User talk:MrOllie/Archive 7

Removing history and directory information

Mr Ollie, I have been trying to build out the Field Programmable Analog Array content with very hard to find history and other details for engineers to help education themselves. I added alternatives to the FPAA technology - only to find it removed. FI am frustrated since this FPAA page is essentially the analog version of the FPGA page. The FPGA page is deep with content both in terms of history, alternatives in terms of technology and who is supporting that technology. Why would it be removed from the FPAA page but not the FPGA page? I respectfully ask that the content I am building out be put back into place and I will continue to build out the page with helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greefkes (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote or list vendors of technology, and we must be careful to write about technologies in general terms that are not prejudiced for (or against!) any particular vendor(s). Wikipedia is also a big place with a lot of work to do and only so many volunteers, so I am not surprised that you may find inappropriate vendor-centric content on other articles, but that is a reason to clean up those other articles, not to write about vendors in additional places.

Please keep in mind as well that Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and while engineers and other industry insiders may be interested in vendor specific details and the ins and outs of business movements in their industry, they are not our primary readers. - MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content on Vehicle Registration Plate

Mr Ollie,

Why was my edit on "Vehicle Registration Plate" removed? The one regarding the smart license plate frames, it's obviously a license plate accessory and new information that you haven't covered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Automotiveguy (talk • contribs)

While writing about new technologies in general is welcomed, writing about specific products with external links to manufacturers/vendors is too promotional for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood, can I fix it and resubmit? Do you want to take a stab at including smart license plate frames since you know how you would like it on the page? I'm a new member and trying to learn the best process for submitting content. My area of interest is in automotive technology.

I think I put useful information at 'Interactive Marketing'

Hi, please respect others' works and provide evidence and reliable reasons of why you deleted all. BridgetWu94 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the grammar of your contribution was exceptionally bad. I suggest you find someone to proofread your contributions, or start with much, much smaller edits - perhaps a single short paragraph at a time until your English improves. - MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Really do not understand which part of my contributions made you thought like that and that was very rude. You almost reverted EVERYTHING you have seen on Wikipedia from the records I saw. And SOOO many complaints on your talk page really can tell what kind of people you are. If my written was such bad you should not even understand anything I wrote here...Such a rude and self-centered comment...Wikipedia encourages people to contribute and you are actually ruined it.

BridgetWu94 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Really do not understand which part of my contributions made you thoughtthink like that and that was very rude. You have almost reverted EVERYTHING you have seen on Wikipedia from the records I saw. And there are SOOO many complaints on your talk page that I really can tell what kind of peopleperson you are. If my writtenwriting was suchso bad you should have not even understandunderstood anything I wrote here...Such a rude and self-centered comment...Wikipedia encourages people to contribute and you arehave actually ruined it. - MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You win, you are so friendly. Instead of helping people to make more contributions on wikipedia, you deleted contribution or made fun of it. That is exactly the right way as a wikipedia editor treating beginners who are willing to contribute. I admit my English is 'exceptional bad' and I apologized for any inconvenient made. I still think your comments before were very impolite. But I wish you have a nice day. BridgetWu94 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I did 'make fun' of anything. I'm sorry that I offended you, but this is one of those situations where it is very difficult to be honest without being at least a little offensive. - MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Roblox

Please do not vandalise the Roblox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit war to keep in poorly sourced promotional content. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the pages paragraphs removed by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx (talk • contribs) 08:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing for "Referral Marketing"

Hello, I have uploaded my content about referral marketing again with proofread English. This is a very important school coursework for me. If you still think the content is not so good, Please help me improve them instead of removing them with one sentence. Bijun yang (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It was improved from before, thank you. I did go through and make some additional edits to improve things further. -MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jasmine Directory tag clarification

Hi, you placed tags on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Directory. I would like to ask where you think it's not neutral? Please explain and suggest where to improve. I read carefully all guidelines before publishing the article. I would love to know where to improve. I personally used that directory and as I am contributing to Wikipedia, I thought to create an article, I also used other directories frequently and there pages hardly have any references anyway, I'll really appreciate if you could tell me where to edit the article as I see nothing promotional and don't have any conflict of interest. In fact, I have more references to add as part of my research. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Response to your delete of edits on the Greek Music pages

Please review my response on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akramarz#Response_to_MrOllie.27s_delete with evidence why my edit should not have been removed. Akramarz (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Akramarz

With respect, your self-citations didn't add anything of substance to the articles (in one case you just added yourself to the bibliography) and I don't think they represent an exception to our COI guidelines. As a subject matter expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources published by lots of authors - why not source someone else instead? - MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not ask for an exception to COI guidelines but for respecting them. It would be counter-productive prohibiting people who are, as you acknowledge, experts in their field, to refer to results of their own research. Fortunately, the Wikipedia guidelines do not fall into this error but only posit reasonable limits. I am citing again: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself). I have not violated these guidelines. Adding a simple bibliographical reference to a new standard work is relevant, within reason, and not excessive and contributes to the purpose of Wikipedia: "Provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Purpose_of_Wikipedia). Given that there is no evidence of a violation on my end that would justify the complete elimination of my edits, I have restored them. On the other hand, I appreciate your comment that you did not find my contributions substantial enough. Even if this is no justification for censorship either (Wikipedia is grateful for any, even minuscule, improvements), I took this to heart and have now updated my edits with further improvements and a more substantial piece on the Ethos in ancient music. I hope that this will satisfy your concerns. For the other page, in addition to my own, I have also added now three book titles of other scholars, to balance my contribution. Please let me know if you have any further constructive suggestions. By the way, I apologize for having marked some edits as "minor" when they were more than mere language corrections - I have become aware of the exact definition of a "minor change" in Wikipedia. You did not mention this, but just in case...Akramarz (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Akramarz

Removal of Linx from Comparison of business integration software page

Hi, I have removed all offending links from the page. Please let me know if you have any further objections to the addition of our software to the page. Thanks, Franzro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzro (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Software from Graph Theory

Hi, I've added a Software section to the Graph Theory with open source (non-profit) software, in several languages, developers could use. Please let me know why you did remove them? Is Github, where these open source projects are hosted, considered a social network? [*] I thought my contribution really adds up to the value of the article because there it helps people actually play with the concepts mentioned in the article using free open source academic (MIT licensed) software. Thanks,

Please advise.

(edit) Improved and re-added. Please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu (talk • contribs) 09:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

huge deletion of computer system emulators

Computer system emulators. You seen to have removed all reference to 60-bit and 48-bit computers. Please revert this unwarranted deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.7.193 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle reversion

This is an old edit, but I see your twinkle revereted an edit on the List of security assessment tools page. Was there anything wrong with the edit?--HappyHappyNaps (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links from a COI editor

Hello. I'm working on COI requested edits. One is from LevEliezer, to add external links to public domain documents at Sefaria.org. The editor added them to several articles, and you reverted them, e.g. here. To me this looks like adding an archive.org or Google Books link to articles on books now in the public domain. Is there a problem with them aside from the COI? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I initially added links to open-licensed texts produced by company, in my ignorance, without disclosing my COI. We wrote back and forth a bit, at the time. I've since learned to request the edits formally, in light of my COI. Editors are generally in favor of them, but are seeing your old reverts and hesitating. Care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sefaria_requested_edits? LevEliezer (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

COIN

I mentioned your article cleanup at WP:COIN, not as a party to an incident. You probably got a notification because of the link. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Added sources, removed content which sounded like advert

Hi, thanks for your advice (1 March) re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiploFoundation, which has helped me with this and other pages I have edited. Re this page, I have added sources, and removed content which sounded advertorial. Not sure if there are more concerns, or if the 'multiple issues' box can be removed? Many thanks! IG 0100 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MrOllie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed NGO Names

Ohkk if external backlinks are not in that manner, but why you removed 1 another NGO name from that list? That doesn't have a backlink i think!!!

SherAsad (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please make an effort to explain why you do things.

You barely make an effort to communicate your intent, possibly no effort at all. Please try to explain your motivations for your actions as it would make understanding what you are doing easier. Phedrence (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 880816929 by MrOllie (talk)

Can you justify the reason of deleting my edits? I am adding general content regarding hyperspectral imaging for gas detection, and cited published patents and governmental project link. Please justify how you can classify this as promotion material? There is no reference to any content of Rebellion Photonics.

Being the only company who can do this does not make this content promotion material.

Thanks, Editwiki1111 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It does make it undue weight, especially since the sources aren't independent. - MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Undid revision by MrOllie (talk)

Can you justify the reason for deleting my edits? I am adding content regarding flow cytometry analysis - I listed available software... Please justify how you can classify this as promotion material since FlowJo has its own wiki page - isn't promotional as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugokocek (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is expressly not a place to list software programs, add external links, etc. As to the FlowJo article, it is sourced only to a press release. If somebody nominated it for deletion it would very likely be removed. If no better sourcing is forthcoming, I'm sure someone will get around to that sooner or later. - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake

Hi Ollie, You have removed all the appropriate links I have added, I'm trying to add value to this community by adding links to the most relevant and helpful citation sites.

Let me begin with my first link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_content" I have added this link "https://amitpurohit.com/duplicate-content-checker-tool/" as per guidelines Wikipedia always ask us to add "RELEVANT SITE LINKS" there was an outdated content published on 2011 by techmaish which as per you looks relevant rather than the new one? I think you should read the thread once again, it talks about duplicate content and software's and tools help us in detecting it, I wonder why its irrelevant? only you can say this. Secondly, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_Identity_Access_Management" I have added this "https://www.loginradius.com/cIAM-basics/" the topic speaks about customer identity access management, I believe you also checked the reference links added in this page most of them shares information about ciam, how on earth this link looks irrelevant to you? I have added this as a citation link, and ciam basics talks about the part ciam consists. Thirdly, In "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management" I have added "loginradius.com" as a identity management system, If someone is reading an article of Identity management he also need to know which are the service provider of Identity management, I think this link should also be added back again. Last but not least, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_density" you also delete a relevant citation link from this and also the part I have added in the reference link, I think I have added the correct link which was appropriate as per user point of view if the content mention thing about "seo" in the content. People should know "what is keyword density in seo" its all relevant and the most important thing updated and working links.

I have read the guidelines of wikipedia before adding links that's why I didn't add the link on a keyword. I believe you need to look at this matter on priority basis. If not, then its better for me that I should remove my account cause everytime I'll add a link you or someone else from your team will remove it. If wikipedia has given an user a authority to add links to relevant content, then people who are the reviewing the links should also need to learn in judging a link with proper analysis. Marina Elvis1 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Marina Elvis1

Please read the external links guideline again. If you've read them you haven't understood them. We do not add things merely because they are relevant. A local plumber would be relevant to the article on plumbing, but Wikipedia is not in the business of linking to businesses who are trying to sell related products or services. - MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

DeepCode removed from List of tools for static code analysis

Hello, wanted to ask why in this clean-up edit link DeepCode was removed? It is one of the best static analysis tools and is free for Open-Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskalev.boris (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a list of tools with Wikipedia articles. An external link isn't appropriate there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it thank you! I guess I will have to create an article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskalev.boris (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Info about TatukGIS was groundlessly removed from List of geographic information systems software

Hello, Please explain me why you deleted my supplement of the article about TatukGIS? --Michal.kowalczuk (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. Or the comment on your talk page that was made last time you added it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Last time, my entry was deleted by Mwtoews because of dead red link. You can find his answer on my talk page.
Now I DID NOT create a dead "red" link . Your comment is 'nonnotable entry' means that you gave a subjective opinion that information about TatukGIS is irrelevant.
I also add an external link like others in this article, e.g. reference number 6, 8, 13 - arcgis.com; 7 - carto.com; 10 - developer.here.com. All are links to non-wiki pages, but commercial products.
Why they are allowed? Please give me real reason for deleting my entry? --Michal.kowalczuk (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To quote the edit comment you saw at the top of the page when you hit the edit button: 'Only add links to Wikipedia articles'. Also, notability is a specifically defined jargon term on Wikipedia, not a subjective opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

govivace.com

Hi I'm Sahic1512, Mr.Ollie I request you to provide the page details so that I can review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, all your edits to Wikipedia are to add references to one particular company, so take your pick. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, since we serve in a particular niche and is surely contributing in educating the industry with the essence of healthy competition with the help of this platform. This is not there to advertise, with all due respect if that so then there are various companies here and they all should be removed.

Thanks. Sahilc1512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That there is other inappropriate spam on Wikipedia is a reason to remove that spam, not a reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

'we serve' If you are associated with Govivace, you should review the guidelines on conflict of interest. In particular, certain disclosures would be required by Wikipedia's terms of service. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am related to GoVivace in a certain manner and would like to accept I know I was conflicting with Wikipedia's guidelines. But there are certain places where I can do mention a company's products/services/contributions such as Comparison of antivirus software orList of seafood companies.

Thank you. Sahilc1512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs)

Not your own company, please. - MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

fine bubble diffuser

Hello,

You revered all of my changes to this page back to the original text. The miseducation of college engineering students worldwide with an article that contains numerous false statements about my field, written in poor English, is now on your conscience, not mine.

All that I did was try to fix some factual errors and bring the information up to date. There is such a thing as setting too high a bar for things, such that you discourage people acting in good faith from spending time on this.

When is a person's own field specific experience sufficient to make a factual statement that can be used? https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Thomas+E.+Frankel

As to the inaccuracies:

What is pumpage? Are there any manufacturers in the field today using PUR material? TPU yes, not PUR. Air is not used in the removal of Phosphorus from wastewater. In fact, it prevents its removal. Coarse bubble diffusers are less efficient than fine bubble diffusers, and they do not aide in bacterial growth. What is the activated sludge processing tank? Nobody says that. There are selectors, aeration basins, and clarifiers, not 'processing tanks'

The entire article is farcical, and you are defending it! Why don't you want Wikipedia to get better and help people actually learn things properly? Aside from correcting the gross inaccuracies, we could do so much more with this article, such as adding ORP and modern fine bubble aeration controls, blower types to feed the diffusers, etc...

Be a force for good.

- Tom Frankel — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomFrankel (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question buried in those personal attacks, a person's own field specific experience is never sufficient to put a factual statement in an article. Please read the policy on original research that I linked to on your talk page. Wikipedia summarizes sources so that readers can verify the sources of information. Wikipedia editors are simply not allowed to remove sourced material and substitute our own judgment, even if we think the sources are wrong. If you want to make corrections, you need to bring better, independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

COI

Hello, MrOllie!

The page Two Kings (book series) was flagged for a COI.

I'm not a Wikipedia experienced editor. I saw some issues on the page, added some sources.

Are you able to clean up or make right the issue that caused the flag?

That would be appreciated. (And, nice.)

Best.

Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but first can you disclose any connection you have with Rabbi Jacobs? Please note that per Wikipedia's terms of use, such disclosures might be required. See the guide to editing with a conflict of interest for details. - MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Private money page

Hello, MrOllie!

I've added relevant information about default on the loan, I've also cited a source and I just saw that you've sent me a message after removing my contribution.

I've basically explained what default on the loan means and the cited source is a Real Estate Investor's Glossary, so not a business page.

Plus, as you said in your message, Wikipedia provides nofollow links, most search engines ignore links with nofollow attributes.

So, could you please approve my contribution?

That would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you find a better source. We generally do not source information about financial products to the companies that are marketing those same products. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!

MrOllie, unfortunately.. I saw on several wiki pages contributions (also on "Hard money loan" wiki page - California Hard Money Direct) that include sources about products and services to companies that are selling those same products and services. So why is that allowed and my contribution isn't?

Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and not enough volunteers to do the work. You should not assume that the existence of badly sourced stuff that no one else has noticed yet means that I endorse it or that you should emulate it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but is this a real problem as long as you bring value? I mean, as a volunteer or as a regular visitor, would you prefer to see less content on Wikipedia instead of more that is also relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer only to see information which I'm sure is noteworthy and reliable, and nothing that that's trying to sell me something. Not all 'relevant' content belongs here, see WP:NOT. - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I only described what default on the loan means. I am not trying to sell anything nor to provide unreliable information, so I guess is not actually my case. Also, I saw that you removed some more content now on the Bare Metal Server wiki page. Did you took a look at Rackspace reference? Did you know that they are selling bare metal servers? Also.. Internap is Inap which also offers bare metal servers. I am emphasizing those aspects so you could be fair. BTW.. Andy Dingley just confirmed that there is no rule "commercial sites may not be used as references" so if you could just make another exception for Private Money wiki page and add my contribution related to "default on the loan" that would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk • contribs)

You left out the bit where he told you 'we do look at the quality of that reference, and the content it delivers, in relation to the promotional value with it' The site you're trying to add is way too promotional. Why the attachment to this particular web site? Just find a citation in the academic literature, it shouldn't be too hard. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Do you think those websites are inappropriate?

https://politaire.com/help/doubleeasthaven https://politaire.com/help/gypsy

If yes, Please tell me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo02-2002 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think my last edit on Golf Solitaire was just a gimmick on how the tabelau was arranged. Besides, third-party games do different golf and tri-peaks layouts such as Pyramid Golf and the face-down variants. Golf solitaire also have different tabelau shapes and sizes. Some layouts, shapes and sizes of golf and tri-peaks uses multiple decks of cards.

The art of the cards can also be used to match pairs of the same rank, add, build to foundations .etc

If some definition or variation's description is unique to some play online site or some vendor of game software, we shouldn't include it at all. See WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine

• sigh* Okay MrOllie. You got me, we shouldn't include some definition or variation's description is unique to some play online site or some vendor of game software. Besides, I had enough for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo02-2002 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aviation24.be

Requesting my text back, I don't understand why this should be deleted. I hardly had a chance to give my opinion. That site has appeared in 40 !! wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Luchtzak (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the guidelines on conflict interest editing and stop writing about and adding links to your own website. - MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis

Hi MrOllie, I've added WhiteHat Security Sentinel Source as another commercial static code analysis product under the list. I've removed the external link to it. Yet you have reverted this change. Please clarify. Sspone (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Douglas Brinkley Wikipedia

Hello! I am correcting his wikipedia and you are then stopping my changes. Can you please explain? Douglas Brinkley doesn't work at Audubon or American Heritage anymore for example, I am removing that to make this more accurate, along with adding additional updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColoradoMom11 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First, can you explain any association you have with Douglas Brinkley? Note that per Wikipedia's terms of use this disclosure may be required. - MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply! I appreciate learning more about Wikipedia and how to be a good contributor. I am building the official website for Doug and I'm amazed at all the inaccuracies on his wikipedia. He isn't an editor at American Heritage (which doesn't even exist) and he isn't an Audubon Magazine contributor. FX productions isn't doing an American Crime story. Among many other inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColoradoMom11 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. I appreciate that you're helping ensure Wikipedia is accurate! I realize now that I should better explain any change that I make, I will be much more detailed and diligent. Have a nice weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColoradoMom11 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Given your association with the subject, I highlty recommend that you read the conflict of interest guidelines linked on your talk page. The suggested practice for someone in your situation is to not edit the article directly and instead request changes via the article's talk page. You can find instructions linked in the message I left on your user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic Application Security Testing

Hi MrOllie, I've only Sentinel Dynamic as another commercial DAST product under the table. I've removed any external links to it. Yet you have just removed the entire table. Please clarify. Sspone (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The table never should have been there in the first place - Wikipedia practice is to avoid making lists of products like that on non-list articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

external links deletion on ShaderToy and DesmosGraph pages

Hi. You suppressed (twice) the external links I added toward blogs giving more advanced informations about the 2 topics. I have no conflict of interest with the teams/companies developing these 2 products ( BTW, may you please ask *before* deleting, rather than deleting first ? ). My employer: I'm a full time senior researcher at CNRS (public research center), France.

In addition I see you also deleted the external link to the standalone shadertoy program for iphone (which is an autonomous app, different to the online web page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice.Neyret (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us not split hairs - they were links to your blogs, right? - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Speech Recognition edits

Hi MrOllie, I noticed you have removed my edits again on speech recognition . I have also disclosed it on my page that i am paid contributor. Please state some strong reasons of your actions as there are numerous editors who cites their organizations for a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disclosing that you're a paid contributor does not give you a license to insert links to your employer. Keep it up and your account will likely be blocked by an admin as a link spammer. - MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But there are various users who have done this or are doing it. There are various companies like Nuance, Sensory Inc. who have their edits.

Please also provide a solution to it. Sahil C. 11:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Sahilc1512

link deletion on Software testing

Hi I changed the link for "iSQI's CAT Certified Agile Tester". Retrieved 30 January 2018. as it was a broken link if you try the link out it states page cannot be found, so from a user experience point of view, this is bad. I changed it to a live link which is still a iSQI's CAT Certified Agile Tester course - Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3665:2300:4B6:C587:74EE:9157 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You changed it to a promotional page for a third party company's training program. Better to leave it broken or remove it than to redirect unsuspecting users to advertising. - MrOllie (talk)

At MrOllie you could have used any link such as https://certifications.bcs.org/category/18255 or https://www.unicom.co.uk/certified-agile-tester.html or https://www.udemy.com/istqb-agile-testing/ I'm a user not a promoter, i thought i was helping and now removing the complete section of all training resources is just plain selfish - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3665:2300:4B6:C587:74EE:9157 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Music Download was reverted.

The data I posted was accurate and easily verified using any search engine. Why was this page reverted? My time is valuable.

"Rv unsourced opinions" I am 54 years old. I lived through the disco era and still buy dance music today. My edits are not opinions. Just about the only place I could hear "disco" in America in 1982 was in gay clubs or on Black radio stations. Also, critics at Allmusic.com have said as much about '80s dance/pop being disco rebranded. "In 1981, a lot of rock & rollers were claiming that the disco era was officially over. Disco, of course, never really died -- a lot of the dance-pop, house music, Hi-NRG, and Latin freestyle that was recorded in the '80s and '90s was essentially disco..." - Allmusic.com Chic Take It Off Album review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etsinta (talk • contribs)

See the policy forbidding original research. On wikipedia we all need to cite sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Link deletion on National Fire Protection Assocition and other topics in fire safety

Hi. You suppressed several external links, I added new standards and codes on the NFPA topics and you deleted too. My link are from an engineering consultancy specialising in fire safety. They are professional and have all certifications in this field. Can you tell me in wich field do you work and if you have any competences or experiences in fire safety ? Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theocbz (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You were spamming links to that firm across multiple articles. Of course they all got removed. - MrOllie (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Links to Hackhex.com

How so? I was adding reference to what I wrote, that's about it. Are we not allowed to do that now? If you think the links were invalid you should have removed the links instead of reverting the whole edit. AvalerionV (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You were adding links to your own website. See the guidelines on conflict of interest and citation spam. Please use only independent, high quality sources in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

dency.in

it's by mistake this is not spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashdeep21 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Monitoring Employees | GPS_TRACKING_UNIT |

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Thanks for reaching out to me for the issue. I was working on my research project and found that citation is missing and as a contributor to the Wikipedia added a link there which I used as a reference in my paper. I did not know what rule I violated. Sorry for the trouble caused to you from my side. if possible do let me know what point was missing in my article!

Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham7926 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

See the guideline on sourcing for the sorts of sources we use. That was a promotional blog from a GPS device vendor. We need sources that aren't trying to sell our readers anything. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the quick response! I read your point & the same article again also, I checked the other sources on the same page too: https://gotrack.com/types-gps-trackers/ right now 12th no. in reference any thoughts about them they do the same. Also, while reading the previous ref. article( which I cited) if you look into it they only referring to Wikipedia and sharing points. Although the Company do the same thing but so does our other sources too. Please look into it and help me out. As it's my Masters Paper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham7926 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Link deleted in Alexa Rank.

Greetings, I would like to know why my link was deleted to a huge list of websites ordered by Alexa. Normally, these lists are smaller and the information is not private either (anyone could collect it with enough time). I would like to know the causes to avoid more mistakes in the future, since I am a novice in this. Thanks.

Bgmaster (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was redundant with the official link. Is this your web site? - MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was the biggest list I found. Since they (Alexa) removed the one that had 1 million sites. I included it in the article two months ago but someone had to overwrite it at that time. But good leave it, it does not matter much either. Thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgmaster (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ollie

Review the changes again at here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology_in_India#Major_information_technology_hubs let me know this time it is appropriate or not. This is cruicial information of IT cities of India. if you can contribute more i would be glad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatav ajay (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Apology to you

I’m sorry, I’m interested in variants of rules that I just want to include variants of rules Leo02-2002 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

article Dream - addition: Historizing the Dream

Please check information on the volume on the internet - and you will find that this is a standard academic collection of article by 20 international dream researchers on the subject well deserving inclusion in the list - just as its two predecessors did. This is an edition of the Research Committee "DreamCultures", supervised by the ICLA (International Association of Literary Studies); cf. also www.dreamcultures.org.

ME2009 ME2009 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please detail exactly how you're associated? You're one of the researchers, correct? - MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

undoing of my edits

As per your edit on the page Cobza, I have re-added all of my constructive and good faith edits, simply removing the name to remove COI concerns, as you have done. Please in future leave a message on my talk page and we can discuss constructively instead of just vandalising my edits. Thanks. Jo Dusepo (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

1) I did leave a message on your talk page. Did you read the COI guidelines? 2) Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before wrongly (and offensively) calling edits 'vandalism' in the future. As long as you don't add more self promotion, I'm sure there won't be a problem. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit on ADD page reverted, no explanation

You cut a sectional fixe and an addition that I made to this page. This paragraph in particular has proven contentious, it needs absolutely to stand: <repeated paragraph cut>

I am accustomed to scientific writing, you can see my publication list here: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/D-1926-2009 however for wikipedia we need to remember that a general audience will be reading, in particular the ADD page will be read by newly diagnosed sufferers, often kids. For them to understand the disorder and the behaviours associated with it examples of actual people that they have heard of or can easily read further about should be valuable. The fact that a highly decorated olympic athlete, in particular, is happy to acknowledge being affected by the condition is valuable information that can help an ADHD sufferer or parent avoid the trap of defeatism in relation to the condition.

I re-organised the sectioning of the article because "Society" was a subsection of "Causes". This implicitly makes the claim that Society causes ADHD, a bold step and not really one which is supported by evidence.

To have a separate section "And Society" or "In society" makes more sense, and also provides a home for the paragraph I added, which could be considered as a stub inviting further contributions. I was disappointed that this was not immediately obvious to you.

JoshBerryman (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I cut the paragraph, and so did two other people. When someone reverts you, you should take it up at the article's talk page to gain consensus before proceeding, rather than edit warring to try to keep your text in the article. See WP:BRD for details. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Removals and changes

MrOllie

Earlier today, it seems that you may have generated a template onto a page I added content to. I apologize if it seemed that the content you reviewed was not useful. I do try hard to make sure that anything I add is a helpful and relevant add to a page. Please advise as to how I can help resolve this. Thank you BordenLene (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The article needs to be written based on reliable sources. With the sources it has now, it would be deleted if someone were to nominate it for AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie

I see that you have now nominated the page in question for deletion. I believe this is an incorrect assessment. I am relatively inexperienced at the Wikipedia editing process, so I am not certain how to respond within the Afd comments? It does seem that you are correct that the link to the comedy clubs website is now dead, and that the new version of their site has streamlined the list of included comics. So it appears to be that you are correct that the person in question is not currently on their website. However, I am very familiar with the persons work and know for certain that they are considered a regular at that club for about 10 years running. In fact the person is performing there in just a few weeks. So it is true that the person frequently performs at the stated club. Further, the podcasts referenced were both widely distributed through Libsyn, and outward by Apple and Google. It is fully verifiable that the current podcast has featured the guests that are referenced on the page, as the podcast is searchable in the public domain. The current podcast has also already appeared in the top movers and top 200 section of the major podcast platforms, in recent months. I can get you proof of that if you have a way for me to send that to you. The persons career as a prominent radio disc jockey is also at various places in the public domain. The person is a member of the private alumni association of one of the main radio stations mentioned. The other of the main stations mentioned at one time had a non Wikipedia page (and may still), that listed former personalities from the stations history, and the person in question was listed on it. I can get access to aircheck records of the person in question as the main disc jockey on at least 1 of the main radio stations discussed, if you have a way for me to provide those to you. The person in question has been in the public eye, through the various entertainment industry roles and jobs he has held, continuously since 1987. It would not be logical to remove such a page. Please advise as to how I can enter the content of this reply into the afd discussion. Thank you. BordenLene (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie

I have hunted the internet high and low, and found verification for the claims made on the page, that I think satisfies all of the questions surrounding this page. Can you please review the verification content I have added to the afd discussion, and maybe incorporate the verification into page content, and end the afd? Please advise. Thank you for your help. I believe you have likely improved the page by casuing me to find all of the verification sources I have found! BordenLene (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You've dug up some stuff, but it all looks to be affiliated or self-published sources. What is needed to keep a Wikipedia article are multiple independently written and published sources from outlets with strong reputations: newspaper articles, biographical books from reputable publishers, etc. I would recommend you read the links in my inital AFD statement for a start. - MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

article Dream - addition: Historizing the Dream

Indeed I am - as the initials in my not very cryptic username show. I understand quite well that you have to be careful about self-propagation and the like - but if you categorically exclude authors from adding the results of their research you will miss out on important additions to Wikipedia. Although the quality of articles has improved greatly throughout the years that of bibliographies remains deplorable - as is to be expected as in many cases the authors cannot be expected to have a full knowledge of the research area. As I said, my addition is just a suggestion - check information on the book and decide yourself if it is worthy of addition. And when you do so you might as well check www.dreamcultures.org for inclusion. It contains a fully searchable database of research literature on the dream, indexed by keywords, with already more than 5000 entries and is the most extensive database available on the internet. Just do some searches there on various subjects and review the results.

ME2009 ME2009 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Brand Equity

Hi, I tried to edit the article Brand Equity, adding a novel measure I recently used the Semantic Brand Score. This measure is supported by an respectable source and publication ( Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, The Semantic Brand Score, in Journal of Business Research, vol. 88, 2018-7, pp. 150–160, DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.026. ). I understand I cannot link draft articles (which I'm not doing anymore). But I think I can use external references, am I right? Can you please stop undoing my changes, or tell me why external references are not ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingtoshare (talk • contribs)

That's a primary source. It should have a secondary source, so we know what relative prominence to give it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact that there are other papers and a website which mention the Semantic Brand Score does not count as secondary source? See here the website: semanticbrandscore.com and papers who cite the metric, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815218304250 Somethingtoshare (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semanticbrandscore.com isn't independent. 'Semantic knowledge network inference across a range of stakeholders and communities of practice' is the only article that has cited the semantic brand score paper, according to the citation metrics. This is all less than a year old, likely a case of WP:TOSOON. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I saw the article presented at a conference (https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/288996/703997/) and I found online also another conference poster that mentioned it (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328306163_Brand_Intelligence_in_the_Era_of_Big_Data_Advances_in_the_Use_of_the_Semantic_Brand_Score). I am not aware of other sources, but these already make three, apart from my personal experience which of course counts nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingtoshare (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Semantic Brand Score

Can I also ask why you moved this article back to draft? Can I now move it to the article space without resubmitting it for review? In addition, after your edit, if I submit it for review I will restart the queque.Somethingtoshare (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't have secondary sources. Most of the sources you've used don't actually mention 'Semantic Brand Score' at all. If it were moved into article space in this condition it would likely be deleted at AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok so now I'm getting lost. Can you help me understand better? Thanks to your last edit, the page now says the article has multiple issues. How can I solve this? I will stop trying and wait for your answer, as you are too fast for me, I don't even get time to read and undo my edits :)Somethingtoshare (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources on the topic. (Papers written by unassociated researchers that are about this topic, newspaper articles, etc) we need them. We don't seem to have them. - MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I found two other sources, which however include the original author. Does this mean the article has to be deleted and later recreated as new citations arise? Or can it stay until new secondary sources arise?Somethingtoshare (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion guidelines say that there should be at least two sources that are independent (so they should not include the originator). It probably won't be deleted immediately, but it isn't compliant with Wikipedia's policies right now so would probably be deleted if someone puts it up for the deletion process. If you have more work to do on it and you want to make sure that doesn't happen, best to move it back to draft space. - MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. You were very helpful. I'll keep improving the article and add new independent sources as I find them.Somethingtoshare (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Systematic deletion of contributions

MrOllie I note that you have systematically gone through all my user contributions on various articles and deleted or reverted them all, without motivation or any discussion. This aggressive approach selectively targeting a user is profoundly demotivating for a senior academic like myself who is attempting to introduce contributions in his area of research, and frankly, I do not see the reason for this rather than a more collaborative approach. You have sent me a message on COI, which I sincerely thank you for an I have carefully reviewed. I am not attempting to promote anything or anyone, simply inserting carefully some references for the research we did in these areas, which is in agreement with the "Citing yourself" principles. Everything I had added is a summary of important results published on world-leading, peer-reviewed scientific journal, and backed up by citations. Everything I had added was absolutely on the same level as contributions given by others. I have added at most 1 citation to our work per article, together with citations to other works in most cases. With the above in mind, I am respectfully going to re-revert all of your deletions. If you think some of the things I have added are incorrect, or unnecessary or otherwise inappropriate, I am absolutely glad to discuss, but based on the specific scientific content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you read the COI guidelines and came out with the impression that systematically inserting your own name and work into various Wikipedia articles is appropriate, I would urge you to read the COI guidelines again. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to delete any explicit reference my name from all pages, for sure (though many other researchers have inserted their research with their names - I agree with you on this). But it does not seem to me that the COI guidelines write that it is forbidden to parsimoniously include one's research results, when they are relevant to the specific topic, backed up by a scientific publication that has been peer-reviewed, and presented in a balanced way. Am I incorrect? I do thank you for your guidance, by the way. I want to be respectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs)

When all you're doing on Wikipedia is inserting citations to your own papers, yes, you are incorrect. See WP:REFSPAM. You're obviously a subject matter expert, no doubt familiar with a wide range of results from research and researchers you're not affiliated with. Why not show that you're here to help build an encyclopedia and not here to promote yourself by writing content based on what others have done? - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please excuse me, but this is not what I have been doing. I have inserted several references to other work, too. And the spam policy dictates "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references.". I do not think what I have done is either illegittimate, or improper. These are few, key references to specific fields we have given well-recognized contributions that are widely acknowledges. Nowhere in the regulations I see that it is forbidden to contribute regarding own research. I does seem, however, inappropriate that you are specifically trolling me and deleting all my contributions again. Why not let the community discuss based on scientific content? If we have a disagreement on the content, absolutely let us discuss: whether it is illegitimate, inappropriate or otherwise. But here you are just targeting me as a user, it seems. Can we try to collaborate and be more constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the relevant noticeboard on this matter. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Depezo (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Snub dodecahedron

I am a complete beginner, thank you for being well stated, I too agree with Wikipedia's policies. So, I remade the alternate volume with no references. The two volumes are both correct, the new one is of a simpler order. If you are interested in these volumes, you may look at my Jupyter Notebook on the subject. Thank you Mark Adams Bookmarkadams (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Robotic arm-addition

Hello, Ok, I'll remove the prices from the comparison. But this not a sales guide. In fact, there are barely any options out there (robotics is expensive), just some startups from Kickstarter and the like. These aren't for commercial (industrial) use, they're for personal and educational use. That last one is an OPEN-SOURCE design with 3D-printed hardware. It is NOT a sales guide. How can you have an extremely small "Low-cost robotic arms" section without listing any? My changes should stay. Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechengbesteng (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia just isn't a place to build lists of things like this, unless they have some independent sourcing, in which case they would have independent Wikipedia articles. It's out of the project's scope. Wikipedia isn't here to host all information indiscriminately. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, and I dislike red links myself. I'm new enough to the editing game. I in fact wish those robot arms listed had their own Wikipedia pages. I have no affiliation with any of their owners, I just want people to know about them and I like robotics (mechanical engineering). Is there anything stopping me from making independent articles on these arms? Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as you can meet the sourcing requirements, no, nothing's stopping you. I would suggest that you make your first couple articles through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process - over there a volunteer will review and give feedback on your article before it hits the main article space. Going straight to main space can be a little rough: somebody might try to delete it early if the sourcing isn't 100%. - MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll check that out. Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletions from Open-source robotics Current systems and Middleware

While I understand your interpretation of WP:LINKFARM, are there indeed are quite a few links, you just wiped out half the page. There are people, like myself, who used this page as an encyclopedia on open-source robotics and not just for a brief description on them. This page, and nowhere else, enabled me to find real examples of open-source robotics projects. I don't think there is any point in people learning about open-source robotics on Wikipedia if the article doesn't refer them to any actual projects. I don't have a good solution to the linkfarm problem, but I disagree with just deleting all those links and the table of open-source hardware projects. Those links have a right to exist somewhere, and I don't know where else they would go. Is it possible to host that entire list elsewhere and have just one link to the list? Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You might want to look into curlie.org, that's a project that's specifically for curated collections of links. - MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, is there a problem with having a link on the OSR Wiki to such a list of links? Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I know it is a little counterintuitive, but most other wikis are on our list of links to avoid. - MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Replying MrOllie on His Reverting Actions on Dubai Mall and Dubai Trolley

Your words: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product.

The following's culled from the external links guideline you provided (I knew these things before my first Wikipedia edit ever): Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

Hello, MrOllie; how are you?

I am a veritable webmaster trained by Google and a sound graduate of English, one who carries out in-depth researches on Dubai-related topics. I hadn't been taught IT without etiquette. It is in the spirit I have imbibed from Google, I operate especially around the Internet. This could explain why you couldn't flush away my redactions of Dubai Mall and Dubai Trolley, but only the links I provided. But you should ask yourself candidly this question. Can the fact I provided be correct and the links wrong?

MrOllie, being truthful to oneself and reflective save that self. Pore over this: is that message you've sent me (part of which I quoted here, above) for me or a CC? I've asked because it's hard to see how it relates to my actions. I was very cautious as I trod. My intent here was never to violate any guideline. And if my redaction on both articles wasn't productive, you should have boot them beyond the horizon. Accusing or assuming can be very easy. But being critical and employing rethinks are virtues. When I, of necessity, redacted the article on Dubai Mall, I cared about the quality of certain external links I met but I had to leave them to be respectful.

Does Wikipedia debar the addition of relevant external links? Let's see some facts from the article you recommended:

1. Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.

2. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic. Each link I added was indubitably relevant and supports further studies. Wikipedia is a project meant to edify. Speak for it but not on your behalf or according to your own standards.

3. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. How had the pages I linked violated Wikipedia's external links guideline? It makes reference to common sense, which means we should use our discretion. In the foregoing connection, ergo, I have provided links for further research, none to a company's, or product's web page. In this way, I have asked you earlier on if your message was actually meant for me or it was a CC.

Consider this line of the guideline: The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

Since that has been said, common sense shows that some level of usufruct is given to the editor. And if at all, if ever at all, a fellow editor should blithely sweep away an external link without a heads-up, it should be that it is spammy or really abusive.

Your action has shown that you don't want any link to the articles at all excerpt for their official website's URLs. But you've seen the guideline you've recommended and given it, it, sadly, appears you're acting on your own standards.

MrOllie, while I can't vouch for other links which I met but didn't tamper with, I can vouch for the ones I provided that you flung away without consideration of the landing pages. They all are informative. See this part of the guideline as regards answering the question of a good page to link: Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Interestingly, you also shoved away a citation I made on Dubai Trolley. The very big question you should answer in this connection is: Why have you left the fact but have removed the foundation (the citation), when it is required by Wikipedia that for whatever fact you provide, you should provide a citation? Now, where is the citation to the facts that you've left on the article. I hope you didn't forget this part of the guideline: Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. Or this: This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section

I could undo your action but I want you to see these things.

You have requested for this talk and so I have given a tip of the iceberg. Reply responsibly as you have started. Thank you, MrOllie.

By the way, in conclusion, as a webmaster, I know just too well that Wikipedia external links are nofollow which do not pass Page rank as dofollow links do. And as regards, attracting visitors to a web page as you mentioned, wouldn't it be ridiculous to think a person would leave important things they are doing to redact a Wikipedia article with the prime of their day (Because that's what I spent on that Dubai Mall article) for some meagre visits? Given this knowledge, do you think I'd waste the time redacting articles hoping to insert a link into it when I know there'd be virtually no benefit from that?

I have been challenged, but I cannot but remain civil and contained. Once again, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsurfers (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is about the links to a tour operator that I removed. Tour operators are not good sources or links - see WP:ELNO point 5. If your primary goal here is to improve Wikipedia then you should just use higher quality sources from now on. I assume that adresses what you're saying above, your writing style is extremely difficult to understand. In particular, the word 'redact' does not mean what you seem to think it means. - MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie, how are you? Thanks for you prompt reply. If you pay more attention to my use of punctuation, you shouldn't be hard put to it to decipher my message. And you shouldn't be put out with how I've used the word redact as it is in a context. I'm sorry but if you've used that as your most valid point to justify that my writing style is extremely difficult to understand, it obviously didn't take. Remember I had implied I studied English. Given the foregoing, when I write it shouldn't be expected to be nothing but lofty.

Whether or not I'm here to improve Wikipedia is what I won't mention. My contributions which you didn't rebut or debunk show that.

For the record, why are you assuming, MrOllie? What good conclusion can be arrived at by virtue of assumptions? I have said being critical and employing rethinks are virtues. Saying my writing is difficult to comprehend implies that you haven't read all of my talk and, clearly, you didn't look up the pages the links I provided lead to. It is in that connection you have dubbed the site a tour operator. Please get back on the site, if you could book a tour on it, then you're justified. If you haven't confirmed what the site does (which is provide information about Dubai tourism) how can you conclude validly it's not a high quality source. It is abusive and veritably rude to reply a message you've not read. In this way, I think before replying this talk, you should kindly read the first.

It is indubitable you're handling these things frantically. To be more productive, take your time on these things as you're making a big decision which is not only sweeping away some relevant links but discouraging Wikipedians who together make Wikipedia what it is. If I'm not active here, I wouldn't know you took an action the very day you did. And while I'm always here watching and vetting articles, to ensure they aren't bogus, I don't play on them. If my intent isn't good, it'd be seen on my contributions -- Nemo dat quod non habet. You should look them up and see how cautiously I'm treading. Your action is a clear statement that I should stay aloof.

I can't vouch for other links but vet the links I provided and undo what you did to them, if you have to.

Success! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsurfers (talk • contribs)

OK, noted. I reviewed the links again and stand by my actions. The links are not appropriate for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, now that I have reviewed your site in more detail, I recommend you read the guidelines on conflict of interest, especially where they discuss linking your own websites. - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What difficulty is there to stand by your action? Anyone can do that. It won't cost you your life. If it were, would you still stand by it? Further, would standing by your action make it all correct? I have read the linchpin of the guideline you provided. See the the following as regards "how not to be a spammer": Contribute cited text, not bare links

I wonder how well you reviewed the links I provided. This link in particular was cited on Dubai Trolley. You swept it off without considering it. See if the page is cited or not and listen to your inner voice tell you it's inappropriate for Wikipedia.

This and this are some external links I relevantly provided for further studies according to my discretion. You removed them. But did you vet them? Do, and convince yourself they are inappropriate for Wikipedia.

You never showed how they are inappropriate; you just decreed they are. If it were on the basis of citation, then your position is unfounded, for the articles are well cited. If it were on the basis of the site's being a blog, it still is unfounded, according to the external links guideline, as blogs are not unacceptable simply because they are blogs. See: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. Probably you'd ask me if I'm an authority on providing information on Dubai Tourism. The guideline mentions common sense. So, in this way, would you say well written and cited articles/sources are unacceptable.

I'm a responsible person and right now I am boldly saying that what you've done should remain. By the way, I had only provided the links for further studies, for the benefit of concerned readers.

If you're taking this personally, understand eternally that no one nowhere is at your mercy.

Lead a good life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsurfers (talk • contribs)

If you had read the entire guideline, you would have seen that the very next sentence is 'This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.' This link obviously does not meet that standard. - MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, for your information it is considered quite rude on Wikipedia to edit your talk page comments after they have been replied to. - MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My edit came just after your reply, so you wouldn't be hard put to understand that I was editing it while you were replying. It's not as though this talk page is like some real-time app. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsurfers (talk • contribs)

Just after, 27 minutes later, who's counting? Anyway, now you know for the future. - MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No one's counting as yet. You are taking the position of a leader. That can't work when you take things personally, because you clearly are, and this indubitably has clad your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsurfers (talk • contribs)

I'm not the one who's here arguing to insert links to his personal web site. But now that you're telling me what I'm thinking and feeling, I'm just about done with this conversation. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You've not learnt still.

22/03/2019

I have pored over these things and have come to a resolution, a long time ago but I’m just getting to make it known now as I am not in haste with these things. If you feel insulted or your sensibility pricked and you’re being vengeful, you should carry out your vengeance within your space, not here on Wikipedia. I see the silly edits on Dubai Mall. What importance is removing the numbering of the mall’s attractions? Would that make it more organized? That’s only one; I’m ignoring other misconduct for space.

It is unclear why you’ve taken this matter personally, rather than professionally. You betrayed one streak — being puerile, and sadly also in your decision-making; further, blithely. Yet, no decision can be made here on Wikipedia in such a manner. If Wikipedia articles should be neutral as stated on Reliable Sources thus: “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view”, why do you think you shouldn’t act on neutral grounds but personal ones?

You were all negative. And this made me really wonder. Now I have found the rationale, namely you had an ulterior motive which in your sarcasm you made known: “I'm not the one who's here arguing to insert links to his personal web site”.

But that basis is untenable and unfounded. Yet, on it you’ve been and have acted grossly uncritically, assuming, being hasty and facile and thus paying no attention, among other things.

You have either been frantic or pernicious. I have seen your contributions on Wikipedia. You really don’t do more than stripping articles of external links.

You have condemned the links I provided on no valid basis. You’ve only given some bogusly generalized basis, manifest in the word, “inappropriate” (but never giving any specifics) and of course dubbing the site hastily as a tour operator until I made you take a closer look during which you found the site is not a tour operating site. Your discovery notwithstanding, without an apology, you, to reiterate, unflinchingly and uncritically dismissed the pages as inappropriate.

To put the foregoing differently, when you thought the links lead to a tour operating site, that was your excuse. You said reliable links can’t come from such sites. But when you found that it isn’t, you took a recourse to the adjective, inappropriate.

But by all that’s been said here about the guidelines, the articles are by no means inappropriate, not even if you say so a thousand times. Wikipedia is meant to inform or illumine, those links provided are part of this endeavour. But you seem to have the misconception that only official sites of the topic should be the only acceptable external links. But here’s what Wikipedia says (External Links) which debunks your misconception:

1. Some external links are welcome … but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.
2. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.

You’re an editor as I. The guidelines that bind my actions here bind yours, so you shouldn’t lord yourself or your decision over me or mine respectively (You should perforce respect my person). It’s for this reason I have said you should think no one nowhere is at your mercy. While I wasn’t all happy using that line (its relevance notwithstanding) and thus deleted it, you brought it back, saying it’s quite rude to edit a replied talk.

By saying these links are unacceptable and saying, “See the guidelines; see the guidelines” without specific bases doesn’t justify anything. Provide a specific basis.

You did provide some bases. You extended a quotation I pasted here which addresses featuring blogs and personal web pages. You exact word is: “If you had read the entire guideline, you would have seen that the very next sentence is 'This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.' This link obviously does not meet that standard.”

Sadly, and clearly the extension of the quotation you provided doesn’t state that they are absolutely unacceptable. In this light it can be seen that what Wikipedia wants is well researched sources. And for your information, the articles you dub inappropriate employ both primary and secondary data-sources. In contrast, arguably, Wikipedia articles only employ secondary sources. This is evident in the following line culled from Reliable sources: “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.”

The second basis you provided actually came out through your sarcasm. It culminates in your ulterior motive and your bias which you’ve concealed but which have steadily informed your hasty obnoxious decisions — decisions you’ve made without caring; those you’ve made with puerile ecstasy. To reiterate at this point, those links are for further studies meant to help readers. If you need to be reminded, Wikipedia says: “…acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.”

You strip links from articles and disregard the guidelines. For example, you disregard the guideline which shows the editor has some rights on external links. And in this connection as a contributor and never a lord, you’re to make recommendations and assist and not jealously and frantically delete links for the hell of it, or on some misconception.

You delete links on the basis of your hollow preconceived misconception. Clearly, you deleted the links I provided even before you could realize the site isn’t a tour operating site. You believe if the link is not directly affiliated to the topic, it shouldn’t be there. But that’s explicitly not in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

You have behaved as though you’re above the guidelines. You disrespect the persons of editors-cum-Wikipedians. You assume all who introduce links as idiots and this is on the basis of how you’ve handled my matter. Clearly, you didn’t even bother to read what I wrote. You only assume (I invite the world, in this connection, to see where you divulged this streak with “leaninberlin.de” telling them that “I suspect you knew this was linkspam going in” and he replied, “…In the future, please don't suspect things. Ask first”). And for the record, you replied my talk facilely. You’re an editor as I, not a lord over me. A good editor would be supportive, assistive, hearing-out, but you’ve betrayed vindictive, cantankerous, fault-finding, iffy and, to reiterate, frantic streaks.

MrOllie, given your failure to employ professionalism, your display of tantrum and your defiance of the guidelines, I can’t heed your eccentric whims. I can’t rely on your perception on the links. If the same articles were on CNN, BBC, Kaleej Times, Gulf News, TheNational.ae, New York Times, NBC etc, you wouldn’t have a problem with them. Your only issue is the belief that the site’s mine. But that’s squarely not a basis. Some other Wikipedian may vet those links but certainly you, and not someone affiliated to you. If I have the other links you’ve deleted, I’d have vetted them all and re-inserted the valid once. You’ve deleted them on a bogus preconceived misconception and you’ve done so frantically.

Can both fresh water and bitter water flow from the same spring (James 3:11)? I who’ve contributed constructively can’t recommend an invalid link. You’re very biased to have left my contributions but deleted the links I provided. I see some hardwork to clear them off though. This is much after our talk. The numbering I introduced has been removed. Which is more felicitous now, a numbered list or one not numbered? Given that my edits are fundamental, they can’t truly be removed.

I made the correction on Dubai Mall pointing out that Hysteria is an artificial haunted house, but you removed that and linked the term “haunted house” to a Wikipedia article which describes what a true haunted house means. For readers, indubitably, Hysteria in Dubai Mall is what that article describes, Hysteria is a veritable haunted house, but in actually it is only an attraction for entertainment. Is this not crass silliness?

As regards reliable links, see what Wikipedia says in Reliable sources and show me how these prove the links I provided are inappropriate:

1. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable. But you deleted the links I provided facilely and frantically without paying careful attention.
2. Editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
3. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used [even] in articles about scholarly issues, particularly [but not limited to] material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
4. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
5. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.
6. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
7. Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires.
8. Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process.
9. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not [note it didn’t say absolutely. It is in this connection it says, use common sense, and carefully weigh to judge whether it is reliable] acceptable. In this connection, see number one [which you obviously grossly flouted] again before making a decision.

Further in External links under the heading of Links to be considered, here’s what it says:

1. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

And further still, “Contribute cited text, not bare links” under how not to be a spammer in Spam.

But you disregard all. Subjecting every link to reduce Wikipedia to a link collection.

I will re-insert the relevant links I provided that you’ve deleted in your preconceived misconception into the respective pages. I didn’t add links irrelevantly or inappropriately, nor did I insert inappropriate links. This has been proven; if you think otherwise see the guidelines here again or refute the links culling texts from the guidelines. You saw nothing good but faults, yet without providing specifics.

I tell you responsibly, it’d be aberrant, abhorrent, repulsive, repugnant, reprehensible, gross incivility, rascally; and sheer and infelicitous nuisance of you to delete them. I’m not doing it surreptitiously. You have no basis to delete those links. I’d be glad that some Wikipedian vets them, but not you, never you — a Wikipedian who has no affiliation with you. And please delete links henceforth in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines, rather than taking these things into your hands.

And you did something else. You removed the links I provided on this conversation. I wonder what usufruct you have to do that. Those links are necessary evidences. You clearly have a preconceived misconception. Maybe you forgot this Wikipedia and not your property where on you can do whatever you please. You may go ahead and continue editing my talk but bear in mind that I have saved a copy of it as evidence.

I’m following you up as you seem needlessly pernicious. I welcome other editors to vet the links not you and not anyone affiliated to you, for your actions betray bias.

Wwsurfers (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

Hi MrOllie,

I completed my first edit yesterday - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence . In fact, I created an account for the sole purpose of doing so. May I ask why you reverted it?

Details on my edit:

In the section "Example of tax incidence" it is said, "If the farmer is able to pass the entire tax on to consumers by raising the price by $1, the product (apples) is price elastic to the consumer". Clearly, the price elasticity of demand would actually be perfectly inelastic.

Furthermore it goes on to say, "On the other hand, if the apple farmer is unable to raise prices because the product is price inelastic..." In such a case, the product's price elasticity of demand would be perfectly elastic.

My source is basic economic theory :)

All the best,

HamzahPatel007 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I misread what you were doing. My apologies. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Clean List"

What criteria did you use in determining which libraries to "clean" from the "Comparison of cryptography libraries" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.230.22 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed all the ones without preexisting Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I put up a bio page for an artist through disambiguation without it being undone?

I changed a redirect to a disambiguation page, which I think is fair, because Badari is a famous name! How do I go about this? Im new to Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalmouse (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We only list things that already have articles on disambiguation pages. As for creating a new article, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but be advised your article won't be accepted without the proper sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

leaninberlin.de

Why were my links remove? What is the reason they were considered inaporpriate? bsturzaBsturza (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to add links to your blog. See the external links guidelines, but I suspect you knew this was linkspam going in. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that i did not read guidelines and this was my first wikipedia edit. In the future, please don't suspect things. Ask first. Bsturza

Ref link removal from my articles

I had created and edited many articles on Wikipedia. Why did you only removed links of domain ranking films? Is Wikipedia only allowed IMDb links? I have spent long time writing those articles and all the ref links on my articles are genuine. Spam is considered in case of inappropriate external links. How could you remove genuine ref links just because they are not from IMDb? Jaimin26783 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guidelines on reliable sources (We don't use people's self published sites as sources) external links (We don't link to people's self published blog sites) and conflict of interest (Lots of stuff, but mainly you shouldn't link to your own websites or use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your works). - MrOllie (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Edition of "cross entropy"

Hi, I am Rodolfo Haber, researcher of CSIC(Spain). I have added two relevant references related with the definition and the application of cross-entropy method. Why have been deleted these references? Thank you in advance, Sincerely, Rodolfo Haber — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoHaber (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See the message about conflict of interest I already placed on your talk page: User talk:RodolfoHaber - MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

Dear MrOllie, Thank you for being such an active editor om Wikipedia! But when it comes to that article Cost estimation in software engineering, I cannot agree with you. There weren't any reliable sources in it. And I have added one reference to this article. Topic is the same, so please, tell me what's the problem? Thank you, --Moana122 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Moana122

Because, as you've been warned multiple times on your talk page, you are link spamming. If you continue you can expect your account to be blocked and/or the company website you're adding to be placed on our blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of referral link

Hello Mr. Ollie, I hope you are doing fine. I agree wikipedia is not a place to add links. Though I still feel it was relevant and so i added. Please guide me how to get linked. Thank you Smadhukar770 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Jared P. Scott filmmaker

MrOllie - Appreciate your diligence and editing throughout the wikiverse. My understanding is that my recent additions to Jared P. Scott had a NPOV and followed the BLP guidelines - written in a dispassionate tone. Appreciate any revisions to overstatement - as I was referencing IMDB - but you also removed reliable secondary sources (down to 6 from 15), dates of release on reputable outlets (Netflix, Starz, PBS). Agreed that the external links should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docfilmsmatter (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a number of citations were only supporting the exact dates and locations of film premiers. This is supposed to be a biographical article, which exact film festival happened to show a movie first really isn't all that important. We need to be summarizing biographical sources about Scott, not film reviews or blurbs in industry publications that list every film premier large and small. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and a couple of sources (for example https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/) didn't actually support the content they were supposed to be referencing. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do the Math was a film that was inspired by a speaking tour, which was inspired by a rolling stone article, which was inspired by a report (unburnable carbon). Trying to draw the link to environmentalist Bill McKibben's work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docfilmsmatter (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation was just a link to the rolling stone article. If you want to show a chain of inspiration, you need a citation that actually says that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy that. Understood that the inspiration isn't directly mentioned in citation. Docfilmsmatter (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We want to add in citations to news articles, eg NYTimes. This 'press' isn't always favorable, as you can see in the citations. But the news/reviews in the trades are credible sources. For example, one can't get a review in a publication without having a weeklong theatrical release in NYC or LA. Docfilmsmatter (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We is the community, in this case you/me. Would welcome your recommendations for release info (festivals, theatrical, airing/streaming) as this provides chronology of work, which has its merits. Dates/release are NPOV information. And they all establish legitimacy/availability. One would add that a certain album was released by a certain record label on a certain date, correct? Are you suggesting that all this information go under the work itself, not the author of said work. Docfilmsmatter (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you need to establish the notability of the author first. Without biographical sources that are primarily about Scott (not primarily about a film of his) you run the risk that the article will be deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. (See WP:NOTINHERITED). I'd hate for you to put a bunch of work into writing about his films that would ultimately be wasted. Wikipedians are used to seeing cite overload articles on people that are trying to cover over the fact that the person really isn't notable by listing lots of sources that are tangential or trivial mentions. Not that I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do here, but it is a common enough thing that you need to be aware that editors don't look kindly if that's the impression they get.- MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy that. This has all been very helpful. I'm, admittedly, not the most adept at this. For clarity: you are suggesting we include zero information on festival release, theatrical release, and streaming/airing release on this page? There are a few paragraphs that do include dates, and that NPOV information is relevant to my understanding of films, music, books. But I'm unclear on how to put dates in for the paragraphs/works if we don't mention nor differentiate the different releases. Film works always have different release dates for different types of releases.

Copy that on not over-citing and avoiding trivial mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docfilmsmatter (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest leaving the dates out (or at most, switching everything into chronological order and writing something like In 2013, Do the Math was released. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Some dates are important to the citation, eg, NYTimes Bestseller. I would have to go back and think about how best to list the dates - and would have to check sources. Not sure if it is my call to make - but you could remove the September 7, 2014 and April 21, 2013 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docfilmsmatter (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

promotional content/conflict of interest citations that don't add to the article

Dear Mr.Ollie, I don't know where is the CoI. I would like to know if you as moderator doesn't have conflict of interest in this topic or has the required knowledge to judge it. Sincerely, Roberto Hernandez (PhD candidate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohernan70 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not trying to add promotional/spammy links

Hey MrOllie, I was not trying to add promotional/spammy links to Wikipedia. In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing, resourceful information was added for the differences between MLM and pyramid schemes as a reference. For the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-level_marketing_companies (it was a semi-protected article though) - the reference link for 'Morinda, Inc' was added by the moderator as an additional reference for the list. I am so confused why the links were removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil thewriter (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Nikhil thewriter (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

1) That site has previously been spammed on Wikipedia by four other accounts. 2) Even if it isn't spam, blogs are not reliable sources, especially vendor blogs, which have a financial incentive to present information in a less than neutral way. The editor who answered your request to edit the semi protected article made a mistake. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

/* External links */ vandalisme, dont remove pre-existing data.

Mrollie ,slow down cowboy ,dont try to make wiki eidtor "editor-points" ,i see you try to manipulate your counts but its not good from you to make vandalisme in wiki, mass removing pre-existing 2-3 years working data without checking them,dont pretend to be smart boy or superman take it easy man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.184.84 (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what most of your message means (please slow down and spend more time on your writing) but as to your point that the links are 2-3 years old: Wikipedia is a big site with a lot to do and only so many editors. It may well have taken a few years for anyone who knows about the external links guidelines to notice that these links aren't compliant. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

you are idiot who delete others contribution to upgrade your edit counts

you are idiot who delete others contribution to upgrade your edit counts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.184.84 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Northern line signalling

I don't understand your revert to Northern line. The reason you gave is "Rv thales spam IP" which makes no sense. The reference was to Thales Group web site which sources the information in the article. Before I undo your reversion I wanted to check I'd not misunderstood anything. Regards, Bazza (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Check the IP's contribs. They've been repetitively adding that same content to dozens of articles (including a photo of a train in Singapore no matter where the train line actually is), trying to remove mentions of controversies involving Thales from various places. Typical undisclosed paid editing stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had come across the same on another page, and removed the odd photo from this one. However, the actual reference information is good, so I shall aim to reinstate it, reword the mention of Thales, and add another non-Thales reference alongside once I've found one. Bazza (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you know about Mehndi?

I don't understand about your knowledge about Mehndi. You do not know about Indian culture and what people really love to know. You removed Informative Reference which one is loved by people. I don't understand who authorized you to edit the unrelated topics by you. I strongly object your Un Ethic act and an unwanted message left for me. Please be in your limit. venkat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatam (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cluing me in

I'm still new and didn't realize those links I added weren't helpful. Is there a style guide or something similar that I can consult to give me more info on what kinds of additions to pages are actually helpful/preferred? ThanksE6slidefilm (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You can find the guideline specific to external links at Wikipedia:External links. For which kinds of sources we prefer, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There are lots and lots of policies, so don't feel overwhelmed, no one expects you to know everything right away. The best simple introduction with links to more detail is probably Wikipedia:Five pillars. There's also a tutorial kind of thing you can do at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization

Dear MrOllie,

You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis. I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored. My explanation is below. I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus. I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.

The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions. One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012. Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.

In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:

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

You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education.

It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans <ref>{{cite news |title=Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/repetitive-and-avoidable-mistakes.html |publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/11/simkovic-mcintyres-the-economic-value-of-a-law-degree.html|publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"...}}</ref> --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.<ref>{{cite news |title="Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202617450833/?slreturn=20190231121410 |publisher=The American Lawyer |date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>

Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."

Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on [[2]]

I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources. If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so. I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance. --Mbs6446 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your specific substantive reason for each of the deletions you have made as it pertains to the particular article, ::source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how do you believe that you are improving the quality of the underlying article ::by making those deletions. Mbs6446 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on real names

Dear Mr.Ollie,

Please see Wikipedia's policy on use of use of real names and on Wikipedia:Harassment and be more careful in your comments. Respond on substance and not with ad hominem attacks, in compliance with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎‎Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain the relevance of the policies you just linked? They seem completely off topic to me. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia policy on real names:

"Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase ::the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas. . . . Users may use their stage name, pen ::name, or other nickname as their username"

Thus your request for the identity of editors is inappropriate.

From the Wikipedia policy on Harassment:

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a ::specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the ::outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Thus your specific targeting of a particular individual on Wikipedia and deleting citations en masse based on the author of the ::material rather than the underlying substance and wikipedia's policies for reliable sources could be construed as a form of ::harassment.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits ::constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are ::subject to blocking.

Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct ::communication takes place."

You specifically reverted edits which improved wikipedia articles by providing reliable sources. Your edits were justified only by an off-wiki attack on the author of an academic article, not based on the individual substance of particular articles and how those sources enhance that article.

This could be construed as harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If you believe you are being harassed, I believe the proper venue is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your specific substantive reason for each of the deletions you have made as it pertains to the particular article, ::source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how do you believe that you are improving the quality of the underlying article ::by making those deletions. Mbs6446 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

Hey buddy, how about you slow down on the batch deletions of citations to sources and wait till we get this conflict of interest vs. harassment thing worked out. The page on Conflicts of interest clearly states:

"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline."Mbs6446 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Before each deletion, explain on the talk page, on substance, how your edits are improving the substance of wikipedia. Do not engage in Wikipedia:Harassment or edit warring. We're supposed to reach consensus on substance, which we clearly have not yet.

Please undo your edits until consensus on this issue can be reached.

bd2412 agrees that you're overdoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

Again, If you believe you are being harassed, I believe the proper venue is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I obviously disagree, so raising it over and over on my talk page isn't going to get you anywhere. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have administrative priviledges so I cannot file a report. Please see the policy against attempting to out editors. It is per se harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and kindly stop altering my comments. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see pages on outing which is per se harassment and stop attempting to out other editors. When you do so, your comments are supposed to be deleted immediately, per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is really such a problem an admin will take care of it. As an involved party, and someone whose experience on Wikipedia goes back all of a few hours, it would be better for your case if you left it to someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Dude, that could take weeks or months. The policy is clear. You're not supposed to attempt to out editors even when discussing a potential conflict of interest. And in any case, citing reliable academic sources is not a conflict of interest, it's improving wikipedia. While we're waiting for the Wheels of Wikipedia justice to turn, would you please tell me on substance one-by-one what is wrong with each of the citations you've deleted over the last few hours? My sense is that the sources are reliable, the material is relevant and on point, and the articles were often under-sourced beforehand. If some of the citations are appropriate and others are not, will you at least restore the appropriate ones instead of shooting first and sorting it all out later?Mbs6446 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: 'citing reliable academic sources is not a conflict of interest' no, not always. Re 'would you please tell me on substance one-by-one' No, I'm not going to begin a lengthy point by point discussion with someone who is actively pursuing a claim that I'm harrassing them. Someone neutral will come along soon enough. You started talk page discussions on the affected articles, which is what you should have done in the first place. Let the process work. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

See assume good faith. I'm free to edit before there's any controversy. My edits were non-disruptive additions of reliably sourced material. Numerous users have commented on you deleting massive amounts of material without providing adequate explanation. You are supposed to use the talk page before reverting, and you may not assume conflict of interest. You must prove that the edits are not substantive contributions that improve the wikipedia article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and see the warning templates above. If you don't have the time to participate in substantive discussions of each of your edits, then make fewer edits. Your behavior is inappropriate and rude.Mbs6446 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've got plenty of time for people who aren't attacking me personally. - MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you personally. I've repeatedly asked you to engage on substance on the talk page and politley pointed out wikipedia policies to you. You refused to engage in substance and told me you wouldn't change anything unless I submitted a harassment report. Then you told me I better not challenge you because of your experience as an editor on wikipedia, and used the excuse of the harassment report to refuse to engage on substance! But it is your refusal to engage on substance and your insistence that I file the harassment report instead which led to the harassment report. Now please either engage on substance and defend each of your edits or concede and revert your edits.Mbs6446 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Open Data

Can you tell me why my revision was reverted in Open data? - SylviaPage (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It was factually incorrect (Wikipedia is prose text, not data), it had incorrect grammar, and example lists don't belong in lead article sections. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Two Envelope Problem

Dear MrOllie, Dear Nic,

Why did you remove the reference Bruss (1996) from the wikipage Two Envelopes Problem. It is relevant for two reasons (1.easy to see the error, 2. error in the formal probability space.) It has been on the Page since around 2009 until Feb 2019, and it is necessary there, I think.

What is your reason, please?

Sincerely, 109.133.170.208 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Thomas Bruss

RefSpam question

I noticed that you appear to be removing references citing pieces by Michael Simkovic, including this edit. Am I missing something? Some of the references using him are indeed to questionable sources, but this one is to a fairly high-level law review. bd2412 T 16:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed a real law professor, and he does indeed publish in real outlets. It also appears that he has been adding references to his work from a series of sockpuppets for years. I noticed User:Mbs6446 today, which got me looking further. The one who originally added the edit you cite was User:TaxMaven99 used over a span of a few months a few years ago - there are more accounts. I'm in the process of collecting a full list for a WP:COIN post. This also caught some external attention here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it does seem reasonable to minimize his footprint here more or less on WP:DENY grounds, although I would suggest focusing on the referenced "Risk-Based Student Loans" piece, and take a lighter touch with other publications in more reputable sources. Perhaps we could initially flag those for review, rather than removing them right away? bd2412 T 17:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Ollie you deleted the page faizan athar jamali which was created by me. That page deserved to be on wikipedia. can you restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamfaizan01 (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete it, I placed a tag on it indicating that I didn't think it met our inclusion criteria. Athaenara then agreed and deleted it. I can't restore it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Franc Roddam

Hello.

I think that was a good reference you deleted from the Franc Roddam Page. Could It Be reverted? CardinalK9 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Linkspam_citing_Eoghan_Lyng..._Filter? - MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalK9 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion of "Trivial Proof" in Monty Hall problem page

I'm new here and fairly stupid. Please tell me how the proof I placed in the "Monty Hall problem" page (section "Trivial Proof") can become part of the page. It provides a simplification of the issue implied by the voluminous text below and frequently disputed by many who encounter the problem.The proof ends any question as to the solution to the problem. (And what is the four tilde signature about?) MichaelDavidKennedy) MichaelDavidKennedy (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It would need to be cited to a reliable source, as the other solutions in the article are. If it is something that you came up with yourself (and therefore can't be sourced), Wikipedia considers that to be original research, which policy says we should not include in articles. The four tilde signature is a shortcut that the wiki software will replace with your username and the time and date of your comment. It is required so people can figure out who wrote what in which order without digging through the page history. - MrOllie (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the WebGL link I publised recently

Dear MrOllie,

I understand your concerns with regard to the link I published and the post from another guy who put some info about "responsive design". Can we just leave the WebGL part without any references?

The part is:

WebGL (Web Graphics Library) is a modern JavaScript API for rendering interactive 3D graphics without the use of plug-ins. It allows interactive content such as 3D animations, visualizations and video explainers to presented users in the most intuitive way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkowel (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not likely to be challenged, so it could be unsourced. Or you could source it to the spec on khronos.org - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I will provide an appropriate link to a khronos.org page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkowel (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your harmful activity and cease to destroy my contributions!

I'm not paid for my content in any way, so please stop your harmful reverts which are against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkowel (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I find that pretty unlikely given your choice of username, but OK. Just stop inserting links to soft8soft and/or its products and everything will be fine. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Rugged Computer

Why are you deleting my edits on Rugged Computer??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwoffman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be a sales directory, so listing particular product models on a general article isn't on mission. - MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

not fare

I am an expert on LoRaWAN security, and I dont accept your accusations on the section I have added. Ibutun (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)ibutun

As an expert I'm sure you're familiar with a wide range of sources. Perhaps you could cite a few by other authors instead. - MrOllie (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Mrollie and kuru to be banned by wikipedia

These names are being operated as wikipedia employees and have been deliberarely deleting content of real editors and publishers for mere pennies they want to extract later secretly from them.

I urge the community to look into these logins immidiately and remove them from any publication. A legal notice has already been raised against these two login names and another one is operated by them is in the name of twinkle ....

Sign off Warrior and savior of wikipedia Will never allow spammers to win Vininpedia (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Open data 2

Can you tell me why delete our conversation about reverting my edition in Open data? I have additional arguments that you are wrong. According to accepted definition and hierarchy, all information can be considered as the data, but not all data can be сonsidered as the information (for example, see DIKW pyramid) SylviaPage (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sections on this page are archived by an automated process when they are inactive for a certain period of time. 'All information is data' is a pretty weak argument. No one would say a dictionary is open data. - MrOllie (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Two envelopes problem

MrOllie

The reference Bruss (1996) was, according to the published literature, the first one to point out that there is b o t h a contradiction in the probability space used to describe the experiment of exchanging envelopes (1996, Section 2) and a striking notational contradiction (1996, Section 3) in the definition of the expected payoff (as given in step 7 in the Wiki-page). Bruss (1996) is thus a reference which is very relevant for the interested reader, and no "self-promotion" in any way. This is why it has been there for some 10 years until you?, or iNic?, removed it. The priority should be respected and the reference B. (1996) should be in the article as it has been before, unless you or iNic? can give a convincing justification why not.

Thus please return to the previous version; otherwise you are kindly requested to write your justification to tbruss@ulb.ac.be

Yours sincerely, F.Thomas Bruss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.15.133.2 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is at Talk:Two_envelopes_problem, not here. If you have a source (one by a third party, not yourself) that can confirm what you're writing above you should bring it up there. Also see our guidelines on conflict of interest - you shouldn't be inserting references to yourself in Wikipedia. Instead, bring it up on the article talk page and see if neutral editors agree. - MrOllie (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

/* Serverscheck */

You claim that there is a financial stake behind this page which is not the case. I am not paid in any way for this. Directly or indirectly. Fond of it? Most certainly yes, paid for it? no. It is just mind blowing that there are trolls out there that delete the info from Wikipedia because they prefer other brands. If it were for SEO purposes, then I'd have done a bad job for that company - wouldn't I :-) I've tried to write it up in the most neutral and objective way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfieke (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Over a period of 13 years, your only edits to Wikipedia have been to insert promotion and references to this company. Please stop. - MrOllie (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Now it because of my past history and no longer the paid part. We're making progress :-) What promotion has been posted? Unless mistaken, there is simply none. References? yes of course as they contribute to enrich articles with content. Isn't that the purpose? There are many competing companies and products that are listed rightfully on Wikipedia, public and private. I am just not getting the logic behind it as to why a product that I like and that has notoriety is causing this reaction from you :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfieke (talk • contribs)

Your history is what makes your account's status as a single purpose promotional account obvious. If you're here to help build an encyclopedia rather than promote a single company I suggest you broaden your horizons. PS: Don't delete content from talk pages. - MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie my apologies for deleting. It was intended in good faith to end a discussion. But gosh I did not see that reaction coming. with all due respect but in your actions you've contradicted yourself. Let me clarify. You have removed reference links to contributions I've made because of what you call spam. However if it is spam, then why leave the contributed content intact? This contradicts your rationale on my contributions (branding them as spam). The content comes from copyrighted material so it must be referenced. You've even removed content that I posted that was not even linked to the company. Wikipedia claims to be inclusive but your comment of broadening my horizons is, with all due respect, uncalled for. It is even contradicted by your own actions: keeping content I contributed and just remove the source. I am knowledgeable in my area of expertise but apparently that is not good enough. I have to broaden my horizons. I am shocked about your last comment and can't imagine that this is what Wikipedia is about. I don't know what I did to upset you.Golfieke (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that stuff. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material. You never should have pasted copyrighted material into Wikipedia in the first place, even with citations. If I had known that I would have removed it myself. - MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on RIP Page

Regarding your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamercee. I'm not sure how to address the COI issue. It is an article I wrote and it is hosted on our website, but it is non-promotional, not does it reference any services we offer. We do not sell routing services, but we are experts in this area. We frequently use Quagga, Redhat, Windows and RIP in our organization and it seemed like a useful "give-back" to the community to share our knowledge. I think if you read the article, you'd agree there is no conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamercee (talk • contribs)

Guidelines on COI editing are pretty clear: you should avoid linking to your own blog or company on Wikipedia. Instead, you should always propose such links on the talk page and let an uninvolved editor add them (or decide not to). - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

/* Silicon-graphite composite electrodes */

Mr Ollie

I thank you for your feedback for the comments that I attempted to add to a couple of sections related to the use of silicon in lithium ion batteries.

While I acknowledge that I am professionally connected with the information added, I provided information in a factual and verifiable way that is relevant to the readers and for which I cited publicly available sources that support the information added.

I am shocked that it is not possible to provide this information to the readers (or that I should need to find a third party to add the same information, which is neutral, factual and useful). This is further surprising because it is obvious that another company (Amprius) has polluted these sections with self-serving information that is not factual and distort the perception of the readers. Simply put, Nanosys is the pioneer in growing nanowires on carbon-based substrates (including graphite) for use in lithium ion battery electrodes, as demonstrated by the priority dates of the patent applications filed between 2004 and 2009.

In fact, the CTO of Amprius, Constantin Ionel Stefan worked at Nanosys until he left for Amprius in November 2009 (see his LinkedIn Page) and he is a named co-inventors, together with our CTO (Yimin Zhu) who worked first at Nanosys and later at OneD Material, on all of the US patent applications and patents listed below, who are now owned by OneD Material and describe various silicon nanowires and graphite electrodes for batteries and fuel cells. Therefore, I believe that the information currently displayed on the sections that I attempted to improve today is not accurate and biased and request that the changes I propose, once verified, are then displayed. Thanks you. Mabspl (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This application is a Continuation of 14/868,273 09-28-2015 No Patented RE46,921 is a Division of 14/505,182 10-02-2014 No Patented RE45,703 is a Reissue of 12/391,057 02-23-2009 No Patented 8,278,011 is a Continuation-in-part of 11/808,760 06-12-2007 No Patented 7,842,432 is a Continuation-in-part of 11/601,842 11-20-2006 No Patented 7,939,218 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 60/801,377 05-19-2006 - Expired - is a Continuation-in-part of 11/295,133 12-06-2005 No Patented 7,179,561 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 60/738,100 11-21-2005 - Expired - Claims Priority from Provisional Application 60/634,472 12-09-2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabspl (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Mabspl (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That some other company has added promotional material to Wikipedia is not a reason to add more. And I'm not even sure that's what happened - the mentions of that company have reliable independent sources from reputable media outlets, unlike what you added. - MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You have now deleted prior content that had been there more than a year, citing EaglePicher licensing the technology. EaglePicher is a US company and a major supplier to NASA and to US DoD. On what basis do you delete now content that is from a reliable source? This is not fair or justified.Mabspl (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We generally don't use press releases as sources, especially for simple promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am starting to be concerned that you have some conflict of interest. Firstly, the information about EaglePicher licensing a technology was there for two years, and no changes was made. Why delete it now. Second, the announcing that the US Department of Defense has decided for strategic reason to provide a title 3 funding to have a certain anode technology manufactured on US soil is hardly a company promotional material and it is a significant piece of valuable information for the readers. In view of the rest of the content, I fear that you are displaying a biased view by allowing some information but not other to be added. This is called censorship.98.207.153.187 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a large website and there are only so many volunteers. It just happened to take a few years for someone to notice the inappropriate sourcing in this case. If the DoD stuff is so important, there should be lots of independent sourcing for it to use instead. RE: Censorship, I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means. - MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie: You have deleted the text I entered regarding the work of Hong Li et al in 2000, the work of G.W. Zhou in 2000, and the work of Bo Gao and otto Zhou in 2000, all pertinent to the section of research in silicon nanowires for lithium ion batteries. I provided for each the references in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I also indicated that I have no affiliation with any of these authors or the universities that they work for. I note that the article present work at Stanford by Y. Cui, who is a board member of Amprius (a company that he co-founded). This section, as written now, appears to suggest that the silicon nanowire anode was invented in 2007 by Stanford researcher, which is factually incorrect. THus, the readers need to be provided the references that I cited. This is not a paid contribution. The definition of censorship is the suppression of factual information from being provided to the public, on an unjustified and arbitrary basis. Please reinstate the language providing the work of these researchers and the peer-reviewed references in well established journals. Mabspl (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You need secondary sources to support some version (with the promotionalism scrubbed, of course) of the claims you're trying to put into the article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Forive me but I do not understand what you mean by "secondary source" in this context. I am merely supplying the references of published scientific articles, and stating that these articles describe the use of silicon nanowires with the alloying of lithium, as used in electrodes for electrochemical cells. A simple inspection of these articles' titles and abstract confirms that. Furthermore, the date of publication of these articles is 7 years prior to the date 2007 that is currently listed in the section to describe when this was first invented. If you care about the scientific validity of statements and the correct providing of sources to support these statements, please explain what need to be changed or added in specific terms. Right now, the section is misleading and incorrect and an honest person ready the three scientific articles that I listed (by Hong Li, by G.W. Zhou and by Bo Gao and Otto Zhou) will see that the statements as written are factual. Again there is nothing promotional about this, since it does not refer to any product and I am in no way paid directly or indirectly for providing this information. I am doing it because I care about wikipedia (I also do make gift contributions to help the non-profit status) and I am passionate about the truth. Right now, the section as written is portraying the work of Stanford Prof Cuy as pioneering and the company he founded Amprius, as the one that took a novel invention (silicon nanowires in the anode) and put into a commercial battery for the first time. That is simply not the truth, and I do not understand why you are preventing the addition of scientific peer-reviewed articles to let the readers be informed of earlier pioneering work by three researchers. Mabspl (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I want the section to be improved by adding a description of the pioneering work of the following researchers and providing the references to their work. If you want to write it, that is fine. If you want me to write it, I will follow your instructions. But leaving the section "as is" is not acceptable. Here is the work that must be cited:

1) Li, Hong; Huang, Xuejie; Chen, Liquan; Zhou, Guangwen; Zhang, Ze; Yu, Dapeng, “The crystal structural evolution of nano-Si anode caused by lithium insertion and extraction at room temperature”, Solid State Ionics 135, 181-191 (2000)

2) Zhou, G. W.; Li, Hong; Sun, H.P.; Yu, Dapeng; Wang, Y.Q.; Huang, Xuejie; Chen, Liquan; Zhang, Ze., “Controlled Li doping of Si nanowires by electrochemical insertion method”, Appl. Phys. Let. 75, 16. 2447-2449 (2000)

3) Gao, Bo; Sinha, Salon; Fleming, Les; Zhou, Otto Z., “Alloy Formation in Nanostructured Silicon”, Adv. Mater. 13, 11, 816-819 (2001)

One way or another, we will find a way to improve this section. Let's see if you have that goal too. Mabspl (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. I've linked these for you before, it is important that you read and follow them. You're providing primary sources: initial publications, patents, etc. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources: summary articles, newspapers, books, etc. Because of this sourcing problem, you're not properly supporting the content you're trying to add. A primary source can never support a claim that something was 'first', only that it was published on such and such a date. To claim someone invented something first, you need a secondary source. Further, that secondary source must be independently written, because that is how Wikipedia decides how to properly weight different claims. If no independent secondary source has seen fit to write about a claim, then so too must Wikipedia omit that claim. Re your passion for truth: that is a laudable value, but you're going to find Wikipedia very frustrating. Wikipedia specifically rejects editing based on truth in favor of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Even if we as editors know a claim to be true, it doesn't go on Wikipedia without a proper source. Or worse, if the only proper source contradicts the truth, we will print the contradiction. This is especially frustrating for people at the forefront of science, but Wikipedia is for the general public and must follow some distance behind. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, since you have previously stated that you are 'professionally connected with the information added' you should not add this to articles yourself. Propose changes on talk pages and see if others who have no connections agree with you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie:

Firstly, you did not quote me properly. I specifically wrote that I am NOT professionally connected to the information that I tried to add, i.e. the work done in 2000 by Hong Li, by GW Zhou and by Bo Gao and Otto Zhou. I do not have either a commercial or any other professional benefits from these researchers or their institutions. Secondly, I did read the guidelines and found that the section is full of information that does not comply and further that your interaction is not consistent with those guidelines. Thirdly, I am more than happy to remove the word "first" (the dates of 200o and 2001 for these publications will suffice to show any reader that other portion of this sections are factually incorrect. I am also happy to find a review of the prior art, and add that as a secondary source, identifying the work of these researchers as the primary sources. Now, should I do that myself or get someone else in academia to make the record correct? Mabspl (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment on your sentence: "This is especially frustrating for people at the forefront of science, but Wikipedia is for the general public and must follow some distance behind.". Please note that we are talking about adding the proper references on work done almost two decades ago on the use of silicon nanowires for anode of electrochemical cells. This is hardly something that is at the forefront of science, and more like correcting the record to give credit to the people that did the pioneering work. That is of interest to the general public, don't you think? Mabspl (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

1) I quoted your post dated '19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)', at the top of this section. 2) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'a review of prior art', (That's patent terminology, and keep in mind that Wikipedia considers very little of the output of the patent system to be usable, and even then in very limited circumstances) but if it is a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be good for a sentence or two. But we're not going to call anyone a pioneer in Wikipedia's voice without a good source. 3) Please don't 'get someone else in academia', you'll just run afowl of other guidelines that way. Start a section on the article talk page (not my user talk please) with the proposed source. Someone uninvolved will deal with it. 4) This isn't about about how much time has passed, this is about the secondary sources taking notice. - MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ollie: As said, you have misquoted me. By "professionally connected with the information" I meant I do have expertise in this field, and thus understand the information provided, but I am NOT professionally connected (in a business sense) to the people or institutions. I do want to add to the section that is both incomplete and incorrect, and I will do so by providing both credible primary and secondary sources, and avoiding words like "first" and avoiding patents, as you suggest. I hope that based on that you will stop deleting my additions. I see no reason for starting a new page, when I can contribute with making an existing one more correct with verifiable information, especially when the current section contains non-verifiable statements and incorrect statements. I do not see why you do not want the section in the user page to be improved: do you have a motivation that needs to be disclosed or do you have a basic aversion in having someone else correct or improve that page? Mabspl (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I do want it to be improved, but I haven't considered your attempts so far to be improvements. If you post more of the same I can't gaurantee that I or someone else won't revert again. That there is other poorly sourced stuff on Wikipedia is not a reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Thanks for raising awareness of inappropriate external links, however, the use of the external link in paragraph I wrote was not unusual. I made a factual edit and cited the source of a company that is servicing the innovative tech for building automation. There are limited sources for the tech because it's very recent. You could have simply removed the external link or made a revision of the text rather than completely removing the updated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.reed.d2i (talk • contribs)

No, it is textbook spam. If you keep adding promotional text and links like that, your account will be blocked and the URL added to the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate help then on updating the article to include recent innovations. Would you accept this as a valid source to cite: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/office-technology-smart-windows.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.reed.d2i (talk • contribs)

The NY times is a very good source. Just write in general terms and not in terms of the specific vendors mentioned in the piece and that should be more than fine. - MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please clarify then why it's permitted for certain types vendors to be cited as sources e.g. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_management_system "HVAC and Building Management Systems". Honeywell International Inc. Retrieved November 5, 2017.

"How A Building Management System Works". Advanced Control Corp. January 16, 2017. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
Building Geniuses. "What are Benefits of a BAS". KMC Controls. Retrieved 30 April 2018.

I had cited a specific company because it seemed to be the only one providing such IoT platform with mobile application integration and voice AI control for building automation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.reed.d2i (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you reverse my edition in God? You is a atheist? Carlos077 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What has that got to do with linking a page in the see also section for related reading? - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

/* 2004–2006: Just Be and appointment to the Order of Orange-Nassau */ Changed spammy link to a relevant article

The current link is being sent to "https://activeig.com/" - a website that sells Instagram followers which is a clear violation of Instagram's TOS and policy. That website should never be linked on any Wikipedia page. Your revert suggests you are ok with an irrelevant and possibly malicious website as a source. Please review.

Phiziks (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You switched it to a spam site that resells show tickets, which really isn't any better, is it? At any rate, I returned it to the original reference now. Amazing that the same link got hijacked for spam twice. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Original reference is a dead end link but alas, still better than a hijacked link. Phiziks (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding

I start by saying thank you for your job.

I know you are volunteer and I respect what you do. I also love the Wikipedia project and I contribute from there and then to sustain it.

You found out some of my contributions were linking to inappropriated resources.

I am rather sure you have dozens of users that feel smart enough to think they can get free backlinks to their websites through Wikipedia. I make no secret of my intention to give authority to my resources through Wikipedia.

What I don't support is the idea of my spamming Wikipedia.

I believe my contributions bring value to readers and I've spent time and effort to write it.

I am thrilled to the idea of contributing to such a big project and that people can find useful what I write and what I know.

I started my personal website (which I refer to) to keep trace of my progress and discovery. I am proud of what I do, I believe it is not unappropriate.

I am sure you can give a second look at my contributions ( at least to the first one on Housers) since I strongly believe I deserve your attention on this case.

https://www.revenue.land/blog/houserscom-opinions-risks-alternatives-review-no-cashback

Salvo2k (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you believe that the website I refer to is an eToro affiliate website. eToro affiliates earn up to 700usd to introduce new users investors. Lots of web resources about eToro are affiliated and untrustable since information comes from affiliates.

I imagine that a beginner investor can be easily charmed by eToro marketing, judge yourself [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmtrWbV780 this video] and imagine the potential effect on people.

I am against this model, I am not an affiliate payed to mention eToro and my contribution was a gentle warning to prospect investors in the right place. Please give it a second look if you can MrOllie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvo2k (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia just doesn't use people's self published blogs as sources. I understand that you have strong opinions about eToro's marketing, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish them. - MrOllie (talk)

Salvo2k (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer MrOllie.

Your point makes sense, I didn't know this rule. By the way it is also reported that in some cases it can be allowed to use self-published resources as sources. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources ) Some of the content of my website is published on academia.edu . We can believe that is also a reliable source that states I am an expert in my field. I don't enjoy this kind of self statements, but it is necessary to distinguish me from a spammer in this case.

I respect your time, still hope you can change your mind considering this new findings, but happy to have had response from you. Salvo2k (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Academia.edu will publish anything without vetting, so that doesn't qualify either. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding External Links

Hello, I have never ever put any spam links, the links were already present there. I Fixed the link as it was permanent 301 redirect. Both the links i fixed were completely relevant. Jacobsmiths89 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

They were 'already present' because you were the one who added them, as your edit history shows. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on external links and conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes acceptance at [[Artificial intelligence]

FYI: My "pending changes reviewer" hat was was only to see if it was spam etc.. After that I knew the edit was borderline but it looked interesting and relevant. You reverted it which was fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Tag added in my page by Mr Ollie

Hello, I got a email from Wikipedia: "The tag was added by a user named 'MrOllie'. I would recommend that you attempt to contact him here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie> as a first step to understand and respond to his concerns". Please let me know about your concern, better in my talk page, if you don't mind.

Best regards,

P.D. I'm not sure what it's mean sign with four tildes, but see below. Wiki-marshall (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The article contains non neutral wording, is over detailed, has off topic references and inappropriate inline external links, and generally deviates from English Wikipedia standards in lots of ways. It's also so long that I don't have time to fix it all at the moment, so lets see if the tag draws in someone with more time on their hands. - MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Hello MrOllie,

The article/page had been reviewed by several volunteers/contributors after updates and everything wrong had been fixed legally. I am receiving emails from people who visit the page about the credibility of it. People who visit the article and see the label conclude that what is said could be lie or false. The page target is for educational purposes and academic audience.

This means a professional discrediting for the name that appears on the page and can be understood as an offense. I only see two options, fix it and remove the tag or delete the Wikipedia page / article. If you don't have time and can't fix the page, I ask for the help or intervention of another third party among the Wikipedia volunteers/contributors to resolve this issue that professionally is harming the person and his name.

Please be kind and I thank you choose one of the two options, as long as the label continues in the article it's generating a bad reputation of who is referred.

Best regards, Wiki-marshall (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is an autobiography, though - that's a simple fact, you wrote the page yourself. 99% of it, anyway. The tag doesn't remotely imply that the information is false, just non-neutral (which it also is). But if you'd prefer that the whole article be deleted, you can place {{Db-author}} on the article to indicate that as the author you would like it to be deleted. I can't do this for you since I am not the article's author. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie,

Your arrogance and lack of information shows disrespect towards me. You can not judge me without having evidence of what you state. Your radicalism makes you the sole judge of what you want.

For your information that page has been created by me a long time ago but it's not me who manages it but people who know my work and my dedication to the propagation of culture and education.

Your accusation towards me is very serious without having the minimum foundation. You only notice that the user has my name and that presupposes that everything written is my responsibility. I don't need Wikipedia to promote my name or my professional work, but from what I see you hide yourself behind a nickname that gives you anonymity to say and do as you wish.

Indeed, the page is mine, and you being a contributor to Wikipedia can not be erected as dictator and agent of it. You can not delete the page but you can delete the content, and for that reason I ask you again to make the changes you have to make and remove the label.

And take care of the way to address people when you write, be a gentleman, do not blame without having proof, we are in the 21st century, the Inquisition, sir, is from other times and also the censorships.

Best regards, Wiki-marshall (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

PD: Usually I don't have or spend time on these "deaf ears" conversations, but by curiosity I read messages to "MrOllie" page from other people, and I have noticed that you are a spoiler, who doesn't respect anyone. In other words, I'm not the only one who has appreciated the lack of sensitivity with which you talk to other people and mocks with who has no experience editing Wikipedia. I hope you do not erase this, it's good for your collection of medals, and obviously you vandalize just like those who vandalize in Wikipedia. Now, if you feel happy with that, go ahead and delete all the contents of my page. Wikipedia is plenty of smart contributors that help so much and are very polite. Erase all and somebody else rebuild it again.

Enjoy.

Wiki-marshall (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Shared accounts are strictly against Wikipedia's policies. If what you wrote above is accurate, you should either restrict your account to one person going forward or expect it to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

When someone threatens to block something, the thesis of using power and force is fulfilled, it is an old custom used in the History of Humanity, for whom they have no more arguments for the debate. Go ahead, If you starts something, you must finish it. Karma exists. Wiki-marshall (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki-marshall (Delmi) asked at Teahouse that the autobiography tag be removed and I gave what I consider valid reasons why not - primarily that Delmi has been editing this article for years, has increased length by more than 10X, and much of the content appears to be unreferenced personal recollections. David notMD (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As the one who added the tag I, of course, agree. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your Edit on Calm

Hi MrOllie. I noticed you reverted the edit on Calm. I'd like to understand more - I'm assuming it's because the reference I used linked to the Meditation authors personal website, but I'd love to get clarification on this? IPProtect (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we would need a reliable secondary source. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. & thanks for your 11 years of contributions to Wikipedia. IPProtect (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your Edit on Mortgage Brokers

Hello MrOllie. I noticed you removed my entirely relevant edit to Mortage broker. I understand you are dutifully monitoring Wikipedia to ensure contributors follow best practice, however would you be kind enough to explain how my edit was 'promotional'? I was actually amazed o find there was no mention of Online brokers in the article as they are now part of the Fintech revolution that is set to reshape the Finance sector. The company I listed are the first to lead this revolution as a credible reference to cite. I look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucyHoad (talk • contribs) 09:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't allow advertising for particular companies, sorry. - MrOllie (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actions category

Hi MrOllie. I wish to add dieting to a very broad category about choice, which is called "actions". Can you tell me why that you don't like me doing that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formed4 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories that broad don't provide value to the readers. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I tried a speedy but it was contested, so I've sent it to XfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

When challenging sources

Hi there, I'm part of a group of disability activists, and I'm excited about improving Wikipedia's resources related to disability. I notice you've reverted some changes I've made to the Disability page based on improper sources. I've only just started learning how to contribute to Wikipedia. When you revert my changes, I can't tell how much content I need to rewrite.

Instead of reverting an entire change, would it be possible for you to change my citation to something like "citation needed"? How else can we reduce the extend to which I need to rewrite content?

I want to make Wikipedia's resources better, but my disability makes it so that having to rewrite text is no small task for me.

Thank you!

Thecalloutcrips (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed tags are sometimes used, but in general anyone may remove unsourced or improperly sourced content at any time. In both cases that I removed some of your content, I removed only the improperly sourced bit. In the first case that was the whole section, sure. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say "Lyng Spam"?

I don't think that the writer's work is bad- and Wikipedia references the Mail and The Sun, which are awful pieces of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.14.103 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We say it is spam because he's spamming it all over Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Linkspam_citing_Eoghan_Lyng..._Filter? - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and it applies to all those pieces which detailed his name. Why would you remove the Franc Roddam reference when its one of the few he's given? I mean, talk about coming to a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaldRiver (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Those pieces only apply when he credited himself with the pieces. Pieces from Culture Sonar without the name are fair game as anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaldRiver (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they are spam. Secondly, I am writing to report your colleague for his aggressive editorial warnings. We haven't mentioned Lyng's name, so what is the matter with putting in the piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaldRiver (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's spam either way. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

CVM

why did you remov factual information from the Oskar Fischinger entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:E30D:44A4:2C75:9320:302D:983A (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote the center for visual music. Who happens to currently own archival materials isn't relevant for a biography of an artist. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

usury

The clear, unambiguous, classic, timeless meaning of usury is listed - of course - as the lead definition on M-W: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usury?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

Why do you insist on inserting newspeak into this simple, straightforward, etymologically correct meaning. I'll be reverting the lead of this page to its proper alignment presently. Feel free to address in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggzuk (talk • contribs)

This issue affects multiple editors (you have been reverted by several other people) You should be discussing this on the article talk page, not my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Amyloidosis

Hello Mr. Ollie, I made 3 very minor changes on Amyloidosis yesterday, and I really can't understand how you deleted them.

Your extremely vague comment: Broken formatting, promotion of particular group and website means little. Of course there is "promotion of a group" because it is a section about support groups. There is no other way to provide the information that patient support groups exist. Perhaps you would prefer if everyone believes that there is only a support group in Australia and the rest of the world have none? And who wrote about the Australian group, if not members of it.

The most hard to understand is that you reverted a delete of a link to an ancient site one with no information on Amyloidosis, only a list of defunct links. Please explain how you think that this site has any value whatsoever and why you think providing a link to the authoritative patient information site is unhelpful.

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

Re: 'There is no other way to provide the information that patient support groups exist' this is not true - if you read the rest of the section you edited, you'll see it relies on citations to high quality independent sources such as the National Organization for Rare Disorders and the National Institutes of Health, not a simple link to a support group's website.

Re: The link to Curlie, that's a standard link directory site we use on articles such as Amyloidosis where there are lots of groups throughout the world that would want an external link. If we add one, we will rapidly end up with dozens, and link directories are off mission on Wikipedia. So we refer that work to sites which are intended to be link directories, such as Curlie. If you think their links are out of date, they accept editors there too, maybe you could help them curate their list better. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: There is quite a wide world outside of the United States. I just want to make sure that I understand what you want, do you prefer that an NHS site is cited which points to the site rather than citing the site itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielveredmb (talk • contribs)

Yes, Wikipedia standards are to use high quality, independent sources and to avoid promoting particular groups. - MrOllie (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Parapet Product Addition

Hi,

I want to add the Parapet GRC product. I did add it; however you deleted it.

What can I do to add the Parapet in the GRC product list?

Cheers, Hiren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaifly (talk • contribs)

That list is of existing Wikipedia articles, not external links. - MrOllie (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an article now about Parapet (IRM, ERM & GRC) . Can you please add Parapet to the product list? Cheers, Hiren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaifly (talk • contribs)

That article doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I expect that some new pages patroller will delete it shortly. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Dear MrOllie, Thank for dropping your message on my talk page about conflict of interest (COI) editing regarding one of my recent edit. But, I want to make sure you that none of my recent edits were paid one. And I'm well aware that the addition of any company to both of the page will get removed if the company is not notable as both of the pages are well maintained by the Wikipedia administrators. But, I want to contribute only useful content to Wikipedia and in terms of what I have made these edits which were reverted back by you but I feel that were the right edits that needed to stay there, so kindly revert your edits. I think you should review again and let it be there as it's usual edit and the company is notable too. I'll take extra care while contributing to Wikipedia but those entries were genuine ones. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladys howard (talk • contribs)

NPOV violation

Question on why a table showing past winners and runners up of a tournament violates Wikipedia's NPOV? We understand the link to the website and potentially being considered a promotion and therefore removed. The table, however, is a factual record of the tournament the state of AZ washers league has been running. Is there something we can do get the table put back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCAR76 (talk • contribs)

The table is shouldn't be there without a reliable secondary source. Basically, if the news media hasn't found it important enough to write about neither should Wikipedia. So if you can find something on the level of newspaper sources it could come back based on that source. - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Will digital sources of community news/announcements meet this criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCAR76 (talk • contribs)

Like a fansite? Probably not. See Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for details. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hex map

Hi MrOllie, I am 84 and have been editing news and views about abstract strategy board and table games submitted to St Albans cathedral over the past four decades. I have been trying to point out quietly since 1949 that Wladyslav got it wrong. Glinski hexagonal chess is nothing like orthodox western chess. Please help me put this right by publishing the collective decisions of those who have sent me ideas for "Roseboard news", now in its eighth volume (annually). How do I include a diagram?M J Jameson (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC) ==

The relevant publications are .pdf email attachments called "Roseboard Recipes Part1 to 6". Part 3 is on Chess and {{subst:unsigned:M J Jameson}}

Data Distribution Service (your rejection of my edits)

Dear Mr. Ollie, Thank you for the quick review of the proposed edits to the Data Distribution Service page. You rejected all of the edits on the basis of being too promotional.They were all cited external sources (with footnotes). The page itself is aged and the standard has progressed since the last entries. I would like to reinstate some of the edits. Can you please provide insight so we can get some of the changes done?

Thank you, L Canavan LFcanavan (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As an employee of the OMG, you should read over our guidelines on conflict of interest and Paid editing disclosures - note that those disclosures are required by Wikipedia's terms of use. Best practice for users in your position is to make Edit requests on the associated article talk pages so they can be reviewed by unaffiliated editors. Please spread this around your office, too. There has been a fair amount of editing in apparent violation of the terms of service by several user accounts associated with the OMG. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Ollie. Please note that I'm not an employee of OMG. My company is a member of OMG so I participate in the DDS workgroup (all volunteers).I will forward your recommendations to OMG. However, I would like to understand how as a subject matter expert and non-employee of the OMG, how I can have factual updates made to the page. Your guidance will be appreciated. Thank you! LFcanavan (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

+unclear why you reverted my post which included citations and facts?157.139.21.13 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Spam?

Hello! I have added some further references to some British-Jewish theatre playwrights. The links reference the individual playwright's entry at the online database and joint research project (Technical University of Brunswick and Hebrew University, Jerusalem) on Contemporary British-Jewish Theatre. I received a warning that my links are considered as spam. I was wondering why, as we do not profit financially in any way from the webpage, and only seek to highlight British-Jewish playwrights? Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banalername (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia spam is defined by activity and not by content. If you were adding the same link to lots of pages, Wikipedia editors consider that to be spamming, even if you're spamming a links to a nonprofit organization. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a link directory, so even links to worthy causes are often not welcome here. - MrOllie (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is 'blog sourced content' a problem if factual and backed up by credible sources?

I added content to the wikipedia page of Deaths of Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon. You deleted it (I think?) due to it being 'blog sourced content'. Why is this a problem? The information on the exact type of digital camera that was used is relevant for the story (and the mystery surrounding those nighttime photos) and factual correct. And the diary quotes are also double verified and taken from a TV program that is no available online outside of the Netherlands, where Lisanne Froons brother reads aloud from said diary. The page as it is now is seriously lacking in relevant details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet79 (talk • contribs)

Blogs are almost never good sources for Wikipedia, see WP:RS. There are some narrow exceptions, but none of those would apply here. If you got the info from some news outlet that does meet sourcing guidelines, you should reference that directly. - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I make a reference to a Dutch TV program then, an interview with her brother, which is only available in the Netherlands? In the blog the whole thing is written out. Like I said, as it stands now this page on the case is lacking in important details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet79 (talk • contribs)

See Help:Referencing_for_beginners, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film,_television,_or_video_recordings, and Template:Cite episode - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

Like I said; these are TV programs that are not available online outside of the Netherlands. I don't see the point of referring to it with all the right terminology, when nobody can check the source. Whereas I wrote the entire program and all its interesting details out in English. So referring to that means referring to my own source. Shame you are so rigid with this, the wikipedia page is worse than a basic press release at the moment in its lack of details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.243.238 (talk • contribs)

1) If you transcribed the whole show you are most likely hosting it in violation of copyright, and Wikipedia doesn't allow linking to copyright violations. 2) A reader can check that what you write on Wikipedia matches your blog, but if the show isn't available (as you say here) how can that reader check that you transcribed it correctly? - MrOllie (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Her brother gave information to the public about her exact diary entrances; translating that is no violation of any copyright. And insinuating that I 'may' misrepresent that in a literal translation is pure assumption. Anyone who speaks both Dutch and English would have caught me on such errors right away. But I get it, keep censoring away anyone who tries to improve these pages..

Immigrant Investor Programme

Dear MrOllie, Thank you for making an effort to keep content factual.

It appears, however, you are not very well versed in this industry. I would therefore recommend that you research a little more about the impact Civiquo is having in the alternative residency and citizenship industry, before making the decision that Civiquo's mention in this article is advertising, whilst the mention of other companies within the same article seems acceptable. Many Thanks.

Please do let me know why you feel that the edit being made is 'advertising', and any changes you would suggest so that it is not perceived as so, rather than reverting to removing the additional infomration completely. That would help educate us on how to go about adding the information we would like to add to this article.

Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.31.162 (talk • contribs)

I'm versed enough to know promotional language sourced to paid advertising ('sponsored content') when I see it. We'd need much higher quality sources, in particular these sources would need to be independent, not ones that have been paid by Civiquo. And much less promotional language. - MrOllie (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

u reverted my edit

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej0hio (talk • contribs)

Because you added a list entry without a corresponding article to a page that only lists games that have a preexisting article. - MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

legal education linkspam

Mr Ollie, I am putting up links to an educational body in the UK. It is not a spam entry. The other links on the page are mainly to dead organisations that are the same.

Why do you keep deleting things you know nothing about.

You keep saying the link to education body is spam. This is not spam. Educational bodies need to on the site. Try informing yourself before making stupid judgements — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanTanner (talk • contribs)

Educational bodies have an interest in promoting themselves and their products (courses) just like any other enterprise. We don't allow it on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You are a genius, the Page is full of the same link. Its not a spam link. Leave the page full of useless links and information. Well done, you genius — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanTanner (talk • contribs)

Cafetran Espresso

Hello, you recently deleted my entry on Cafetran Espresso from the page Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools because of it would be "the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries". First, it is not a list of only notable entries, it is a list comparing CAT software. It is meant to be exhaustive. Second, Cafetran Espresso, although new, is actually an important and growing software in the field of Translation, in particular among Linux users. There are now many forums dedicated to the software, and it is one of the most presented and discussed within the ProZ network of professional translators. And finally, it is already cited in other Wikipedia pages such as XLIFF (not my doing).

Best regards Nicolas Le Novère (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all. The first line of that article indicates that it is not exchaustive - like many such comparisons on Wikipedia, it lists things that already have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think there is no such rule. The fact that many comparisons on Wikipedia lists things that already have Wikipedia articles, does not mean we cannot have Wikipedia lists that have other entry, with links to external resources. I am not sure what you have against Espresso, but this deletion war is particularly silly IMHO Nicolas Gambardella Le Novère (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Domain of discourse

Thank you for reverting. I do not understand how it came that I deleted over 2k bytes. I thought I had only added the birth year, because I found it helpful in understanding that 1846 was not his year of birth. Do you have any idea what I might have done unintentionally to cause this great deletion? Could it be that i hit ctrl+i or ctrl+o ? Steue (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you were looking at an old version before you clicked the edit button? - MrOllie (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I can not figure out, what I did. But I shall be more carefull what keys I hit.
Steue (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

are you mentally retarded?

this is a serious question, if you are, then there is no need to question your actions, however, if you claim you are not mentally retarded you're going to have to do alot of apologizing and study to prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5000:d9a:9854:d510:a83a:ff6d (talk • contribs)

Your self published book is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Get it published through a reliable academic publisher and then maybe we can use it - but if you keep up the ranting and the legal threats then likely not even then. - MrOllie (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

re the recent add on the domino's page

I am the source. My name is Mark D. Saint Cyr. You can find me on facebook. I live in Mesa, Arizona. I worked for Domino's Pizza for about 30 months from, I think it was around June of 2013 until Feburary of 2016.

The policy, which I think may have been discontinued at this point, but I don't know, and I am not in every day contact with all people who still work there, or even many who did. Recently, when I tried to make mention of it at one point, to a delivery driver, when they screwed up on of my sister's orders recently, the person knew nothing about it or claimed to know nothing.

But for the entire period I worked there, it was a policy, enforced, both when I was a driver and when I was a assistant manager.

The issue I have with the policy, when I was working there, was I felt it created a 'hostile work environment', as I had a number of people who would never answer the phone with the policy in force, because they were tired of the excessive complaints.

One young man, Ryan Cox, a friend of mine on my Facebook page quit over it. He currently works for FEDEX, but if asked about it, I am sure he would verify that. He was a driver. You can find him on my Facebook contacts list. Other employees of Domino's that I am in contact with occassionally on Facebook include: Donald Pearson (a driver, whom I worked with at the store at Broadway and Gilbert), David Pearson (a driver, and later as an assistant manager, whom I worked with at the store at Mesa Drive and Southern in Mesa Arizona), Kevin Sigler (a driver, later as an assistant manager, and now currently serving in the US Army), Dustin Helsel (was an assistant manager when I used to work there, and may now be a store manager), Harmonie Icide (a driver, when I was an assistant manager at the store up on Country Club & University) Some current contacts, whom I did not work directly for include Steven D. Sandoval (whom I delivered to, when he was the Mesa Mountain View cafeteria manager), Thomas Sleeper (a customer a couple of times, but some I knew both before and after my time there, he had been moving in the Gilbert and Broadway stores area, when I was there as a driver), Kent Smith (an PT inside worker at Gilbert & Broadway, who works full time as a photographer, and goes to my sister's church).

Please feel free to go to Facebook and send me a contact request. I think it would be very hard to track down all those I mentioned above, without doing so.

I do have motives for trying to bring this to light, and if you take the time to find me on Facebook, I will be glad to share that with you, just what those are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denmar1701 (talk • contribs)

That's all very interesting, but Wikipedia requires sources such as newspaper articles. We can't ask all of our readers to send you facebook messages to verify what's written in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

SDP software

Hello, May I ask why did you remove red links to optimization software? Wouldn't it be better to complete the missing pages (which I am apparently not allowed to do)? The table is very incomplete now, giving a misleading information only about software that is "allowed" to have wikipedia page. I am a professor of optimization with 30+ years practice in the field, I am normally recommending Wikipedia pages to my students. Who else then developers and users of optimization software should publish these pages and tables? Thank you. Michal Kocvara m.kocvara@bham.ac.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.53.167 (talk • contribs)

Most list articles are navigation aids for finding stuff on the Wikipedia. If there's no content there isn't any reason to have a list entry. As for who should publish pages and tables: neutral, independent people, based on what is written in neutral, independently written sources. All your articles were deleted because they had zero independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Most Wiki articles about optimization software such as SNOPT refer to a journal article published by the authors of this software. How can these sources be independent? The page neutral, independently written sources says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" - what else is an article published in an international scientific journal that went under the scrutiny of reviewers and editors?

For instance, the table lists Mathematica as a software for SDP; the only source for this is Mathematica manual, there is no published article on this and, from my own experience (and experience of many others) the SDP software in Mathematica is much worse that that you have deleted (again, not only mine).

Also, what is "not neutral" on the sentence "xxx is software solving optimization problems" with a reference to a published journal article? These are pure facts, there is no interpretation, no promotion, no controversy here. I am not speaking only about my deleted articles but about any information on numerical software. Thanks, Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.53.167 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of work to do, and some pages aren't fully compliant with policy. If you have found some badly sourced content on Wikipedia that is a reason to fix that content, not to add more badly sourced content. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am only trying to argue that Wikipedia pages referring to published articles in reviewed international scientific journals are based on a "reliable published neutral source". This is not politics. In the deleted pages I just cited (freely) the first sentence of the abstract of that published article. No claims how great the software is, how many users it has, how is it better than others. In my opinion, this is neutral. Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.53.167 (talk • contribs)

Reliable and neutral are necessary, but not sufficient to have an article. We also need indications that someone uninvolved with the software's development has found it to be important enough to write about. - MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of PENNON/PENOPT/PENBMI/PENSDP software pages

Yes I am the author of the PEN* software; I am an academic, the software is being used by hundreds of mostly academic researchers. In the deleted pages I merely stated what does it do. Should I perhaps ask my colleague to submit it for me???

So I believe that these pages should not be speedily deleted because:

1. The software is listed in List_of_optimization_software and (not by me) in Mathematical_optimization_software - I have merely added the missing links; without them, any such list of software doesn't make much sense. Isn't that the main goal of Wikipedia - to deliver information to interested audience? These lists and tables are very useful but only when they contain links to further information, not just the name of the software.

2. All other software listed in the above tables have Wikipedia pages - most of that software is commercial (Tomlab, Midaco, WORPH, Mosek, Gurobi, ...) - what is then the difference???

3. The new pages (PENNON,PENBMI,PENSDP) contain the very basic information of what the software does, together with a reference to published articles and link to a relevant website; I don't see any promotion there.

4. The software is free for academic users (some for limited time but with renewable license), it does not need any promotion

5. The software is the only available software for nonlinear semidefinite programming - so if researchers is looking for a software to solve their problems, they should be able to find this information on Wikipedia

6. The PEN* software has been around for almost 20 years, it's being used by hundreds of mostly academic researchers, has hundreds of citations in scientific journals; I believe it deserves a Wiki page with a basic information (just like all the software in my point 2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talk • contribs)

Re: "Should I perhaps ask my colleague to submit it for me???"

No, that wouldn't help.

Re: "So I believe that these pages should not be speedily deleted because:"

I didn't have anything to do with the speedy deletion of the pages you added, so my talk page isn't the place to complain about this. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask there, that is a great place for new users to get assistance.

I will say that in general none of your points above bear any relation to the criteria Wikipedia uses for determining when an article should be kept. In particular, all articles need at least two independent sources. Webpages that you have put up or papers that you wrote do not count toward that requirement. - MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Who else then can set up any such page on research topic? An undergraduate student? I know personally most of the developers of optimization software, also my "competitors" are my colleagues. How else do you want to guarantee high quality of the Wikipedia pages if they cannot be written by experts in the field? Michal K.

If you look at any software listed in Mathematical_optimization_software, you will see that all of them refer to authors' webpages and authors' published papers. Please try to understand that the general rules of "two independent sources" just don't apply here; even if a third person wrote an encyclopedic page on Mathematical_optimization_software, they would always refer to the original articles describing it. My software has hundreds of citations ("to solve our problem, we used software PENNON") https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=hizPCIIAAAAJ&hl=en, should I perhaps list all of them as independent sources? Michal K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talk • contribs)

The sources must be substantially about the article topic, not mere mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and by that I wanted to point out that the "two independent sources" rule cannot be applied rigidly. Otherwise you can simply delete almost all pages on mathematical software. No one will write an article to NYT or Nature about, say, MOSEK, even if it is a great software used by thousand of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talk • contribs)

If a class of topics can't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards, that's a sign that Wikipedia isn't well suited for that sort of content. You could write about it on a personal site or perhaps a blog instead. If you would like to get Wikipedia policy changed, the way to do that is to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Even if I wanted to, I couldn't change it myself single handedly, so you're not going to get anywhere arguing on my user talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Several deletions

Dear MrOllie,

You've deleted several academic references and precise, sourced, and well-informed additions that I wrote on topics which I happen to know pretty well. And no, nobody has paid me to make these additions, nor am I promoting any publications that might not deserve to be quoted.

I was particularly shocked by your deletions of my additions to the entry 'Slavery in international law' and 'German-Polish Accord on East Silesia'. There are very few experts on these rather arcane topics (especially on the second one), and I happen to be one of these experts. The existing entries are actually pretty bad and comprise considerable factual errors. I tried to improve them marginally, using precise references that everybody can check and critique. I just resent the fact that somebody who might not know anything about these topics unilaterally decides to censor these additions because they feel that there might be a conflict of interest.

So unless you help me and tell me how to avoid this kind of situation, I guess I'll eventually have to join my many colleagues in academia who think that adding stuff to wikipedia is a waste of time.

all the best, Abubatta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abubatta (talk • contribs)

You should not be repetitively adding references to a single academic to every page you can think of, particularly ones that don't support or improve the article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, got it, just adding works of reference to the bibliography is not acceptable. However, I'm restoring my improvements of the entries 'Slavery in international law' and 'German-Polish Accord on East Silesia'. Actually, I'm even correcting the title of that latter entry, because it does not correspond to any existing treaty.Abubatta (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)comment added by Abubatta (talk • contribs)

If you think the page title should be changed, see WP:RM, don't just change it in the text. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

advertising or promotion

Hi MrOllie,

While you state that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. The way you added civetweb advertising and direct link to it on the Mongoose (web server) page is actually a very direct advertising of civetweb. It feels like you are not playing the same rules. The way to have it with no advertising is to leave the sentence as it was before "After the license change, Mongoose was forked & these different forks eventually diverged significantly with new features added.". That way it is actually unbiased.

novlean — Preceding unsigned comment added by novlean (talk • contribs)

Then fix only that, without adding pro-mongoose advertising. Unless you are employed by Mongoose (which seems likely looking at your contribution history), in which case you should review WP:PAID - certain disclosures would required by Wikipedia's terms of service first. - MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hydraulic fluid power information

Hi. You removed a link from the bottom of the hydraulics page. I did think it was a lot more relevant than the other links but reading previous comments I guess they should not really be there either. I'd appreciate your recommendations for how best we could contribute to the hydraulic, fluid power section. It is currently quite poor with limited, patchy information. The site I linked to (e4training.com), is written by myself and other hydraulic engineers, and is mostly free, but has far too much content to include in wikipedia so I thought a link was the easiest and quickest way to let people learn more. Alternately I could: add some headings and brief content with citation references? add some headings and brief content without references? add some youtube instructional videos or other graphics? add a link in a different place? Or would you recommend a different approach? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engadven (talk • contribs)

The best thing to do is to write text with citations - citations that meet our sourcing guidelines, which for a topic like this should be peer reviewed articles in reputable journals. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Brookfield, WI

You have deleted most of my work on the history section, although it was in my own words and was not just Ctrl+C'd. I have attempted to entirely rewrite that section, so if you delete that, there is no reason for that.

Sincerely, 23lobor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23lobor (talk • contribs)

There was clearly cutting and pasting from the town website there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Gray code references

Dear MrOllie, I was trying to improve and correct some of the articles on Gray codes, permutations and algorithms, by providing illustrations, references, and additional information on those topics (all of it well-sourced material), as it happens to be my own scientific area of expertise. I feel there must be a way to add references to papers and computational tools that were used to produce these results, to give attribute to the original authors of these (on the Gray code page, for instance, there are already numerous references to books where these Gray code listings were obtained from), even if one happens to be one of the authors. It would be quite arrogant to exclude experts on some topic just because they happen to have made contributions to this area (and so also happen to like that area). I understand the potential risk of a conflict of interest, but is there no third-person review system implemented on Wikipedia that would carefully review the material and decide on the inclusion in such cases? Thanks and best regards, Torsten Mutze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Mütze (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a third person review system. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Edit_requests. Wikipedia's COI guideline strongly recommends that any edits that present the appearance of a COI be made through talk page requests. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this additional information. So can I initiate such a talk page request in hindsight for all the material that I added on the Gray code page recently, or should I delete all the material, and then request inclusion again? Or can you start such a discussion as an administrator? Thanks and best regards Torsten Mütze —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, It was my mistake. I was checking the links some of which are going to Error 404 which is not a good experince for readers so wanted to change them with this url www.ievisa.com as this is the website which provide same information for reference. (InstaReviews (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC))

Delmi Alvarez

Hey, MrOllie! I've ripped this article back today in an attempt to get rid of at minimum all the personal reflections, etc. It's still in rough shape, but I've taken the autobiography tag off of it as it was embarrassing the not-ill-intentioned COI, who other than blanking the page has kept his promise to not edit directly. Could you take a look and see if that will work for you for now? I'm about worn out from the tedium lol. I'm hoping someone who understands photography placement will have an idea, as the photos uploaded by the article subject are fabulous and I'd like to see them stay on the page, but I'm not sure the best way of displaying them (other than it's not how they're displayed now lol). Best, --valereee (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now! Thanks so much for taking the article on. I would've helped cut it down myself, but the article subject apparently has an issue with me as the one who placed the tag, so I thought it best to mostly steer clear. As to the photos, there are probably too many for the length of the article as it is now. Maybe a [Commons gallery] could be set up and linked from our article here? - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I miss-corrected some spelling and grammar.

Hi, I'm sorry I changed a few words from one form of English to another in a recent edit. I didn't mean to do so in an offensive way, and neither do I know much about different forms of English. I used Grammarly to help with spelling and grammar without being aware of the miscorrections I made. I will do my best in undoing them if I can remember.

Reentering croatian (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reentering croatian

Your edit here also introduced new grammar errors. Automated tools have their place, but you must check the output carefully yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Tree Care Images

Hello,

I'm a bit confused as to why my changes have all been removed? I had updated images on multiple pages relating to tree care in order to provide more up-to-date images and images that show proper use of safety equipment as per national and international regulations.

TreeMinion15 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is currently in the midst of a kerfuffle over people sneaking product logos into images: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Gmortaia_vandalizing_pages_with_guerrilla_advertising Adding more images with prominent logos (such as the ones you just added) right now isn't wise. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If the equipment brands are a problem, I can try to use images with more concealed brand names, but the tree care industry is the deadliest profession in the United States when compared to the amount of people that are involved in the industry. It is important to portray the proper safety equipment and systems in these pages as they reach the newer workers in our industry who can see unsafe practices as acceptable if they are on a reputable website.

If the inclusion of the Notch brand is a problem, I can try to minimize the visibility of the branding images, but all of the gear we use has branding imagery visible. TreeMinion15 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Fletcher School Capstone/Student Research Section

Hi Mr. Ollie -- I submitted those links to be informative to users that students are encouraged and supported to create a piece of research at the end of their time at The Fletcher School. The link simply shows users where they can find examples of such capstones. I'm not sure what the issue is. Please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexiebowser (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is 1) that Wikipedia doesn't embed links in such a away and 2) The content that you're adding isn't really relevant for an encylopedia article. It has been removed by two editors. If you feel strongly that it should be included, please take that up at Talk:Fletcher_School_of_Law_and_Diplomacy so other editors may weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Artists’ Books Page

Appreciate your alert on COI. I do have a softer COI — which is being friends with an artist. That said, as an objective observer, that specific page is hugely skewed toward specific flavors of art — and has an enthusiastic embrace of avante Garde which makes it an unreliable source when compare with, for example, Joanna Drucker’s superb book on the topic.

This makes a difficult situation — because it appears the editor/contributors grind their own axes in what they contribute leaving the page so it is not a balanced source of information about artists’ books.

My goal in contributing is merely to sort out the page to be balanced. The gentleman I added (Timothy Ely) and who I am friends with is a very serious omission from a page claiming to be about artists’ books — Yale Prof Joanna Drucker uses his work as the primary example of artists’ books which are what she calls “auratic objects”. He appears in her book several times — an unusual occurrence in that book.

Any thoughts you might offer for leading an effort to establish a higher quality page would be appreciated. Dsgarnett (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dongles

Today I added two simple sentences, both backed up by photographs of physical objects.

Can you please provide specific reasons for the removal of the text and the photos. Are you claiming that the text is untrue and the photos are faked?

There are multiple statements in the article backed up by no citations, photographs or anything else - why are they still there?

I apologise if I have done something to annoy you but I really don't understand your motive for all this.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

replying on Talk:Dongle. Please don't duplicate your messages on my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Accepted - but do you get notified of changes to the talk page of an article you are monitoring? That's the only reason I put it in both places.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Phlebotomy Page

Hi Mr. Ollie. I am attempting to represent a Nationally Accredited Phlebotomy Certification company that through my research has been in business for 40 years. This is a significant omission from a page dedicated to Phlebotomy and referencing Phlebotomy Certification companies. I emailed the volunteer email address and they had said that referencing the site that way would be ok. Can you please provide some clarity as to how I should write these statements. I am not a spammer adding irrelevant content. I am actively working toward making sure an organization that I came across is represented here in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirrusitr (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, I'm the OTRS agent who explained that the problem was an inline citation, and suggested using a reference. While I haven't looked closely, it appears to be a link to the official relevant organization, and provides useful information rather than simply being a spam link. Can we discuss? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is really that there are quite a few companies offering these certifications, and there is really no reason that Wikipedia should be listing (and therefore promoting) this particular one instead of any of the others. - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: despite the official sounding name, they aren't any more official than their dozen or so competitors. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, My issue with that explanation is that the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists out a number of the organizations on that are already on this page. The citation to the https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/phlebotomists.htm#tab-4 clearly shows that these organizations play a major role in Phlebotomy Certification in the United States. I am strictly adding this organization to show wikipedia users what "other" organizations may look like as that statement is very ambiguous. There is no "promoting" being done with this citation. I do not agree with your assessment nor do I appreciate the SPAM tag that you placed on the latest citation. I am a new user to Wikipedia and it is very discouraging that my first post is being overly scrutinized. I can understand the missed citations early in my writing cause for post removal however after having a skilled wikipedia member from the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team provide direction, I do not understand the logic behind it's removal. I believe if the US Government makes a point to identify these organizations, they should all be represented on the page under the United States section. Cirrusitr (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

COI

Hi, thank you for the alert. I'm confused on the COI policy. I am paid by A Place for Mom, but provided edits to an article to clarify the differences between home care and home health care as well as who pays for that care. I provided valid source articles (including Medicare directly) with very specific information on these topic areas. Please let me know if the sources are problematic, or if as an employee of A Place for Mom I am not able to edit material directly related to my expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBarnettAC (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking provider directory services such as AgingCare don't make good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why removing DataMelt

I'm a new user, and today I was discouraged by Mr. Ollie. You rejected my very first article called DataMelt. It had totally legitimate external review in Java spectrum journal (an older version of Datamelt) See https://www.sigs-datacom.de/uploads/tx_dmjournals/rohe_JS_05_13_ad4s.pdf Maybe this was not very clear in my first submission.

Hello, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

This is a topic that has already been through Wikipedia's deletion process. You can see all the details on that at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataMelt. The review you mentioned here was brought up in that deletion discussion and not found to be sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. We're going to need new independent, reliable sources to reconsider that deletion decision. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also mention that you created three copies of your draft article: Draft:Datamelt, Draft:DataMelt and Draft:Dmelt. Two of these have since been deleted, but you have recreated one. Please work on only one copy of the draft - Draft:Datamelt is the oldest so you should be using that one. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this understood. But can you please say what Java spectrum review https://www.sigs-datacom.de/uploads/tx_dmjournals/rohe_JS_05_13_ad4s.pdf does not work in this case? Or article in Oracle.COM https://community.oracle.com/docs/DOC-982931 They are very well established sources.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

We need new sources, both of those have already been raised at the previous AFD. The Rohe source was discussed specifically. As to the oracle source, it's a blog on their community site. Blogs generally do not support arguments for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"New sources" is very subjective criteria in this case. It looks like that discussion in 2018 came from freelance editors (this was clear from the talk page). I've just read this blue box here https://jwork.org/wiki/DMelt:General/WikiForWiki . It is very sad this this had happen in wikipeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

Despite what the software author writes there, I don't see any indication that the old AFD process was tainted. But if you think it was, the place to raise that is at Deletion reviews. But you won't get anywhere without some evidence. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence is clear: Oracle.COM article is real article. It's in the section of article "archives" (see the top of this Oracle.COM page). And Java spectrum is a real article. Also, this software is among most cited math packages according to this survey [3] that analysed many recent online resources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 

Please Donot remove Such edits on the name of muhammad

Greetings... In Some Islamic Pages the name Muhammad is being used

Just to make it complete the word Prophet is used at the start and ﷺ is used at the end... This is in respect of the this only person... AliSyedShahidAli (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't use honorifics on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Muhammad - MrOllie (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Education Matrix

I think you have gained some misapprehension about me and about this article. The Education Matrix term and idea is not some thing I invented and is not something I am being paid for and was not even arisen out of an organization I belong to. Why are you being so averse to it? What is it that you don't like about it, or is something personal you have with me? Lets talk here or on the talk page of the article about whatever your issues are rather than reverting the changes constantly. It is beginning to feel like an edit war and that is inappropriate, and I have no idea what your actual issue with the content is. Thank you! Let's discuss this in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia rather than edit warring. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I already answered this on the article talk page, please keep discussions in one place. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dongles - request for advice

Almost all the content of the "Dongles" and "Software Protection dongles" articles consists of material without citation. Much of it consists of unsubstantiated assertions.

Some of the citations do not back up the assertions - for example, ones cited in relation to the Sinclair QL do not themselves contain the word "dongle".

Would you have any objections to removal of all this material from these two articles?

I ask only to ensure consistency in how the rules are interpreted and implemented.

FYI: yesterday the BBC ran an article which including reference to the over-editing of Wikipedia - see 23:10 onwards in the citation below.{{cite web |last1=BBC |title=The Conversation |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csynj9 |website=BBC World Service |publisher=BBC |accessdate=11 June 2019}} Trusley Mike (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As a conflicted editor, just as you shouldn't be adding content about yourself you shouldn't be removing content about others either. Instead, add a {{citeneeded}} template after the sentence(s) that you believe are missing citations. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Who follows up on citation requests that are never provided and why are some followed up but not others? Should every assertion have a citation request if one is not already there? Is it valid to take down citations which don't support the assertions made? I am merely seeking consistency. Trusley Mike (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

'Who follows up on citation requests that are never provided and why are some followed up but not others?' Wikipedia is run by volunteers. There's a lot to do and only so many people doing the work, so sometimes it can take a while, sometimes not. Since they're volunteers, users work on what they want when they want.

'Should every assertion have a citation request if one is not already there?' - Any material that is challenged needs a citation. Some material is never challenged ('The Sky is blue' type stuff) and so does not need citations.

'Is it valid to take down citations which don't support the assertions made?' Maybe? It is impossible to answer this question without context.

'I am merely seeking consistency.' You might want to take a look at a relevant guideline that addresses that sort of statement. - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that link - it explains a lot. Trusley Mike (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent cite spam

Hello MrOllie, I noticed you have removed recent cite spam regarding publications of Reza Hasmath (thank you). You are probably aware of past history, but just in case you are not a quick heads up: it seems like this pattern has been going on for years - see User:Oxf0, User:Socpol, User:Chinapol, User:IvoryTowerII, User:Megaiken, and IP: 70.74.220.89 (possibly more, just the ones I found). With so many SPA accounts and similar patterns involved, I don't believe in a coincidence. There may be a few valid usages that could be kept, but it's probably necessary to double-check every single usage. The author has a PhD, but is far from an acknowledged expert in the spammed topic areas (and even then the excessive cite spamming would be undue). GermanJoe (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd found a few of those accounts, but not all that you've listed. Search shows another 70 or so articles are effected. Some of these have been majorly effected. Ethnic minorities in China, for example, cites Hasmath 29 times, slanting the whole article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As the spamming continues, I have given the user a refspam warning for clarity and a final warning to stop it. I suppose the next step would require an admin or COI discussion, if the warnings keep being ignored. Just a quick PS for clarity: the user not only spams Hasmath's own work, but also interview articles in other publications based on Hasmath's statements. GermanJoe (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)