed DNS provider that has been around for over a decade, and ranks third for largest market share. All of the information I added to the table was listed publicly on their website. This isn't the first time that someone (other than me) has added DNS Made Easy to this list, and yet no one has explained why they are consistently removing this one provider again and again. Would appreciate some clarity and maybe some advice on how to properly add DNS Made Easy to this list. Writinggoddess (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We generally do not list topics that have been deleted at AFD on list articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that. I can assure you I don't plan to make another page for DNS Made Easy, however there's no reason why it shouldn't be listed as a provider. I recognize the fact that it's not notable enough for a page of its own, but the company is one of the largest "managed DNS providers" in the world, which should be more than enough to permit being listed. Writinggoddess (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Writinggoddess. The changes you made to this list have made it all but useless. You are removing real providers that may be useful to others (including myself who was using the old list for research). I have added NS1 for the time being. Please revert back to the full list. --68.132.230.51 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to provide a directory of such services, see What Wikipedia is not. If you want to build a complete listing, I suggest you do so on a site that is intended for that purpose. DMOZ.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cloud Computing Comparison modification.

Hello MrOllie, for the article on the subject [[3]], you seems to have removed all the information pertaining to the comparison of the clouds based on the features they provide. There was explicit mention of each features with their explanation and links to external links for the information. Kindly help me to understand the reason for the same. As per me, the features of cloud also do have an important role to play in selection and gives indepth knowledge of the each feature which can help users select the same. Kindly help in here please to reinstate the article. The article was modified as 17:21, 25 February 2016 Parmarvishalb (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The definitions of all those things were largely off topic - in depth knowledge of each feature is better provided on the individual pages of those features. Similarly, an exhaustive features list is better provided on the article for each cloud. - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While i may agree to the point that the exhaustive list of those components and cloud providers would may have in their respective pages - however this page as described to be a cloud comparison, hence believe that we need to have all summary into one page instead of referring to individual pages and get lost into them. Would still believe that the page posted by me and others would help users have information on one page. Moreover it took lot of efforts to accumulate the data - which ofcourse for users would be difficult.Parmarvishalb (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation removal in IoT

Mr Ollie,

I made some relevant citation changes in the Internet of Things (IoT) page. I respectfully disagree with you removing those citations without any proper reason. The cited work was from an online peer reviewed journal and totally relevant with the context of the IoT section where it was cited.

--Smarty39 (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a journal with an impact factor of zero and which is on Beall's list of predatory journals. We shouldn't use it. We especially don't need to cite it redundantly for content that already has sourcing, as was the case on the articles it was recently added to. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That publication (DOI: 10.5120/19547-1280) has around 11 citations most of which are from journals of prestigious publishers like IEEE, Springer and Hindawi which kind of makes it a good reference for the Internet of Things page. Also, it had been on the same page for like an year (along with the line that goes "These devices collect useful data with the help of various existing technologies and then autonomously flow the data between other devices.") so, it deserves to be put there again. Please take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_of_Things&oldid=647722225 (15:48, 18 February 2015) --Smarty39 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted List of tools for static code analysis

Hi Mr Ollie,

I'm not a frequent wikipedia user so not quite familiar with the community as you. It seems that List of tools for static code analysis is reverted to a version you edited last time, which involves a removal of my small additions (on C language) and another user's (on C#). Is there a special reason doing so?

Regards

A Goal is a Dream with a Deadline. 11:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

List articles such as that one are generally (but not always, it depends on the list) used as navigation aids and limited to entries that already have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ambitalk / Conflict of interest

MrOllie,

Thank you for your message and your concern regarding conflict of interest.

I am in no way associated with Ambitalk. I just think it is a great thing. I am a radio amateur (see the Wikipedia entry on what this is) and an active radio scanner enthusiast.

I believe very strongly in the trunked radio networks in the UK, NB3, Wavelength, Fleetcomm. They have all fallen by the wayside however and only Ambitalk seems to have made a reasonable go at it because of what they have done which is so unique.

I see a company that is growing. This improves my hobby (radio scanning). They are also extremely charitable and have helped out many amateur radio groups to install amateur repeaters, which helps my hobby.

Anything I can do to give back to someone like that and also give more information about such a network is great I think, isn't that what Wikipedia is about.

Perhaps though I am guilty of writing the article like an advertisement. Could you help me get that part sorted possibly, are there specific sections, is it the wording, or what exactly do you think makes it like an advertisement?

I don't want to get into an edit war, so have left both tags on the Ambitalk page for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MptMan (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear you don't have an undisclosed COI (that would be a violation of Wikipedia's terms of service) I was initially concerned because your account's original name bares a certain similarity to the name of someone involved in Maxxwave.

On Ambitalk, I've gone ahead and pulled out some of the poorly sourced content, and some of the stuff that sounded excessively promotional. In particular we should not call anything a 'market leader', 'UK's largest', etc. in Wikipedia's voice, particularly when those claims are sourced only to that company's statements (or as in this case, sponsored statements in periodicals bankrolled by the company.) I also cut the section on 'AmbiIoT ', because there wasn't a lot of 'there' there - since the information was thin much of the content was couched in terms of things 'appearing', noting what details haven't been released, and so on. Wikipedia has no deadline, so we can wait until all relevant information has appeared in independent, high quality sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for amending the article both Ambitalk and MPT1327. I looked at MPT1327 because this did (I thought) link to Ambitalk, but I note you have removed the citation.

Your changes to the wording are far more neutral, perhaps because you are not so close to the subject material and therefore are more detached. On the whole I support your changes, but there are couple of things you have removed which I feel are really significant and should be mentioned.

Addressing the MPT1327 changes you have made (since this is simplest), I feel Ambitalk is well worth a mention because other networks are mentioned (Chekker, CNET2424, etc), and that it is a significant reversal to the trend of migration to DMR/dPMR, which is very much being discussed at industry forums such as those held by Ofcom and TechUK. Furthermore the digital modifications are very much of note (as the Entropia 6.25khz channel spacing modifications were in the same article), since this bucks the trend for MPT1327 to be considered an "analog" standard.

Addressing the Ambitalk article, I think on the whole you have greatly improved the article and I agree much of what has been removed is insignificant. However I would like to suggest the following elements are put back in:-

With respect to the coverage, this isn't self-claimed, it is a clear fact. There are only small PAMR trunked networks comprising of 2 or 3 sites that cover single cities in the UK. Ambitalk does cover significant parts of the UK. In terms of evidence, using a radio scanner and driving around the UK clearly reveals this. It is also possible to go on the Ofcom licensing database and see that the licenses issued to Maxxwave are "national", whereas those issued to their competitors cover only one or two specific transmitter sites. I wonder how this is best incorporated into the article, because it is this key point that makes Ambitalk so significant and noteworthy in the first place.

Ambitalk doesn't use MPT1327 signalling, it is their own variation with digital signal processing. A standard MPT1327 radio does not work with it. My feeling is that either we need to incorporate the caveat that it is "modified MPT1327" or remove it completely, which does detract somewhat from the depth of the article?

I think the resilience angle, with respect to microwave links is also very significant and unique. Mobile phone networks have hardly any resilience and none of their competitors have any. Perhaps it isn't significant enough to go into the article, I don't know and would appreciate your thoughts.

With respect to AmbiIoT, I think you are right - there is a lot of conjecture at this stage with no real concrete facts announced. The launch has been covered in 3-4 different articles and it is generally being marketed as a separate entity. Perhaps even it should have its own article, once it meets the criteria for this. I do perhaps wonder if a one-line sentence about this IoT thing introduced at the right location would be a worthwhile addition to this article - I will let you decide.

Apart from that, I like your other changes and removals. It is sometimes difficult to write an article when you are the only editor and so input from others is really useful, thank you.

MptMan (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Scoville Scale Removal

Hi Mr. Ollie,

Not sure why you removed my entries on the Scoville Scale page. I added them because another External Link, Scott Roberts, references them on his website.

I believe since there are no other similar external links it is pertinent information. In addition, there is no other cited sources for the Carolina Reaper Scoville measurement and the Scoville Food Institute has taken the time to define it's Scoville rating on their periodic table.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellstormer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a self-published web site that has clearly been put together to sell hot sauce. It is clearly inappropriate per links to be avoided. I have removed the blog you mentioned as well, since we generally don't link to people's blogs either, thanks for pointing that out. - MrOllie (talk)

But we have no problem linking to the Tabasco site that is also selling hot sauce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellstormer (talk • contribs) 13:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's questionable too. If you think it should go, by all means remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

DotConnect ADO.NET Data Providers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DotConnect_ADO.NET_Data_Providers

concern=No indication of notability, sourced to blogs and PR material

Please, take a look at references list and explain why do you consider links 4, 5, 6, 7 as blogs and PR materials (which are definitely informative articles in news outlets). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGryaznov (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Because they are either trivial mentions, or they are obviously close paraphrases of press releases. Do you work for Devart, or are you associated with them in some way? If so, I invite you to read our conflict of interest policy and Wikipedia's terms of use, which require you to make certain disclosures. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nagios-plugins controversy

Please take a look at this. I hope you can agree with my findings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nagios#Nagios-plugins_controversy Jhom526 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverts to Remote Access Software

Hi, just wondering why you removed Exceed from the Remote Access Software page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

Exceed is the highest grossing software on the list for Unix applications. I am the product manager for the product, so you could argue that there is conflict of interest, but the data was accurate without exaggeration and I would imagine that the information is valuable.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.75.254.199 (talk • contribs)

Please take a look at the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed edits

Noticed you reverted some of my edits and links. It is noted that all links were to government publications or industry case studies. I question your motives with your mass edits. Please do not let personal agendas/spam interfere with the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchfrank12 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

'Industry case studies' are not appropriate sources or external links on Wikipedia, particularly when you are linking your employer's web site. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ollie, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your concern as we try to protect our Wikipedia community. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not employed by any employer related to any articles edited nor do I have any outside interest aside from personal research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchfrank12 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your user name's similarity to the author of those studies is quite a coincidence, then. - MrOllie (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the confusion, it seems I filled out the citation information wrong for some of those. I will go back and fix any citations that were incorrect. Good catch. Note that you removing all of my edits was inappropriate as only a couple of them were filled out incorrectly from some of my earlier days on Wikipedia. My apologies for thinking you had alternative motives, it does happen here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchfrank12 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll make this simple: Don't restore links to saltworkstech.com, they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help on the Ellipse article

Since you previously reverted an edit which I also did, could you please weigh in on the talk page for Ellipse. There are two "signed" editors as well as an anonymous editor who I think are the same person, and it is getting a little frustrating that we are not converging. Thanks. LaurentianShield (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What a shame! One unqualified editor asking another to side with him. The subject does not matter. Only personal issues do. Why won't you go together elsewhere rather than supporting each other for a sick cause?2A00:1370:8128:73E:C811:B591:263B:B6C6 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed link

Hi MrOllie. I see that you removed the link I provided. In my eyes it is a relevant link though, which contains useful code samples for the LINQ programmer in C#, VB.NET and F#. I also believe it follows the guidelines in What to Link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. Hope you will reconsider :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdk123 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Language Integrated Query

Hello there,

The edit you reverted complies with all of the guidelines: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." It is relevant, public, open source and has no advertisements or any commercial references.

It also follows the same pattern as "Java library" reference on the same page. So if this considered to be spam please remove that reference as well or explain the difference between these two. ENikS (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

See the guidelines on conflict of interest and link promotion and kindly avoid adding links to your own sites in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

beer review sites

Hello MrOllie,

thank you for your notice.

However, I think that you overemphasized with deleting all the external links I had once set. The external links I added generated value, as many readers like to have additional information to their inquiries. Adding links to sites with beer reviews or unique information is adding value for the readers.

I do unterstand if the information on the linked sites were inadequate. Yet, you only criticise the outer appearance of the linked sites, not the content with its subject information. Content is what counts - and the same applies to Wiki. I would therefore kindly ask you to undo your numerous changes.

I have been writing on Wiki and translating texts for quite some time now, and so far you are the first user to have raised such an issue.

Kind regards BFunken — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFunken (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty clear cut per WP:ELNO points 1 and 11. Your work on translation is appreciated, but Wikipedia does not need you to be repetitively adding links to this site to multiple articles. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There you go MrOllie ;) Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFunken (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Ridge Wikipedia Page

Hello MrOllie,

So I am reaching out because you recently removed some of the links and edits I made to the following wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge. You also wrote a General Note "Adding Spam" Links. I am new to wikipedia as you can tell, and I am trying to get this resolved. The information I am updating is factual and accurate information. The website is the correct website, www.ridge-lane.com, and the company name is the RIDGE-LANE Limited Partners. Could you please advise what I need to do so these changes stick? Thank you for your assistance.

Brs rodriguez (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We could really use an independent source so we can place that content in proper context. Mr. Ridge has a pretty high profile, maybe the venture you want to include in the article was written about in a newspaper, or a political column perhaps? - MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

removed content from page

Hello MrOllie,

I noticed that you've removed my page's contents, explaining that it's not a distinct subject, and linked it to a different page describing a similar term.

I hope you'd reconsider.

I think the main point is that the term you linked my page to is a very limited description of the solution my page discusses. It describes a specific type of solution that pertains to a very specific use case within development, whereas the type of solution I'm talking about in my page is used for development, test, hardware testing, demos and POCs, training, customer support, security testing and training, and as partner portals. So, we have to have a way to define the term more widely for the benefit of the industry and readers looking to understand this topic.

Thank you for your time, Sandboxing4u (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a separate enough topic to get a new article - the unique content was pretty thin. You'd be better off adding a sentence or a short paragraph to Sandbox (software development). - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Framadrop

Hello,

Can you tell me the reason you removed my entry on Framadrop? Just asking.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:910:10CE:42:0:0:0:CCC (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Practice on that comparison is to list only articles that meet Wikipedia's guidelines for having an independent article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

List of obfuscators for .NET

171.6.240.205 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Any explanation for this reversal? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_obfuscators_for_.NET&type=revision&diff=731776174&oldid=731766551

We're better off without listing niche features that only one or two obfuscators support. - MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hancox (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_obfuscators_for_.NET&type=revision&diff=731937842&oldid=731936150 You are really determined to delete this information. What explanation you have now?

Software Engineering

Hi MrO, I knew Dijkstra personally and in the 1970/80/90s he was contemptuous of Software Engineering as the final published paragraph quote of this article shows. I do not think that my proposed paragraph is as biased as his published quote in this final paragraph. I seek a degree of balance here, particularly as history proved him misguided, software engineering is a critical discipline and young people's careers might depend on it. Can we restore please? Regards, Blanch007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanch007 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you want articles to be balanced, but we cannot do that by writing our opinions (even if based on personal experience) into an article. Such content would need to be attributed and would need a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Science_Olympiad_Foundation

Hi, I want to know why are removing the content for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Olympiad_Foundation. If there is any inappropriate information then let me know. We will modify it . Revert asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komalsehrawat1991 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's an advertisement from top to bottom, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please clarify which part of this page is looking an advertisement for you. It is an informational page of a NGO and there is no product details or pricing .We are non-profit organization established by leading academicians, scientists and media personalities with the aim of promoting science, mathematics, computer education, English, sports and professional courses, the Science Olympiad Foundation has been striving for over two decades to promote scientific attitude and temperament through innovative activities and use of IT in learning process that involve school students across the country.???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komalsehrawat1991 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Every word you've written looks like an advertisement, including the paragraph you just put on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

List of discrete event simulation software

Your "clean-up" of this article has done a disservice to anyone wanting to learn about discrete event simulation software that is free and open source. Ciw, JaamSim, MASON, simmer, and warped are all legitimate open source projects with varying numbers of users. Whether or not any of these software packages are worthy of a separate article, they certainly deserve a simple entry in a list of software packages. Strangely, you have deleted MASON which DOES have its own Wikipedia article. Furthermore, you have deleted the journal publication by Dagkakis which provides an up-to-date review of open source discrete event simulation software. How could this publication not be relevant to the topic of this Wikipedia article? For the record, the only one of these five software packages that I have an interest in is JaamSim.Javasimulation (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Didn't get your reply

Hi MrOllie,

I didn't get your reply to my claim about the page I added. I'm watching this page now. Looking forward to your reply, Sandboxing4u (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_5#removed_content_from_page - MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding links

Hi MrOllie,

Thanks for your note about the links. I'm a physician and find that many of the existing medical calculator links don't work nicely on my mobile device. The links I provided are mobile responsive and much easier to use on a small screen. Wanted to share with the rest of the community. If not appropriate, I don't mind just sharing with my colleagues outside Wikipedia. Trying to take a stab a adding something back, rather than just consuming Wikipedia content.

Danielsc2 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate link comment

MrOllie,

I wanted to follow up in regards to the comment you left me:

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the link that I added seemed inappropriate? My intention was to add a link to a related report on the subject matter. Please let me know so I can correct this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsey.beveridge (talk • contribs)

Please don't add links to the website of your employer. See the guidelines on conflict of interest and external links for more details. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Trademark question

Hi,

I'd like to update the Polyspace entry in the Static Analysis Tools page. The current entry is not accurate and does not match the Polyspace Wiki page. The products identified on the Polyspace Wiki page are called Bug Finder and Code Prover. I updated the entries, but these were undone. Would it be Ok to refer to these product names without the TM identifier?

Thank you for review of this page entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabraham mw (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be better, but do keep in mind as well that the purpose of the list page is not to try to sell software or provide an exhaustive list of features. - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed link from Henry Mintzberg page

Hi MrOllie,

Please clarify how a link to a podcast with the subject of the page is inappropriate but an audio of CBC interview is. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.189.211 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

One is a national broadcaster with a long record of publishing news, the other is a self-published podcast. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your point - both are public resource featuring the actual person whose page it is. Furthermore, the podcast is supported by a top University and is critically acclaimed by a number of leading scholars. You are being unnecessarily dismissive of valuable public educational resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.189.211 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits in page iBeacon

MrOllie,

I don't understand why some contents you consider as promotional material and others not??? It is a biased view.

I added a line "In 2016 a US based company named bfonics launched WiFi beacons that identify smart phones with WiFi option switched on" with a proper citation. If this is an advertisement what about the three sentences below that?

1). In 2015 Google launched a competing, but similar, beacon standard called Eddystone. Eddystone also has the capability to deliver a packet of data and a URI, potentially eliminating the need to have an app associated with the beacon and a richer functionality (e.g. the data packet could transport sensor information).

2). In 2010 an Australian company called DKTOB (trading as Daelibs[34]), was the first company[citation needed] to leverage Bluetooth for indoor proximity sensing in its Seeknfind location attendance solution. Daelibs designed and manufactured a Bluetooth beacon for use in shopping centres based on the Bluegiga chipset.[citation needed] In 2012 Daelibs filed its Bluetooth beacon patent.[35]

3). Hewlett-Packard Research Labs introduced the "CoolTown" technology [36] that combined infrared "beacons" and software using then-current PDA technology. A common method was to have the beacon transmit a URL rather than a unique identifier although arbitrary identifiers (including unique identifiers) could be used.

If your criterion is applicable to all please delete these sentences also.

I don't understand your justification for the deletion of the image I added. If this is also an advertise I don't know why you are not deleting the following image??? File:IBeacon Taptoweb.jpg|thumb|IBeacon Taptoweb

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baluperoth (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That you found other content you think is promotional is not a reason to add yet more promotional content. - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Safety data sheet page

I added this helpful link: http://chemicalsafety.com/sds/

It is a free and daily updated SDS database. It is very helpfull to anyone who searches for safety data sheets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandrosFats (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That may well be, but we tend not to link such things on Wikipedia on the basis that they are helpful. See WP:EL and WP:NOT. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing template message

Hi there, I would like to know what you find needs to be done in order to remove the two flags on the page: 1. Close Connection and 2. Neutrality. For the neutrality of the wiki, what do you find to be not neutral? Holowiki (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Holowiki

Competition-trapping the Concept of Power

Hello,

You deleted the section about Cerbaro on power. What makes you do so and how can the section appear and be more acceptable in Wikipedia standards? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.15.53.170 (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need some independent secondary sources to establish the proper context of that work. - MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a comment on a blog - https://sidneybuiengl1102.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/competition-vs-power/ - and the article has been cited by http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/JDR.2014.060933; http://www.ijsom.com/article_2656_460.html and http://www.kspjournals.org/index.php/TER/article/viewFile/720/736. Do you think that is enough for the section to be put forward? I need to cite the citations? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.6.72.207 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Blogs, comments on blogs, and simple citations are insufficient. We need someone else writing some substantial content about this work. Your version was giving equal space to this and to Michel Foucault, one of the most influential thinkers on this topic, so we need to see that Cerbaro has had similar impact. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

A work of 2011 won't have the same impact as the one of a established scholar. If that is a problem, is it possible to just add a quick note at "Other Theories"? That would be giving it less space and yet it is sufficient for people to see the work and, consequently, infer its merits. Most of the impact of the author comes as talks which are not published by others. By giving it even if a small space chances are it would be easier for others to write substantially about it. So hopefully it can have a line in other theories then? Thank you for taking your time with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.6.72.207 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Occupational Therapy Page

Hi MrOllie: I have been doing some edits on mostly occupational therapy related pages but I still consider myself pretty new around wikipedia. I just made a few edits on the mental health section of the Wikipedia occupational therapy page but they were reverted back to the original. I know that some students attempted the same before and ran into some problems. I was wondering if you could please advise me regarding how to be successful with adding some changes. The page is in clear need of updating and mental health services have been highlighted in several new rehabilitation legislation as they affect the disabled, veterans returning home, homeless, etc. I will appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Dr. Gustavo Reinoso, Ph.D., OTR/L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavoReinoso7777 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've been blocked, but I'll respond briefly in case you read this. But please don't try to reply, from a new account or otherwise, that would be evading your block unless you get the block reviewed and removed first. The initial problem with your students approach was the overemphasis on the American Occupational Therapy Association. When someone noted that and removed the text pending discussion, rather than discuss on the talk page to gain consensus, you students conducted an edit war to keep it in. Since they did this as a group they were blocked as a group, a group which grew to include you when you added some of the same sort of content later. If you decided to do something like this with a group of students again (again, after you get unblocked), please consult Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects for advice and best practices for using Wikipedia for school projects. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Revise your stance on RiskAoA?

You did not revise your stance since additions were made and should consider the news source and the audience. If you were to imagine AFRL was a town, and TRANSCOM was a city with an interest, this is more analogous than assuming that the entire DOD is one big happy family. As a loose approximation, it is easier to imagine every dedicated building in the DOD is a small separate company. The military is also hierarchical in its notability or peer review process. Something starts out as an idea, ones commander approves it, it is then validated by a command, or peer review, who draws on other expertise as necessary. Then, if it is a program, it enters the acquisition JCIDS process. It is a different kind of notability, one non-academic, but from as distinct an institution. GESICC (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We still haven't located any independent sources, so I see no reason to revise my stance. You seem to be confusing a dictionary definition of notability with Wikipedia's specific guidelines, which just mean that the topic has been noted in independent (civilian in this case) reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

But they are independent sources, TRANSCOM has no control over DAU has no control over etc., and guildlines means guidlines, not laws. There are news groups are for policy, news, technology and education. You might as well say that the University of Oregon isn't independent from UCLA because they are both Universities. Find out their independence, please, do not be contemptuous of the USDOD as sources, this is what causes all bad news to be reported in wiki, and no good. GESICC (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More like the English department at UCLA isn't independent from the UCLA PR department. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you really should look into it, before you make these kinds of claims, it take what 10 minutes to use wiki as your resarch? Show me a justification, like I say, you might be right, but you can't just make the assumption, and be a wiki editor. Respectfully submitted GESICC (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That 'justification' has been provided to you on the AFD, several times now. I'm sorry, we are clearly unable to communicate effectively on this issue. 'Independent source', 'Notability', 'Reliable source', and so on all have Wikipedia specific definitions as defined by our policy and guideline pages. You seem unwilling or unable to learn these definitions (and I have no idea what your personal definitions might be), so we don't really have a common language to communicate. Lets wait for some additional folks to comment at the AFD, perhaps they will do better - MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read, this is what is disconcerting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a professional review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release."

Wikipedia. These folks are the US Government, and news sources, they have no potential for gain.

They certainly have editorial independence.

But thank you for your consideration in the matter.GESICC (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prestressed concrete ext links

Hi MrOllie, I see that I've breached WP:EL protocol by adding external links to the major global prestressing system vendors in the page body. Oops!

The existing "See Also" list already includes one such firm (as wiki-link)

• Dyckerhoff & Widmann (Dywidag)

I assume it's OK to therefore add-in similar wiki-links to these others, but avoid any external URLs?

• BBR Network
• VSL International

Or should Dywidag also come out? Geekstreet (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be OK by me. If the list ends up getting too long somebody might remove it - typically a couple of company links in the see also list are allowed, but if it starts to look like a big list of vendors someone will probably cut them all out. - MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm still feeling my way around in here :) Geekstreet (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

COI & POV Flags Added to Article

You have added a COI & POV to Richard B. Hollis. You have added these flags but then went and contributed to the article. I am assuming you have corrected the issues. You have not, though, removed the flags. Before I go ahead and remove these, can you please let me know if you agree or not with the removal. If you disagree, please point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. As per stated in Wiki Policies. Thank you Paper Mate13 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Paper__Mate13

I fixed a few things, but the work isn't done. As a single purpose account, you should not remove maintenance tags from any article with a history of COI editing, such as that one. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Native ads & Content Marketing & Cause MArketing

Mr. Ollie: Per your comment to me, I see that I am not supposed to post my own research. That said, I am a recognized authority in a number of areas including cause marketing--a page that is asking for legitimate sources. I'm not sure how much more legitimate you can get than the University of California Press. The work has been fully vetted by a range of academics. The same is true for my new book on native advertising and content marketing. Certainly it is as legitimate an John Oliver!

That said, can my rigorously researched worked by included on the Wiki pages? I know, for example, several of the other academics cited on the native advertising page. Do I need to get they to cite the work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmeinstein (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Wikipedia can always use subject matter experts. As an expert I'm sure you are familiar with many sources written by many other people in your field - perhaps you could cite some of those instead? Please do not directly solicit others to add your book, it is prohibited on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

patent and IP article

The law article is in print as I got it in the mail - but I posted the authors' preprints so others could read it. The printed one is behind a paywall - should I post that as well? https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=89+St.+John%27s+L.+Rev.+1185&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8d1d8e833f442e7bcc6c7f108ad3b0df

Can you revert the deletions?

Thanks --Trumpms (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EM

Hello, MrOllie, thank you for your contributions to WP!! Please look up my edits on the LEAD of Effective microorganisms. For Em do not refer to any new class of microorganisms, and due to the fact thet the 'effectiveness' of the comercial products are disproven, i borrowed from the article Coca Cola and re-phrased the 1st statement in the LEAD (because I do not like template:cn due to weak, unsupported statements in the lead section). Please see, if anything does not fit (which I do not hope is so :) to your liking, and please ad your corrections in the article as constructive edits - Thank you --77.179.224.17 (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot decipher the meaning of your comments here (or your article contributions), due to your writing style. It looks like you are trying to turn a generic article into one on a specific company - please stop doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Finite Element Softwares articles

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Is there a reason why you keep deleting the addition of AceFEM? Please kindly check the platform at https://www.wolfram.com/products/applications/acefem/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhajay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lists such as that one are navigation aids, and generally only include entries that have demonstrated notability through having a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA on Megaprojects

RiskAoA was designed for large complicated projects. Megaproject is simply a name for its application. V/RGESICC (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Framing hammers were designed to build houses, but we don't have a subsection on framing hammers in the article about houses. - MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But we do have sections on why different houses are built where they are, and why. GESICC (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll be missed

But at least you didn't resist arrest and get yourself shot. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Be more careful in future. Some of the rhetoric you used came uncomfortably close to a personal attack. Do not make unfounded accusations against a Wikipedia editor, even when that editor is yourself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ignore that man. If you need a character witness when your parole review, I mean unblock request, occurs, let me know. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

crypto hardware accelerators

MrOllie,

The recent clean-up made on the table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_TLS_implementations#Assisted_cryptography removed also up-to-date information about NXP hardware devices. The commit message fails to explain reasoning for the removal of any and all of the hardware devices no longer in the list. Since at least NXP data was correct, this suggests that the commit was not entirely thought through and was not based on verifiable facts. Therefore I ask that you revert the commit and add back valid information about crypto hardware accelerators, including NXP ones.

Thank you,

Crististm (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff was removed on purpose. On Wikipedia, lists and comparisons generally only link to or summarize things that have Wikipedia articles, and we do not compile lists of external links. This is necessary so these lists do not become vehicles for advertising. Wikipedia does not list every fact, even if it is correct. - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, I just received a message from you regarding the deletion of an article. May i know, if removing the external links from it, will it be published then? Secondly, how can i create a company page? Regards, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfp2p alex (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

Hi, please do not add unverifiable facts to the page. Thank you. --Tianderni (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrOllie. You have new messages at Tianderni's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tianderni (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pages of Cloud Computings

Hi there !

Hope you are doing great :)

I'm thinking about characteristics of cloud management platform related stuff and accidentally found that website when i desperately needed to compare some cloud management platform

i have checked the web site page and its really an useful as a internet researcher .

That page defines the characteristics of all giant cloud computing providers as a open source community so it would be great to thank them

Also check the ref where i have added is "Enterprises with large-scale cloud implementations may require more robust cloud management tools which include specific characteristics[8]"

So if you go the ref link , you will find there are something that direct related to Wikipedia page . Or we may add External Link Section to that page ? I am really sorry if i am doing something wrong , pardon a poor wiki girl . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edda.wiki (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Edda.wiki (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That website bills itself as a promotional vehicle for IT consultants and vendors. Our sourcing guidelines require indepednent sources with a reputation for fact checking. I don't think this site belongs on Wikipedia, either as a source or as an external link. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Another Request

I know but what about the page which exist https://www.whatmatrix.com/comparison/Cloud-Management-Platforms ? the page(https://www.whatmatrix.com/comparison/Cloud-Management-Platforms) i have linked is provide all the information in free for google users . check and compare the lists of products.... they wont charges for the checking information . Yes they are IT consultant for the heavy users only who need a very much detailed report and regarding the vendors they crowdsource all the vendors information from them and place onto one place . the author who write the content are itself associated with C-class executive of giant company .

I am sorry if you felt so but i am not affiliated with that sites but those people are really worth to have as at least on external links .

let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edda.wiki (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrocomputing External Link

Good day. You removed an external link for the Commodore Computer Club from the Retrocomputing page saying it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. After reading the Wikipedia External links page to educate myself, under the section "what to link" the 3 bullet points do apply to the link and decription I added:

1. Is the site content accessible to the reader?

Yes, the site is Section 508 compliant.

2. Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Yes, the site is useful, tasteful, informative and factual.

3. Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?

Yes, the site has been functioning since April 2010 and will remain functional.

Thank you for your time and understanding

LL2000LL (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have missed 'Links normally to be avoided' point 11, Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of TLS implementations

Hello. I didn't want to promote anything. I just added TLSe because is the only implementation in the public domain (so what am I advertising ?). Just like adding S2n in the comparison page would be a good idea. Anyway, is fine. (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We generally do not have entries on lists or comparison pages if there is no corresponding Wikipedia article - in particular, such lists should not include external links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So it should be fine if I create the TLSe wiki page? (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have multiple, independent sources that meet our sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fractal Rainbow ebook

I understand that this Book is very interesting to understand better Scale Relativity.

It is a disclosure book that explain and show very easy why Scale Factor and Fractal Theory will be the future in Cosmology in a very easy way.

There are very few books about Scale Relativity (2 from Nottale) and no own easy to understand for General Readers.

Please, read it and after ward you can decide ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't externally link bookstores. Even if we did, we don't cite and/or link to self published books, generally. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, read first it and afterwards decide by yourself !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: notability.

It is not at all obvious to me how the software under discussion is overall less notable than the software already there.

I have checked all of them, and none of them seem to be really obscure. Please also keep in mind that as a comparison article, we cannot just leave out items for no good reason, as that would violate our NPOV policy. For this reason also, for inclusion on comparison articles the bar tends to be lower than for article creation.

If you think one or two really are too obscure to mention, please don't be so vague about it and explicitly state their names and the reasons why they are less notable than the rest.

Also, in the future don't use such crappy edit summaries for big, potentially controversial edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

On Internet_Activism Page [Resolved]

Hi Mr.Link Removal

External link i have added is compatible with the Wikipedia policy and relevant to the wiki page , the site is accessible since 7 + year check web archive , they are non-profit , not a blog sites , not a fansite even a not person dirt too .

Still you have removed ?

thank you for your consideration . 49.32.32.36 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but per our guidelines on external links a blog post such as that one (and yes, it is clearly a blog post) does not belong on that article, particularly a blog post on a specific case like Swartz on the general article about internet activism. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

HI there !

Thank you so much 49.32.32.36 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of items from deep learning frameworks table

Hi MrOllie, I saw that you removed five frameworks from the table in Comparison of deep learning software with the motivation that I should see WP:Write the article first. That article just states that you shouldn't link to articles that are not yet written, but three of the list items that you removed didn't have any red links, and for the cases where there are red links, it is enough to just convert the links into plain text; no content has to be removed. I have therefore restored the article to it's former state (except for the red links). If you feel the article needs a clean-up, please provide a more relevant motivation for why the text has to go. Thanks! —Kri (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External link - cross functional team

Hi MrOllie,

I have received a message from you about some external links. I think the links are relevant to the article. it is a very good resources for the readers as further reading, kindly have a cross check regarding the relevance of the links and the articles.

Thanks

/Zakaria  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzkhan (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 

Re: External link & References Removal

Hi MrOllie, I See that you have sent me a message of external link removal, Can you please give me a strong reason why you have removed that because Forkliftaction is well known for forklift industry news in Australia. I don't think it is inappropriate or irrelevant. You can even check this information in Google or on it's website. Development of the Forkliftaction began in September 1999. There are now more than 49,000 members and an estimated 190,000 newsletter recipients. So it is a very useful source, and about lencrow external link; I have place that link because a case study of Australian Vintage Ltd (with genuine images and statements) written on that page which is right, that's why I have also put Forkliftaction's link (Lencrow Supply AVL with New Fleet) for your trust about right news. So I would like to request you please recheck it & tell me where I am wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillismith1212 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits of Freeskiing page rejected

Hi MrOllie,

I got a message from you that some of my edits seemed like they were done in self interest. Many apologies because that was not my intent. I believe this was in reference to the editing of "Freeskiing" wikipedia page, and though I do work for a major media source I was adding in, I was genuinely seeking to fill in parts of the history of Freeskiing. The site I work for (Newschoolers.com) is a vital part. You can even see in the text of the page that This form of Freeskiing stemmed from Freestyle and was dubbed "Newschool Freestyle". I have a wealth of knowledge in the area and would be more than happy to do more updating if you could assist me with guidelines of how to properly do this without breaking the rules. There will be material from our own site which is very relevant, as its a very core part of the whole history of this new type of skiing.

Look forwards to your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonsieurBishop (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Evolita.com is not spam

Dear Mr. Orllie - The links I am adding are just to support the added content that I am editing in Wikipedia. Evolita is a good source for business data and I did not add links with no content, but only to verify data related claims for numbers. I promise to include more content and less links, but please retrieve the changes you have have made (I am not sure what are these changes). I am working in a market research firm and I come across interesting data points that I am adding to Wikipedia all the time, so the only way to support my "claims" is by using supporting content and Evolita provides me just that. Thank you very much for your assistance. I'll be happy to continue and grow the Wikipedia knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaulzo (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Evolita is an bad tertiary source. It just copies data from other secondary sources. Use the actual source, not evolita. Also, it's better to avoid data that gets outdated soon, such as market shares. Such data is better stored in databases rather than in a Wiki. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MrOllie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotion? oh well!!!

Mr Ollie!

I recently found you reverting my latest edits in Internet of Things and 5G pages. First things first. Yes, I have cited my recent publication in Internet of Things page, it's definitely promotion, so what? Sorry, but I couldn't find any statement anywhere that clearly disallows it. As long as I am not citing irrelevant publications, you should not have any problem with it. 5G is one of the main enabling technology for IoT and my publication is related to 5G so no one should have any problem with that citation. Also, for the 5G page, why do you think I am spamming? How is updating the references with the links to most recent publications is spamming? Kindly explain. I have just updated the references with the links to the most latest RELEVANT publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.73.191 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam and also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Colin-Lee

Hello MrOllie,

First, let me thank you for the great work you are doing on Wikipedia and keeping it a useful resource for many people, students and professionals alike. I noticed last week you reversed one of my edit's on big data, due to it being a publication of a recent grad student. I only recently started editing on wikipedia and I understand that I don't completely grasp the way of working within this online encyclopedia. It's understandable that there has to be kept an eye on the site, to keep the integrity of Wikipedia. However, may I ask when a resource is deemed useful for Wikipedia, since the pages explaining useful resources are vague, to say the least. I found the publication on big data in recruitment relevant for the piece. I didn't find any major errors in the way of working by the researcher. If you stand by your choice of removing it, I wont ask you to reverse the changes. However what I wanna know is, how to access the value of a resource, so I won't make similar mistakes in the future.

Thanks in advance! R.A.S.B (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia looks to secondary sources for this kind of thing. When a researcher proposes a new algorithm, the paper/thesis/whatever they do it in is a primary source. We should wait for a secondary source (for example a reporter who is unaffiliated with the researcher writes a news piece) to write about that algorithm. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MrOllie Thanks for the reply, this information will be really helpful in the future. I actually found the secondary sources first but thought the first hand source was more relevant, due to it being the first hand source. Thanks again, I will use second hand sources in the future! --R.A.S.B (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MrOllie Very sorry about this and sorry to bother you. I promised it won't happen again.

Thank you for the note, have a nice and a good day!

Vitoabuy7391 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Asphalt Shingle page

Hi Mr Ollie, I have recently started editing Wikipedia pages to help improve people's experiences on Wikipedia. I have been fixing grammar issues, copy and reference links. I noticed that you have undone my edit on the Asphalt Shingle page. My edit improved this page by removing a dead link and adding a PDF link that goes to the correct document. Could you explain the reasoning of your edit because I believe my edit helps the Wikipedia visitor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnc1993 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't link to people hosting scans of articles in violation of the copyright of the original publication. In such a case it is better to leave the dead link. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Decision Management

I am not sure why you keep removing the article link - it was not written by me nor does it mention me so it is a completely neutral source on a legitimate tech website that links Decision Management to Machine Learning in an interesting way. I blogged about it sure but I left my blog out of the wikipedia edit deliberately. Why is editing the article to link to Tom's article a breach of guidelines?

I also don't remember adding the links to my books - perhaps I did - but they are widely cited by others as books about Decision Management so again not obvious why those links would be removed especially as they have been there without anyone complaining for years....

James Taylor (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

License page

Hey,

Just received a notification that you reverted my reference edit on this page. This link from the reference section is broken, and I simply added the one I know is not. If you are reverting my change, please, at least find another working link to replace the broken one.

Best, S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakov (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. Please don't add humberviewgroup, or any other local dealership again. It is entirely inappropriate as a source for Wikipedia for anything but an article about that particular dealership. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Secular stagnation theory

Hi there,

Just received a notification that you have completed deleted an addition I made to an article on secular stagnation theory, apparently without reason. I contributed this after quite a bit of research, and I don't see any reason to exclude this 'fifth point'. Could you explain please before deleting it again? Happy to have a discussion on the talk page, but it doesn't seem right to just delete someone's contribution without any justification.

Best regards,

User:O-Jay (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Solar pages

I just received more notifications that you are rolling back my entries, mostly related to the Global Solar Atlas, which you seem to think is spam. It is not. In fact it is a global, free-to-use resource that provides valuable information on the topics referred to in those articles. If you have a specific issue with how the additions are phrased then let's discuss. But I see no reason to exclude the additions. Could you not initiate a discussion first rather than just roll back changes that have taken me time to prepare?

Best regards,

User:O-Jay (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is free, linking to it inline and adding promotional style language is not appropriate, and adding a new link to the top of the external links section is generally viewed as a spam account red flag. I notice that most of your additions on Wikipedia are in this vein - do you have any kind of personal or professional association with the Global Solar Atlas, the World Bank Group or the UK government? - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok well I'm happy to modify how I add this resource, but it is not spam. If you have a better way of adding it then you could i) suggest that to me, or ii) make the change yourself. Deleting everything I've contributed in the last few months feels rather vindictive. To answer your question, yes I've been involved in the Global Solar Atlas, as a result of leading a major work program on the topic of renewable energy resource assessment. Sure, I'd like to get it listed, but I'm trying to do so in a way that improves the information provided. Much of the existing information on this topic is incredibly outdated, particularly the practical stuff. If you exclude contributions from people who are associated with organizations or topics that they write about, then you'll be shutting out a lot of valuable edits and experts. And I don't think it's true that "most of my edits are in this vein" - you have deleted edits on secular stagnation theory which have nothing to do with any of these topics/organizations. I'm always open to feedback, but why not make a comment on my talk page first? Reading over some of the other comments above, it seems several other people have complained about similar treatment. So please could you stop deleting my edits, and in return I'll try to improve them? Thanks. User:O-Jay (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you should read the guidelines on conflict of interest, and refrain from adding such links yourself. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the guidance and I don't think it's as straightforward as you claim. But I don't have enough time right not to fully investigate, so will have to get back to this next week. In the meantime, perhaps you could reflect on my feedback to you. From what I can see you have deleted content on pretty much every edit I have made, most of which have no COI issue. I will raise this with others unless you can provide some justifications, or feedback that I can incorporate. I'm very open to improving my edits, but this is the first time I've had a situation where edits were made on my content without friendly feedback. User:O-Jay (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you do raise it with others: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard would be a good place to start. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are fully reading my comments. I was referring to the other edits that you deleted, where no conflict of interest is apparent. I have no professional affiliation to the topic of secular stagnation (I have just ready quite a bit on the topic of how it relates to energy, where I do have expertise) or to any of the references that I cited. The same applies to my edits to 'limits to growth', which you also deleted. Regarding any conflicts of interest that I may have, I will refer to the guidance and give more thought to how to best deal with this. User:O-Jay (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Caffè

MrOllie,

You removed an addition I made to the Caffè page which I believe is 100% relevant to the history of the Coffee House. You cite publicity stunt but the citations provided with the information from the National Coffee Association of the United States (NCA) are purely factual. If you prefer, simply remove the link in the quote from the president and CEO of the the NCA at its launch in 2013 and leave it as a dead link.

You have also removed the addition to the Coffeehouse page, again, please consider the above amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Trueman (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate that Wikipedia must get lots of spam but a heads up conversation would be appreciated in the future.

Thanks Graeme

Graeme Trueman (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant, I suppose, but so are the web sites of any number of coffee houses and coffee brands across the world. I don't think it is due weight to mention that an association founded for the purpose of marketing coffee did something to market coffee, at least not anywhere but on that associations own article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

On second look, we shouldn't link it even there. It looks like the NCA site went down and has been taken over by a domain squatter who is trying to use affiliate links to sell coffee machines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the NCA page, why not simply remove the link if it is no longer NCA controlled, the rest of the statement adds weight to the page, I would argue the same for the other pages. I am new to Wikipedia editing so trying to get this right and made it a resolution to be more involved as my kids use this more and more for homework reference and I have a few days off. I have corrected grammar here and there on other pages which is a personal bug bear also.

Graeme Trueman (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

How important could it be if the NCA didn't bother to pay the hosting bill? - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing contribution without knowledge of accuracy of contribition

Mr. Ollie,

On 12.12. 2016 I submitted an edit to the description of Ohio University's Honors Tutorial College, as the original description did not accurately reflect the actual conception and original research which led to the formation of the Tutorial College. As the person who conceived bringing a tutorial system to Ohio University following a scholarship to Trinity College, Oxford University, a follow-up scholarship provided by Ohio University to travel back to England to study the tutorial system, and providing the research report upon Professor Golos based his proposal to Ohio University, the edit was factual and I feel necessary for an accurate description. This is not "self-promotion."

My question is: Who gives you the authority to remove and why would you remove such accurate information when you have absolutely no knowledge of the founding of the Honors Tutorial College?

I look forward to your reply.

Bruce Burtch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwburtch (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability - 'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.' - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Coloring Book content [External Link ]

Hello MrOllie,

Excuse my insistance in modifiying the coloring book entry. I'm a new author from Peru, and I'm trying to transmit my culture from Peru through this book. I think it could be consider as a new way of knowledge thorough creativity inside the page. The book contains some stories about the culture and the way of living in Inca Empire.. Tha's why I'm trying to publish into External Link Section. Hope you can accept this way of transmit knowledge thorugh coloring and republish my link.

Thanks

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMUJICA (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia really is not a place to promote anything, whether the culture of Peru generally or your book in particular. - MrOllie (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

TDD

Hello there! I see You're consistently doing great job deleting random contributions, leaving subtly menacing messages and formally using rules as an excuse. That's one way to make Wikipedia great again! As a sidenote I should point out that while stackowerflow.com clearly is not a reliable source of particular knowledge it could be a reliable source on private opinions, which is exactly the case of Kent Beck on TDD. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.105.231 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Civil Engineering Software

Mr Ollie,

I appreciate the general actions of your editing. Just wanted to chat about the one change I made (not signed in) to the Civil Engineering Software page () Ewasney (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Such lists are off topic for Wikipedia, which tends to explicitly reject the idea of listing vendors for particular categories of products. I would suggest that you sign up at a project like Dmoz.org, which is designed to be a link directory and where such lists are on-mission. - MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Unknowledgeable edit

Again, I must ask what or who makes you able to remove contents according to your own definition of the facts? The credible source for my contribution was the simple fact that my work/study/scholarships, etc. at Ohio University are verified by College transcripts, the people involved, such as Professor Golos, and others present at the time. You have absolutely no knowledge of the concept and/or founding of the Honors Tutorial College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwburtch (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, Wikipedia:Verifiability makes me able to remove article content, since what you added is unsourced. Even if they did verify the content in the detail you added it (which seems unlikely), our readers cannot access your college transcripts to verify the information. Perhaps your contributions were recorded in a newspaper article at the time, or in some official history of the College? If not, I'm afraid we'll just have to do without those details. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy declined

I've declined your speedy deletion tag on Kali Arulpragasam. Yes, the recent change to the article were spammy, but a simple revert would suffice. The article that existed prior to that might be overly promotional in its tone, but that can be addressed by editing. The fact that the article has existed for over 4 years and has had multiple editors argues against speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked back through the history and I had trouble finding a non-spammy version, going back to the original upload. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Take to AFD then. The number of different editors would argue against a non-controversial speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting from reporting software list

Hello. Can you tell me the reason of deleting "Exwog" item from "List of reporting software" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reporting_software)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathematicalman (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That article lists software with a corresponding Wikipedia article. The article on Exwog was deleted (and recreated, and deleted again, and recreated again, and deleted again). - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gohel

Mr. Ollie, Could you please help me to improve my contributed article Hardik A. Gohel? meeramac

Hello Mr. Ollie

I have created an account recently and it is not for specific purpose.Kindly note this. I request you to guide for my good and life long experience on Wikipedia. Thanks.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupadhyay (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You guys need to cite a few good biographical sources that aren't affiliated with Gohel. A couple of articles in a major newspaper would be a great start. Most of the stuff that's in the article now look to either written by Gohel, by groups that he is associated with - or they don't appear in publications that meet Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why Were Changes Rejected For Tiki Mug Page & Tiki Bar Page?

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and attempted to add vital information to the Tiki Mug page with an external link to ooga-mooga.com, which is the biggest repository of Tiki Mug information anywhere (print or internet). I received notice that you reverted it back to previous (deleting my addition). I'm not sure why this addition was rejected. In addition, I changed a typo to spell Duke Carter's name correctly instead of "Cater" as it was on the then current page. He is the author of the first published book on Tiki Mug Collecting, Tiki Quest, which was published in 2003. Not only was this typo fix rejected, but you deleted all mention of the author and his book! On the Tiki Bar page, I attempted to add an external link to critiki.com, which is the most comprehensive source in online or print to find information on current or closed Tiki bars. This, too, was rejected. Again, I'm not sure why. Please advise if there was some problem with mark-up language or if you have a better suggestion on how to enter this material. Thanks! Trader Tom (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking we don't link to community based sites such as ooga-mooga or Critiki. See the guidelines on external linking. And we definitely do not promote people's books, as was being done in the case of Carter.- MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of LINDO

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from LINDO, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert On Page Short Code

Hello, you recently made a revert or delete on Short Code , the revert you made was not necessary cause the previous link redirects to the new link which i inserted. Please do well to confirm the link before doing any other revert. Thanks Margaretver (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't revert to the previous version, I deleted it. Both versions are/were a directory of advertising with no place on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

it's not a spam, The U.S. Short Code Directory is the only place to find out who owns short codes in the United States. It lists over 8,000 short codes. Margaretver (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal from Comparison of business integration software

Hi, I see that you did some clean-up to this page and in the process removed the entry I added recently for Ensemble. I believe Ensemble belongs in this list, but I may be missing some background/context so I wanted to ask for more information on the reasons for removing Ensemble or criteria for including a product on this page.

Thanks Mmundt (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The list's inclusion criteria specify that it is a comparison of 'notable' software. 'Notable' is wikipedia jargon, but a shorthand explanation is that the list should only link software that can support a separate Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that if you work for Intersystems, certain disclosures are required. You can read about best practices for editing with a conflict of interest here. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read through the links you sent. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and want to follow proper practices, so this is helpful.Mmundt (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking for clarification as to why my citation removed from CMMS

HI there,

I added a clearer definition to the CMMS page, as well as additional citations linking to fiixsoftware.com (the bar at the top of the article asked for additional citations) and yet this citation was removed. I don't quite understand why, so please clarify. Jellacott (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by your account to the Computerized maintenance management system article. I assume you're talking about the addition by User:207.164.200.98. In any case, I removed that citation because you linked to a software vendor's site. Wikipedia generally relies on citations to independent sources such as academic press, newspapers, books, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to page: Comparison of file synchronization software

Hi,

AJC Sync is missing from the list of commercial sync tools and as a major provider of this software it should be included. Why was the edit reverted? Ajcsoft (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edits to these pages: Grilling and Barbecue in the United States

Hi there, wondering why your removed my edits. I was citing the most recent industry data on grilling, with a credible source to back it up. In fact, on the Barbecue in the United States page, I was merely updating data that was already included in the entry but was outdated. Please advise. Thanks! HPRSchles (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on conflict of interest, the Wikimedia Terms of use, and refrain from linking to your employer's websites in the future. Thanks in advance! - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pirate King Online : Tales of Pirates

The page already talks about other variations and Pirate King Online is no differ from those, if you remove PKO, then remove ALL the PKO context as well, otherwise you are just attacking with personal vendetta. 142.4.219.226 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? None of these 'variations' are listed on the page, nor should there be any. - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)