User talk:MrOllie/Archive 6

Newton Leibniz and the development of calculus

Hi Ollie,

Calculus is a very complex idea that took academics across Europe over a 100 years before it came to the point we know it today. Unfortunately, our education throughout the world is not making that clear: a lot of people think that Newton and Leibniz are responsible for modern calculus without knowing who Cavalieri was or who Wellis was.

This has tremendous consequences for the intellectual development of ppl throughout the world: they see the individual without being aware of the concerted effort, they see the man without understanding the team effort behind the triumph that calculus is.

The fact is that if Cavalieri has not invested his time in a rather shaky at the time, experimental research idea and if Wellis hasnt generalized on Cavalieri's findings, Newton wouldnt have been able to do what he did.

As I said in my comment under my edit:

It took at least three outstanding academics over 100 years to develop Calculus as we know it and readers should be able to get this from the introductory statement of Main|History of calculus.

So to say that Calculus was developed by Newton and Leibniz is in fact a misleading statement, one that lets children and young teens under the impression that Newton and Leibniz are in fact 100% responsible for something that is much bigger than these two people alone. It is erroneous, confusing and has nothing to do with neutrality.

I am glad that someone is looking after influential posts like this but if you need some reference I strongly recommend this:

http://math.bard.edu/bloch/history_calculus_slides.pdf

Just go to slide 9 and 10.

Or go to the wikipedia pages of Cavalieri and Wellis and check out who these people were.

Or go to the Britannica pages of the same ppl.

I ll let you a few hours to examine the resources yourself and I am waiting for a detailed reply on whether you still think this is breaching a policy of neutrality.

To say that Leibniz and Newton did all by themselves is a lie and a false statement that does not serve anyone.

here is my edit for reference:

Modern calculus was developed in 17th-century Europe by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, after the ingenious ideas and hard work of Bonaventura Cavalieri and John Wallis. Elements of it have appeared before, in ancient India, Greece, China, medieval Europe, and the Middle East.

Zaxos1111 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Zaxos1111

So find a source that meets our sourcing guidelines (powerpoint slides definitely do not, nor does a synthesis of multiple Britannica articles), and then summarize that source for the Wikipedia article, without throwing in your personal value judgments about who is 'ingenious' or a hard worker. - MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert Added Links

Hello, you recently made a revert/delete to several of my links which are to a public data repository, see http://www.re3data.org/repository/r3d100011340 and http://networkrepository.com/pubs/rossi-ahmed-sigkdd.pdf, etc.

This is a scientific data repository and is useful for many researchers, students, etc. I was surprised the links were not already existing, and so I thought it would be useful to others if I included them. I apologize if it came across as spam.

Jrice13 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Jrice13

Could you please tell me why you keep removing the link? (see above, this is not spam, etc.). Jrice13 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Jrice13

Cx Web Framework set for Speedy Deletion

Hi MrOllie,

I've received your message that Cx Web Framework page was set for Speedy Deletion under the section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. After reading the terms, I understood why it does not meet the criteria for having its separate Wikipedia page. If I got it correctly, it's mainly because - "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources...", while on this page all the resources point to the official Cx page. Can you please explain if there are other reasons for this? Also, I'd like to know if there is any way to improve this page so it won't get deleted.

Thank you,

Okremenovic (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Okremenovic

Someone else tagged another of your articles as A7, I tagged your latest article with G11 (and I see an admin has agreed and deleted it). G11 means that the article appeared to simply be an advertisement, which is never allowed on Wikipedia. That's the primary reason, but you are correct that the sourcing issue would also need to be addressed. I've looked around for sources and I haven't found any that meet Wikipedia's guidelines, so this may be a case where it is simply too soon for a Wikipedia article. I also notice that you seem to be associated with Codaxy in some fashion, so please read our conflict of interest policy and Wikipedia's terms of use, which require you to make certain disclosures. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge of "decision-making software" into "decision support system"

Hi MrOllie, I don't suppose you feel like involving yourself in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Decision_support_system#Merge_from_decision-making_software? Best wishes Paulwizard (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

About removing external link from 'ellipse' article

Thank you for your effort to preserve the quality standards of wikipedia. In regard to the removal of the external link from the Ellipse article on January 17, please take into account that the linked page calculates, among others, the perimeter of the ellipse, for which no closed form solution exists, using the infinite series form, at user requested accuracy. While the Ramanujan formulas are excellent and they can easily be implemented in a spreadsheet, there are circumstances where the infinite series is needed (i.e. narrow ellipse) and it is very hard to make a hand (or spreadsheet) calculation with it. Also, online tools for such calculations, generally lack documentation and are based mostly on the ramanujan formulas. Therefore, it is my opinion that the removed [http://calcresource.com/geom-ellipse.html link] is valuable from the user perspective and demonstrates the implementation of topics described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centaur54 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of useful links. I suggest you submit it at a site that is intended to be such a directory - DMOZ.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt answer. According to the article you referred me to, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article;". I don't want to force my link but i find it difficult to believe that a calculator is irrelevant for such an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centaur54 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Delft magazine

Dear MrOllie,

Thank you for your revisions to my edits.

My question: As you know, I recently tried to add new technology to "Reverse osmosis", "Solar desalination" (and even create seperate page for the technology and its company) but the references are not to your liking. Can you please explain how a research institute like Delft University of Technology (which is government in The Netherlands) can not be independent?

The source you used is a university's student/alumni magazine. Those kinds of puff pieces are common in such publications when students or alumni found a company (the founders of the company you are promoting are Delft University graduates) and are written with the input of those featured. We would need a true independent citation, for this kind of content probably from a major newspaper or news magazine. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This source pretends to be independent but you got a point, thanks. Where you see the "puffyness" in the article? Seems objective, informative and author seems to be knowledgeable, only few quotes of employer. Even includes negatives like high investment up front.

Either way, just trying to get this technology going :) With help of Google and even the company itself, two more options as citations: http://2016.omanobserver.om/making-waves-is-their-business/ Please keep in mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman_Daily_Observer ;) Or https://thewaternetwork.com/article-FfV/in-conversation-with-sid-vollebregt-from-elemental-water-makers-1-3koNm9txcY-fHzhfGex4ng Many articles seem to have some sort of quotes from company employers but I assume with a good interviewer/editor objectivity can still be maintained. Correct? And/or what are the possibilities for Dutch articles in major Dutch newspapers? Enjoy your day and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCJ80 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation Removal: Search engine optimization

Mr. Ollie, The citation which you reinstated returns an error, rather than relevant information.

{{cite web|url=http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=2119&postcount=10|title=Who Invented the Term "Search Engine Optimization"?|author=Danny Sullivan|publisher=[[Search Engine Watch]]|date=June 14, 2004|accessdate=May 14, 2007}}

{{cite web|url=https://www.heroseo.pro/seo/seo-hero/seo-hero-the-one-who-coined-the-term-seo/|title=SEO Hero: The Hero Who Coined The Term SEO|author=Christian Shackleton|date=January 17, 2017|accessdate=January 18, 2017}}

The information of this new citation contains the reference to the T. I find that this link should be reinstated in order to help people who are interested within the topic at hand, rather than returning an error. Thank you for your time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piobuilleann (talk • contribs)

Yeah, but it's also a spammy seo blog. A broken link is better than a bad link. I'm not thrilled about using searchenginewatch either, but consensus in the past has been that that one site is OK. At any rate, you've now been reverted by a second editor. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

you say spammy, I say informative! There is a lot research which went into the preparation of this article which can be informative. All of it being factual! - Piobuilleann —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Providing such a link is not for ranking, rather to accurately account information which should be published. I'm familiar with the nofollow; I'm not expecting much. Just trying to fix dead links with content informative upon the subject. - Piobuilleann (talk)

Reamsa

It seems to me that a specific book about this kind of vintage figures is an interesting information, and more specialy for collectors.

The book ISBN 9788461777716 is available in amazon.com and amazon.es, has good opinions, and it is available for general readers.

So please respect my changes.

Kind regards,

Juan

It's a self published picture book, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please stop spamming it here. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarity please

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is not in Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business#C, Am I missing something. Why isn't that I am not able to see your user page.59.92.31.210 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's on that very list, indented under Amazon.com. Kuru (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.59.92.31.210 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing my section

Hi

I see you removed my external links.

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] [2] [3] MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Since reading the guidelines I see I added the links in the wrong section, but I do feel the section was very relevant. People struggle to find out which campsite to visit and the two sources I suggested give you the best campsites in the UK that have been judged.

As I said I do feel this section is very relevant - as I don't want to go against the Wikipedia guidelines how would you suggest I edit the post to make it more suitable to the guidelines. All previous edits Ive made I've never had this issue before.

Thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyHalliday (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of database tools

Hello MrOllie,

Upon further inspection of the page, I found that the original tool was listed but it's under the former company. The DBArtisan tool was acquired by IDERA, Inc. from Embarcadero. I would like to update this listing with the latest versioning and company information, if possible. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160202005941/en/IDERA-Wraps-Banner-Year-Acquires-Embarcadero-Launches

TechnologyFan (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

Dear MrOllie, Can you please tell me how do you consider my recent posting as "marketing of a brand"? I have not given links to any product. Instead, I have simply introduced a new organization that is a revolution in tech health in Pakistan. In my perspective, it is the next big thing in the Pakistan's healthcare industry. I would like to hear more from you in this regard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadmubashar (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about brands - you were advertising this organization. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or spread awareness, even if it is the 'next big thing'. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Scott Salvator Page Deletion Contestion

Dear MrOllie, I wholeheartedly respect Wikipedia and its policies because it is the source of most credible knowledge on the internet. However, as long as my case is concerned, can please tell me as to how can you accuse of "advertising" an organization? All my edits were only linked to health talks with respect to Pakistani articles. For instance, in the article "Health organizations in Pakistan", I wrote the name of an organization that was missing there - And you removed it. Likewise, in another article, they were stating that healthcare in Pakistan is poor, however I was stating that it is not as bad is it was some years back. Advertising is defined as "Giving information about features of a brand", which I believe I wasn't doing. I was solely talking about health advancements strictly within the demographics of Pakistan. Plus, I used the links to the most credible news pages in Pakistan to strengthen my point. However, being the part of Wikipedia family, I wholeheardly respect your opinion and would like to hear your opinion on it. Thank you.

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Nfarky (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am currently an aspiring interior designer and a huge fan of Mr. Salvator's work. He has been published in multiple magazines, books, and news papers for his designs. Interior design is often not viewed as an art but if you would take the time to actually look at his work you would see he is truly an artist and a pioneer in this industry. Barely any interior designers even have a wiki page so I've started compiling lists of ones id like to write, because an someone aspiring to break into this industry, this history of it is something i have to know, respect and learn. Just as others who are in my position should as well. Elle decor, house beautiful and vogue living haven't digitized their past issues because unfortunately i guess thats not a priority so i think that wikipedia should really have pages not just for scott salvator but people like Bunny Williams, Mario Buatta (Ive edited his), Parish Hadley. The true generation of interior designers that shaped the industry that unfortunately was decimated by the aids epidemic in the 80s. I truly thing it is a disservice not to have a page for Mr. Salvator, please reconsider.

Backpacking stoves

Hi, I'm wondering why you removed the link to 'how to choose a backpacking stove'. I've had a look through this article: while it mentions many different stoves by brand it does not appear to be trying to sell them. Murray Langton (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I confused it with a vendor site I'd seen elsewhere. - MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Do some of my links or my context have the chance of remaining and retrieving?

Hi dear MrOllie I'm writing this message for you after that you remove all my context which I added on three pages on Wikipedia because of conflict of interest (COI). The links were divided into two groups: science direct and ReserchGate pages. I think that the problem was related to my ReserchGate pages. My first question is: "Is this true?". My second question is that: "If I remove ResearchGate links, Can I retrieve my context? (because citation to this website is routine everywhere". Sincerely, I'm looking forward to hearing from you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisohani (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't be writing about your own work on Wikipedia - it really doesn't matter which particular web site you link. Did you read the guidelines on conflict of interest I posted on your talk page? - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Scott Salvator

mr. ollie,

please explain to me how to fix my article so it does not get deleted by you again. It is NOT a promotion or an ad, i am just trying to add some historic information about the practice of interior design and Ive edited it three times. Ive cited all my sources and taken out any language that could be considered praise. Please advise. the page is scott salvator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfarky (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly written like an advertisement. I'm sorry, but if you can't see this you will need to work on your objectivity before editing Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you use the process at Wikipedia:Articles for creation rather than continuing to create this article in an unacceptable state. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I just rewrote it again. i really think its unbias this time. Please take a look scott salvator Nfarky (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC) nfarky

please advise?Nfarky (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)nfarky

Just wait for an admin to review it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

List of social bookmarking websites

Yesterday I added Bookmarkos to the List of social bookmarking websites page. Today you removed it from the list with the reason "rm entries without enwiki articles"

While it would be nice if Bookmarkos had a wiki page, it does not make sense to leave the list incomplete just because it doesn't have a wiki page. It's a disservice to users who are looking to compare bookmarking services.

Furthermore, I question the legitimacy of having Digg and Reddit on the list, but choosing to exclude Bookmarkos. Digg and Reddit may be fine sites, but social bookmarking they are not.

D.a.gutierrez (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

PS> I have no affiliation with Bookmarkos. I'm not even a user. I'm just a disaffected Delicious user who has been searching for a replacement after the latest owners destroyed the last semblance of order on that site. When I came upon this wiki page, I was shocked that a prominent name like Bookmarkos wasn't on the list.

When you edited the list, you should have saw a notice about the inclusion criteria. I'll quote it here: 'This is a list of NOTABLE social bookmarking websites, as judged by Wikipedia's notability policies, obtained by searching Wikipedia for WP:N. Please don't add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles – instead, read our notability policies and write the article first, ensuring to demonstrate notability. Entries without articles, redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren't about the social bookmarking website in question will be pruned. Fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful.' - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. A perfectly useful service excluded because of bureaucratic requirements, but let's keep Digg and Reddit on the list.

D.a.gutierrez (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my work on Magic Square

Hi Mr. Ollie,

Today, I have uploaded my own original work of Magic Square. It was a great work. You have deleted within 15 minutes. I am new to wikipedia, so, please let me know reasons for deletion, so that I can work on that and upload the same again. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt1311 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original work, we summarize what is in sources that meet our guidelines. If a major newspaper or a journal of mathematics writes about your magic square, Wikipedia will cover it then. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Zenoss Article

Hi,

Please do not revert the Zenoss company page back to Zenoss Core. Zenoss Core is a product of Zenoss, and needs its own Wikipedia page. We are in the process of creating a new page for Zenoss Core.

I reverted the Zenoss article back to the state I had it in.

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

Who is 'We'? Are you employed by Zenoss? - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not employed at Zenoss. I work for an agency that manages digital strategy for Zenoss.

Is it not okay for me to be editing the Zenoss Wikipedia article/page? If not, who can make the necessary edits/updates for me?

Thanks for your help! Bryan ssm (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and the required disclosures when editing for pay. In a nutshell, rather than editing the page directly you should go to the talk page at Talk:Zenoss, explain who you are and who is paying you, and then make suggestions and allow disinterested Wikipedia editors to review and implement the changes. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agilysys Company Page

Hi,

I noticed today that you have added page issues to Agilysys company page. I am not sure what guidelines were broken by editing this page. The page had issues before and I simply edited it to correct those issues. Could you please advise what exactly was done wrong and how can we go about correcting it? Agilysys is a genuine company and the page does not contain and false information. Your help would be much appreciated!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsernameStela (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't change much of anything on that page. It had issues before you got there, it still has issues now. If you did anything wrong, it was removing maintenance templates without addressing the problems. - MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Open discussion references

Dear MrOllie, Thank you for your revisions to my edits. My question: As you know, I recently tried to add new technology to "Reverse osmosis", "Solar desalination" (and even create seperate page for the technology and its company) but the references are not to your liking. Can you please explain how a research institute like Delft University of Technology (which is government in The Netherlands) can not be independent?

The source you used is a university's student/alumni magazine. Those kinds of puff pieces are common in such publications when students or alumni found a company (the founders of the company you are promoting are Delft University graduates) and are written with the input of those featured. We would need a true independent citation, for this kind of content probably from a major newspaper or news magazine. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This source pretends to be independent but you got a point, thanks. Where you see the "puffyness" in the article? Seems objective, informative and author seems to be knowledgeable, only few quotes of employer. Even includes negatives like high investment up front. Either way, just trying to get this technology going :) With help of Google and even the company itself, two more options as citations: http://2016.omanobserver.om/making-waves-is-their-business/ Please keep in mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman_Daily_Observer ;) Or https://thewaternetwork.com/article-FfV/in-conversation-with-sid-vollebregt-from-elemental-water-makers-1-3koNm9txcY-fHzhfGex4ng Many articles seem to have some sort of quotes from company employers but I assume with a good interviewer/editor objectivity can still be maintained. Correct? And/or what are the possibilities for Dutch articles in major Dutch newspapers? Enjoy your day and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCJ80 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCJ80 (talk • contribs)

Your comment at AfD

thanks for this! That was very helpful. Was not aware of that article. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Map

Not good with making new maps but here is a good data set from 2016[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

the Hydro Dot Net cybercrime

Hey dude, I guess you got alerted into the hole cybercrime/cybercriminal misappropriation of Hydro Dot Net sort of edit-warring by igloo or some other flag alert.

I checked up on most of the contribution (most likely) made by the same IP editor from Japan, and a lot of the contributions are bona-fide. Dunno what you heard, but there was some administrator attention to a banned IP user called hyogo a few years back, and Cenarium and Materialscientist seem to think this is the same dude documenting a cybercrime by editing the wikipedia article! It seems to be linked to some dudes in India at a big IT company (Directi, which you edited to say it`s not a big IT company, but a "internet domain registrar", which I checked out, and actually it`s a pretty big IT company with business internationally, so dude, it`s like, what the hey, you can`t just go around undoing good contributions, no matter what Cenarium, Materialscientist, Zebedoo or whoever say whatever. Dudes been targeted man, so chill with all that, k?

Anyway, stay cool man, and STOP ALL (edit) WARS!. Peace180.43.143.30 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC) ~~

I honestly don't care about any banned users or anything like that, I only care that the content doesn't have any of the required sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedure for providing references in wikipedia

Dear Ms Ollie, i'm a new user of Wikipedia, i need to better understand how to provide few relevant references in some wikipedia page without creating COI issues, since i'm one of the authors.

Here an example: i noted that in the "Anthropocene" wikipedia page, in the section "2.4 Geomorphology" there aren't references. There are two references that are really relevant, and that should be provided there. Both are "review papers" published in the journals Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. The references are:

Tarolli, P., Sofia G. (2016). Human topographic signatures and derived geomorphic processes across landscapes, Geomorphology, 255, 140-161, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.12.007 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X15302282) (this is an invited review paper).

Brown, A.G., Tooth, S., Bullard, J.E., Thomas, D S.G., Chiverrell, R.C., Plater, A.J., Murton, J., Thorndycraft, V.R., Tarolli, P., Rose, J., Wainwright, J., Downs, P., Aalto, R. (2017). The Geomorphology of The Anthropocene: Emergence, Status and Implications, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 42, 71-90, doi:10.1002/esp.3943 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.3943/abstract).

How i can procede for such request?

Many thanks for your help, best regards

EarthSurfSoc (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What you did on Talk:Anthropocene is mostly correct, you just forgot to disclose your conflict of interest. Use talk pages, and let someone who is unaffiliated with the work add the references (or not). - MrOllie (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, now the procedure is clear. I will follow these indications. Best regards.

EarthSurfSoc (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your comment on the ISCOWA page I inform you that ISCOWA is a long established society with members (on an individual basis) form over 30 countries. The board at this moment consists of 9 members from 6 countries (Belgium, England, Sweden, The Netherlands, Spain and Finland). In this respect a conflict of interests is not the case. Johan goumans (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Johan GoumansJohan goumans (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Help changing Zenoss article name

Hi MrOllie,

Will you please help me change the article name for Zenoss - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenoss?

It should be titled "Zenoss Core" instead of "Zenoss" as Zenoss Core is the actual name of the product.

Someone needs to create a new article for the company/organization Zenoss, and that article should be titled "Zenoss".

I added this to the Zenoss Talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zenoss.

Bryan ssm (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibeacon

iBeacon is based on Daelibs' first implementation. Without this iBeacon would quite arguably not be here today hence the importance of citing this.

As such I propose the following passage:

The first recorded implementation of BLE beacons for proximity sensing dates back to 2011 with an Australian company called DKTOB (Daelibs). Daelibs manufactured BLE beacons which would be detected by bespoke "logging" devices to monitor the whereabouts of staff in shopping malls. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/pdfSource.do?fileQuery=%83%8F%9A%92h%7F%93%90Q%91%94%97%90%99%8C%98%90hl%80%5D%5B%5C%5D%5C%5B%5C%5D%5D%5Dm_%5D%5B%5C%5E%5B%5E%5DcY%9B%8F%91Q%9C%A0%94%8E%96h%8F%9A%92|title=Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) beacon including controllable signal direction and range|publisher=IP Australia|date=2012-08-13 |accessdate=2012-08-13}}</ref>. Since the announcement of Apple's ibeacon protocol, innovators have found ever growing uses for this technology.

Furthermore, if you are going to cite me for "advertising" (I'm simply trying to state FACT that Daelibs did in fact do this FIRST) then you should take a look at the iBeacon manufacturers cited such as bright who has their name and a photograph of their product placed in the article. What about Texas instruments and Nordic to name a couple more?

If I'm being warned and denied this annotation then it seems there is a rule for the larger corporations and another for the rest of us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daelabs (talk • contribs)

Please review the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and the required disclosures when money is involved, and stop inserting mentions of your own company on Wikipedia. Second, that is a page specifically about the iBeacon protocol, not about BLE generally, so your text is off topic. Third, even if it were on topic, you would need a secondary, independent source to make a claim like that. A patent is not a secondary source, it doesn't mention iBeacon, and it cannot support the claim that the filer got there first, it only supports that a patent was issued on a similar technology. - MrOllie (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I refute your claim that this information is off topic because Daelibs was the first to use Bluetooth as a proximity detection mechanism. Apple came out with the same technology, the only difference being the structure of the advertising packet (which happens to be uncannily similar to Daelibs original); coining it iBeacon. In regards to substantiation I have a photo of a beacon with the copyright dated in 2012.

<link redacted>

TO ANYONE THAT READS THIS:

I appeal to you to give Daelibs the recognition it deserves and publish this within iBeacon to avoid this so called "conflict of interest" notion asserted by my friend Mr Ollie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daelabs (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you Sgt gh (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Answer to Managing a conflict of interest

In bold my answer to your comment.

Information Hello, Alessio.bucaioni. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information.

Hello MrOllie and thank you for your message. However, i find your message not to hold true. I am a Doctor, researcher and practitioner in the field of component- and model-based development of embedded systems. I found that page of not good quality especially when it comes of component model definition. So i updated the section and also put a reference to a hold, successful and known component model called RCM. As i researcher i did work on this component model as i did work on many others, however the component model was realised 20 years ago (it was one of the first), it is well established and of importance fro researcher and practitioners in that area. Moreover, many other component models are cited. Clearly, as contributor, we should talk of what we know rather than talk of what we do not, as, otherwise, the quality of wikipedia would degrade soon.

In particular, we ask that you please: avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;

first of all, i did not create any page on any of these. But again, as a doctor and researcher i believe my competencies on specific fields are very valuable so if i should not write on things i worked or collaborated, etc, then on what should i write? On things i di not know??

instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template); when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE); avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM); I cited only relevant peer-reviewed article. I believe the goal of an encyclopaedia should be to provide real knowledge. Clearly, one association, school or such is expert in a domain, then most of the relevant publications in that area will come form that venue. This does not decrease the value of the publications

exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). I always exercise great caution with rules, plagiarism and such. i do not think i need to comment over the compensation sentence.

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for the time you have spent writing the message to me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio.bucaioni (talk • contribs)

As a subject matter expert, I'm sure you are familiar with lots of sources by a great variety of people - in the future it would be ideal if you could cite those which were not written by yourself. Thanks in advance!- MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And in fact i put 4 citations out of which only one was referring to a work i have written. Nonetheless, you (i guess you) have removed my modification, but kept other technologies as technology examples. Beside, i am indeed interested in write a page on some research we have been doing as we believe open science is important and we want to give the possibility to many people and students to have, at least, an idea on some topics even if they can not pay the fees which re usually associated to scientific repositories as, e.g., IEEE. Therefore we wondering whether this is acceptable or not, considering, that some of the work has been done by us so, most likely, the wikipedia article will contain some citations of some our peer reviewed articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio.bucaioni (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is usually not a place to post original research. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes material only after it has been picked up by secondary sources, such as the journalistic press or (sometimes) third party literature reviews. New Wikipedia articles shouldn't be driven by primary source articles on recent research. If you think you have the third party sources to start a page, I recommend that you use the process at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that way an experienced Wikipedia editor will help review your article before posting to make sure it meets the inclusion guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

MenDB

Hello, MrOllie,

Sorry, for insisting, I did not realize it was a content problem. I do not master well Wikipedia.

)

Please, can you help me to integrate my work in AI to this page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_intelligence_projects' ?

What is missing in my post for it to be validated:

• MentDB, A digital brain to house a consciousness, an attempt to build a Mentalese engine, developed by Jimmitry Payet.

Regards, Jim.

Jimmitry (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You would need some secondary sources written by neutral third parties to support an article on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you include this content because I am pretty sure such sources to not currently exist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

removal of citation

+The citations I added to the network taps entry are non-biased and educational. They are on a public website and can be referenced. JennyisIT (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a blog published by a network tap vendor. They have an obvious interest in selling network taps. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why the Revert?

Hi, why did you revert my edit on 3ds max?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autodesk_3ds_Max&diff=prev&oldid=763328736

Arnold is now a renderer plugin for 3ds max, and has been for almost a year, and the official name of ART is "Autodesk Raytracer Renderer (ART)", not "Autodesk's Raytracer (ART) renderer".

This is the second time my change was reverted, what's going on here?

HAAAHEEE (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw the extlink and didn't notice the Wikipedia article link, sorry. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of open-source bioinformatics software

List of open-source bioinformatics software‎; 23:34 . . (-1,038)‎ . . ‎MrOllie (talk | contribs)‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Cxx-toolkit-editor (talk): Rm entried without wikipedia articles. (TW))

It's a list of biotech s/w. I added a link to a (yet another) biotech s/w toolkit. How is it different from all other links on that page? Why this (factual) information is verboten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxx-toolkit-editor (talk • contribs)

Did you read the page? Right at the top it says "This is a list of computer software which is made for bioinformatics and released under open-source software licenses with articles in Wikipedia." - MrOllie (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal of my edits

Please don't undo my contributions without any reason and play with them. If you have something to add please do so but don't remove my edits. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermermaid (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't add citations to SEO blog-hosted clickbait and I won't have to remove them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't added any citations to SEO blog-hosted clickbait. See you don't even have a look at what you are doing. So please have a look and try not to undo other peoples hard working contributions. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermermaid (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Complaints

Ah, I've been semi-active for a while and my talk page is clean of complaints! Yours isn't, sadly, and there are others who are complaining about you on other talk pages, too. One user said that you're going down the list of their contributions reverting everything "without any regard to quality and credibility and usefulness of the contribution". Please be aware of this, and check if any of your edits may be contested. Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I deal with a bit amount of conflict of interest editing. Self promotion is very important to some of these folks, and they get upset when their name is removed from Wikipedia articles they added themselves to. I'll open up a topic on the COI noticeboard in a bit. I doubt the user is in much of a mood to hear more from me, but perhaps they will listen to a fresh opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

COI isn't only self-promotion. I hate to say it, but my first few edits were COI before I knew any better. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I've been watching a few small, helpful editors who were complaining about deletionists. They've contested all of your edits. This should go to ANI, for a conclusion to be drawn. I haven't taken the time to check your contributions and see how many deletions there are, but I do know that there are more deletions than there are wikipedia users who log in more than once a month (and you have been here a while) And you have a deletion rate of slightly over 2%. I highly suggest you bring this to ANI: User talk:BronHiggs#CulturalresearchUser talk:Culturalresearch#Re: Massive destruction of good work

Please see [2] People who had their edits deleted by you seem to be very annoyed, I think this should go to ANI. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I opened a WP:COIN discussion about it yesterday. You can feel free to open whatever discussions you feel are appropriate, but I'm not going to open a parallel discussion about the same events at another venue. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

hikashop

I explain my point of view in hikashop talk tab here. REally want to know why you don't delete jigoshop article then except if you can argue  !! I don't ask to maintain hikashop but if hikashop information can't be added in the article about web ecommerce shopping cart then jigoshop should not be include in the article.

86.212.85.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't tag the Hikashop article for deletion, I haven't involved myself in the deletion of that article at all. If you want kept, the place to discuss that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikashop. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance Template on Zenoss Article

MrOllie,

I see that you have added a Conflict of Interest Maintenance Template to the Zenoss article. I clearly stated that I am a paid contributor on both the Zenoss Talk page as well as my user page. This is what you asked me to do.
I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal. What changes need to be made in order to remove the Maintenance Template from the Zenoss article? You or someone else needs to assist with this otherwise we'll just be going in circles. This issue needs to be resolved ASAP. Thanks! Bryan ssm (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone (not you) will have to rewrite it so it isn't an advert and check to see that it is actually notable. You seemed to understand earlier that you should not edit Zenoss articles directly, but should make suggestions on talk pages only. Please do that from now on, and be patient in waiting for responses. - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Photograph

Hello, I am a new user to Wikipedia, why did you take down my a picture of a student on the Presbyterian school article? Do you work nearby? {subst:unsigned|TheSuperare}}

The purpose of images on Wikipedia is to illustrate the text of the article. That image did not illustrate any particular text in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, cool. How did you find the article, do you live in Houston? Or do you have some program that finds it for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSuperare (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Belle (Disney) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted clean up list in systems management

I've reverted your clean up list in List of systems management systems. I believe additional reasons are required in the talk page of the article. Including a couple I had recently added which is probably why I have noticed it, but I have problems with a couple of others also.

Please discuss these on the page so we can come to some agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

It's a list of notable systems, which means they should all have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My obscurity about citing yourself in COI topic

Hi dear MrOllie, We had a discussion about COI here. I read your post on my page and after that I read the page which is dedicated to COI. Based on [yourself] part on this page I think that the mentioned articles are completely relevant to the topics and you can see the articles, so at least I want to let me put the link of the articles in external links parts. Honestly I think that these articles are helpful for other people and in the end my last question is: "If somebody find a relevant article which was written by themselves useful, they aren't allowed to cite this? I think that based on the part which I mentioned to, in my case they can. Do you agree?" Sincerely, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisohani (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The section you cited specifically mentions that you should not place undue emphasis on your work. The way that we weight the proper emphasis is by using secondary sources (reviews, journalistic summaries, etc), not primary sources, which is what you are trying to link. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External link removed yesterday

Dear Mr. Ollie, I noticed that my recently placed external link I added from IP address 152.11.5.87 was removed by you last night. I would like to appeal this removal. I have since become a registered Wikipedia user under the name Aelster. The link was Elster AD. Questions and Answers in MRI (MRIquestions.com). This is a totally free, university-based educational web site I created two years ago containing over 1000 pages of text and references concerning MRI technology. We have had over 2,000,000 visitors and it is the #1 ranked site on google for questions about MRI. No registration is required and there is no commercial support for the site. It is similar but much more comprehensive than two older external links already listed on the site - MRI: A Peer-Reviewed, Critical Introduction. European Magnetic Resonance Forum (EMRF)/The Round Table Foundation (TRTF); Peter A. Rinck (editor) and The Basics of MRI. Underlying physics and technical aspects. In fact, the latter site, although venerable historically, is really far out of date and perhaps should be removed. So, could you please consider reinserting my deleted link? It seems a most appropriate link that would be most helpful to readers searching for more information on MRI. With thanks, Allen Elster --Aelster (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you review our guidelines on conflict of interest and external linking and please refrain from adding links to your own site(s) in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie, I was not aware of those guidelines and they are indeed appropriate conerns. But at the same time it seems like MRIquestions.com is a perfect link to include in this section of Wikipedia, and I must say humbly, is far superior to the two outdated links mentioned above. Do you have any significant background in MRI yourself? If you do, it is hard to believe that you would not think MRIquestions.com is a suitable for an external link. Please take a few minutes to peruse the MRIquestions.com web site and explore its richness. I created this site in the spirit of Wikipedia to be a free gift to the world, not to bring more fame to myself. Would you be willing to post the site yourself after this review? Thank you. Allen E. Aelster (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My obscurity about citing yourself in COI topic- II

Hi again, In one view of point, I agree with you. I read the part which you referred to. Honestly I was going to insert only one photo and since I had some problems and errors to upload and insert a photo on Wikipedia I decided so. Now, I have a question: "If I want to upload a design process flow-chart of a method, I think it's a general not specified aspect, is this correct?". If you agree, I send you the mentioned the design-process flow chart and after seeing that you decide about the level of generality of the context (How can I upload and send you a picture on Wikipedia?) Sincerely, Alisohani (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding COI for the article on BIM

Pardon for the error. I did wonder how I can give out the information regarding my work, and yet keep to the standards required by Wikipedia. Can you give an example on how an author indicated some work of his without violating the COI rules? (sabufrancis)

103.5.203.230 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, most authors don't do very well at this - most people are understandably close to something they have so much time on. But those that can be objective about it will cite secondary sources (that is, some independent third party who has written about their work) and will suggest content on the talk pages of the relevant articles instead of writing about themselves in the articles directly. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mind if I pick your brain?

Hey MrOllie! I saw you've recently edited the golf cart page, so thought you might be someone who's good to reach out to.

Currently, I'm working on an improved version of the Club Car page, but as I state on my profile and on the page's talk page, I'm affiliated with the company and so certainly want to proceed with caution. I've been working on a draft in my sandbox and am a bit stuck on how to continue making it better, what's missing, etc. If you get a spare minute, would you be okay taking a look and providing some feedback? Thanks if you can! SportsGuy17 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Overall it looks pretty good, nice job. Personally I would remove the details and tables pertaining to specific models - this should be a general overview of the company, not a product catalog. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my second question

Hi MrOllie It seems that you forget to answer my second question whose title is "My obscurity about citing yourself in COI topic- II". I appreciate that if you answer it. Thank you. Alisohani (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you were trying to ask me, so I don't have an answer for you. If you have general questions about Wikipedia or photos, I suggest you ask them at Wikipedia:Teahouse. - MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OpenMotics on List of open-source hardware projects

Why you reverted my contribution? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-source_hardware_projects&type=revision&diff=765822229&oldid=765820404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simó Albert i Beltran (talk • contribs)

I'm going to add OpenMotics again because you don't tell me nothing.

--Simó Albert i Beltran (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Teleradiology

Mr. Ollie,

I have no doubt your intentions are honorable and meant for the best intentions but For the life of me I cannot figure out how my edits were not a Neutral point? I just added to the existing text that there had been a public consolidation of firms (Radlinx was merged with NightHawk and NightHawk was merged with VRAD). In the process of disallowing or deleting my advancement of industry history you also deleted content that had been online in teleradiology for 8-10 years. That made no sense as I would have thought that if it was wrong it would have been edited years ago. I added in that old content as well. Most of the firms mentioned do not even exist today. It would be hard to promote anything, with any potential benefit, if they do not even exist today. To a large extent that was the point of the edit. Frankly, because you deleted all the historical names, innovators except one (Berger) I feared there may be a less than neutral edit in deleting the history that has been on the listing for almost a decade. Nautilus62 22:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugsy1962 (talk • contribs)

Mergers and the like are routine business activity, wikipedia isn't a business journal. In addition, calling people 'innovators' is itself not neutral. Just say what they did in neutral terms, with independent sources. That the content was wrongly in the article for a long time is no reason we shouldn't fix it now. - MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ken Whyte

Hi Mr. Ollie. The existing wikipedia page is far from neutral and is largely inaccurate. For example, Ken Whyte was hired by John Fraser to become the editor of Saturday Night magazine, not Conrad Black. He was also hired by Don Babick as the founding editor of the National Post, again, not Black. He was Editor and Publisher at Maclean's, not just publisher. I can go on. I applaud that you dedicate your time to ensuring wikipedia pages are kept neutral and accurate, but please also examine existing pages. Again, if any portions of the new version seem 'promotiona' to you, I invite your edits. I only ask for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaTarmohamed (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So fix the inaccuracies in simple, neutral language without flipping the tone of the entire article into a promotional puff piece. - MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Spreadsheet software

Hello MrOllie!

Why do you think that Webix Spreadsheet can't be palced Spreadsheet-related developmental software [[3]] next to ExtenXLS? NickMaksimenko (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The linked articles are specifically about spreadsheet software. You are linking an article on a framework that contains no details about spreadsheet software. - MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IQ Option

Hello, MrOllie! Do you really think the version re-restored by you [[4]] is objective and corresponds to Wiki's rules? The unjustified reference to the "controversial" industry and the reference to the CySEC fine in the first line (with all other info being deleted for no reason nor explanation, leading to biased interpretation)? What specifically was so advertising and copyright-infringing in my version? Don't you think that such matters should be discussed first? My personal aim was to make a reference-based solid article on a popular brand, not an advertisement of whatever nature. It might contain some unnecessary or stylistically incorrect data, though (as it's my first article). But it seems what (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones) does is far less objective and way more misleading. I hope you can help me restore the initial version and improve it properly. Waiting for your response. Rrusl u (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I really think that Smallbones's version is superior, and that binary options are a highly controversial industry. The FBI doesn't investigate noncontroversial industries, nor do nations (such as Israel), ban whole industries when they are non controversial. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many links deleted

Unsure why a number of my edits were reversed. All references made were to reflect recently published academic journal articles. These sources have been peer-reviewed, and I do not know how they could possibly be of insusufficient quality for Wikipedia pages. AgambensreMarx (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

They were a combination of redundant with existing references, or undue weight given that they were primary sources and not secondary sources. You also added a number of references to the same author in a very short span of time, which is a common pattern in editors who have a conflict of interest. Please do read the COI guideline, as per the Wikipedia terms of use certain disclosures may be required if it applies to you. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How are articles offering literature review considered primary sources? I read over the COI guideline and this does not appear to reference the updates I have made. AgambensreMarx (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add multiple copies of the same question, that was pretty rude. To answer your question at least one of the references you were repetitively adding appeared to be offering a thesis and not merely reviewing literature. - MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Elliptical trainer

Hi MrOllie, Could you please describe why you deleted link where I got a content for Wikipedia? I've updated page Elliptical trainer with useful content and set reference to source. But you deleted citation for this content as a refspam. It is not a refspam this is source of content. I am owner of this content and disapprove using content without link to source. Please add link to source on this page. Hckd (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1) We're not going to link to a site that exists to garner amazon referral links to sell ellipticals, as a reference or otherwise. See WP:SPAM. 2), per the terms of use, which you can find at the bottom of the edit page, you 'irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.' - MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Manilay (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Building Information Modeling in Poland Manilay (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Manilay (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Building Information Modeling in Poland Manilay (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Hi MrOllie, unfortunately you have removed my adnotation about BIM in Poland. Why? I have added only information about association which is the biggest organisation in Poland and focused on BIM technology; the documents, which are right now obligated in Poland and the first report about BIM implementation (official document) all with links to the documents. My main intention was to add info about Poland, that BIM is also present in our country. Please let me know which part of the text should I reedit to get approval from you for publication. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Information security - Key concepts

This section start off a paragraph of the classical key concepts, followed by alternate methods. This is for good reason, in the area of Information security there is currently much debate to change these key concepts because they are outdated and lack of flexibility. In this area, it is very important to show the ongoing initiatives with all it positive and critiques. The fact that you keep very relevant information from our trade is quite strange and disturbing behavior. If you are the keeper you appear to be then, at least, i expect a proposal to re-phrase the added paragraph. CIA-cubed is provided with source info to the NIST special publication (which is a overdue must to have on this page). Previously you wanted secondary sources, this time these are also provided. Why should O-ISM3 be mentioned and CIA-cubed not?!

You mentioned in the talk: "one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". Can you please specify the links you refer to and why they are not suitable over similar ones that are (supposedly) suitable?

Regarding formatting... you might be correct, the way something is phrased should not matter, only the information is. what i refer to is the strange timeline formatting in this section. I propose that 7 paragraphs, containing the timeline information with alternate models, are moved down below the sub-header "Non-repudiation" and in it's own sub-header called "Alternate models". This new section is ideally formatted as a table listing the variants and alternate models.

Please advise, with helpful information, so we can go forward delivering relevant info to the community and the world at large, improving the knowledge that the old values are inadequate. --Walangtao (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The secondary source you added contained only a trivial mention of CIA-cubed. To assign proper weight we would need an independent source that provides some substantial information about it. The Inappropriate external link was the one to cia-cubed.org. Is this your site, or are you related to it in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

With or without a, so called, "independent" source; that website (cia-cubed.org) and their blog provides good information. I have even provided additional material (NIST), not referenced on the cia-cubed.org site. I have been in contact with the site owner, at a conference and by email, but are not related to the site. The question is why would such relevant site be marked by you as inappropriate, while you leave other external references intact? If we cannot rely on Wikipedia anymore to provide more complete information where should we update our references to related articles? In the end i would like the page to contain different models, i was even intending to add one more; what do you think about the proposal to add that sub-header and a table? PS: i just noticed the CC BY-SA License on the CIA cubed site, no commercial gain there. --Walangtao (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Which other external references do you think are inconsistent? If there is improper content on Wikipedia, the solution is to remove it, not to add more. If you are looking to make a directory of links, DMOZ.org is a good place for that. Since Wikipedia is not intended to be a link directory, I think a table would probably be even more of a problem than adding less notable models in a prose section. - MrOllie (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What is going-on, now you also removed the RMIAS reference - why?? --Walangtao (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I was reviewing the article and I noticed that it, too, had only primary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, in that case you better also remove the "2011 ... Open Group ... O-ISM3 ..." since it is not an official Open Group standard but an open (self declared) forum discussion project. --Walangtao (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In the end, i guess some wikipedia pages (ex. Open source) are treated with different standards then others. Would it be a solution then to describe models like CIA-cubed and others in a completely new separate wikipedia page (just noticing RMIAS and O-ISM3 already have one)? --Walangtao (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: thank you for the discussion (it makes me realize better what wikipedia is and is not) --Walangtao (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If the new models have independent sources that cover them in some depth (See the general notability guideline, our starting point for deciding what should have an article), a new article is probably the best bet, yes. I haven't looked at RMIAS yet, but the O-ISM3 article is weakly sourced - that would not be a good example to follow, it would probably be deleted as it is now. - MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Chatbots

Hi MrOllie,

I've noticed you keep reverting my edits on the Chatbots page. I've been making edits because Chatbot is one word and when you edit it you make it 2 words (chat bot). A chatbot is a relatively new concept and most people/companies are just starting to get into the space, which is why I feel it's so important to have it spelt correctly on the page. I think you should take a moment to look into what chatbots are and how they're spelt before you go back and change it from chatbot to chat bot. Just something to think about, many people use wikipedia as their go-to website for basic information on every topic so I really believe it should be as accurate as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpnation (talk • contribs)

The opposite is happening - a new user added those spaces yesterday. You removed some of the spaces he added. I was removing the rest, along with the inline external link you added (please don't add that back again, it's not the kind of thing we link - see WP:EL). - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

garlic press and garlic

Hi, my additions were approved with Mean As Custard. The blog I'm refering to is non-branded and non-profit. Please bring it back or explain what is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atproquality (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not source content to self published blogs. Even if Mean As Custard meant to preapprove your edit (which I honestly doubt), no user has the authority to do such a thing. - MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you prefer that I'll add all the content to the garlic press wikipedia page? It's an important information that doesn't qualify as spam. I saw several links to websites with the same kind of content, I don't see any reason why they should be approved and this site won't...Atproquality —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Platform as a Service

Why do you think https://paasfinder.org is an inappropriate link for PaaS vendors? It tries to be unbiased and is an university project with no financial interests. The work behind this is also peer-reviewed and published within several paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:A06:1004:0:0:0:4A63 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, nor is it a place for people to find links to PaaS vendors. I suggest you try a sitr such as dmoz.org, which is intended to be a place to list external links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If that is a reasoning, all links to example providers should be removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:A06:1004:0:0:0:4A63 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you see external links that don't belong, by all means remove them. - MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the link is not intended as link directory but to guide user to more examples for that topic. The problem here is that PaaS can not be classified exactly and other sites are just link farming by providers that are actually IaaS or VPS offerings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:A06:1004:0:0:0:4A63 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

System-level simulation

MrOllie, why did you remove the "Methods and Tools" section in the "System-level simulation" page ? Model order reduction is an important topic when trying to simulate large systems, as well as is parallel computing. Also languages like Modelica are important (large industrial and academic user community, conference proceedings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsaut (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove the whole section, I removed the references to specific tools. It's pretty common that when such a list of software exists, folks who work for software companies will show up and add their products to it. In cases where the list doesn't add to the readers understanding of the topic, it is better to remove the list than to expend effort maintaining it against promotional editors. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick reverts?

Hi MrOllie,

We see you have immediately reverted a couple of our contributions that corrected inaccuracies in this article and provided the reader with free and high quality educational material about the concepts of k-space. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspaceinfo (talk • contribs)

Looked like external link promotion to me. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between "referring to" a book and "promoting" a book? What's the difference between referring to a book or to an interactive 'book' directly available as a free app on the AppStore? I think Wikipedia needs to reconsider some of their guidelines, as we are no longer living in the nineties. Anyone who searches 'kspace' on Wikipedia will be thrilled to find the free apps I referred to, because they are probably the most attractive and most accessible sources of information about the concepts of kspace available today.

In addition, you also reverted three corrections I made in the main text. Do I conclude correctly that Wikipedia does not appreciate contributions from professional experts? {subst:unsigned|77.162.22.34}}

Experts are welcome, when they are following our policies and guidelines, including the ones on conflict of interest and self promotion. Experts, for example, are familiar with a wide range of sources and material, so they don't need to cite their own works. When they insist on only citing their own stuff (or their own apps), it is pretty obvious that they're here to promote themselves and not here to write an encyclopedia- MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Application Security:Security certifications

Please explain the complete removal of Security Certifications as the previous content referenced certifications that were not relevant. How long did this section exists in this article and why was it not deleted previously?

I do not believe this is promotion. It was simply identifying professional certificates in the subject matter.

Bjm243wiki (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

'Simply identifying professional certifications' by linking to the organizations that offer them is promoting those organizations, and is not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of external links You're right that the previous version of the section wasn't much good either, which is why I deleted rather than reverting to the unsourced text. Wikipedia is a big place and there's a lot to do, so you shouldn't read anything into the fact that a less than ideal section sat around for a while until somebody noticed it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Minimum Wage edits

Hi Mr. Ollie, I noticed you reverted my edits clarifying the intro paragraph on minimum wages. This was a little demoralizing since I just spent quite a bit of time to improve that paragraph. If you think it is too long, could you please explain which sections are redundant - or even better, improve them? I corrected/improved some links and added others where they were missing.

I'd like to preserve these changes along with some of the style/clarity fixes for some of the sentences, with or without the extra content I added. I am now unclear of whether or not there is a point to doing this if my efforts will simply be reverted... Please advise me how to proceed.

Patrick Aberdeen (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Patrick Aberdeen

Wikipedia articles, especially the Lead paragraph, must be neutral. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but your edit had the effect of bolstering the anti-minimum wage stance while minimizing the pro-minimum wage stance, and without pointing at any sources, either. I'm sorry, but I don't personally see how it is salvageable. But I suggest you raise the issue on the talk page of the minimum wage article, perhaps someone else will think of a compromise there. - MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok - thank you for the clarification. I see what you mean and I also realized that some of the things I added are covered elsewhere in the article so they were redundant in that sense. I think I understand more clearly that the intro paragraph should be concise and not go into too much detail. To be clear, I don't actually have a stance on whether minimum wages are good or bad, and I'm skeptical of the idea of preserving 'neutrality' by retaining unclear ideas - for example "Supporters of the minimum wage say it increases the standard of living of workers, reduces poverty, reduces inequality, boosts morale and forces businesses to be more "efficient".[citation needed] " -- > becoming "more efficient" means getting more work out of each employee, which means fewer employees per unit output aka fewer jobs. It is misleading to include improved efficiency among the 'benefits' of a minimum wage from the perspective of workers. I'll see if I can figure out how to use the talk page and I appreciate your suggestion that someone may think of better ways to clarify the points I see as muddled, without giving off the appearance of a political bias in favour of or opposed to minimum wages.Patrick Aberdeen (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Patrick Aberdeen

About removal of my link

Deroka (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I just posted the link of website here which has posted more information on Chartubate than what has provided within Wikipedia page. But, Wiki think it is inappropriate for Wiki. But, when I see the reference list, I find out that many websites link as been posted within a reference link which also have ads to promote their own products within those pages. So, why I can't put my website just because it has some promotion material. After all the link which I've posted provided much more information about Chaturbate and its owner than what Wikipedia has provided in its Chaturbate page. So, in order add those information from my website to Wikipedia and put it as a reference link, what should I've to do? If you read the link which I've provided, you will find out much more information on Chaturbate. I suggest you to take a look at this page:- So, in order to add the information from this website to Chaturbate wiki page, what I've to do? After all I can't copy the information of that page and paste it in Wiki because that will be marked as duplicate content. So, any guidance to do this will be a great help. Thank you Deroka (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that removed your link from Chaturbate, but I took a second look anyway. Wikipedia does allow some advertising from sources we use as references, however those sources should be outlets with editorial staff and an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That is clearly not the case for this blog, so it should not be used as a source. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues...

Hi MrOllie, referring to the article on DiploFoundation, could you kindly let me know which sections are deemed advertising, so I can update them please? I do understand notability and single source issues, but not so sure where the problematic advert sections are. Advertising was certainly not the aim of the edits. Thanks in advance - still learning here :) IG_0100

Advertising runs throughout the article, but that issue stems from the other two - without secondary sources to summarize, all there really is to write is promotional content. My suggestion is to find independent, secondary sources and then trim the article to only what those sources mention. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Caffe blacklisted from Comparison of deep learning software

Hi Mr Ollie,

I'm curious why you are removing all references to the Caffe deep learning framework? What is the specific distinction between it and other frameworks (such as Theano)? Wk0 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That Comparison only lists topics that have met Wikipedia's article inclusion guidelines via having a preexisting Wikipedia article written from independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

List of computer simulation software

Thank you MrOllie for your feedback. I am still learning the system so hopefully I haven't done any faux pas here. ETAP is a notable software in the sense that it has served the over 90% of the US nuclear power generation community with power system simulation capabilities and 5000 companies worldwide. I am in the process of writing a factual non-promotional company page. It will be completed today. I request you to review etap.com and allow this entry to remain. Tkhandelwal (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I hope that finishing the new article involves rewriting the advertising that is currently in the draft and basing it on reliable, independent party sources instead - if you put that article into main space as it is now it would be deleted very quickly. - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to make the information as factual as possible and described the software contents only. No peacock terms to my knowledge. Number of references from IEEE have been added. The draft has been submitted for review. Please let me know if it needs improvement. Tkhandelwal (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your guidance. Tkhandelwal (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reinforced Concrete Edits

Thank you MrOllie for your feedback. I would like you to reconsider the changes and additions I made to the article. I tried very hard not to be biased. If there is anything specific you'd like me to change, please let me know, as I still very much believe the article is lacking. Thank you again, slc334 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slc334 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing of KDiff3

Hi MrOllie, I added KDiff3 to the Comparison of file comparison tools again. It is there for years and for reason. It is still widely used and still popular as it is the only 3-way comparison tool based on Qt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.135.118 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the note I left on your talk page? - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of entry

Hi Mr Ollie

I noticed TIBCO Nimbus was missing from the list of BPM process discovery tools - so added it. You immediately removed this. What was the reason?

Regards. Stanton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantonattree (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the note I left on your talk page? - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah-ha (noob)... Should I create some content about Nimbus and then add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantonattree (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you can write an article that meets our inclusion criteria based on independent sources, that would be the way to go, yes. - MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Life coach

Mr Ollie: In 1996 I founded and managed the first addredited life coach training school in the U.S. Since then, the school has trained and certified thousands of life coaches. I was an early contributor to the formation of the International Coach Federation (ICF) and established the system for life coach accreditation.

Ron Roesler aka RRoesler in your system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRoesler (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but our readers won't know any of that, so you should still cite sources for what you write on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Virtual Law Firm & Legal Technology

Hi MrOllie, I was just curious about the removal of the additions I made to the pages. Could I get more detailed feedback from you about why they were inappropriate? I did not receive anything in my 'Notices', so I am a little puzzled. Kierun84 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Kierun84

It was obvious advertising, as I'm sure you guessed. - MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Timeline of Boss compact pedals" section

Hi, MrOllie

I'm a bit upset for the removal of a section I added to the Boss Corporation page with a list of pedals they've launched through the years. I thought it was interesting, as many Boss pedal fans around the world would like to know this information. It occurs with the list of Fender instruments or Jaguar car models. You can visit the Boss page in the spanish version of Wikipedia where every product is mentioned. Anyway, thanks for your correction and greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakidip (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

NDEF Parser

Hi,

I add an external link under Near Field Communication. It is a link to a very helpful NDEF parser that can be very handy for developer in the NFC field. It was removed.

Please reconsider.Idan-OO (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idan-OO (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Community Compost

Apologies for totally messing up references in the Compost page. I would like to add an important section in this page that discusses community scale composting. This is a completely unmentioned topic that should be documented here. Community scale composting is a fundamental part of organic waste management.

The following link is an additional reference that I would like to include in edits to the compost page. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/docs/about_2014-community-composting-report-LL77_0815.pdf

Consciouscompost (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

An editor has started a discussion on AN/I which concerns you. You'll find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Harassment Issue

My profile page outlines the parameters of my current position as Wikipedian-in-Residence for ETCL and INKE. When I started with Wikipedia, I was overzealous and edited far too much too quickly and you took issue with these edits. You were correct in doing so at that time, because they were not properly balanced. I have re-assessed my approach and decided on working through various pages related to digital humanities topics and have provided further readings that are helpful for Wikipedia readers. I included *some* INKE-related articles and also included articles found through Google Scholar that are not *in any way* related to INKE. My understanding of the Wikipedian-in-Residence position is that it enables the user to still point to helpful information and public scholarship on the part of a host institution, which is what my position entails. Yet you went through and reverted all of these changes without having either read the articles that I posted, or even researched them at all, and even reverted changes on the Digital Humanities Summer Institute Page, which is part of the ETCL and INKE at UVic. I would like to push these edits to another editor, as your condescending tone and complete lack of help has become an issue of harassment. Thenewpulp (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the Wikipedian-in-Residence program is. It is a program where experienced Wikipedians work with an institution, not a program where an institution designates one of their employees to some special status. You also seem to have missed the Wikipedian-in-Residence section at the conflict of interest page - specifically 'WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization'. If your idea is to link to INKE or papers published by INKE affiliated researchers, you are going about it in exactly the wrong way. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's work through this with two questions, here: 1.) What is the exact right way, then? You've offered plenty of criticism, but I am curious how you suggest I should move forward so I can avoid the comments you have provided in the past. 2.) Sharing links to peer-reviewed scholarly articles on these topics is not marketing. If you would take just a moment to go to the INKE website, you'd come to understand that there is no product being sold and no real need to *market* to an audience. INKE is already very well established and nearly finished its research cycle. The goal at this point is to help strengthen Wikipedia's resources by pointing toward some of INKE's research, which, again, and I'm not sure how many times I can accentuate this point, scholarly, peer-reviewed research. When I add articles from journals such as Scholarly Research and Communication or Literary and Linguistic Computing or Digital Humanities Quarterly... I don't understand how that's marketing if they are very relevant to the Wikipedia page and will help guide future users to research about those topics. If I was pointing strictly to INKE's website, or blog posts on their site, I could understand the issue. That is not what's happening. So, recalling the first point, how does this move forward in any meaningful way? Thenewpulp (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

1) The right way is to use the talk page, *clearly* articulate your conflict of interest and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in. If you don't like what the first one says, someone else will come along eventually. Maybe they'll side with you, maybe not. You were doing it this way for a while, but you stopped using the preferred procedure in your recent batch of edits. 2) Wikipedia has a /lot/ of problems with academics listing their own peer-reviewed, scholarly research. The fact is, just because something is peer-reviewed and scholarly does not automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia generally waits for secondary sources - really, if a result isn't the kind of thing that gets summarized in textbooks and/or mentioned in the popular press, it probably doesn't belong here. If you're like most folks, you'll read that and be tempted to point at lots of other primary sourced stuff we've currently got listed - I know, I know. Wikipedia is a big place and there is a lot of work to do, and sometimes this stuff slips through the cracks and hangs around for a while (sometimes a long while). - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sort animations

When I saw that you removed an external link from Quicksort, I looked at the removed link and thought of course it is linkspam. But I had looked at that animation before and this seemed different. Looking at Wayback the page was once credited to a college professor and provided a list of references, rather than being the site of an agency. So I am going to put back the Wayback versions on all the sort pages (probably slowly). StarryGrandma (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a case of a new company buying the old site's domain. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

QTaste

Hello MrOllie,

I am new to Wikipedia, and as my first article I am trying to add QTaste to wikipedia for I feel it is a remarkable tool for testing. What would I need as a valid reference? The site github, which is where I have found this tools, is it a good one?

Best Regards, Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrmateu (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No, github is put up by the developer. We need two or more sources that are written independently of the software's author, published in an outlet with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking - a newspaper, a major trade magazine, a scientific paper, etc. See the guideline on notability for details. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Stainless steel

/Stainless steel

I think the removal of the links and related NITRONIC information was a mistake. I see many pages that have links to corporate information. As long as it is relevant to the subject material I would think that any citations to benefit the reader would be encouraged.

/* Oxidation */ added link to Nitronic information I added link to help clarify NITRONIC, a registered tradename of AK Steel and not to be genericized. I am new to editing, a clarification is all the time I had to offer at the moment.

/* Comparison of standardized steels */ Added two Nitronic alloys I added information about two Nitronic alloys in a table showing stainless, there are many grades under this tradename. The UNS, common name and where available the wekstof number was added. Maybe if you don't want to clarify NITRONIC as a proper brand you shouldn't allow mention of it in the article? HPAlloys (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What you did was add a link to your own company website which offers the product for sale. This is as clear a violation of Wikipedia's spam guideline as I've ever seen - if you continue to add these links, your account may be blocked and/or the link added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating A New Page

Hello MrOllie,

I am new to Wikopedia and write a lot about Bankruptcy. I would like to create a page that talks about this subject. Is that within the guidelines and how would i go about doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainandscott (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We already have an article on Bankruptcy, you can find it at Bankruptcy. You're welcome to help improve it, but do keep in mind our sourcing requirements. Personal web sites or blogs, for example, generally are not acceptable. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

CommodityVol.com

I did indeed insert the link to CommodityVol.com. The website is interesting, presents lists of commodity futures options, expiries and so forth. It is free and requires no login nor registration. Please return the links. They are providing the same utility as a link to Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance or so forth. If I have broken some stricture, let me reorganize the postings. They are, after all at the end of the Wiki articles and not in the body. 99.16.128.164 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Luke

See the the external links guideline. Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance are established news outlets - this site you want to add is not. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

COI template guidance

MrOllie, I don't take issue with your placement of the COI template on the page, Litwin Books, LLC. Obviously, I am closely associated with the subject of the article. I removed the template following the guidance at Help:Maintenance template removal, which states that if the editor adding the template does not initiate a discussion on the talk page, it can be removed. As I see it, a discussion would show that the page doesn't need any cleanup. The purpose of the template, it seems to me, is to start a discussion to determine what, if anything, needs to be changed. If the editor placing the template has an opinion about it they should share it on the talk page. And that is essentially what the guidance says. Do you think the page needs cleanup to be consistent with NPOV? Rlitwin (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The article makes a large deal out of what look like minor grants and awards. Also, the sourcing is exceptionally weak. As the article is now, I'm not sure it would survive an AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It passed through AFC pretty much as it is now, so that seems to be supportive. I felt uneasy about creating the page myself, but was encouraged to do it by user:Ocaasi in an in-person conversation. He encouraged me to create the page and submit it through AFC, which I did. I am interested in following any appropriate rules and guidance. But isn't it on you to start the discussion on the talk page? I refer you again to Help:Maintenance template removal. I agree that the awards are minor and the sourcing could be stronger, and you probably have a better sense of what passes through AFD and what doesn't. But the process from this point looks clear from the guidance. Rlitwin (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please acknowledge that as the editor who placed the tag, you are supposed to start a discussion on the article's talk page? And can you please acknowledge that according to Help:Maintenance template removal, I can remove the tag if you do not? Rlitwin (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll start a talk page discussion soon, but as the editor with a conflict of interest, I do not acknowledge that you should ever remove such a tag. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rlitwin (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comics

Hello, have a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish! Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

The Comic Strips, Charges and Cartoons: The Origins, Meanings and Differences!, Enlarged Explanations.

Comic strip (tira cômica in Portuguese and tira cómica in Spanish): short duration comics, with the frames (which usually range from one to five, three being the most common) disposed and organized in the form of a strip, such as own name already implies and being or not humorous. The comic strip criticizes the values of society. There are three types of comic strips: daily strips (tiras diárias in Portuguese and tiras diarias in Spanish), usually printed in small quantities because of the pace of publication, in black and white (though some in color) and containing between one and five frames (three being the most common), Sunday boards (pranchas dominicais in Portuguese and planchas dominicales in Spanish), usually printed in large quantities, in color (although some in black and white) and with a larger number of tables occupying a entire page and the yonkomas (yonkomas same in Portuguese and Spanish), of Japanese origin, with four vertical frames (although some in the horizontal) and who always deal with serious matters, but in a humorous form. Etymology: from the American English, comic strip, comic ribbon.

Charge (charge even in Portuguese and Spanish): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (although some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes people and things of the contemporaneity and comes as politic manifest in France. Etymology: from the Franco-Belgian French, charger, burden, exaggeration or violent attack.

Cartoon (cartón in Spanish and cartum in Portuguese): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (though some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes the situations of the day to day and comes after that was be promoted a drawing concourse in England where the first cartoons was be produced in large pieces of paper. Due to the similarities between the first animated short films and the cartoons printed and published at the time, the animated drawing name in English also refers to cartoon, in full, animated cartoon. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where the cartoon is called, respectively, cartone animato and animierte Cartoon. Etymology: from the British English, cartoon and these of the Italian, cartone, cartone, large piece of paper, stub, study, draft or anteproject.

(Collaboration: users Liebre Asesino and Jim from Yahoo! Answers in Spanish.)

Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

In fact, all my editions in this sense are already being reversed, I do not know why, since I understand a lot of comics, so I am a comic drawer, writer and scripter, so that I am no amateur and layman in the Whole subject, see it!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saviochristi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make out what you're asking, so I can't help you. Do note that there is no type of drawing called a 'charge' in english, though. - MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to multiple pages on videos and education

I have made multiple edits over the past few months on topics ranging from video, football and education. My most recent edits seem to have in particular earned your ire. All sources that I have linked to are well researched sources, that have considerably more information than what is presented in the wikipedia article (thereby qualifying as reference material). Although they link to a corporation with commercial interests, the fact that there is genuine value addition in the wikipedia content added and in the references themselves makes charges of link-building and link-spamming invalid. I do appreciate your zealous patrolling of Wikipedia pages. However I would appreciate if you can make more balanced judgements so that genuine contributors do not feel stifled adding new content.

Regarding what you labelled blogspam, I read the wiki guidelines. The guidelines quite clearly reference personal and news blogs, which are naturally opinions. For smaller content producers, blogging through WordPress offers a ready content publishing system. The fact that this is published in a section of the site called a blog is no reason to consider it non-objective.

(Your message on my talk page suggested that I come to your talk page. The opening message on your talk page asked me to go back to my own talk page. I am just following the first instructions that I found.) Would appreciate a quick reply. BartSimpson4 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See the guidelines on acceptable sourcing. Blogs are generally not usable, and this particular blog is a corporate blog that seems to exist solely to try to build demand for a product (encrypted web video) that it is pretty clear the public just isn't interested in. That you, a new account, were repetitively adding links to the same questionable source made it appear you were engaged in [[WP:CITESPAM|citation spamming][. Since you now know better, and I assume you are here to build an encyclopedia and not to promote one particular company, I suggest you move forward by using citations to reliable outlets such as major newspapers and academic journals from now on. - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll respond to your concerns pointwise:

• Regarding blogs: A large number of technology companies use the medium of their blogs to discuss their innovations and engineering. It is this innovation which genuinely leads to the knowledge-creation process. In the particular area of video streaming Netflix's TechBlog and the blog at StreamingMedia.com are useful resources, which contain bona-fide knowledge. I am saying this to point out that the word blog has different associations for news/personalities and for technology companies. Likewise the argument that a blog exists solely to sell a product is, in my opinion, a weak argument. That the website sells a product is irrelevant, the relevant factor is if the content is plausible by itself. Most of the content in this blog is well-researched, nor were my additions to Wikipedia clearly promoting this particular product.
• Why naming my edits Citation spam is problematic: 1. I did not delete any previous functional links. 2. I did not give out links to any particular page more than two times. 3. I added verifiable content to the Wiki page, to support which I added the reference.
• New Account: I started Wikipedia activity in Nov 16, and was quite active upto mid-Dec 16. In this period I made additions to video-related wikipedia articles, and also fixed dead links on a large number of football related pages. The fact that I have been editing Wikipedia for five months (albeit intermittently), and have also added links other than the ones to this technology company hardly makes it a new account solely dedicated to citation spamming. Thanks BartSimpson4 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change the acceptance level of blogs on Wikipedia, the place to do that would be at the sourcing guideline's talk page, not on my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the linked pages do not fall under the category of questionable sources. - BartSimpson4 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, corporate blogs are clearly self published. You also agreed that the blog is a promotional one, and promotional blogs are specifically mentioned in the section you just linked. - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I said that the website sells a service. I did not say that the blog content is solely promotional in nature. My argument about technology blogs is that tech companies use their blogs to actively share knowledge, which makes them reliable sources. The guidelines on self-publishing refer to personal web page, self-published books and internet forums. It does not automatically include corporate blogs. Also, there is an exception for subject experts - as I pointed out these articles are well-researched and are valuable resources by themselves. In any case, being self-published does not immediately qualify as reason for being considered automatically invalid. - BartSimpson4 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your interpretation is just wrong, (for one thing there are requirements to be considered a subject expert that you are ignoring) but if you want you can feel free to raise this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get some additional opinions. I really do recommend that you just use a better source, though. What's the problem with doing that? - MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

I don't claim that the above list of self-published sources is exhaustive. The above list does not explicitly include the category of the website we have been discussing. This leaves space for subjective interpretation. My entire argument about the content having real knowledge and content and being well-researched is to suggest that the content and the linked pages cannot be automatically be disqualified as citation spam from an unreliable self-published sources. I have already refuted the point about it being citation spam. And the reason for link removal was obviously the citation spam charge.

About your last point, I can just as well suggest that you make efforts towards improving wikipedia content, rather than scour the history pages for false positives on citation spam patterns. I have observed dubious content on many of the pages from which you have removed the links I had added. You would make Wikipedia much better by removing the dubious content from the page itself, rather than making citation spam charges on people who are adding genuine content to Wikipedia. (There is an entirely irrelevant list of "Flipped Classroom Fellows" in the Flipped Classroom page, and an uncited reference to a music concert that I can find no reference to at all online on the Streaming Media page. The reason I have not removed them yet is that removing content is actual grounds for citation spam, and I was not completely sure about whether the content was okay or not) - BartSimpson4 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had cleared this up. I do not want to engage in edit warring. Please make your case about why you labelled the edit citation spam. BartSimpson4 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had it cleared up, too, but you restored it. It is citation spam for the reasons I listed above. If you want to must use it above other sources for some reason, get a consensus at WP:RSN. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sefaria

I read your messages on my talk page.

Under discussion are the links that I have been adding to resources available on sefaria.org. I do work with the Sefaria Project; certainly the issue of conflict of interest is a relevant one.

In case it's not clear, let me state what Sefaria provides - we are working to create free and open digital texts of works from the Jewish tradition. We don't charge, and nearly everything we have is provided under a CC license or fully in the public domain. We often contribute texts that we have worked to digitize to the Hebrew wikitext project.

In most of the cases, the link I had added provides a full public domain copy of the text described by the page. Often, it provides significantly more resources than other external links to the base text. (For example, Sifra, Sifre, and Mekhilta all have a CC-BY english translation that is not available otherwise from the article.) I believe that in this case, the value to the user justifies the edit.

If there is an appropriate process to undergo, given my potential conflict of interest, I'm happy to do so. I think that with a full evaluation, the value of these original texts to the readers of these articles will win out.

A side issue - In the Torah Database page, you appear to removed all online resources. Many of those were worthwhile projects (that I'm not associated with). Many of the ones that remained are considerably less valuable to a researcher or user. I'm not sure what the standard used here was. The section for Sefaria that was on that page pre-existed any of my edits, and my edits were relatively minor.

LevEliezer (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your organization's work for the open internet in general and wikisource in particular. I agree that its a useful site - Wikipedia contains many links to it in many places to source our content. However, Wikipedia is not intended to be a link directory, and efforts by editors with a conflict of interest to include links to their organizations are particularly controversial here, even when they are linking to nonprofit organizations that support worthy causes. The appropriate process for editing with a conflict of interest is to open a new section on each article's talk page, clearly explain the nature of your conflict, and then propose your changes there. In time, a passing editor without a conflict will evaluate the changes and make them (or not) to the article. You can find more information on this via the links in the 'Managing a conflict of interest' section I left on your talk page.

Specifically on the Torah Database article, that article had become what we call a linkfarm over time - I generally removed all the entries that were mainly supported by primary sources, particularly when they seemed to be little more than excuses to provide an external link. That article is still pretty bad, I plan to take another look at it and do some more work soonish - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay - that all makes sense. Thanks for spelling it out for me. I've written up the suggestion on the Talmud talk page, and I'll aim to get to some of the longer tail ones. - LevEliezer (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of office suites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OpenOffice. 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) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-notification factoring

MrOllie, while I appreciate your careful monitoring of potential conflicts of interest, I’m having trouble understanding why my edit was removed due to your assessment that it has a “commercial blog as source”. The article that was cited is not a blog, nor are any of the article’s sources taken from blogs. It is a 100% informational extension of the existing Wikipedia subsection on “Notification vs. non-notification” factoring. Its clear purpose is to elaborate on why these two factoring solutions exist, and what it means to the factor, the client, and the debtor. Without such an explanation, it’s unclear to the average Wikipedia reader why the “vs.” exists. As with any comparisons using “vs.”, there are clear differences that had to have created the comparison in the first place. The current revision simply lacks that context, and is therefore incomplete. It would be like saying there’s an option between opening a checking account vs. savings account, without explaining the pros and cons of each. Furthermore, with the abundance of factoring and invoice financing services now being offered online, “non-notification” has become a nuanced issue that potential clients deserve to understand. My edit links to a well-researched article that fairly presents the complexity of the issue.

Furthermore, upon examining the “Factoring (finance)” Wikipedia page and all its contributors, I’ve found several links to companies with the clear attempt to generate leads or gather information on potential clients. I encourage you to have a look at reference #1 from Trade Finance Global, whose link immediately urges one to fill out a form in order to “Get in touch with our invoice finance experts”. Or reference #8 from FactoringClub, whose link also immediately prompts the user with a phone number. Or reference #25 from Commercial Capital LLC, whose link offers an “Instant Factoring Quote” and if you stay on the page long enough, a pop-up prompt to enter one’s email address. Or reference #43 from Factor Finders, whose link is headed with a phone number preceded by “Talk to us!” followed by a “FREE QUOTE” button that opens up a form. I’m just trying to understand why you denied my edit, which actually contributed informational value without any links attempting to lure customers, while you accepted edits with obvious marketing intentions.

I appreciate your aim to promote integrity on Wikipedia, and therefore I’d like to learn more about your decision regarding my edit and the existing revision. 173.162.64.5 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place and there is a lot to do - you may well have found other citations that aren't any good - please don't mistake the fact that no one has noticed them or removed them yet as evidence that they are appropriate or were 'accepted'. Instead, please consult our guidelines on appropriate sourcing. Generally speaking we want peer reviewed journals, academic textbooks, major newspapers and the like. I'll take a look at the citations you mention in a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Risk

MrOllie, while I appreciate your careful monitoring of potential vandalism, I'm having trouble understand why my edit was removed due to your assessment that it has "personal and unrelated material". The material I inserted gave additional risk strategy tips which were valuable and concise. Maybe the name of the offending player was unnecessary, I was just doing that to make the entry more 'fun,' which I realize may be somewhat unprofessional. Otherwise, I think my contribution was valuable and certainly it was not fair for you to arbitrarily removed it! Could you please restore the update, with minor revisions you think are necessary. 2607:FEA8:1D60:3FC:712F:4559:AC13:B058 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Information extraction in finance

Dear MrOllie

thank you for your message. I do appreciate your comment but the bit I added to the information extraction page was specifically was a reference to the "Information extraction in finance" which is essentially "the bible" for people wanting to search this topic. I noticed that that bit was completely missing and I have added it. It is a published book. The section was otherwise missing. Information extraction HAS been applied to finance and continues to be so! The trouble is that nobody adds the page as it is used primarily within hedge funds or banks and therefore nobody advertises that as they want to keep it private! I would very much appreciate if you could re-add that section to the information extraction page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs)

No, you added a link to a book that you wrote and added a spam link to your website for good measure. Don't do either of those things again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The book is indeed about information extraction in finance! For the rest I am honestly at my first wikipedia edit hence I did not know links to websites or whatever shouldn't be added. I can't see anything wrong with the link to a book though. Anyway whatever, I wasn't particularly seeking advertising or anything. I would however re-add the section about information extraction in finance. You can remove any links you want to my book or anything related to that, but information extraction IS used in finance whether we like it or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Another example here: http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/11/big-data-analytics-at-thomson-reuters-interview-with-jochen-l-leidner/ (Reuters) and To some degree here: http://www.opencalais.com/

There are plenty if you search online.

Therefore by all means you can remove any reference to my work (I really do NOT mind if you remove it) but a sentence to say that information extraction is used in finance should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Universal Design by NYC Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities

We attempted to edit our previous entry from 2010 by adding a new paragraph, reorganizing the sections so that it is chronologically correct and adding the book cover. We are not trying to sell anything. This is a second edition of a seminal work by the NYC Mayor's Office that confirms it is a living document that is updated on a 5 or 6 year cycle. The City of New York owns the copyright and the cover photograph is permitted to be used under a contract between the City of New York and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

In November 2010, the International Code Council publication Inclusive Design Guidelines, New York City (IDG)[5] was released through the American Institute of Architects. The IDG is voluntary, prescriptive technical guidance that helps designers produce multisensory enhanced environments that accommodate a wide range of physical and mental abilities for people of all ages. This seminal universal design document is harmonized with A117.1 and a companion document to the New York City Building Code. It consolidates in one source, explicitly detailed design guidance that covers a substantial range of subject matter. The IDG is the result of collaboration between the New York City Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, the International Code Council, Steven Winter Associates[6] and a diverse team of contributors including prominent design firms, advocates and people with disabilities.

In March 2017, the New York City Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities released the second edition published by the International Code Council. The Inclusive Design Guidelines, New York City, Second Edition (IDG) confirms that it is a living document and that Inclusive Design is dynamic. The premise of the book continues to hold true. Adoption of the ICC A117.1 standard has proven to be correct because of its relevant content, structure, numbering system and harmonization with the New York City Building Code, the 2010 ADA Standards, and other legal requirements. Automation, scooter accommodation and Active Design are emphasized. Expansion and refinements of this edition comprise 25% new content; 15% updates, and two hundred forty additional figures. The following are some examples: Chapter 1, marginal markings; Chapter 2, various laws governing accessibility and how these provisions relate to technical criteria; Chapter 3, a three-tiered (adult, child, institutional) spatial envelope system, gesture recognition, eye levels; Chapter 4, primary/ secondary/ tertiary routes, accessible pedestrian signals (APS), sensory pedestrian system (SPS) refinements, convertible walkways, embedded LED street crossings; Chapter 5, bicycle/scooter/tricycle/handcycle/tandem parking; Chapter 6, bottle filler stations, multipurpose bathing compartment components and a dozen example configurations, wet rooms, transfer sauna and steam compartments; Chapter 7, assistive listening systems categorizations, LinkNYC, mobile navigation, beacons, surface/embedded/saw cut tactile guideways; Chapter 8, single and multiple seating adjustable height platforms, type “a” and “b” temporary workspaces; Chapter 9, detailed bench criteria containing 23 items, automatic receptacles, refuse disposal/storage rooms; and Chapter 10, aligned closet platform lift conversions, beds, and home automation.

Cvalle73 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask what connection, if any, you have with this book and/or the International Code Council? - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to XXYY page

Dear MrOllie. I was wondering why you reverted my changes to the XXYY page. My contribution was a link to the UK website for XXYY which is a great resource for boys with XXYY. Also perhaps this isn't the appropriate forum, I have made the edit because my own son suffers from XXYY and that organisation was the best source of help for him. So, if you do live in the UK like me, being able to navigate to that organisation is of great help. Bear in mind that I do not have any affiliation whatsoever with the organisation myself, just we were greatly helped.

In relation to the prognosis of the boys affected living mostly a normal life, I am sorry I did not add any reference to it, but it is indeed the case, i.e. they do mostly have a normal life expectancy and live a normal life as reported in the literature.

I hope you can revert the edit please. I did not do it for me, but for the people suffering of the condition.

Please ignore this, it was reverted by someone else. I'll talk to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs)

We generally do not link to discussion groups, support groups and the like, see the guidelines on external links. Wikipedia rules about unreferenced medical claims and the appropriate sourcing for medicine are particularly strict, see the specific guideline we have on sourcing medicine. I won't be restoring your edits - they are not in agreement with the relevant guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get better with my posts as I get along, in this particular instance I'll find the appropriate reference. I do know it's true, just I have to find the appropriate reference to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Hackathon page

Hello, How do you judge poorly sourced URLs ? I'm referring to your commits here: I wrote the section concerning Hackers.mu and their Operation S.A.D, where patches were committed in Fedora & OpenSuse by senior developers. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331325 for example. All of those were done during Operation S.A.D: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hackathon_Mauritius_-_Operation_SAD.

Wedgeantilles0 (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See the guideline on identifying reliable sources. Was this written about in any newspapers or similar outlets? - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Here are the Maurtian newspapers that have covered it: http://defimedia.info/techno-les-hackers-mauriciens-ne-sont-pas-des-pirates. Defimedia is the #1 news website of Mauritius, according to Alexa.

Wedgeantilles0 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would re-consider your reverts, as I have sent the link for defi-media. Also, the POV of the article (as a result of your edits) is too US/EU centric, and it gives the impression that the Hackathons can only be done in the US or Europe.

Wedgeantilles0 (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Customer experience

This is with reference to my edit on Customer experience . You have reverted my edit . May I have your comments on same? for your ease my inputs were on following subject with following title  : Customer experience - Section - Customer Journey mapping ( explained about Omnichannel and its importance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepti.singh.0117 (talk • contribs)

I reverted it because it consisted entirely of unsourced opinion. The unnecessary listing of a for-profit corp as an example wasn't good either. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Deepti : Source is following : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnichannel . Omni-channel talks about customer experience. I added term Omnichannel because content on customer experience was not talking about anything updated knowledge which is happening in existing world. I just explained how Omnichannel works. Yes I understand Genesys which is profit making organization could have been avoided. So is it ok if I remove Genesys and just small edit is good to go ahead. It will add value to the content . So is it ok to put following content : "Integration of channels has become a key criteria to provide a leading experience to consumers or customers and such integration of channels is known as Omnichannel. Omnichannel provides a seamless experience to customer where information never drops when customer switches communication channel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepti.singh.0117 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Is this ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepti.singh.0117 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

TeamCity

I was planning on seconding your PROD, but an anon removed it so I have taken it to AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting on Page Termite Barrier.

Hi, I just found that you have reverted my edits on Page Termite barrier. Could I get your poont of view? Many regards. --Mind821 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, the source used wasn't suitable. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for detail on what makes an acceptable source. - MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You reverts two edits at same time so it confused me, I was looking for termite barriers on wiki and can't find any helful info after search I read the article and found helful and share with wiki users. If you feel it should not be here May be you are right. I feel you are administrator so do what you like. Have a nice day --Mind821 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Factoring (finance)" page has many commercial blog spam references...

Dear Mr. Ollie, While I respectfully disagree that my edit was “blog spam,” I understand Wikipedia’s preference for links to “peer reviewed journals, academic textbooks, major newspapers and the like.” Nonetheless I’m still trying to understand why Wikipedia’s “Factoring (finance)” page contains reference links to several commercial websites that exist for the sole purpose of acquiring customers and generating leads, and that they’ve escaped your sharp editing eyes. Again, I’ll include what I pointed out to you in my last message:

“I encourage you to have a look at reference #1 from Trade Finance Global, whose link immediately urges one to fill out a form in order to “Get in touch with our invoice finance experts”. Or reference #8 from FactoringClub, whose link also immediately prompts the user with a phone number. Or reference #25 from Commercial Capital LLC, whose link offers an “Instant Factoring Quote” and if you stay on the page long enough, a pop-up prompt to enter one’s email address. Or reference #43 from Factor Finders, whose link is headed with a phone number preceded by “Talk to us!” followed by a “FREE QUOTE” button that opens up a form.”

You mentioned you’d take a look at these links and I’m very curious to know what you thought. I’m just trying to make sure Wikipedia is a level playing field for all, and that complex issues like factoring can be properly explained without the influence of companies trying to make a profit. I would appreciate if you could tell me why the aforementioned references are not “commercial”, “blogs” or “spam,” AND how they fit into the categories of “peer reviewed journals, academic textbooks, major newspapers and the like.” Again, I appreciate your efforts to make sure Wikipedia upholds its integrity and fairness as a source of information. Dante4444 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We're not on any deadlines here, I'll get to it eventually. In the meantime, feel free to replace them with higher quality sources yourself, but just because we still have some bad stuff, that isn't a reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tricentis Tosca page

I am trying to add a page for Tricentis Tosca, and was following the style and tone of the pages for competing tools like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranorex, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TestComplete , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Studio, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAtest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TestPartner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikuli, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_Anywhere ... I believe that every statement is referenced, and that the tool is notable, given its ranking by independent industry experts as well as awards (which I did not choose to include for fear of appearing promotional, but could add if it would help.)

Swtechwr (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask if you have any relationship (business or otherwise) with Tricentis? - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I do. But I also write and contribute a wide variety of software industry articles, including Tricentis competitors such as Parasoft SOAtest, Ranorex, Runscope, CAST, Selenium, Coverity, Itko, Green Hills Software, Klocwork -- and I always aim to contribute in the same objective enyclopedic manner regardless of my relationship with the organization. Tricentis Tosca is undeniably a major software testing tool, and I believe it deserves to be represented in the same manner as less notable tools such as Ranorex, Testing Anywhere, ... I know that IT Central Station is not a "referenceable" site and I do not propose using it in any actual article, but see https://www.itcentralstation.com/categories/functional-testing-tools, as well as the Gartner and Forrester objective industry comparisons. Swtechwr (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC):

You are most likely in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest carefully, certain disclosures are required. - MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this same standard being applied to other software testing tool pages? I have interacted with a number of these companies over the years, and know that people with relationships these companies are editing pages. If they are biased or do not provide adequate references (“peer reviewed journals, academic textbooks, major newspapers and the like), they are challenged by the community, and the pages are updated accordingly by the community at large or the original contributors. However, I have never seen a software testing tool or product page removed quite so speedily-- especially a notable one. If the page is not allowed to exist for more than a few hours in the middle of the night, the Wikipedia community at large has no opportunity to review and contribute to it. I truly appreciate your vigilance in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, but I feel that Tricentis is being discriminated against here, and the community at large is losing their opportunity to read, review, and improve this content. Swtechwr (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

At the time I tagged it to be considered for speedy deletion as an advertisement (which it clearly was), someone else had already put a tag questioning notability on it. And then it was looked at at least once more, by the admin who checked my deletion tag and actually carried out the deletion, so several people did look at it - it wasn't me acting alone as you seem to think. Respectfully, I think you're too much an advocate to really be neutral here, if you didn't realize that what you wrote was an advertisement. This is why we have the conflict of interest guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I give up on editing Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtechwr (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

edits to Visual search engine page

VizSeek was the first company in the visual search industry. We added a line to clarify the functionality of the system and added a link to the VizSeek site.

Other companies are referenced in the article and links -- sometimes dead links -- to their sites are included on the page. Why would a description of one company and that company's URL be permitted, yet another company's name and URL deleted? There was no sales pitch or anything out of line involved. It was simply a one-sentence statement of fact, plus a link to the web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.211.102 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If there are other inappropriate links, by all means point them out specifically or remove them, but the presence of other inappropriate links is not a good reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is confusing that it is considered inappropriate to link to a company that Wikipedia itself references. The page in question mentions Princeton and links to a Princeton page. It mentions Kiddle and links to that company's web site; nothing inappropriate. There are millions of URLS on Wikipedia. It is hard to understand why the VizSeek link would be singled out and considered inappropriate.

I am with the VizSeek company and was simply trying to clarify the facts and include a link to the site for those who are interested. Our company invented the concept of visual search. We were the first and all others followed. It seems hard to explain that the pioneer in this industry would be singled out for exclusion from a reference page on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.211.102 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is a big place and there are only so many volunteers. Sometimes spam links go unnoticed for a while. Just because some other company inserted an external link to themselves and got away with it for a time is not a reason for you to do it as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, now that you've identified yourself as a VizSeek employee, please read over our conflict of interest guidelines carefully. Certain disclosures are required by Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We are trying hard to color inside the lines and we are not making any kind of sales pitch. There was incomplete information on the page, we added one sentence and a URL to complete it, and now, surprisingly, every reference to our company, including what Wikipedia had there before, has been deleted. This seems to defeat some of the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia.

So, question: a college student recently reached out to us, proposing to create a stand-alone Wikipedia page about VizSeek, since we are the pioneer in this industry. I think it's a project for some class. If he does the research and creates such a page, then the page here in question would be able to reference the VizSeek Wikipedia page, correct? Thanks. 72.12.211.102 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) MJ

It would have to meet our inclusion criteria, which basically mean that it would need to be written based on muliplte sources that meet our guidelines, staying way from press releases, self published company materials, and the like. It can be a bit challenging to navigate if this student has not created an article from scratch before. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, I see that proposed articles on VizSeek have been deleted twice before, so definitely not a good place to start if we're talking about a new editor. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Databases Revert

Why was the last entry for Mobile Databases Reverted? Onyx Database is one of the more modern NoSQL databases recently added support for mobile platforms. I also saw that Realm was reverted a while back. I would consider that one of the most widely used mobile databases. Most of the items listed on that page are out of date.

For instance:

SQL Server Compact was deprecated back in 2013. Interbase hasn't released a version since 2015. SQLBase was re-branded as OpenText, Im not even sure when. I also don't see evidence of it working on Android or iOS. IBM DB2 has no indication it is used within a mobile environment. SQL Anywhere Was last released in 2015. It is unlikely it is in use within a mobile environment.

Am I missing the intent of this page? Please allow people to revise this page so that it is relevant again.

Timbob1000 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a list of databases that have Wikipedia articles - it is a navigation aid. We generally do not put external links to products in Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

openhab page

Hello,

I'm trying to rewrite the openhab page. I'm not the first one who tries to do this.

There are some issues. Wikipedia is saying there is a conflict of interest. The originally written page was made bij Kai Kreuzer, indeed there was a conflict of interest. I'm only an openhab enthousiastic user, so I think there is no conflict of interest anymore. I can change the whole page and delete many parts but for this moment I don't know what the wrong points are.

Can you help me a littlebit more in detail about what to do, to accept the page?

( Btw I've translated the German page to Dutch with some minor changes and it's accepted without problems)

Regards,

Derk van der Wal— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk van der Wal (talk • contribs)

The article needs sources that meet our guidelines to satisfy our inclusion criteria. That means sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, such as newspapers, peer reviewed journals and so on. You've been adding blogs and forum posts as sources - these do not qualify. The article needs to be written based on what reliable sources say. As to the German and Dutch Wikipedias - their inclusion guidelines differ from the English ones. Frankly, they accept a whole lot of stuff that isn't allowed on the English wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of an only open source project for Delphi.

MrOllie,

The insertion of the project OpenSIMPLY on the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discrete_event_simulation_software" was rejected by you.

Because at the moment there are no any discrete event simulation tools for Delphi and Free Pascal (especially open source), what are the criteria of this information rejection from your side?

Dmregger (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a list of software that has a preexisting Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No conflict of interest

-- I have no conflict of interest. Only citing useful content properly. Liu.zhen337 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What you're doing is repetitively adding the same link across Wikipedia, which is linkspamming per our guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not add the link, I simply undid a few of the recent removals by you where I thought it made sense. So please stop removing it; I could understand if it didn't make sense, but it is a popular site for network data.Liu.zhen337 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The page histories and your account's contributions are all saved in the Wikipedia database, it is quite apparent that you have been adding the link from your very first edit. - MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links on "Level_set" and "List_of_numerical_libraries"

Dear Mr.Ollie, todays my two new paragraphs 'External links' on the wikipedia pages "Level_set" and "List_of_numerical_libraries" have been rejected. These paragraphs included items to a C++ open source library devoted to the scientific computation on HPC (http://optimad.github.io/bitpit/). Now I'm noticing that bitpit library has been deleted by 'Octree' page. I don't understand why the content of these links can be considered not-encyclopedic. Some remarks: - the content of these three links does not violate any copyrights (for instance, bitpit is released under GNU LGPL3). - the content is verifiable by means of the link to the github website of the library. - other very similar libraries are published on Wikipedia in similar sections Please contact me for any clarifications.

Thank you for your work.

Federico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federicogallizio (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, so links to libraries and implementations are rarely appropriate. External links should help readers who are looking for an overview of the topic find more information, not engineers who are trying to build a piece of software. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I don't understand why bitpit C++ library can't be included in "List_of_numerical_libraries". Bitpit is a numerical library. Is it required a wikipedia page dedicated to bitpit? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federicogallizio (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Phishing

Hi I added Browshing as an attack scenario on the Wikipedia Phishing page. So can you please let me know after getting how many references on this attack we can add it to the Wikipedia page of Phishing. Yes I will write the attack in a generalized for instead of a specific research. Because this attack is an important attack users should know I wanted to add it to the Phishing page. Please provide me your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgauravdtsi (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It should have a secondary source - someone writes up a primary source and then someone else (a newspaper, a textbook, a review article, etc) summarizes that in a secondary source, then Wikipedia cites the secondary source. - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hackathon page

Why are you reverting any addition from hackathons happening outside of the US ? Wedgeantilles0 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm removing the hackathons with poor sourcing per WP:UNDUE. It just so happens that those two sets are fairly similar. - MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm escalating this. There are enough incidents like this, that this is no longer an isolated case. Wedgeantilles0 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard is over there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Many thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! In my opinion you did a number of valuable contributions to various articles in Wikipedia! In addition to your great policing, deleting, destroying and fighting work like a true police officer, you may also try to learn, write, create, develop and design the new content like a real billionaire. This way you will certainly become rich, prosperous and successful and your life will change to the best! Moreover, you will certainly benefit from reading of our new book in finances at www.forecastcapitalmarkets.com ! Viktor O. Ledenyov (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Cute. But please just stop spamming Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Buy our bestseller in the finances at www.forecastcapitalmarkets.com , read the research book, then try to understand the research material presented, then pretend to become a subject expert, and finally, make your wise decisions on the spam in the capital markets article in Wikipedia. Many thanks. - Viktor O. Ledenyov (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cervantes miguel

Hi, thank you for your reverts. He's a long-term abuser from it.wiki spamming one of these writers in a compulsive way, trying adding more books in order to obfuscate his main target. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sir, I added two books to the page on emergency medicine, they were removed i guess? Can u please tell me what is the problem?Thank you in advance Do please let me know. Yourgirl (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cloud ecommerce page

Hi sir. You removed all the external links which were just examples from this article. Without the examples this article just becomes useless. People are looking for cloud commerce not just to find the explanation, but also to see how it works. Thus we need examples to explain, how the cloud really works. In addition, I don't advertise Oracle, Microsoft and many other huge vendors - it's useless. Please, let me know how can I help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm. If you can't describe it in the article in prose, we can do without it. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, MrOllie. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 08:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please have a look at this discussion. Thanks. Tito Dutta (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some advice if you would be so kind

You've suggested I made an edit that is non-notable, however I appear unable to add any further information for this particular software due to it being a COI. Not sure what to do in this instance other than not bother contributing in the first place? GRoutledge (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We do have a process outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for creation that you can use to start an article. Basically a non-COI editor will review your work before it goes live to make sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Be sure to read everything at the conflict of interest guidelines carefully as well. Per Wikipedia's terms of use, certain disclosures are required from editors who have a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Found it - thanks for your help!GRoutledge (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Videoconferencing - Cloud section

Hi there MrOllie,

Thanks for letting me know about the details of COI from Wikipedia. I have just taken a look at the page of interest, Videoconferencing, and am quite surprised to see all the 1,500 words I added about cloud Video Conferencing now deleted. I do work in the industry, but as a content creator for various news & blog sites, working in a unaffiliated consultancy role, i'm surprised all the valid information I provided has now gone? Of course, the information I provide is going to be related to the job I do - as that is the information I know a lot about, and I can understand that perhaps adding some examples of cloud organisations & services may be seen as promotion for some of those businesses, though aside from the two examples, the rest was, I thought, well written unbiased information explaining what Cloud Videoconferencing was about.

I'd appreciate some more information as to what the situation is with this, as it took me quite a while to write that and as someone working in this industry for many years, thought i'd start off on that section initially and work through - most of the whole article is very outdated and was going to try to help update most of the information overtime. Though i'm not wanting to do that too much if all the information is going to be deleted, unfortunately.

Please help me understand here, i'm quite new to contributing to Wikipedia and of course recognise the need for this to be policed, though I cannot see why this whole section was removed. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmVCGal (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but the thing is, you cited this to a blog, and Wikipedia generally does not use blogs as sources. You also apparently used your own blog, which is where the COI issue comes in - you should not add links to your own web sites. Wikipedia relies on sources with a strong reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight, such as peer reviewed articles, newspapers, textbooks, and so on. I assume you gathered this information from such sources when you were writing your blog - perhaps you could cite the content to those sources instead? - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ISACA CSX Practitioner Certification

I am curious as to why you removed the CSX Practitioner certification from the ISACA page, designating it as an advertisement. The information reflected a similar format to the rest of the certifications. It isn't an advertisment, it's information about a legitimate certification. Just want to come to a consensus so that it can exist without threat of deletion. Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a site to host promotional copy, which that clearly was. If there is more promotional copy on that page I overlooked it - I'll have another look and trim out anything else that doesn't belong. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, I would say that there is if you look at the CRISC write-up. However, how are people to know about CSX Practitioner? You are deleting ALL of it, not just what could be assumed as "Promotional Copy." Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any independent sources? The right way to do things is to find neutral, independent sources and summarize what they say, rather than relying on marketing materials. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

These are not promotional, they are primary sources. They are the web pages that state what they are. Where is the line drawn with this? Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your response to deleting all of the certifications is too far. Are you going to every professional organization and delete all of their certifications? Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If they are as spammy and poorly sourced as ISACA's descriptions, I very well might as I notice them. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't spammy... they are web pages which state what they are. Can you provide an example of an acceptable organization on this site? Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of concerned that you can read the text you added and not notice that it was promotional. Do you have some type of association or relationship with ISACA? Please be advised that if you do, certain disclosures are required by Wikipedia's terms of use. You can read more about it on our guidelines on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an ISACA member. Does that count? I have the certification and noticed that it wasn't on the page. Just trying to document, not sell. Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Just show me an example. I can follow templates. Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse. On wikipedia the starting point is what independent sources say, not an example we find somewhere else that may or may not reflect the sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a poor answer, Mr. Olie, and reflects passive lethargy, in my opinion. All I am seeing here is what appears to be a very selective instance against one organization. ISC2, EC-Council, just to name two, were just as "spamy" as what you are deleting, in bulk, from the ISACA page. Are you affiliated with any professional association? You should admit that if you are, because this looks like blanket ISACA hate from where I am typing. I'm just trying to make an update to a group's page. Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So you don't know of any independent sources? I'm not affiliated with any professional association, and hold no certifications of any type. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at any of the other association web pages. They all have their certs. Take a look at EC-Council, for example. I don't see you deleting all of their certs and few of them are sourced. If you are going to treat every certification page like this, I'd be more understanding, but you are clearly picking and choosing (a fight and your beliefs). Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Today I looked at ISACA, tomorrow I may look at something else - Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of work to do - don't take the current bad state of some other article to mean I endorse it, or to mean that you should emulate it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair response. I considered what we discussed and did my best to present the information without it seeming salesy. The page now just has a listing of certifications. Additional information which fleshes out the certifications will come from non-ISACA sources that appear impartial. Thanks for this primer, it is my first real effort to take part in this community. Although I'm nervous editing any of my comic book interests now.... Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

When you have a chance, I'd like to know what you think of my changes, specifically if you think the source citations make sense. Thanks! Ecstatic Endorian (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The CSX-P looks a lot better, thank you. I still think that 'Current status' section you restored is pretty promo-ish, though. As to comic book stuff, I don't edit those articles much at all. If you have any domain specific questions the comics editors have a Wikiproject you can check out: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Or feel free not to, participating in Wikiprojects is entirely optional. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Longest running weekly podcast

Hello, I am positive that the Bruce Mitchell Audio Show is the longest running weekly podcast of any kind in history. It dates back to before the term Podcast was even invented and has been published consistently on one of the most respected Pro Wrestling News websites there is, PWTorch.com, and is edited by Hall of Fame, Jim Melby award winning journalist, Wade Keller. I honestly think it deserves to be recognized here. How can I ensure that happens? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodus900 (talk • contribs)

Independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiki Mugs page

Why would you remove references to Tiki Quest on the Tiki Mug Wiki page? There are references to three other related books. How is a book about collecting vintage Tiki mugs not relevant to the page?≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3758:DBC0:6563:D8D3:AC2D:854F (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

O Ring Links

I think you made a mistake in removing the O Ring External Links. I'm sure you have not read or fully understood the links. The links are extremely useful to the end user and academics alike. They show the standard O Ring sizes, accreditation's and materials to be used by industry with additional temperature information. Your current links (the ones that work) are just spinets of what these are. If you like these are 'one stop shop' for all the article information.

Can you please explain specifically why they are not appropriate and why they were removes?

There are also two links that are broken / missing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.hanlon (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't link to company sales materials, and the primary purpose of those links is clearly to sell barnwell products. - MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you, as this is useful information. However I accept your decision.

On that basis can you please remove the other links as they will also fail the 'primary purpose' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.hanlon (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Cloud ecommerce page

Hi Mr. Ollie. Please, explain why did you remove the Microsoft Cloud - based ecommerce solutions? It's really important to mention all of them. Why? The reason is simple - Microsoft Cloud gives many tools for ecommerce websites, which other clouds (Amazon, Google) don't offer. That is why I suppose it's important to mention that. It's NOT the advertising of any company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this real simple: stop spamming Virto, and your edits will be far more likely to stick. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Test Card F

I noticed you were the last person to edit the page Test Card F so perhaps you can help.

I tried to add to the "In Popular Culture: Television" section with the following: "CBBC Saturday Morning show Dick & Dom in da Bungalow used a modified version of Test Card W when the Bungalow-heads were being unruly." Unlike most of that section (and as requested by others on the talk page), I actually have a reference/citation for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xtmBNNkzIs&feature=youtu.be&t=266 (I linked to that time code so you can see at least some of the build up)

However due to it being a YouTube link (as well as being shortened) it comes up with "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed." However the RBS test at the start of the article also has a YouTube link so I am unsure of why the link didn't work.

I would argue that it is an important one to have as during the cutaways in the show (either to cartoons or pre-recorded content) the contestants (The Bungalow-heads) were deliberately given Fizzy Drinks and Sweets to make them hyperactive for the games. So they were often unruly and I would say the test card appeared once every two months or so when the show was on.

86.15.86.18 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reamsa

MrOllie, some published books have information about those old plastic figures. This information could be interesting and usefull for collectors. Please don't delete the titles and ISBNs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.182.121 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

One of those books is self published and has been extensively spammed on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Cali is considered by the GaWC as "High sufficiency" to be a global city. The World According to GaWC 2016

Cali is considered by the GaWC as "High sufficiency" to be a global city.

Read -> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html

The World According to GaWC 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.137.2.23 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but so what? Why is that an important thing to note? - MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very important- read -> Miami, Stockholm and many more. It is an important classification of cities around the world.

Miami was classified as an Alpha−World City in the World Cities Study Group's inventory <- Example --181.137.2.23 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a very important classification for investors and the economy at the global level. The GaWC examines cities worldwide to narrow them down to a roster of 307 world cities, then ranks these based on their connectivity through four "advanced producer services": accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If it were important you'd be citing secondary sources. This feels like advertising. Are you associated with GaWC in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are reviling. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The information has every right to appear in the article about Cali. This information is available in other articles about cities such as the city of Miami and others. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is deleted I'll add that information again. THE INFORMATION HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE PLACED IN THE ARTICLE. THAT INFORMATION ALREADY IS AVAILABLE IN MANY ARTICLES ABOUT CITIES AND CALI WILL NOT BE AN EXCEPTION. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not need to start an edit war because you know you're not the owner of the information. You are nobody to decide about the information that it can be placed in wikipedia. In addition, this information has reliable references. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EXAMPLES

* Auckland is classified as a Beta World City[6] because of its importance in finance, commerce, media, entertainment, arts, education and tourism. "The World According to GaWC 2012". www.lboro.ac.uk. GaWC. Retrieved 10 February 2017.

* Berlin is a world city of culture, politics, media and science.[15][16][17][18]Sifton, Sam (31 December 1969). "Berlin, the big canvas". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2008. See also: "Sites and situations of leading cities in cultural globalisations/Media". GaWC Research Bulletin 146. Retrieved 18 August 2008.

* The Madrid urban agglomeration has the third-largest GDP[11] in the European Union and its influences in politics, education, entertainment, environment, media, fashion, science, culture, and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the world's major global cities.[12][13] Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Study Group and Network, Loughborough University. "The World According to GaWC 2010". Retrieved 12 February 2016.

* In 2012, Chicago was listed as an alpha global city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network,[8] "The World According to GaWC 2012". Globalization and World Cities Research Network. January 13, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

* Miami is a major center, and a leader in finance, commerce, culture, media, entertainment, the arts, and international trade.[11][12] In 2012, Miami was classified as an Alpha−World City in the World Cities Study Group's inventory.[13] "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2012". Retrieved August 10, 2015.

* A global city,[17] Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture,[18][19] "GAWC-The World According to GAWC 2012", (2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

* Buenos Aires is classified as an Alpha World City, according to the Loughborough University group's (GaWC) 2008 inventory.[201] www.lboro.ac.uk The World According to GaWC 2008 – Retrieved on 6 July 2009 --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

* São Paulo (/ˌsaʊ ˈpaʊloʊ/; Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w ˈpawlu] ( listen); Saint Paul in English) is a municipality located in the southeast region of Brazil. The metropolis is an alpha global city—as listed by the GaWC— "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2010". Lboro.ac.uk. September 14, 2011. Archived from the original on October 10, 2013. Retrieved December 1, 2012.--181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• ::: Tokyo. The city is considered an alpha+ world city – as listed by the GaWC's 2008 inventory[11] "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2008". Lboro.ac.uk. April 13, 2010. Retrieved October 29, 2010.

===== MrOllie (talk) -> You're not the owner of the information. You're not the owner of the truth ===== --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

MrOllie is behaving like a despot.

despot noun [ C ] UK a person, especially a ruler, who has unlimited power over other people, and often uses it unfairly and cruelly --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

despot A ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

despot /ˈdɛspɒt/ n 1. an absolute or tyrannical ruler; autocrat or tyrant 2. any person in power who acts tyrannically --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

des•pot (des′pət, -pot), n. 1. king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. 2. tyrant or oppressor.

--181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

THE INFORMATION HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE PLACED IN THE ARTICLE. THAT INFORMATION ALREADY IS AVAILABLE IN MANY ARTICLES ABOUT CITIES AND CALI WILL NOT BE AN EXCEPTION

You do not need to start an edit war because you know you're not the owner of the information. You are nobody to decide about the information that it can be placed in wikipedia. In addition, this information has reliable references. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EXAMPLES

* Auckland is classified as a Beta World City[6] because of its importance in finance, commerce, media, entertainment, arts, education and tourism. "The World According to GaWC 2012". www.lboro.ac.uk. GaWC. Retrieved 10 February 2017.

* Berlin is a world city of culture, politics, media and science.[15][16][17][18]Sifton, Sam (31 December 1969). "Berlin, the big canvas". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2008. See also: "Sites and situations of leading cities in cultural globalisations/Media". GaWC Research Bulletin 146. Retrieved 18 August 2008.

* The Madrid urban agglomeration has the third-largest GDP[11] in the European Union and its influences in politics, education, entertainment, environment, media, fashion, science, culture, and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the world's major global cities.[12][13] Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Study Group and Network, Loughborough University. "The World According to GaWC 2010". Retrieved 12 February 2016.

* In 2012, Chicago was listed as an alpha global city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network,[8] "The World According to GaWC 2012". Globalization and World Cities Research Network. January 13, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

* Miami is a major center, and a leader in finance, commerce, culture, media, entertainment, the arts, and international trade.[11][12] In 2012, Miami was classified as an Alpha−World City in the World Cities Study Group's inventory.[13] "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2012". Retrieved August 10, 2015.

* A global city,[17] Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture,[18][19] "GAWC-The World According to GAWC 2012", (2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

* Buenos Aires is classified as an Alpha World City, according to the Loughborough University group's (GaWC) 2008 inventory.[201] www.lboro.ac.uk The World According to GaWC 2008 – Retrieved on 6 July 2009 --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

* São Paulo (/ˌsaʊ ˈpaʊloʊ/; Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w ˈpawlu] ( listen); Saint Paul in English) is a municipality located in the southeast region of Brazil. The metropolis is an alpha global city—as listed by the GaWC— "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2010". Lboro.ac.uk. September 14, 2011. Archived from the original on October 10, 2013. Retrieved December 1, 2012.--181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• ::: Tokyo. The city is considered an alpha+ world city – as listed by the GaWC's 2008 inventory[11] "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2008". Lboro.ac.uk. April 13, 2010. Retrieved October 29, 2010. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling me names doesn't change the fact that all these mentions cite an affiliated primary source where they should be citing an independent secondary source. They should all be removed without a secondary source, Cali included. - MrOllie (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

THAT INFORMATION ALREADY IS AVAILABLE IN MANY ARTICLES ABOUT CITIES AND CALI WILL NOT BE AN EXCEPTION.--181.137.2.23 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for keeping watch, Mr Ollie.[5] I've indeffed the account. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. It wouldn't be Monday morning without some advertising from our overseas friends. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen It is sad that you do not respect the editions of people who just want to collaborate and help. I do everything with good will. You threaten me with blocking my account without respect or consideration with the editors of good will. But don't worry. I just cooperate with people who appreciate my edits made in good faith. Unfortunately, there are restrictions on information written with good intentions. They do not appreciate my edits made in good faith. I also did my edits based on what is written in other articles about cities.

I do not edit this article. I edit only in sites where people appreciate my edits made in good faith. I've never vandalized articles.--181.137.2.23 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen Consideration. I only make edits with good faith.--181.137.2.23 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. --181.137.2.23 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

URGENT: Queries Regarding The Revision in Article

Hi MrOllie,

I have made part by part changes in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemant_Kanoria request you to help me understand which part of the article seems to be promotional/ advertising

Will appreciate your prompt reply since we have a deadline to meet.

Thanks NilankaG (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NilankaG, I appreciate that you have added a disclosure of paid editing to Talk:Hemant Kanoria. Please also see WP:COI: "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead". It's obviously difficult for marketing professionals to write neutrally. For example, a sentence like "Hailed as a visionary who always offers simple solutions to complex problems, Hemant's contributions towards inclusive infrastructure development in the country have been nonpareil" is pure advertising and puffery, every word of it. You should definitely use the talkpage. Also, for your deadline, see WP:COI again: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Promotion is discouraged, so I'm afraid your deadline for promoting your employer is not Wikipedia's problem. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Pretty much what Bishonen said. The whole thing was an advertisement top to bottom. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Crowdsourced Innovation

I happen to be an authority on Innovation (you can see talks I have given on the subject here - http://indianexpress.com/article/business/startups/startups-rev-up-indias-appeal-as-destination-for-innovation-digital-transformation-3035576/). Crowdsourced Innovation is a new term not unlike the other terms described there. You may take out the link if you have a problem, but not the term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're the founder of Bizofit, you definitely shouldn't be linking to your own company's press releases. I'll put some conflict of interest resources on your talk page. Find a source that's unrelated to yourself or your company - and not a blog or a press release, please. See our sourcing guidelines for details. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Please do not resort to Wikihounding, as you have clearly demonstrated going after multiple unrelated edits.

If an edit war is in progress and consensus is unclear, forming a discussion, whether between two users or an entire group is strongly encouraged. Any discussions aimed at coming to a peaceful resolution or some other compromise are highly recommended. Wikihounding[edit source] Main page: WP:Wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We allow everyone to look at contributions lists. One reason for that is to check if a similar mistake is being repeated on other articles - in this case yes. That is not 'Wikihounding'. Still, if you think I did something inappropriate the place to report that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I strongly recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before opening a discussion there, though. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not have time to continue an edit war, but you have clearly demonstrated your willingness. Your actions are fully known to you, and therefore you decide if you are doing the right thing. Introspect ! I am a subject matter expert, and an acknowledged one at that, and have demonstrated that through the links. Even if you have a problem with the links, I have ceded, and requested removal of the links (which is contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia where you substantiate through links). But the content edit was justified. But your actions have shown your true intent, which is to wear down new contributors until you win unfairly; so be it. I will report you as that is the right and fair thing to do. Upto Wikipedia what they want to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr.Ollie

Looks like Mrwiki72 did report you here. Feel free to respond to him. I already have, you're obviously not wikihounding him.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it the ANI section, but given the way Mrwiki72 has personalized the issue I don't think he's really going to listen to me. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely willing to listen to reason, and no, I haven't personalized it nor do I have the time to personalize it; have more important things to do. Mrwiki72 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)mrwiki72

Question about revision

Hi, I added more services to List of Word Processors and they were removed twice. Now I'm a wikipedia-noob so I'm just wondering why? Was there something wrong with my edits? Jesper Bylund (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Laxafer

To quote the line at the top of that list: 'Entries should have a Wikipedia article or a citation to show notability.' - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

O Ring Page

You have not yet removed the ‘broken’ links on this page. You have not removed the links that link to company sales materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.hanlon (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wondering why the QDB entry is deleted

I have just enter a new method of immunoblot analysis. It is a new method published in a peer-reviewed journal. Do not understand why this information is deleted instantly. Would you be kind enough to explain why?

Jiandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

hello Mr. Ollie re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_network_diagram_software I am the moderator on this page and have attempted to keep it clean and useful. but your most recent comment This list of nonnotable tools primarily serves as a list of external links. Shouldn't be here per WP:NOT a directory. is not clear to me what changes specifically should be made to this page? I have reviewed other similar topics such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRM_systems

so that it is in similar template what links should be removed? what changes do you propose It4it-wiki|

First, individual pages do not have moderators. Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems is pretty terrible and needs cleaning, don't use that as a template. Comparison_of_CRM_systems is a good example of what a list should look like. Several places on Comparison_of_network_diagram_software is says it is listing notable software, but on Wikipedia 'notable' means can support a Wikipedia article. As you can see on CRM systems, each list entry links to an existing article. Network diagram software instead uses reference format to link to each vendor's website. That's no good - ordinarily I would trim the list to just the entries with Wikipedia article links, but precisely zero of these entries have one - so deleting the whole list is the proper course of action. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks IndianWikian 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why was citation deleted on paradigm

Hi there, please bear with me as I learn that ropes, as the edit to insert a citation on the paradigm page is the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia . The paradigm article has many citations throughout and I initially found it strange that the list of facilitation conditions did not have a citation. I want to cite this list in an academic essay I'm submitting for a course, but I didn't want to cite Wikipedia as the source of the list. I ended up looking and finding the book that list is actually from, and so I figured that by adding the citation it would strengthen the veracity of this article and help anyone else who thought this part of the article was useful. So I'm curious as to why you reverted and thus deleted a citation? Thanks Cceturner (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You're completely correct. I'm not sure why I did that - maybe I got my browser tabs confused. I have reverted myself. My apologies. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was really confused! All good now. :-) Cceturner (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Whacking References (RE: Brian Krebs)

I completely agree with your deletion of the Forum Post reference. However, you did not state the reason for the deletion.

One of my students had edited this reference, and I needed to figure out why his edits were deleted. A reason would have helped.

Thank you, Softtest123 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean this? That was off base enough that I assumed it was vandalism. The vague edit summary was one autogenerated by twinkle's vandalism revert button. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Collaborator Code Review Tool

What is required to add Collaborator to the List of tools for code review? A citation to something like: Is SmartBear Smarter Than The Average Code Review?

Donaldm314 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It should have a Wikipedia article. Generally Wikipedia's guidelines require two good sources to support an article: see WP:Notability for details. - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, this particular software has already been deleted (at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Collaborator_(software)), where the drdobbs source was considered and rejected as PR, so any new article will qualify for speedy deletion without new sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gamification

Hi, you removed this addition I made to the page -

</ref> However, as competition has been shown to generate potentially negative results (e.g. motivating unethical behavior, lowering tendencies towards cooperation, and disengaging players who might perceive themselves unrealistically able to compete on equal terms), certain gamification schools of thought are proposing to refrain from using this element and focus on pitting players against their past performance instead of other players.

Why? what's wrong with it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal Valler (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't use blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Elearning industry isn't a blog- it's one of the most well-known resources in the eLearning industry, as the name implies ;) , for articles, knowledge sharing, and content curation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal Valler (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty clearly a blog host, its about page says so. But feel free to take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you strongly disagree. - MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk sections deletd

Did you delete my talk sections also ?

And please tell me why legalizing the killing of jews will make it mudrerHPearce (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Words have meanings. That article is about a legal concept, not about whatever moral concerns you have. - MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Shepherd's Pie Vandalism

Thank you for remaining vigilant and saving us from vandalism. The people who make those kind of edits make me sick. They're the ones that give everyone here at Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePageEditor (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Code Dx citations

While I admit that it was a mistake to mark the first edit as "minor" (I read the guidelines after editing), your revert of the Code Dx entry to the multi-language tools section of the page was not warranted. Code Dx is a well-regarded commercial software application with solid credentials:

1. Forbes describes how "Code Dx will then automatically fetch the source and run it through the scanners".
2. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), on page 19 of its NISTIR 8151 publication, says how Code Dx is a "tool that matches, consolidates and presents the output of analysis tools."
3. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security hosts a PDF of a presentation from a Principal Investigators Meeting in September 2013 that describes Code Dx and its multi-language capabilities.
4. Innovate Long Island described, in June of 2016, how Code Dx "combines various code-analysis methods to identify and manage vulnerabilities written into software codes"
5. The Microsoft Visual Studio marketplace shows 1,638 installs of the Code Dx Visual Studio Extension.

References

Chrisbeefstew (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Chrisbeefstew

Blogs, trivial mentions, and affiliated sources. Nothing we could base an article on. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Too hasty use of repeated edit undo

MrOllie, I appreciate you diligence in Wiki standards, as I uphold the same. If you review what I was citing, it was not a GoodReads comment, as you assumed, but a quote from the book authored by the subject cited, specifically the book in question is "Demons of the Flesh: The Complete Guide to Left-Hand Path Sex Magic." Please try to not be so hasty in the use of edit undo. If you continue to undo this legitimate edit, I will request an Ombudsman to review the matter. In all fairness, it appears you have had previous issues with edit complaints from other Wiki editors. Additionally, I asked you politely, after undoing your previous edit undo of this same entry, to discuss your reasons on the talk page, but your didn't. Therefore it is neither helpful nor courteous to continue your edit wars without being more precise in your reasons for the undo. Thank you and have a nice day.Got2Bthere (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if it is a quote, it is still a primary source. We should have a reliably published secondary source. Do you have some kind of relationship to the Schrecks? I notice that all your edits seem to be focused on them. - MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

After you multiple Reverted two of my edits, I wondered if this over-zealousness was just with my edits or if you did this routinely. I based my comment to you on the unusually high number of 'Reverted' edits in your wiki history, while at the same time there seem to be no proactive content added. This would seem a bias toward policing rather than contributing. No, I have no "relationship" with any of my edits. That is all. - Got2Bthere (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE yet? Do you understand that you should have a secondary source when adding these sorts of mentions? Our readers need to be able to verify the importance of the author to the subject. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

And I am wondering if you have read Good faith edits? If you don't like the references provided, provide better ones. Deleting the good faith edit efforts of others is counter productive. Softtest123 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. - MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Article revised

Hi MrOllie,

As per your suggestion, I have made the changes on a neutral point of view for the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemant_Kanoria). Request you to please review the same.

NilankaG (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to deny again, but I'm waiting for someone else who reviews that queue so we can have a second opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Hi MrOllie I see you have removed my updated information from the page Prevalence of circumcision calming that the information I used was "not a reliable source" what lead you to believe this? The studies mentioned on the webpage directly cite the exact same existing references that are found on the Wikipedia page. I have spoken with the Author a fellow New Zealander that maintains the site and he confirmed that the information is valid and comes from the "New Zealand Department of Statistics but since the November earthquake I'm not sure if their archives are open".

If you have a problem with this could you please contact me first before removing such information, I think we can agree it's far more useful to state the last known rates before New Zealand Hospitals stopped performing circumcision rather than information from WHO that is not even close to the real figure and very vague <20%. Readers can still see this from the map at the top of the page if needed. I will also mention that the WHO study does not actually have any reliable data on New Zealand it also falsely claims that Neonatal circumcision is common in NZ this simply isn't true no Hospitals perform this surgery on Neonates or anyone without proper medical need and only after other methods fail i.e application of topical steroid creams and stretching device show no results.

Kind Regards, LogicNZ (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Circumstitions is an anti-circumsition activist site. We've had problems with it in the past on Wikipedia. It's not clear where they get their data (or if it is accurate). By contrast, the WHO is a widely respected international medical organisation who have a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent user-generated content edit

Hi MrOllie, what was the problem with the source I used to add information about ratings and reviews and their contribution to marketing ("rm marketing material as source")? It is a citation from a study by Forrester Research - I used the condensed information available on the cited website, where the study can be downloaded and who has initiated the research origination. Should I rather cite the study itself (it is on page 4 of the study)? I strongly believe that any information about ratings and reviews and their importance is missing in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdab2016 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Its a study commissioned by a company that wants to sell user-generated marketing products, that says people should buy user-generated marketing products. It would be much, much better if you used a source that didn't have such an obvious conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, thanks for your response. I respect your view (and as it looks I even have to :)), however, at the other hand, just because someone ordered a research and paid for it does not matter the results are tendential themselves. Surely, I am not wearing pink glasses, also Forrester Research can make mistakes, but in average, I think there is much greater chance that their data will be trustworthy than 95 % of other sources on the Internet. I will come back when I have more time and find other studies, I hope you will accept them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Psdab2016 (talk • contribs)

Looking forward to seeing your improved sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Backpacking external links

Mr Ollie, I would like to know how the link I posted was not pertinent to the post I linked it to.. See Natchaug_Trail where you deleted my link that presented information, not only about the trail but shelters along the trail (hence linking to the main page) while leaving a link to a blank page... I don't think you actually looked at my page as opposed to a quick glance. I only linked trails that I had information about.. This does nothing but solidify the information provided by Wikipedia, how was I at fault? BackpackingCT (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)BackpackingCT

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a place to link/promote your blog. 'Pertinent' isn't sufficient reason to place an external link. - MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This response tells me you didn't look at the site at all.... Pertinent by definition is sufficient reason for one. Pertinent as in, that link had more information than the links above it, including trail maps... This, is exactly why Wikipedia will never be anything but a secondary source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BackpackingCT (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, my local plumber's site is also 'pertinent' to Plumbing, but we don't link it. As to being a secondary source, even would be too much! Wikipedia is deliberately designed to be a tertiary source, summarizing what high quality secondary sources say on various topics. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That logic isn't sound but I understand that the link isn't wanted. I don't understand how there are links there that have even less value still, however... But hey, even police can be bought I guess. BackpackingCT (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)have fun ace. Figured I would help and remove those links and the other maps that are not needed (per your logic).. That way we don't have a bunch of clutter fluffing up the site.. BackpackingCT (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)You're welcome.

Proposal for a page

Dear MrOllie,

As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources.

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia.

Artis Ozolins | Project Manager | GOLIN 45/47 Barona Street, Riga, LV-1011, Latvia m. +371 26179051 | t. +371 67630760 aozolins@golin.com Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not really interested in helping with your paid editing. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Sorry but why this weird revert? This infamous EZOH electric fence killed hundreds of Czechs and Slovaks trying to escape so I clarified the name of this deadly fence for the people who want to know more. Why have you erased this abbreviation? Which reason exactly? Doronenko (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrator board notification. Still waiting your reply. I know that you have already read my message. Doronenko (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was completely incomprehensible to people who aren't Czech, so I reverted it. -MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, at least some answer. 1. The removed abbreviation EZOH is international and can be used by any researcher who wants to investigate the Iron Curtain topic. 2. The provided link was a link to the archive document provided by Czech government institution - Archive of state security so highly authoritative and respected government institution. Any researcher can translate it with Google Translate tool or to order some translation. That means there is no reason to remove this link. Doronenko (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

vtVAX and vtVAlpha

I noticed that you are structurally removing vtAlpha and vtVAX information from product overview comparisons in Wikipedia since recent. Since this information is valid, relevant and non-promotional (tables with function comparison between comparable products) this is very odd. Your actions seems biased toward these two products alone because other product information alone. We tried to restore the original content once but it was removed immediately again. Please explain your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariedegroot (talk • contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of entry from a summary table

Earlier today you removed the entry vtAlpha from the 64-bit systems/AlphaServer table on the List of Computer System Emulators page. There is no comment in the edit history suggesting why this action was taken, not is it apparent from review of the previous version of the page how this entry differed from the others.

Will you please explain why this entry was removed.

Thank you TwisterDodger (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It was added by a single purpose account who seems to be here to advertise that company's products. That list is pretty bad and is apparently long overdue for a thorough cleaning to bring it in line with policy, I've added it to my todo list. - MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The point of the various lists on that page appears to be to provide a summary of software products that perform a certain function that can serve as a starting point for prospective users to evaluate their options. I personally have found this list, and similar lists for a variety of other products, quite helpful as research aids.

The entry you removed was comparable in content to those you left in place, including several other commercial products. If one is unacceptable, why are all not unacceptable? What policy is it that defines what is acceptable or unacceptable in this context?

Upon further investigation, I see that you have removed information about certain commercial products from more than one page while leaving comparable information about other commercial products on the same pages. Whether it is your intention or not, this gives the appearance of favoring certain commercial entities over others. Is this permissible under Wikipedia policy? TwisterDodger (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why ?? no rules violation! !!

Authentic info in a better format was provided with that edit and also the official website link of our residence was provided in that edit. I didn't came to know of any such wiki rules that one cannot back link to its official website. I belong to the same place. SherAsad (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV to start with. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Github citations

Hello MrOllie,

Could you explain why you have removed the Github citations to example images that were added to pages "digital image processing" and "affine transforms"? Was it formatting, location of reference, or are repository references not allowed on Wikipedia?

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

Github pages are all self published and so are generally not used as sources. Based on your username it appears you are also linking to your own website, which you should not do per WP:EL and WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks

my way of posting our NGO SHER's url was not correct. But can I just name it there in that little state level NGOs portion. I won't make a back link as it will have different impact on other visitors but at least being an state NGO can I make it there? If possible. nd I have edited 1 more page named [Ujariyaon] but it didn't seemed to be changed and no notification was given either. Finally thanks for the timely and proper guidance. I will try to read and learn all the rules and regulations in the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherAsad (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't a place to list or promote your organization in any form. - MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you removed the link

It is a legitimate link and it is encyclopedia worthy. More details please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remiturcotte (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Which page and link exactly are you asking about? - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bioinformatics Page

Hello, you had removed some of my edits to the Bioinformatics page a few weeks ago out of concern for a COI. In response, I have declared my COI on the Talk page, and added a justification for my proposed edits. It has now been two weeks and no one has objected to my proposed edits. What is the procedure for reaching closure on this process? P. Karp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkarp11 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't place a notification template on the page, so no one knew to look at it. I fixed that for you. Be patient, that is a slow moving queue and there are quite a few requested edits in it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Maroun Semaan?

Maroun_Semaan

This is a person who matters and respected, you can not simply delete. please undo to fix the wordings.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinationman (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 

I didn't delete it, I tagged it for review and then an admin came along and deleted it - correctly, it was an obvious advertisement. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

follow up on removal of a external link i added this morning

Hello, sorry for taking some of your time.

I received message that an external link was removed from " Whip (politics)".

Thank you for explaining the reason and providing guide links which i plan on following from now on.

The question i have is above my knowledge: The political whip software that I linked is probably the first as far as I know in the world of political whips as software application. I have seen in other articles external links to software apps being added as part of wikipedia which contradicts some of the statements you provided. If not here, where can i place such a software link to demonstrate that this is done first time.

This link was not intended for seo search engines so that part is not a concern for me. regards

Alexismoore1 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you can place it anywhere on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a place to advertise software. If you have seen links to software apps on other articles where that software is not the primary topic, they should probably be removed as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External on topic trustworthy resource removal?

Hi,

May I know why this reference was removed?

The article is really useful. And there are more. How can a user who is reading the "List of web directories" which is "incomplete; you can help by expanding it" have a clue about what really a list of web directories is while actually there is no link to any trustworthy or verified list?

I have absolutely zero affiliation with SEW, but I'd like to know the logic behind the edit removal.

Thanks Robertgombos (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:EL for details, but we generally do not externally link to things that essentially duplicate what is in (or what could be added) to the Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you.

I've been a DMOZ editor for several years, as a matter of fact I used to edit this:

• Internet Directories at Curlie a page that someone already mentioned at List of web directories.

There was a very strict rule of the resources being included in most ODP categories.

Now, what's listed under the General section of List of web directories have their own reference pages. Taking a look, none of them fulfill the Wikipedia requirement fully and the cited sources are really questionable (people can pay for a press release and even to be included as a mention in a .pdf). On the other hand, Google back in 2009, made it's point of view clear regarding the human editorial discretion that is linked to web directories.

People are talking on forums (they see in a web directory just another link opportunity) so it's quite difficult to "decide" what's worth to be mentioned.

Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is my link on Master Data Management removed?

I had added an external link and checked that there are multiple links by Microsoft, Semarchy, Orchestra Networks etc. So can you please tell me why those links are allowed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_data_management&oldid=prev&diff=778336636

Sonalgoyal (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it is obviously link spam. The others aren't. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to place advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked the other links - Stibo Systems, Orcehstra Networks and Semarchy and they are clear advertisement Sonalgoyal (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The presence of other advertisements is a reason to remove them, not to add more advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thats fair, thanks!Sonalgoyal (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Why External links on topic trustworthy resource removed?

Hello, I am talking about your message you left regarding external links. I am adding links from old DMOZ listed websites as ex-DMOZ editor after reading them. When you are deliberately removed all possible links from one old DMOZ listed site I added, it is worthless to waste time here for us.

There is another DMOZ editor complaining the similar thing on this page.

Sony Alpha 18-135 mm kit lens was not mentioned in wikipedia. I added from that info and citation from that website's review. Cloud Computing scalability was not explained and the website is/was ODP listed on cloud computing.

Nothing done without valid reason. Sony's official link to 4D focus also added.

I am undoing last time. Your Wikipedia you edit, do whatever. You can definitely remove again. Regardless of your action, I am not going to waste my time by login again on Wikipedia. ODP editors not sleeping, we will open ODP again with our money. We are not going to collect money like wikipedia with pop up. We have some time, we disturbed your Wikipedia.

I am telling the ex-ODP editors on G+ not to edit on wikipedia but work for our own ODP.

No warning before link removal, suddenly removed a good website's 2 links.

You think about wikipedia, we think about the good websites as ex-DMOZ editors. If they had money they would hire seo experts. They have not paid us.

I thought that I will make Sony A68 page complete. I can not write without reading things from other's site or book. I will add another site to add more info, you'll remove. I am not going to do that peon's work. For nothing an innocent website will get marked as "blog spam".

MozzieINbangla (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

DMOZ had very different standards than Wikipedia. For one thing, DMOZ was a link directory, and Wikipedia is specifically not a repository of external links. In particular, Wikipedia generally does not use blogs as external links or sources. See our guidelines on external links and what makes a good source. - MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It has persistent URL, it is not a blog. They are cited on books, patents. It is not my website that I can distribute their non-public URLs with DOI except which they share. This tool generated their links in wikipedia format. In your that page written "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Internet was different when we were middle aged, there was no search engine optimisation, wikipedia etc. When you will reach my age when peoples will falsely accuse you as spammer, you will realise how it feels. End of the life what I will do reading your wikipedia rules. I told you before that am not going to waste my time by login again on Wikipedia to edit. "Wikipedia generally does not use blogs means " means if your client have blog then it can be exception. We do not fall in that category of bargaining. Any human with a few years old domain has some authority. In future you can clearly say to moron like me "we will not add that domain" instead of giving lot of clauses. You can create a list of your "whitelisted" domains. MozzieINbangla (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Girnarsoft's speedy Delete

Hi, I work in automotive space in India and mostly know about the nuances of the sector. Recently I was going through an article on Zigwheels and I found the information outdated and wrong. Started about editing it (My first time). Then I realised Zigwheel is actually relatively small (actually part of another company) and that online space is fast changing and there are no articles on it. Automotive online in India is heavily consolidate where top 10 portals are owned by only two parties. To explain the importance of this: Online sales contribute to 30% or Renault sales in India. That's how fast the space is changing. And to explain this it should start with defining two companies Viz. Girnarsoft & Cartrade. As I was editing Zigwheels I created a page on the company it is part of (Girnarsoft) and it was duly deleted citing "the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organisation, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant". Hence the above explanation. It would be a lot of info that has to go in. But, just felt that it is a start. Define one company, then define all it's subsidiaries. Then define the other company and define it's subsidiaries as these would primarily cover the online autospace of India. I am new to this, despite my going through the guidelines I may have committed mistakes, kindly lead me in case there are any sections which you felt promotional. Mostly the page has been created Mimicking UTC & Flipkart. United Technologies Company coz it's one of the biggest companies in world with House of Brands kind of structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_architecture) and Flipkart coz it's one of the leading E-commerce companies in India. Thanks in advance for your support and looking forward for inputs.

Regards, User:WikieditCD User_talk:WikieditCD —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Starting new articles from scratch (particularly articles on companies) is just about the hardest way to learn how things are done on Wikipedia. In particular, there are minimum requirements for sourcing to start an article. I suggest you read the materials linked from the welcome message on your user talk page, and try working on preexisting articles for a while to get a better understanding of how things are done here. Have fun! - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links removed

Why were my External links on Cord_blood_bank and Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation removed? Wikifacts9 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to place external links to sites promoting fringe medical ideas like cord blood banking. - MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Cord blood banking is not a fringe medical idea, as over 30,000 cord blood transplants have been performed over the last 29 years[1].

I think that you may be conflating autologous (private cord blood banks) with allogeneic (public cord blood banks). The use case for autologous cord blood banks is very small as stated on my website (3 in 1,000,000 per year - Acquired aplastic anemia)[2], while the use case for allogeneic cord blood banks is considerable (virtually all of that 30,000 number stated previously).

My page on the HSCT treated diseases is backed up by 50 citations.

References: 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3952633/ 2. Paul Harker-Murray, M.D., Ph.D, Umbilical Cord Blood Banking “safeguarding the future?” 2013; Wikifacts9 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is your website, please see our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and be advised that placing links to your own site is highly discouraged here. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Marketing

Three over enthusiastic students have made changes to Mobile Marketing which you have understandably reverted. They are all new users and they are meant to be using sandboxes to try out their additions. I have protected the article and advised them to think about how they can improve the integration of their work. Some of it looked as if it would help the article if it was better integrated. Sorry for the trouble. I am giving constructive feedback which you can obviously add to. Thanks for your work. Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking this must be an ESL class, based on the writing. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)