User talk:MrOllie/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Removal of legit link and information

I am wondering why you feel that you alone get to removed legitimate information about the Rapture on Wikipedia.

There are several well know authors on noted on the page as well as resources. Todd Strandberg and Rapture Ready has been featured by The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Time magazine, Wired magazine, and Inside Edition. Many of the people who contribute to the website are well known writers, authors, speakers, and Bible scholars who believe and teach the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church.

Todd Strandberg and Terry James have also authored many books, and have forewords written by Tim Lahaye. They are legit!

The Rapture Index is one of the most visited and notable pages online about the Pre-tribulation Rapture. It should be listed!

You should not be trying to harm others rights to contribute and only promote your own beliefs. That is not what wikipedia is all about. The section I am contributing to is the right area and pertinent information.

I am not Todd Strandberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristine Cotterman (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise web sites, no matter who you may be. - MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS a place to share information about subjects and obviously resources to learn more - like the names of authors and names of books written by them. If that is not advertising, neither is the link to the Rapture Index. It is no different, but purely Who and What. I may have to take this to the next step of arbitration. You cannot be the only contributor to this page and argue every edition just because you don't believe in it and feel you own this page and it's information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristine Cotterman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Dispute resolution procedures can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a resource such as the Rapture Index, is not soap boxing or self promoting. I am adding a resource, the same as books listed above. The Rapture Index is a tool for people to see what is happening in the world as it pertains to the PreTrib Rapture, which is the section I am contributing to. This is the same as a reference to an Author and a book. I also could add several books by Todd Standberg and Terry James, as they even have forewords by Tim Lahaye. They are very well connected. You do not own this subject, the Rapture, nor do you get to be the only one who contributes. I also see that you do this a lot on this page and never offer any suggestions to contributors. This tell me and others that you are trying to be the only contributor and are very well discriminating against anyone who contributes. Offer a suggestion, as my information is valid, or I will take it to arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristine Cotterman (talk • contribs)

Take it to arbitration, then. But I doubt they'll take the case. - MrOllie (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to "possible COI" designation

Hi MrOllie, I've replied to your "possible COI" designation, but I've done so on my own talk page, per your request at the top of this page. Not sure if you are watching my page for a reply, though, and I could use some help from you in getting the possible COI designation removed. The details are added to your section on my talk page, so I'd be happy to have your response there please? Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis page

Hi MrOllie,

I understand that my edit about CAST is to commercial. Would you accept this form of edit using existing styles and descriptions:

• CAST Highlight and CAST AIP  – Produce dashboards, visual displays and BOM of software components and dependencies at system-level by using static code analyzers to enforce security, improve quality and rework existing or legacy systems. Support for over 50 languages including ASP, C/C++, Fortran, Java/JEE technologies, IOS, Cobol, JCL,.NET, Oracle Forms, PHP, Scriptings, SQL Databases, NoSQL, Angular, AngularJS, HTML, JavaScript, JScript, ReactJS, TypeScript, VBScript, Node.js.

Thanks DamienPo (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's still pretty promotional. Are you employed by CAST? If so, certain disclosures are required by Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not paid contribution. Why is it promotional? DamienPo (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's not a paid contribution. But if you're otherwise employed or associated with CAST the disclosures may still be required. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you mean an indication on my talk page that it is not a paid contribution? I didn't find any other type of disclosure. DamienPo (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You're answering in a very specific way. I'm just trying to let you know that the issue is much broader than that. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't answer in a specific way, nor try to argument, I just try to get responses from you. What do you mean by issue is much broader?DamienPo (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, can you tell me what is the right thing to do to add this proposed entry without violating wikipedia rules? DamienPo (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

DamienPo, third opinion here: it definitely looks like marketing and buzzword speak (just because other entries on the list look like that doesn't make it okay, see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Also, as far as I can tell the tools don't have articles of their own, whereas every tool that I saw on that list has its own Wikipedia page. Entries on list pages are generally expected to have their own pages before they're notable enough to be on the list. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, thank you for your third opinion, I see your point. MrOllie, you can archive. DamienPo (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Lynch article: Please set proper name of organization back to uppercase "The Lynch Foundation"

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your work patrolling Wikipedia is typically bang on the mark. Kudos and thank you.

On 20 November 2019, your Wikipedia user account MrOllie used the JavaScript tool Twinkle to revert my well-described edit made on the same day. See

  https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Peter_Lynch&diff=927043524&oldid=927042899

Wikipedia is worse after you undid my work.

Your change description was "No, thanks". From a content perspective, this explanation lacks substance. Tonally, the description sounds as though it might be trying to be cute, glib, dismissive, and/or flippant. I'll assume the contrary. Hopefully you meant to convey positivity and respect.

I'm contacting you in accordance with phase 3 of Wikipedia's "Bold > Revert > Discuss" policy.

In the major dialects of English (British, American, etc.):

• The two words "a" and "an" are considered indefinite articles that precede and modify a noun. Likewise, "the" is considered a definite article. All three words are considered articles.

• A noun can be either a proper noun or a common noun. Similarly, a identifier can be either a proper name or a common name. Sometimes a proper name is a proper noun ("Oliver"). Other times a proper name contains multiple words, and thus is not technically a proper noun ("Neuschwanstein Castle").

• English grammar rules prescribe that the first letter of proper nouns and proper names be capitalized.

• The above capitalization rule holds whether the first word of the proper name is an article (e.g., The Lynch Foundation) or not (e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). It does not matter.

Here are sentences that demonstrate the correct case (upper case) of proper names that do not begin with an article:

• She likes the Eagles. (musical band's proper name is just "Eagles")
• She likes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
• She likes the Sydney Opera House.
• She likes the Wizard of Oz. (name of character)

Here are sentences that demonstrate the correct case (upper case) of proper names that do begin with an article:

• She likes The Hague. (city in the Netherlands)

 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Hague

• She likes The Daily Beast. (news and opinion website)

 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Daily_Beast

• She likes The Nature Conservancy. (charitable environmental org)

 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy

• She likes The Salvation Army. (TSA)

 https://www.salvationarmy.org/	

• She likes The Bitter End. (music venue in New York City)

 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Bitter_End

• She likes reading The Wizard of Oz. (name of movie)

• She likes The Stone Pony. (music venue in New Jersey, USA)

 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Stone_Pony 

• She likes The Lynch Foundation (subject philanthropy)

Here are some authoritative ways that we know the official proper name of Peter Lynch's philanthropic organization is "The Lynch Foundation":

• Legal Name reported in US government on Form 990-PF: THE LYNCH FOUNDATION

  https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/043017940_201812_990PF_2019052816349606.pdf

• Logo of The Lynch Foundation reads "The Lynch Foundation":

 https://projectplace.org/events/2019-open-door-gala/lynch-logo/

• The website of The Lynch Foundation refers to it as "The Lynch Foundation":

 http://www.thelynchfoundation.com/who-we-are

• In an effort to continue the legacy of our late Co-Founder, Carolyn A. Lynch, The Lynch Foundation maintains the ...
• Carolyn and Peter Lynch established The Lynch Foundation in order ...
• they founded The Lynch Foundation in 1988
• The reach of The Lynch Foundation spans far beyond our list of grantees.
• This allows The Lynch Foundation to serve the largest constituency

 http://www.thelynchfoundation.com/impact

• This map highlights some of the capital grants The Lynch Foundation has made within Massachusetts.

 http://www.thelynchfoundation.com/how-to-apply

• For more information about The Lynch Foundation, contact us...

• Officers of the organization refer to it as "The Lynch Foundation"

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-everett-b273b342/

There are other data, albeit less authoritative, that suggest the official proper name of Peter Lynch's philanthropic organization is "The Lynch Foundation". For example:

• web domain URI include "The": thelynchfoundation.com
• email domain includes "The": victoria@thelynchfoundation.com (Victoria Forman)

I don't wish to edit war or go to mediation. I want to honor your wonderful work patrolling Wikipedia, respect your thoughtful reasoning, and offer why "The Lynch Foundation" is correct.

In the Peter Lynch article, please have MrOllie set the proper name of organization back to "The Lynch Foundation". Thank you.

Cheers,
Mary
Marykartowski (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:INSTITUTIONS. We don't capitalize 'the', even when the institution in question prefers it. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As a bystander with no stake in the issue, I must say that this is not a matter of policy or preference, but one of correctness. Marykartowski gave detailed and extensive reasoning why the "the" must be capitalized in this case. Given that the "The" is part of the legal name of the organization and the examples she gave of proper usage, it is simply *incorrect* to lowercase the first word of the name. Please stop reverting correct usage. 2001:14BA:3F8:CD00:BC42:6835:9019:2562 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia's style is incorrect, the place to remedy that is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, not my personal talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't undo my edits on the article about Santa Claus!

When I was little, I had read this article. I was unclear on the meaning of "legendary." I thought it simply meant "very famous," as people use the word "legendary" in this sense very often today. Since Wikipedia is not a censorship, I don't want more kids to fall into the trap I fell into. Adding the word "fictional" is better, as it is more clear than the word "legendary," as people always use the word "fictional" to represent something that is not real. This way, it is clear to younger readers that Santa Claus does not exist.

Cutekids100 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

1) Undoing edits is a normal part of the editing process, see WP:BRD 2) Legendary is a perfectly clear word, and if you read any of the rest of the article it is clearly a mythological figure being discussed. - MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User: MrOllie

Hello MrOllie. I received your message regarding my edit to the playscapes entry. I did add a few citations, including my own, and was planning to add more information about playscapes and additional references when I returned to the task. The entry called for edits, but, given this is my first significant wikipedia edit, I did not realize there was a review/approval process for citations - I had not yet even figured out how to post them correctly. I have studied playscapes for over a decade with funding from the National Science Foundation, so I do consider myself an expert in this arena. This is why I responded to the wikipedia call. However, there are a number of others who have also been researching nature playscapes and I am sure they would be happy to contribute to wikipedia. I did not get to citing researchers I believe have done excellent work related to playscapes yet within my first edits, but the people I did include have done seminal work related to this topic in the US. There are several other prominent researchers from Australia, Sweden, and across the EU who you may also want add to the entry. More and more people are publishing their research in this area, but I believe it is important to highlight the history of a phenomenon. I will cease adding to this entry per your reprimand and my own time constraints. DrVCarrDrVCarr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Knowledge Academy

Hi MrOllie, I am new in Wikipedia editing. Nobody paid me to edit the article. The reason I updated the article because I have good knowledge in the educational institution and I will edit all educational institution pages in the coming date. The article I was updated has all source it was taken a whole day to research about the source. where I write the information and every information was 100% genuine. I don't know why you think they paid me. why you think it is paid promotional because nobody going to pay me to edit the article. Can you please revert back to my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9urav (talk • contribs)

Whether you were getting paid to add that material or not, Wikipedia articles must be neutral, not advertisements. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Why you think it not natural i have seen other educational insitution they have the same details like awards and accreditied by. That why i think that institute not have and then i searched on google and find the details of that company and also added all the sources where i got the inoformation. please check new horizons computer learning centers. they also have awards and recoginition. this institute not have that why i choose this institution as my first wikipedia editing article.@MrOllie: S9urav (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I researched all other educational institutions that are in the same category. And find Knowledge Academy(KA) did not have awards and recognition but others have. so I decided to add in(KA). it will take my whole day to research about all valid source. and I didn't know about we can bold the thing it looks like promotional. Can you please add awards and recognition and clients heading that I was updated. you can check all source. if you think anyone line which not have a valid source you have definitely delete them but not others which have.

It's very demotivating me that the first article I choose not approved. If you add that two headings so I will choose the next educational institute. and I also want to update revenue of KA according to 2019 and I had all valid source(companieshouse.gov.uk).

Thank you for guiding me. Please do not think the pay me any money. It's my personal interest because I'm good at find thing on the internet and after that, I choose the QA and another institute.

please revert back me @MrOllie:. Otherwise, let me update the article again. If you need any information from my side just let me know. S9urav (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to put the promotional section back in. If you have found some other article that has inappropriate promotion, that is a reason to fix that other article, not to add more promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, Can you please check the two-section which I have added before Awards and recognition and clients and let me know which section not have any valid source. I choose that section because I had found New_Horizons_Computer_Learning_Centers. I did not promote any company. I just want to enhance my skills. I choose this company as my first article because it had very less content compared to other institutional.

Can you guide me which line you want to remove in those two sections and why? It's helped me when I choose my second article because I think whichever article I will choose got the same problem.

@MrOllie:Thank you for helping me to learn more about Wikipedia. S9urav (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please revert back to me. @MrOllie: S9urav (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Una Marson

Hello! I honestly think my revision on Una Marson states the case better for Una's life after the War and sounds less hostile than the original!! For one thing, the use of the word "alleged" when referring to significant research funded by a highly reputable agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, seems to call in question the work itself. I'm not trying to disparage someone's scholarship here, but since no one knows for absolute sure at this point the precise circumstances of her life, better to use cautious language! I also clarified the (again) somewhat disparaging quote from Porgy and Bess, indicating this was an unpublished manuscript. The language in this section seems overtly hostile and if Wikipedia wants to be neutral, language matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeport47 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Social network analysis software (non-notable examples)

Dear MrOllie,

can you maybe elaborate (or link) on what helps a mention on a list to be notable instead of non-notable? From what I read in other sections on this talk page, it is recommended to have an own page first. Is this the only option? E.g. - as a reference for my edit I included both an Encyclopedia with a chapter about Software Tools mentioning the tool and an example of an external team using the software.

Thanks in advance! Fabratu (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria vary from list to list. That one is a list of things that already have a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to your reply

Hello MrOllie,

Sure, I am self-promoting in the sense that I am a psychoanalyst and work towards ensuring my field is accurately represented and in so doing exercise self-interest. But you are wrong to think I have spent time on this because I would like to have a few no-follow links that might attract 5 clicks. Wouldn't that be wasted time?

Anyway, I think we have both spent enough time on this. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but my goodness the frustration brought as one repeatedly witnesses carefully crafted thoughtful nuanced input erased in favor of something straight out of an undergrad textbook is hard to bare.

Take care.

Enzosinisi (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of unreliably sourced material in Medievia

re: special:diff/928259387, my edit summary explained this situation succinctly. The section is sourced entirely to unreliable, primary sources. Not only is it bad form to have "controversy" sections but to have it exist as a series of original research? Very surprised to see your revert restore such material. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The controversy is the major reason to that software's notability. For instance, that is what the article in The Computer Games Journal I just found is about. - MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You Are Wrong

Dymo does not make Industrial Printers where as Zebra is the leading brand of Industrial printers. The labelsontime article was up to date with more information that the current reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossendryv (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't use vendor sites or blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Consumer Watchdog external link

Why Consumer Watchdogreport about Kill switch at internet connected cars was deleted from Security switch article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidy2001 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not use advocacy sites as external links, see WP:EL - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

My Contributions to 3D and 4D Printing

Hi Mr.Ollie,

I have just read your reply and appreciate you pointing me toward the correct resources for how to properly contribute to wikipedia articles. I agree that I was contributing in order to promote some of my work, however, I have also added many important contributions from other authors and cited other works which deserve citation but have been left out. I will review my contributions and ensure that the work cited is the best work in the field and is not self-promoting or spam to ensure the quality of the articles.

In addition, I have updated many grammatical errors and improved the wording of a lot of the articles that I've edited.

Thanks, Devin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinjroach (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Just avoid citing yourself directly from now on (read over WP:COI and make talk page suggestions when you have a conflict) and everything should be fine going forward. - MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie - can you give me specifics on how to avoid self-citation? I suppose you want me to avoid mentioning my name? Some of the works I have published, however, ARE important contributions to the fields and have been cited many times (over 10) in just the past year in review articles. Please let me know how we can resolve this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinjroach (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read over WP:COI, as I suggested. If you believe that citing something you wrote or a mention of your work is absolutely required, follow the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Edit requests so a non-conflicted editor is in the loop. Do not revert to versions that cite your work. - MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will request that a non-conflicted editor is in the loop. For now I will simply revert to a version that doesn't cite my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinjroach (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You should stop editing these articles at all. Edit warring to keep your citations in (as you have been doing) is flatly against Wikipedia policy. - MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't stop editing these articles until they're better. I'm passionate about this field and the current articles, as they were written, were horrible for anyone actually hoping to learn about the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinjroach (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you wouldn't be in the field if you weren't passionate about it, but it is exactly that passion that is making it impossible for you to slow down, read Wikipedia's editing policies, and comply with them. - MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits on OLED

Dear MrOllie. I would like to make my point about the reverts you've made.

1. Printing method It is an emerging technology differ from conventional evaporation methods and JOLED is the first to commercialize it. I don't see any reason why the entire section had to be removed and the citations was considered unreliable.

2. OVJP Description about the technology was already there. All I did was clarifying that OVJP is UDC's trademarked technology and the company is the one develops it. Again, I doubt your judgment.

3. Backplane technology Original description was outdated so I added a sentence about the IGZO TFT.

4. LG's rollable TV Samsung's demonstration of roll out display was already mentioned. All I did was adding the first commercial product.

5. OLED taillights The entire section was already there. All I did was adding citations and the fact that the manufacturer of the taillights was OSRAM.

6. Lighting The sentence was already there. All I did was get it a new paragraph.

Hyo150105 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Vendors and manufacturers are often not reliable sources, which should not be surprising. Their statements are self published, and are generally made to promote or sell something, not to present balanced (or accurate) information. Wikipedia is also not a trade magazine - we should not be namedropping vendors or manufacturers. We are here to write about what technology is, not where technology may be purchased. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration. But my edits are not particularily namedropping or sourcing vendors. And as I said, some of the parts you deleted were already there before my edits. There are tones of sentences that have to be removed if we are to exclude all the first hand sources and company names. It's impossible since OLED is a commercialized technology, now being mainly developed by private entities. You are accusing me of namedropping for following what other people have done. And if you found certain citations unreliable then you could've just added better citation needed instead of removing entire sentences. Why did you revert the entire section? The part mentioning IGZO TFT wasn't even citing a company name or anything. Please clarify more about your reverts. - Hyo150105 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not able to list patents granted to Andy Flessas?

Please let me know what the reason for removing the list of patents granted is. Thanks! Joet99 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. Unless some reliable third party deems the patents important enough to list, Wikipedia shouldn't list them either. - MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Would that requirement also apply to a company page? Joet99 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

All my contributions have been removed

Hello Sir/Mam,

The Edit to Machine Translation which you just flagged is not promotional. It adds value to the content on the Machine Translation page. You can remove about the project "TranslateMe" if you like but people definitely would like to know about decentralized machine translation systems.

Also, my second edit has also been undone. I don't think that it's promotional.

Could you please check?

Sincerely, The Lemonade Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelemonadeguy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I double checked. Your edits are promotional, and/or adding links to inappropriate sources such as blogs and press releases. They do not add value. - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Technology forecasting

Hello MrOllie, I have just read your reply and I am confused why you thought my work is unsourced opinion. I use my own words to write article so how can it be unsourced opinion. I tried to polish the article which was unclear and uncompleted. You can revise my work but please do not delete all for unclear reason. I spent too much time on my work. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzw8 (talk • contribs)

It is unsourced opinion because you are literally adding your own opinions to the article and not basing your additions on cited sources. This is against Wikipedia's basic content policies, specifically the one you can read at Wikipedia:No original research. Any unsourced content may be removed by anyone at any time. - MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie Thanks for your help. I just knew what you mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzw8 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie! Sorry to bother you again. I am confused why I could not remove those template messages. I do not think the article has multiple issues now. And I do not know the reason why this article's tone or style is still not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. Please let me know. Thank you very much, Zhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzw8 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY

Love your "We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't published any new science in a while." example! DMacks (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be here all week. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why remove usenet feed size addition?

The feed size has grown and the chart had not been updated since January. I updated the chart based on info provided from UsenetExpress admin.

UsenetExpress is now #1 on the top1000 list. http://top1000.anthologeek.net If you do not know what that means, I can explain, but you should not be editing the usenet wiki if I need to explain the top1000 list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryGyles (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to help you promote that service. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Promote? The data is relevant. If new up to date info is not relevant, then remove all the other data there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryGyles (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you did that. I still think the feed size of usenet is highly relevant to the page and needs to be included. I am going to reach out to providers to see if we can get a solid source. Also, the section with Giganews and Highwinds is old and outdated. Giganews is barely relevant in usenet now and Highwinds no longer exists. There is even a whole wiki page for Highwinds media that is old and outdated. Apparently we arent paying attention. HarryGyles (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a subsection of the see also section, which is a navigational aid for related articles. We have an article on Highwinds, so it makes sense to link it for interested parties. Historically important is still important, even if they are no longer providing services. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't published any new science in a while. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree on Newton. However you previously deleted info I added about other providers who are clearly more relevant to Usenet now than Highwinds. Makes no sense to leave a historically important company listed while leaving out other modern providers who are currently important.HarryGyles (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Are they currently important, though? You didn't provide any independent sourcing, which is how we demonstrate that on Wikipedia. Also, again, that is a see also section you were trying to add things to. If there isn't a Wikipedia article to link, there's nothing to see. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. But the wiki page you link to for Highwinds says nothing of Usenet anywhere on that page and any user who clicks that link and doesn't already know the history would be confused. I think we either should add a list of providers in main section of the article or just delete the whole providers section.HarryGyles (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the Highwinds article isn't great, somebody should really improve it. But generally speaking the bar for inclusion in a see also section is very low, provided the linked article exists at all. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Flagged as promotional

Dear Sir/Madam, I am attempting to edit the wikipedia page of Zurab Tsereteli, you flagged my changes as promotional, please explain in what way is updating an artist's biography "promotional"?

Kind regards Valentina Spektor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.61.132 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Replacing criticism with unsourced praise is obviously promotional. Are you associated with or paid by Tsereteli in some manner? - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The biography uploaded was clearly sourced from a Skira edition of a book about Tsereteli, the author is James Hill a photographer. Please explain how a biography written by a photojournalist and published by an academically accepted publishing house which has also published catalogue raisonnes of arists such as Scheggi and Fontana is biased and promotional? How does my employment status have anything to do with the fact that I have used academically supported material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.61.132 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Your employment status may mean that you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. See WP:PAID and the message I left on your talk page(s) for details. - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not employed by Zurab Tsereteli, I'm doing a private research project into his work and wanted to update his page as the english version is not very helpful or informative. I used academically supported material to do this, which I cited in accordance with the Harvard style. I would appreciate if you allowed my changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.61.132 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You can update factual information, of course, but heaping on praise and removing mentions of controversy isn't going to fly. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually what "isn't going to fly" is your use of colloquialisms in conversation with a stranger, but also your persistent ignoring of the fact that it's not "heaping on praise" if it is a direct quotation from an academically sound source. If you are not from an art historical background, I guess you could be forgiven in not understanding who Skira are, or what their stamp of approval means in terms of weight and recognition in the art world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs)

It really doesn't matter who said it if it would lead to a violation of one of Wikipedia's core content policies. - MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How does providing factual information quoted from a catalogue violate Wikipedia's terms of use, please explain. So you believe it perfectly reasonable that the only information provided about an artist has a negative light, but that's in your view unbiased and does not need proper source material? Seeing as you are such an active and unbiased user, you will of course be familiar with this quote from Wikipedia's dispute resolution page: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." So, this is merely what I was doing with my edits. But by all means, let's not mention that the supposed sources used for the negative information do not in fact adhere to the policies of Wikipedia regarding the biographies of living persons, as firstly they are no longer accessible, and secondly they are taken from biases sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs)

That's not what you're doing. You're removing the existing content and replacing it with promotional text. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How is expanding his biography with official known information promotional text? What, did he not complete his studies where it says he did? Was he not born in Tbilisi? At what stage does actual fact strike you as promotional? Nowhere in the text did I make assumptions that Tsereteli is the greatest living artist alive, or any other such subjective opinions. This is not a promotional text, as it deals with established facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to add facts without also adding promotional garbage and removing criticism, have at it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the "so-called promotional garbage" that you have a problem with? The man is an accomplished artist, a UNESCO goodwill ambassador, has won numerous Russian and international awards. He works with charities, teaches children, has contributed an enormous amount to the development of the art and museum sphere in Moscow. These are FACTS, not promotion. Maybe I can send you some links to some articles, if you're not up to date on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're unable to understand the difference between presenting facts in a neutral tone vs in a promotional tone, I'm not sure I can help you with that. Try reading WP:NPOV again. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am presenting facts in a neutral tone. Once again you seem to have no problem with the current negative tone of the article. That's also not neutral. You are also not attempting to make actual suggestions for edits that would satisfy you craving for neutrality, but are instead being stubborn and unreasonable, not actually backing up your very personal opinions with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have any desire to engage with personal attacks, so I think we're done here. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry this couldn't be resolved in a dispassionate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valia spektor (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking for clarification on Independent Inventors

Recently posted a new addition for Independent Inventor. Added dual award-winning, with several hundred patents licensed by the top technology companies - yet you said not notable? The question then: If two major award denotes notable, and hundreds of patents not notable and 100% licensed independent portfolio then what does. For example, Lemelson has 93 patents, the one I added have several more times that number. I tracked this down by correcting older links from other articles and discovered this one. Would you please explain your "not notable" decision versus the 100% conflict with those currently listed? Trying to understand and was doing a serious job of editing and finding. Now I am confused. LinkDigger (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article talk page, where you also opened a discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

will do MrOllie sorry somewhat new to this. Thank you sir

Ameer Jackson Professional Basketball Player

Hello sir . My name isAmeer Jackson, I am a professional basketball player . I was recently number 1 scorer in Qatar in the Qatari basketball league for al Khor sports club , I have a lot of people impersonating me because I was the best scorer there for 2018-2019 seasons , if you can please make a player bio for me if possible, it was genuinely help a lot sir and if you need links or anytning about my career., also have stats with links and bios on me sir . Thank you sir Whoxgot 44 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarks removed on Video Relay Service

Hello.

I recently added some factual information on service providers for VRS in various countries, mainly Sweden and Norway.

Here's the page:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Video_relay_service

Just saw that the whole section with all of the previous information has been removed (including VRS platform providers and VRS service providers for many different countries, content which I didn't add myself).

I am new to the editing section at Wikipedia and would appreciate clarity in how I can add certain information on factual providers for VRS on that page (and perhaps others with similar information) without it getting removed.

Thanks in advance.

Squaddan (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to host lists of links or lists of providers. External links to suppliers and vendors are heavily discouraged by our guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So if the information input is not a link, would then that qualify as an ok addendum to the Video Relay Services file?

I'm guessing you removed everything else because you noticed that many other users had uploaded similar links... correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squaddan (talk • contribs)

If the sources are good and the company is historically important, maybe. Namedropping vendors just for the sake of listing vendors really isn't what Wikipedia does. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in that case T-Meeting should for sure be mentioned in various articles in Wikipedia, particularly pertaining to information on these subjects. It is the oldest developer for people with communication disabilities (working since 1997) - Groundbreaking technologies used since then which hasn't been mentioned previously to any larger extent on Wikipedia. Most likely due to inactivity by the company itself, which is why it should be there. Will start off yet again by creating a completely new post, and also tying in articles from various news outlets over the years in order to support stated claims. Hopefully this should satisfy the guidelines here.

Appreciate the feedback.

Talk

What for?! Leszy1 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding incorrect information. - MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For what reason you are removing my contributions?

Gizzal (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Because you're overwriting existing content that should be retained. - MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove non existing and updated content with reference on Visa policy of Maldives?. Gizzal (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You over wrote the existing summary lead and made it overlong with what appears to be a cut and paste from some other website. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello MrOllie,

I am not affiliated with the company or creators of this software in any way and you can see that I've been a member of Wikipedia since 2011! so I am not spamming just now. I have been using this software for a couple of years and I really like it and think it is unfair that less notable software have their pages on Wikipedia while this one doesn't. I wrote it to be as balanced as possible, mentioning also its pitfalls and comparing it with other similar programs. All sources I used are independent websites and the content of my article is not promotional in anyway.

At any case, I will improve the page by writing more about it when I get some more time.

Thank you for you comments, much appreciated.

VitoPisani (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)VitoPisani

Yes, in 2011 you added a reference to another of this company's products. I'm sure you can see where suspicion might've been warranted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed Sources were Not Inappropriate

You removed two of my references. I believe both references were relevant to the topic and law firms/attorneys are authoriative sources on legal topices. One of my edits replaced a reference, which was no longer accessible. The second edit added a reference where the article is flagged for uncited assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Blogs and self published web sites are not reliable sources, see WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. Nearly every article on wikipedia cites to such sources. I gave up on 1 edit but you are being vindicative by removing the 2nd that was in place for 2 months without objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs)

Of course it's true, I linked the guideline for you right there. Click on it and read it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You don’t have to be so snarky or condescending. I just disagree that my edit was objectionable in any way and you refuse to explain why. You’re the editor, you should identify the guideline violated. I replaced a dead source with a live one that was nearly identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning me on things I've seen on many pages!

Mr. Ollie, You are warning me on things and removing information, that I've seen on so many other sites. A quick look and you'll see it. For example: "Drayage" --> look at the very first source and you'll see that many sources, who actually mean to get traffic back to their website. Look at the very first source on this article. Same thing. Please explain! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Drayage MarianSahakyan (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you're already blocked, but I'll respond anyway: Wikipedia is a big site and there are only so many volunteers. Sometimes it takes a while to find and correct problems. Just because you may have found one appropriate link somewhere isn't a reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Textile recycling

Hi - I was just made aware that several students were edit warring on this article. Neither the students nor the instructor reached out to me, so I will make sure to contact the instructor about this and make sure to impress upon them that students should never edit war. I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Matching wildcards

I agree that Leetcode might not be the best of all sources or even remotely reliable, but:

1. the DP formulation is not only correct, but also attested in Richter’s and Cantatore's recursive implementations. To some extent it gives a definition that is concrete enough for a proof-of-correctness in unusual examples.
2. Leetcode is a stash of good (but hidden) test cases, many of which I expect the sloppier of “non-recursive implementations” to fail on.

Speaking of sloppiness… What the previous editors were doing was essentially googling a bunch of stuff and putting “(STACKOVERFLOW USERNAME)’s algorithm” in there without even testing whether they work in all cases. Just removing them without mentioning how they fail would appear unasked for, and given how long they have been hanging there would be harmful as well. Artoria2e5 🌉 07:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User generated sites such as leetcode and stackoverflow are not usable at all, see WP:RS. It doesn't matter if they're correct or not, because as Wikipedia editors we're not supposed to be evaluating for truth, only verifiability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how to avoid WP:POINT here at all, but Stackoverflow stuff and these tech blogs are self-published as well. Well, let me try to remedy this by finding a couple acedemic sources, although chances are they don't really care about this tiny subset of regexp matching. --Artoria2e5 🌉 18:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Digital Forensics

Hi MrOllie,

I'm new to authoring the Wikipedia. So, I apologize for any mistakes in my contributions. I do have some experience in specific areas like digital forensics, which are not well covered or up to date in the Wikipedia. For example, SIM Forensics was not mentioned at all. I summarized what it is about and posted a link to an external article for additional reference. AFAIK, it's not OK to just write something without any references. So, I believe that a citation was appropriate in this case. I'm not the author or owner of the article. I didn't find any ads or commercial products there. I did find all the article contents accurate and valid. So, it can be useful to anybody interested in learning about SIM forensics. Anyway, I will not insist in posting the same link.

Best regards, Dr.KBAHT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a self published blog, though, which is not a good source per WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the very few public sources available for this topic so far. I'll look for more sources and let you know if I find anything better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.KBAHT (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

External link on Retail

From User:naeemze Hi MrOllie - Recently, my external link addition of "Retail" has been reverted without verification. The numbers are verified through the reference provided on the page. I have read the guidelines prior to adding this link to wikipedia. Its not for promotion nor i am related to this company. Even the company is not selling any product. Which is why i am unable to understand the reversal. The figures provided on the page is the only source of information of retail in Pakistan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naeemze (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources and entries removed on two separate pages

Mr. Ollie. I am submitting my dispute on the removal of references and entries from two pages. The first is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Professional_certification#Finance where I listed two references focusing on the IACCP Certification and it's information. The second is from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Professional_certification_in_financial_services where I made an entry regarding the IACCP Certification, with references.

I am disputing the validity of this reversion and removal on the following basis:

1. Wikipedia's Purpose: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#The_basics_of_contributing.

For the first page, the references cited talk about the program and link to mutual pages from both organizations that co-sponsor the designation. In addition, the Lookbook, which contains the history, timeline and demographics, provide key information on the program which is purely driven by educating compliance professionals in the Investment Adviser field on how to remain in compliance with key parts of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Other certifications on both pages, have similar links to associations, corporations and colleges and universities that refer to their respective programs. Based on this, I have upheld the policy of purpose, as well linking to appropiate content that provides the facts and information relevant to the program, and the basics of contributing.

2. Enforcement and Content https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Enforcement

For the first page, I linked to two different sections on three websites that as mentioned above, provides the necessary facts and details on the program, history, demographics of the programs, and how to enroll within the programs. This again, is similar to what has been provided by others who have made entries and cited external links. In addition, on the second page, the entry I made was clear and concise, with links to three distinct reference points, a Lookbook which contained information on the programs, history and timeline of the evolution, demographics, and other relevant information. Furthermore, the certification is offered for compliance professionals for Investment Advisers and Dual Registrants. SEC Registered Investment Advisers and Dual Registrants are required per the Investment Act of 1940 and 206(4)-7 under the Investment Act to have a 'competent compliance officer.' This certification was established around this which is why listing it as a 'financial certification' is valid. Without this function, an investment adviser firm cannot exist properly as an SEC firm.

3. Not part of the encyclopedia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia

In this section, it is highlighted that 'these standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more' and that while sources are not entirely required, they are encouraged. The sources and links provided to the pages in question on both sections, are the key pieces of information for the certification in question. In addition, for the second page, the information was extracted and written within a neutral and dispationate view; specifically extracted from the section of the IACCP Lookbook which refers to the SEC rule, and history of the program.

Based on these three guidelines, I request that you reconsider the removal and re-instate the revisions submitted for both pages on 12/19. Thank you and I await your reply.

P.S. My apologies for not putting this at the bottom of the page. 70.44.61.134 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

On one page, you added promotional text - Wikipedia articles must be neutral, and not serve to promote anything. On the other, you added links that did not really support the content - while citations are generally required, we do not use them to hold links to promotional sites, such as attempts to sell training courses. - MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie. I dispute your interpretation, both as a 10+ year professor, and a corporate Marketer.

1. The description on the second page framed the challenge and what was done to answer the challenge. Common academic and case study standards specifically focus on these aspects. When writing the description on the second page, a specific tone was taken with references that outlined the certification and why it established, addressing the big picture, tone and dictation. This was how the Lookbook was constructed, and the entry was done in the same manner.. If you wish to refer to the source material, you can goto the section that outlines the program (About the program) in the Lookbook.

2. In the event that academic links are unavailable, then direct and unpublished sources are deemed acceptable in the academic world. The links and information provided key information on the programs, their purpose, the history and who enrolls in the program, which again, in the absence of "academic references" as you outline, as long as it's citing relevant information in an unbiased format, which it is, is valid.

3. The certification in question is the 'only' certification of it's kind that exists. No other Association or organization offers a certification and designation for compliance professionals in the Investment Adviser field. This certification and designation is purely educational and serves a similar capacity to a CFP, or a CFA.

While I understand that you are a volunteer, and I respect what you do, the bottom line is that this is an arbitrary application of the policy without understanding the reasoning of the entries themselves against the other entries. Even on the second page, under the entry 'Financial Risk Manager' there is a flag for content that is inappropriately written as an advertisement. However, the entry has not been removed.

The entry of the programs I made in question was done on the basis of the understanding of Wikipedia guidelines as I stated, as well as academic components as mentioned above. If you wish to make a recommendation on what to change, versus putting out an arbitrary two line statement, or cite specific facts which specifically point to what the violations are, with quotable references, then I will be more than happy to hear those. Otherwise, I continue to dispute your change and if needbe, will further dispute until either what is outlined is directly proven incorrect, or the changes get reinstated.

I await your reply.

References

70.44.61.134 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you related to the NRS or the IAA in some fashion? This is starting to look like a case of WP:COI or WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest associated here. All I am interested in is acceptable guidelines moving forward and unilateral application of the guidelines as I have cited. Like I said, while I understand that you are all volunteers, what I challenge is the arbitrary application of the policy. If my reference is cited and should be removed, then on the second page, what was flagged as an advertisement, should be removed, as well as references from the first page. That is my point. Either the policy should be applied unilaterally, or should not be applied at all. This is why I am citing the policies and guidelines both on Wikipedia, and in the academic world. I am sure that many others have posed the exact same questions.70.44.61.134 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie. For now, I will yield to your revisions. However, I request that you look at both pages and make similar corrections in fixing and deleting the appropriate references where necessary.70.44.61.134 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

External Links are removed without any verification of links!

Hi Sir,

I got an mail regarding the external links removal. Sir, I read the Wikipedia Guideline and then added some external links. However, the quality of the links are really great. I did not own any of these links. So, requesting you to please re-add all of the links.

If you have any doubt, consider visiting those links and please re-add them.

I put the same link on Reddit and I got appreciations. So, I decided to add those links to Wikipedia only.

Thanks and Regards, Vikash Kaushik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsk770 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs. See WP:ELNO. MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sir, Please review the pages. All the content is created with a lot of hard work. Users can get the exact information as he is looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsk770 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to MrOllie

Dear MrOllie, Sorry, I have noticed your message only now (after doeing some edits). I am not paid for doing any editing, but I was a student of Prof. Hoff a couple of years ago. Now, I have removed all information that was, as it seems to me, not verifiable via written or electronic sources, and added links and references to make sure that everything else is verifiable. I have also added some publications relating to the last section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaimLull (talk • contribs) 09:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

revert back my changes

Hi MrOllie, @MrOllie:, can you please explain me why you remove my all changes on all pages.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9urav (talk • contribs)

Because you're adding advertising to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not for that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.. it's strange, because on game's page none link to online game. Let's remove all links to games. Why not?

Incorrect Content Changes

Hello @MrOllie,

I would respectfully request you revisit the changes I have made to the pages you have reverted. I have corrected misinformation (such as the hardness of moissanite, the differences between pink sapphire and ruby, that AGS uses GIA's clarity scale, etc. The information which has been reverted is not simply gemologically correct (if you disagree with my secondary sources, please see the GIA.edu sources cited). I also believe the structural changes I made, specifically to the Synthetic Diamond page, were proper under the guidelines, as well as helpful for user understanding and visual presentation.

Thank you, CorinneAllyson (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)CorinneAllyson

Your GIA.edu links were all broken. You were also adding links to a vendor's blog. Wikipedia does not use advertising materials as sources. Take more care and use only reliable sources in the future and you should have no further problems. Thanks for your contributions! - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of changes at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages

Hi MrOllie, You should have contacted me first before reversing all of the edits. Not only you versed my insertion of jamovi (which now has a long Lynda.com tutorial as well as a full-length book written about it), but also indiscriminately reverted my updates for other software unrelated to jamovi.

Would you please correct the updates for other software besides jamovi while we are discussing jamovi in here? Thanks.

Eric Bright (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Moved this discussion to my own page as per your request above.

Eric Bright (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to MrOllie

Hello MrOllie,

I am requesting you to revisit the changes I have made to the pages you have reverted. I have just remove a dead link with a link which have very good information about the Indian Engineering Services (IES)/ Engineering Services Examination (ESE). I think you are confused with the heading, this exam is called Engineering Services Examination (ESE) by the government of India and IES by peoples in generally. For conformation you can check the official website of organisation who conduct the exam. And the link i provided have full information about ESE/IES. and i am an aspirant of this exam.Please revisit it again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJAY504 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you were adding link spam. I'm not going to put link spam back. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. As you wish. But change the exam name (heading in the page) because it wrong and did not match with the official name of the service which is described in the Indian Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJAY504 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding companies to list articles

Good day

In my quest to improve my writing as a writer at Wikipedia pages, I wish to ask that I have been entering some credible information in some pages "list of elevator manufacturers" and "list of employee owned companies" but the same are then deleted by someone. Some of the companies I am adding to the list are amongst top 10 in the world and billion dollar corporations which can be googled also. What is the criteria in Wikipedia to enter such data ? Globalskywalker2020 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Most list articles require that there be a pre-existing Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF. - MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie

Can you please let me know the reason for changing my edits on a page wherein I have entered credible elevator manufacturers in the list. These companies are billion dollar corporations and we'll experienced in this field (all more than 35 years into business) and one of them is amongst top 5 in Europe. Globalskywalker2020 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered, see above. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisions to virtual globe page

Good Morning, I noticed that you have removed CesiumJS from the list of Virtual Globes. It is free open-source software with a history going back to 2011 that has surely earned its place in that list.

I think it was last removed because it doesn't yet have its own wikipedia entry, is that correct? We must start somewhere. Will you reinstate my changes once it has its own page?

Thank you for your consideration. Andiebsb24 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming it meets Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. See Help:Your_first_article for more details. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

GPC System

Bonjour,

Je suis désolé de ne pas pouvoir écrire en anglais ...

Je reviens vers vous suite à ce message :

"Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)"

Je ne suis pas un spécialiste de Wikipédia. J'avais remarqué que tous les autres logiciels "commerciaux" cités dans la page avaient des liens externes mais je me rends compte qu'ils pointent tous sur une page Wikipédia. Est-ce cela le problème ? Dans ce cas, comment puis-je créer une page "GPC System" pour pouvoir pointer dessus ? Si vous pouvez me conseiller ... Bonnes fêtes Cordialement JM POU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Michel POU (talk • contribs) 08:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't read French. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the change

Hi Mr Ollie,

These are some lines from - [[1]] "One saddle simply cannot fit all animals. Nor will a saddle fit even the same horse forever without adjustments. As a horse advances in conditioning, age, and training, the back muscles and even the underlying skeletal structures change to some degree. Thus, particularly with English saddles, a saddle fitter needs to make periodic adjustments. Western saddles are more difficult to adjust, though use of shims and padding can compensate for some changes. A lower pressure per square inch of surface area is a bit more forgiving. In some cases, a horse will physically develop to a degree that a different saddle may have to be purchased.

Fitting the rider- "Method of fitting riders varies tremendously between designs. Length of the seat is the most common method by which saddles are fitted, though the length and placement of the flaps or fenders of the saddle also influence a person's leg position and thus the way an individual sits. While a too long or too short seat will cause considerable discomfort, and even interfere with the security of the rider on the horse, width is also a factor. Any well-fitting saddle should be wide enough to support the rider's seat bones, without being so wide as to cause discomfort. While saddles are not usually marketed by seat width, designs do vary, and the only way a rider can determine the proper fit of a saddle is to sit on one.

Balance is also a critical factor. A properly balanced saddle places the rider over the horse's center of balance for the equestrian discipline involved. A poor-fitting saddle often leaves a rider feeling that they are sliding backwards and constantly attempting to move "uphill." Less often, a poor-fitting saddle shifts the rider too far forward and creates a sensation of being pushed onto the horse's neck."

Stirrup fit varies greatly between disciplines, from the very short stirrup of the horse racing jockey to the long stirrup of the dressage or reining competitor. However, in all cases, the stirrup leather must be properly placed so that the rider remains in balance over the saddle and is not thrown ahead or behind the motion of the horse when putting weight in the stirrups."

These lines from the wikipedia page talk about "saddle fitting" but have no exact proof but the article defines the same thing properly with the video and the complete guide. It was genuine contribution towards Wikipedia and not trying to spam this valuable resource to the world.

Please reconsider my changes. I have tried to add it again more properly.

References

Goel.shubham17 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not use blogs as sources, especially blogs that are essentially just advertising. See WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of changes at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Avatar_(computing)

Hi MrOllie,

you recently reverted my additions to the above mentioned page due to a lack of claims.

Would this suffice? http://www.netandmore.de/surfboard/wild.htm (Archived content of wildpark.de, the now defunct online magazine of Pixelpark from 1995, talking about the eBar chat system: "Die von Pixelpark entwickelte Software eBAR ist eine einzigartige visuelle Chatsoftware."; sorry, only available in the German original).

Another reference to the eBar can be found here: https://www.chatbotsummit.com/speaker/gabykslezak Gaby Slezak designed the eBar back in 1995.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best, Infowesir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infowesir (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We should have an independent source for any claim that something was 'first'. Both of those sources are self-published by associated parties. - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, MrOllie. Fair point. Unfortunately I can't provide an indepedent source in digital form. Tough luck :-) Infowesir (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

po boy variation

I did add it as a question on the article's Talk page how to add a reference to this unique variation in the article without it being an inappropriate external link or marketing rather than additional information about 'variations' on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiken71 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And I replied on the article talk. Let's keep the conversation there. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

SiteGround

Hi there, Thanks for the advice. I have read the term and make sure my behavior follows the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivenred (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ski simulator

Hello MrOllie,

I'm writing to you to ask to keep my edit for Ski simulator article. The reason is that there are many ski simulators technologies in the world and Endless Slope by Proleski is the only one of many. So Wikipedia users might be interested to learn about various ski simulators. In the current edition the article looks like Prolesky advertising that might be not fair so I think in this article can be links to different ski simulators makers or to no one. Best Regards, AVSSTS (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)AVSSTS

If you find inappropriate advertising on Wikipedia, that is a reason to remove the advertising, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate to provide an information about various types of ski simulators for users and, if users will be interested to learn more about it, links to several alternatives for ski simulators (not one only) can be fine. Also - is it possible to add information about alternative ski simulator technologies to the Ski simulator article? Best Regards, AVSSTS —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If there are independent sources, maybe. But Wikipedia is not a directory so this is not a place to help potential users find particular simulators to buy/use. - MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Are sources like links below are good?: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/five-high-tech-tools-to-boost-athletes-to-olympic-glory-180949564/ http://www.mountainyahoos.com/SimulatedSkiing.html https://www.si.com/edge/2015/02/11/skytechsport-ski-training-simulator-us-ski-team-fis-alpine https://www.vrfitnessinsider.com/ski-and-snowboard-year-round-with-skytechsports-simulators/ https://abc7.com/health/simi-valley-gym-offers-snow-free-skiing-using-innovative-technology/671999/ Best Regards, AVSSTS —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blogs and promotional churnalism aren't good for much here. - MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. if articles by Smithsonian and Sports Illustrated are not good enough it's fine. Why it is impossible to add an information about Virtual Slopes type of ski simulators? No links, no brands. There are at last two major types of ski simulators "Environment Simulators" (rotating carpets (Endless Slopes) is just one of them) and "Sports Motion Simulators" (moving platforms, virtual slopes and others). Best regards, --AVSSTS (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A well sourced, neutrally worded example, maybe. But what you've been doing is pasting in an advertorial. Do you work for a simulator company? If so, Wikipedia's terms of use require that you make certain disclosures and follow certain procedures. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Could you please advise in more details that "A well sourced, neutrally worded example" means? Links to specific regulatory documents of Wikipedia will be also very helpful. The reason I'm asking is that I'm looking to the existing article text (below) and do not see that proposed addition to the article is more advertorial so specifyed criterias will be very helpful.

Ski simulator: ″Ski simulators are training systems for Skiers and Snowboarders. They have the advantage of portability and can be placed indoors, permitting training to be done in any season.

There are many revolving carpet ski simulators and indoor ski slope carpets around the world. They can be used for introductory training or to improve on and hone skills for expert skiers, especially in the off season.

Balance, control and strength are learned by practice and actively doing training drills and lessons on the ski simulators.

Endless slope An Endless Slope is a sloped treadmill that allows skiers and snowboarders to refine form and strengthen muscles. Practicing on this treadmill that simulates snow allows carving, edging, pressuring, steering, and balance on skis or a snowboard, allowing the rider to experience the same muscle workout as on the mountain while developing the skills needed to gracefully move on snow.

An alpine skiing simulator, is a conveyor, having an inclined surface with the moving multilayer carpet, made out of the high-technology composite material. The band’s movement is directed upwards of the inclined surface towards the skier. Using a remote control, an instructor can set up different skiing conditions. For safety reasons the simulator has a smooth start and a smooth stop of the carpet and emergency stop sensors.

To ensure good slipping performance the upper working layer of the carpet is moistened with water, sending a signal from a remote control. In addition to that, if the slipping performance needs to be increased, it is possible to treat the working layer of the carpet with a special concentrate.″ Thank you. Best regards, --AVSSTS (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice the question I asked. I would appreciate an answer. - MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I have my own experience of using ski simulators and I know people who works in ski simulator industry so according to Wikipedia rules I have COI. Thank you for sending the link about it. I still think that an information about several types of ski simulators (and makers, maybe) should be reflected in the article. BTW, Just today I found a very interesting article called Professional Ski Simulator. This article is not about hi-tech ski machines which are used by Olympic Game Champions as I expected. It is about a computer game. An advertorial text, many external links. This page was last edited on 30 June 2019, at 12:00... Could you please advise in more details that "A well sourced, neutrally worded example" means? Links to specific regulatory documents of Wikipedia will be also very helpful. I really do not understand why highly likely an advertorial article about "Professional Ski Simulator" with many links is fine, but it is inpossible to add an information that many types of ski simulators are exist and add a section about Virual Slopes? Best regards, --AVSSTS (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading through Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines. Also, as a user with a conflict of interest, you should be learning on other articles, where you have no conflict. - MrOllie (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your reverted changes on sections "Visual odometry" and "Event camera"

Dear Mr Ollie

I just saw that you reverted my changes in the Wikipedia entries "Visual odometry" and "Event camera", but I respectfully disagree. My changes aimed at making those entries less biased (since they were created and edited by people who only referenced their own work).

In section Visual odometry, I had added the two review papers which together have been cited more than 1,600 times the scientific community on visual odometry:

Visual odometry [Tutorial]: Part i: the first 30 years and fundamentals D Scaramuzza, F Fraundorfer Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE 18 (4), 80-92 Citations: 1064

Visual odometry: Part ii: Matching, robustness, optimization, and applications F Fraundorfer, D Scaramuzza IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19 (2), 78-90 Citations: 507

These two papers are the only two review papers in the field of visual odometry and by far the most cited ones.

Mr Scaramuzza and Fraundorfer are among the top experts in the field.

In section Event camera, I had added the only review paper on the field of event cameras, which was published on arxiv all together by the world's most experts on event cameras:

Event-based Vision: A Survey Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Delbruck, Garrick Orchard, Chiara Bartolozzi, Brian Taba, Andrea Censi, Stefan Leutenegger, Andrew Davison, Joerg Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, Davide Scaramuzza 2019/4/17 arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08405 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeier1981 (talk • contribs)

As mentioned on your user talk page, you appear to be here solely to write about and insert references to a small collection of connected academics. I suggest you broaden your horizons, because right now it looks like you're here to promote a few people's careers at Wikipedia's expense. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but I started editing wikipedia entries 4 days ago during work holidays. I had to start somewhere. If my changes are deleted one by one I have no incentive to continue further unfortunately. I thought that wikipedia reviewers would first check edits, one by one, but it seems that instead the only few neutral entries were deleted in both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeier1981 (talk • contribs)

They were checked one by one, and then taken as a whole there appeared to be a pattern of promotional editing. If that was just a coincidence, OK, we can move on to something besides robotics professors from Zurich and everything will be fine. - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Response on Talk:Quicksort

Hi @MrOllie:, I replied to you on the Talk:Quicksort page and am just double-checking to see if you had any further objection after my the reply about "UNDUE" not being applicable in that case. Thanks, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

My objection stands, WP:UNDUE absolutely is applicable. Secondary sources are required. - MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for letting me know. I added a secondary source for the core variant, per your request. I added this section based on your instructions to ping you here if a reply was missed elsewhere, so if you could please make any further replies back on the Quicksort talk page? Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Re Albert Leung

Any reason you removed the section how the subject is involved in 2019 Hong Kong protests citing ref spam? Alex 18:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I was only attempting to remove Lam1993's edit, which was ref spam. I didn't notice your additions, which I reverted in error. My apologies. - MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed NextDNS and other services from public resolvers page

May I asked why you removed NextDNS as well as many other public resolvers from the DNS public resolver page? Poitrus (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Such lists should generally only list items of proven notability, which in Wikipedia's terms means that they qualify for a standalone article. See WP:WTAF for details. - MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hi, since you thought of it as not reliable, according to this edit. May I ask you about how did you know that source was not reliable? Thank you. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Self published sites, particularly help sites specific to a minor software program, aren't reliable for general statements. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahh!! Thank you so much for the information you imparted! ✍📚💡 I agree with it in respect of general statements. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Resa Hasmath and Chinese in Toronto

Re: this edit, I'm a bit confused. Resa Hasmath is where I got the information from, so his book needs to be cited and I did so on multiple ocassions. However another editor had added the external links to the book in the citations.

The citation format can be cleaned up like in Murder of Tina Isa and that change is best; I do not feel removing the entire sentence was the best way of dealing with it.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Turns out he was only cited once in this article, so I decided to just remove the EL to the book page. If there's something that was recently revealed about Hasmath I'm all ears. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been a bit of a campaign waged by a number of sockpuppet accounts to get Hasmath's name in as many articles as possible. See the contributions of User:Socpol, User:Chinapol, User:IvoryTowerII, User:Megaiken, etc. We're better off without those references, (so as not to encourage ongoing efforts by the sock farm) especially when they don't add much to the article, as I believe the case is here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that theres a sock farm doing that. I'm ok with reverting any actions done by the sock farm in particular. I'm not sure if one should remove citations to Hasmath made prior to the sock farm (as I had cited Hasmath in some articles related to ethnicity in Beijing). Is there a belief that Hasmath is personally connected to the sock farm? Has this matter been discussed in a central location? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oxon123/Archive, but AFAIK this has only really been discussed on user talk pages. 'prior to the sock farm' would be back in 2013 some time, this has been going on for quite a while. Personal connections are tricky per WP:OUTING.- MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that Chinapol started editing the articles in which I cited Hasmath in 2014 though it seems like he/she didn't start adding linkspam regarding Hasmath in those particular articles until 2019. In 2014, in Koreans in Beijing, as per the edit history I cited Hasmath here (I was the only editor of the article at this point). Chinapol and IvorytowerII edits came later. Chinapol/IvoryTowerII also came after me in Uyghurs in Beijing as I started that one too. I started Chinese Canadians in the Greater Toronto Area and Chinapol only edited it in 2019 to change a URL WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Zhang Ziyi's second child

I noticed you reverted the Chinese source, but alas it is true. News that she gave birth to a second child just broke over the weekend. I have since added the info to this article. KardashianFan (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Even trash sources are right sometimes! MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to SIEM page - question

Hi MrOllie I added a list of vendors to the SIEM page and I saw that you removed it. I think this is relevant and valuable information for people viewing the SIEM page. I also noticed that in the SIEM pages in other languages they include a list of vendors (like French, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, etc.) Thanks, Mickey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyemc (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It may be relevant and valuable, but so is the phone book - and Wikipedia is just not for hosting directories or vendor lists. Other Wikipedia projects have different content standards, or they may simply have not noticed and removed the vendor list(s) yet. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello - I've been updating the details of my fiance Richard Parks and you have said I have an undisclosed financial interest. I'm not realy sure what to say about that - we live together? This is not a commercial relationship. Please reinstate my edits as they correct factual innacuracies and provide updated information. JofromWales (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC) JofromWalesJofromWales (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JofromWales (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read over the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. Your edits come off as promotional, so I can't reinstate them as they are. You should read over the COI guidelines and use article talk pages to propose edits from now on rather than making them yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, consider corrections instead of undoing useful edits completely

Hi, thank you for the message, but could you please revise your edition strategy. Recently I discovered that the the article devoted to General Data Protection Regulation is full of misleading statements that might cause serious problems for the audience. Examples from the first 3 paragraphs:

• wrong statement that only processors must put in place appropriate technical and organizational measures,
• confusion between consent and other lawful bases,
• misguided statement that GDPR protects just EU citizens

I tried to correct them. I also added links to particular GDPR articles and exact paragraphs in some cases. It were the links to gdpr-text.com for that purpose but my edits were considered as spam by you because gdpr-text.com is not official EU website. Note, there is no official resource with the feature to reference specific articles and to show related recitals. Referencing the full 260-pages document is of small use to the readers. You revered my edits completely and restored misleading information without considering correcting or deleting the links. I don't see how it can help to the audience and make Wikipedia any better. Could you please reconsider? PS: I had to get rid of the references completely and made one more edit. Will see if my corrections survive this time, but the lack of supporting references reduces the value significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privacypro (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

None of that is a reason to base the article on an unreliable source put up by a consulting company that's using it to try to find new customers. Are you associated with this website in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

May I please ask you to explain the following undo? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=General_Data_Protection_Regulation&type=revision&diff=934595933&oldid=934590602 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privacypro (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sindh

Do not put Fake and biased information on Sindh article. If you do not anything you should not have to write on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinhi619 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confused. You're the one who has been blocked twice for disruptive editing on that article. If you continue as you have been, I expect the next one will be indefinite. - MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

Thanks for adding the {{Undisclosed paid}} template: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Scrum_(software_development)&curid=4743665&diff=934839377&oldid=934835880 The documentation states, "when placing this tag, please also tag the article talk page with {{Connected contributor (paid)}}." You could also add {{connected contributor}}, but the idea is to know who you suspect or have evidence of being in a position of CoI, and so that they can address the claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added the template. - MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content for Scrum_(software_development) written by Ken Schwaber

Hello,

You removed many edits by Ken Schwaber to Scrum_(software_development) however he created Scrum, so not sure how you can state that his comments are too commercial or wrong. What is the process for me to work with Ken (I work for him) to update the page to be correct/accurate as seen by the creator of what is being written about and not violate your terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaiburg (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read over WP:PAID and WP:COI. This still has to be an encyclopedia article and still has to meet our sourcing requirements. This isn't a social media site - you can't just make announcements or editorialize in the article, and you can't execessively rely on self published materials. - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

Yes, I understand that. What I think you are missing is that Ken Schwaber created Scrum, so he is the expert and inventor. It is like Thomas Edison commenting on the light bulb and someone else then someone deleting his comments. Ken is not promoting anything, he is describing Scrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaiburg (talk • contribs)

I'm aware of who he is, but that doesn't grant him extra rights to write whatever he wants on the Wikipedia page. In fact, per WP:COI, he actually has slightly fewer rights here. We are talking about an addition that added plainly promotional language and also addressed the reader directly about his personal plans to update the Wikipedia article later - we just don't write that way here. You're essentially proposing that we allow persons like the CEO of Coca-Cola to place whatever advertisement they like on the Coca-Cola page. That's clearly not going to happen. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not correct, I think you are completely misunderstanding. How can we talk as typing is not working. Now if the CEO of Coca-Cola invented the formula for Coke and someone wrote about the formula incorrectly, he or she should be able to correct them. Not advertise Coke. What I have done is just tried to make the article about Scrum factually correct. No advertising what so ever and no promotions. There are things that are factually wrong and am pointing to the original document (https://www.scrumguides.org) as the source of truth as it is. I also removed some false facts like Mr. Schwaber's history of starting certain businesses, etc. Anyway, how can we talk so that you can understand? Otherwise you are making false assumptions and reverting my edits without any knowledge what so ever about the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaiburg (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand you just fine, but I think that you either have not read or have not understood our guidelines on conflict of interest, and paid editing, otherwise you wouldn't be editing your employer's page directory, or inserting links to your employer's web site, even as citations. Please read them over again. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So you would prefer content is inaccurate rather than accurate because I work for Mr. Schwaber who created Scrum? I really don't think you understand. There is content that is just WRONG. How can that be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaiburg (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, please read the linked pages, especially the bits about using article talk pages to make edit requests. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Enaiburg: If there is content that is wrong, then you make a request at the talk page. Indicate what is wrong, how it should be corrected, and what reliable sources (preferably independent) exist to verify the change. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing: Difference between revisions

Please, specifically why did you undo this revision? Dipikewia (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and anyway for contributing to the quality of Wikipedia's content. Sorry for me not having known this policy, before I revised. Wikipedia contains countless (comparison) tables for popular IT-solutions, information services and online market places. So, my list of creative crowdsouring platforms was just not extensive enough, I guess. Please, let me know, if this assumption is incorrect. So, I can provide (more) valuable revisions. :-) Dipikewia (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That assumption is incorrect. Wikipedia contains lots of lists, it is true. But these are either lists of Wikipedia articles or well sourced. They are not simply lists of external links, because Wikipedia is not a link directory. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now, it is clear to me. Thanks for clarifying. Dipikewia (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrum (software development) edits

Hello, this is in response to the message you sent me on the personal talk page and I'm not sure you were able to see my response. I do have my own account and was updating based on facts. I didn't realize that I was supposed to submit edits through the talk page and now I understand why I was rejected. I apologize for any confusion - I did not understand the editing guidelines now I think I do. I work with the 2 other users that were also trying to make the similar edits that you pointed out in a previous note and we were trying to remove faulty information in the history section and add a reference upfront to the Scrum Guide, which is the official source of Scrum, since there have been things added to this page in the past that were not in line with the Scrum Guide. I can resubmit these edits through the talk page as instructed by the guidelines. I would submit those on the talk page for Scrum (Software Development), correct or do you prefer them on your talk page? I want to make sure we do things correctly moving forward. We are also happy to get on a call with you to discuss the content and our intent. Thanks Lvelecina (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed My Addition

Hi,

Prasanth here. Just saw your message that you have removed the link I had added, citing that this was an irrelevant addition.

Can you please explain?

The following was my thinking behind that addition:

The Wiki page was about ERP Software Selection. I found a link at the bottom (in the External Links section) to a page that discusses the definition and all. So, I thought I should include a guide to ERP for better understanding. This is why I added that link.

Please help me understand the thought behind removal.

Thanks,

Prasanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasanthvish (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:EL. We don't link to software vendor's marketing materials. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed references

Hi, you've just removed a reference link to an in-depth resource on the topic, can you tell me why? Lightforger (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a blog, so we don't use it as a reference per WP:RS, nor do we link it in the external links section per WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

managing DOI

Thanks for your notes on DOI. I see you are continuing to revert my contributions - therefore I write here now, in addition to the preferred site of discussion. I suggest before you remove more contributions of mine, you respond to my questions. That might give me the chance to self-police and understand your rationales. Once you react on my user talk page, let's discuss there. thanksIngmar.lippert (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of 3D-Calc

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from 3D-Calc, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yannis_Livadas

Dear friend, please explain with more details all the issues, in order to understand better and improve this page properly. From my part, I am making serious research concerning this man of letters and I am trying to provide the most accurate and crosschecked information. Yet I may fail, so feel free to make changes if you think that is needed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adratiatic20 (talk • contribs)

It's written like a fan site, has lots of external links that don't meet Wikipedia's link guidelines, and is based on sources that don't meet our sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing of edit on List of academic databases and search engines

Hi could you tell me why you removed my addition in List of academic databases and search engines? if there is something wrong, could it be improved rather than suppressed ? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines&oldid=prev&diff=928758474

--27point7 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of links to existing Wikipedia articles. The entry you added linked to an unrelated article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

changes

+Which part is advertising? It's listing of facts for the area. The hyperlink? Grapes&Glass (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Grapes&Glass

Almost every change you made. You can't turn a Wikipedia article into a tourism brochure. - MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Important and relevant facts about the region being recognized by the federal government and how the culture of the town has changed is within the guidelines of Wikipedia and on cities such as Las Vegas, San Francisco, New York, etc. For example: having Miss California as a notable person is as relevant as XYZ musician. Please consider another point of view and be fair with your actions and consideration. Kindness is a gift everyone can afford to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapes&Glass (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No, your changes rewrote the article in a promotional way, unlike the other articles on cities which you cite. Are you associated with Lodi's government (or local business) in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You are criminal - a cultural criminal.

What do you know about Koli Culture? References used in identifying the true identity of Koli people are not Koli's and they from activist media centers. Giving voiceless voice is right thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4A80:C140:64BE:C4A2:A5A8:9F (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I know you're inserting random, unsourced text at the top of the article in violation of Wikipedia's policies. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Why all of my contribution is removed?

Hello, I'm sorry for having a link placed wrong place. However, can you tell me why my links (mostly regarding the traffic updates, SEAGAMES... ) removed? Because except the link that you have alerted me, the rest of the links are contributing to the content I believe so. Thank youLiseGarcia1993 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Every one of your contributions relied on an unreliable source, a blog that regurgitates press releases attached to a car retail site. MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, but I believe all the information is reliable. For example, MG is the transport sponsorship for SEA games or the new punishment on Grab Philippines is all true. Other sites also reported those kinds of information. On the other hand, other people have not updated it on Wiki so I just want to help readers to get the latest updates about those issues and to enrich Wikipedia's source of information. As such, I cling to a belief that the except one you have alerted me because of the improper placement (although I thought it was also correct then I put it there), the others are put under strong consideration. Please help me to reconsider those contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiseGarcia1993 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we don't use blogs that are designed to funnel users to a car retail site as sources. Since other sites have reported this information, if you're here to build an encyclopedia and not to link this particular site, I would recommend you cite them. - MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I WAS NOT PAID

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Please be informed that I was not paid to edit the article "Online Reputation Management". I edited as I as deem fit for the correctness and citation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifyonojaefe (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I spent an hour to improve the mortgage loan page

I understand that you have a responsibility to monitor users' behavior but If you think that the links that I provided are not suitable, which I don't agree, then please remove the links but not my contributions. The current version of mortgage Canada page (stress test part) is biased and incorrect. I updated all the information and you removed them all. I think if you have a problem with specific link, you could remove the link. I would appreciate if you ask an expert to review this part about mortgage loan in Canada and you will understand the current information is not accurate and I improved it significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRE (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

But then the content you added would've been unsourced. You're welcome to restore the content if you can do so without sourcing it to blogs, calculators, or other marketing materials set up by a real estate site that is trawling for customers. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I just provided new references for the content at mortgage loan page. Could you check it? If you don't like any reference, please let me know and I will replace it with another reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRE (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted a bit of it - press releases are generally not used either. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRE (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AI in Hospitality

Hello. May I know which advertisement you have found in the information I have provided after long time research? It is a quite important to show how exactly AI is used in the industry. Otherwise you should also delete a lot of information regarding any company related to the AI and mentioned in on the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuriza (talk • contribs)

It is important to summarize what reliable sources have to say on the subject. It is advertising to list specific products, use press releases or blog posts as sources for the same, and to embed external links to the same. - MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In this case I do believe removing some link may be a solution, instead of removing contribution and texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuriza (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me be clear: advertising is not allowed, whether the link is present or not. - MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Vague comments

Removing edits without a cogent reason is inappropriate and regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassimdandago (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are or what you're talking about. - MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Online Newsroom definition

Hello -

I am inquiring as to why the "online newsroom" definition was changed and then reverted back again. The definition had been there for many, many years and the only thing that changed was that someone from Ford Motor Company, a PR Executive, added a citation confirming the fact that the first online newsroom product was developed by TEKGROUP for Ford Motor Company and cited the date and another executive that worked on the team.

Why is it being removed as this is an accurate definition that has stood for many years and was just supported and cited by a legitimate source recently. That shouldn't cause it to be removed?

Steve MomorellaStevemomorella (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The content in question was not supported by a source that meets Wikipedia's requirements. We'd need a secondary source from some independent authority (a peer reviewed journal, ideally). We can't use a primary source for such a claim. It should never have persisted the way it was for years, but Wikipedia is a big site and there are only so many volunteers, sometimes it takes a long time for someone to notice stuff like this. As someone who has an obvious COI here, I suggest you read WP:COI and WP:PAID before editing anything about your company, again. Certain procedures are required - your edit (and User:Criscenti's) were in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Vndalism nothing less

Your edit on ONIX Audio clearly indicates your lack of knowledge of the company its history and a baised point of veiw .. you are either being paid to edit this established atricle or you do not have wikipedias interest of a world resouce at interest .. I will make a complaint regarding your edits .. Its also clear englsih is not you native langauge .. I do not beleive you intention is either for the wiki or for anyone else but your self. You deleted all information fo the current company or its history and as such no real audio enthusiast would have done that . I consder your edit vadalism and will report it as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

All content that is not properly sourced may be removed at any time. If you want to complain, I suggest WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete information about SmartDec from List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis

Hello, Mr.Ollie

You delete my adding to List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis without any comments. I can`t quite understand, what`s wrong with my information. I can`t fix issues like - This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it; without any adding. Please, can you explain why my information was deleted and what the main difference between SmartDec_Scanner page and, for example, Kiuwan, which was added before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.prokofiev (talk • contribs)

You have a conflict of interest and should not be making these edits, see the notes on your talk page. Your new article needs independent sources. There may well be other bad articles as well, Wikipedia is a big site and there are only so many volunteers. But just because you have found one poorly sourced article is not a good reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

satyarthprakash.in

Why are you.removing information based on actual book written by the person about whom the page is? Jai Aryavart (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Citing the book (with a proper book cite, by ISBN) may be fine, but the website you're using is not. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What? That website is the book. That is official website of Satyarth Prakash the book, you should bot delete things you have no knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Aryavart (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is self published and we shouldn't use it. But somehow I doubt that a book published in 1875 is really primarily available as a sketchy self published website. - MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT self published, That book is our religious text, like Bible is for Christian's. That book published in 1875 was second most selling book in World book fair held in New Delhi. That website is Official website run by Arya Samaj Created b yuh Swamiji himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Aryavart (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a member of Arya Samaj, I cited official websites by Arya, I cited official websites by Arya Paropkarini Sabha and Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi. Jai Aryavart (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And why did you change philosophy of Swami Dayanand from Vedic trinity to monism? That can cause chaos here in India as Swami Dayanand was against Advita(monism). Jai Aryavart (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You can expect that sort of thing to happen when you are adding bad sources, POV and/or editorializing to articles. People are going to do blanket reverts rather than try to tease out the one or two things potentially worth keeping. - MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am adding original sources, I am a member of this organisation and know better than you what is truth about it. You don't even know things you are editing. If you keep on doing this then I will have no choice but to revert every change you make on every page. Jai Aryavart (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you really do that, I expect you would be blocked almost immediately. - MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then stop editing out my corrections and reverting them to Vandalisms. You don't know how often pages related to Arya Samaj get Vandalised by our opponents. Jai Aryavart (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't have fix your edits, if you stop editorializing and relying on unreliable websites. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to just write whatever opinion you might have into an article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How can you call an official website unreliable? Ok then I will quote directly from book with publishing and page number etc. From now on, just stop editing out correct info. You don't know how much our organisation is suffering due to vandals, I have been appointed to see that this do not happen. Jai Aryavart (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should read over the guidelines in WP:COI and be sure to abide by them, particularly the ones about using talk pages and refraining from editing articles directly. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker!

Hi MrOllie! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback or pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that these user rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of both tools. Instead of having you formally request these user rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave them to you. These user rights allow you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection, and to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.

Rollback user right

Please keep these things in mind at all times when using rollback to revert edits:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only, and never used to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.

For more information on how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.

Pending changes reviewer user right

Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges, and a list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
• Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with these user rights - they're pretty straight-forward and they don't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, run into any issues or problems, or if you're not sure if the use of either tool is appropriate or not and need my input or advice - I'll be more than happy to help you any time you need it. If you no longer want one or both of these user rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove them for you. Thank you for helping to locate, revert, and remove vandalism, as well as review and keep disruptive edits off of Wikipedia - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

I corrected the edit to be more neutral and did not mark as minor edit (which was the previous remark). What is the Problem to better understand? Techforlife (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:SPS, Wikipedia generally doesn't use blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Smart Lighting Edit

Hello MrOllie, Kindly let me know on why you felt that the content was not neutral.

I have mentioned the evolution of lighting and also the benefits that consumers get for using smart lights.

In the present article, energy efficiency is the only visible benefit that’s displayed. There are other benefits that I tried to crisply explain.

Would be glad to hear you point of view. Regards SmartLighting Guy (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@SmartLighting Guy: Your edit was reverted for a number of reasons, not the least of which that your edit is a copyright violation of this page. (Report here.) We take copyright violations seriously here. Don't repeat it. See WP:COPYVIO. General Ization ^Talk 05:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The edits in regards to square root of 3

Hi MrOllie, You are asking for citations of sources which are not applicable in this/my case, since I have provided very useful information which I was able to obtain based on my own mathematical researches and developments. Please keep this in mind and let the valuable info reach the possible visitors who can greatly benefit from it. Mr. Alex C. Achernog (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources are always required. See WP:NOR - Wikipedia is not a place to post your own original thoughts. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

League of Nations

Hello MrOllie, I'm a bit puzzled about the recent edit of League of Nations which removed an apparently useful paragraph... the edit was labelled 'rm RefSpam' -please can you explain what was wrong with the ref in said paragraph? Thanks, Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It was added by User:Tsasidoff, a confirmed sockpuppet of a user who was adding a lot of references to that citation's author. - MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification - I will have to see if I can find an alternative ref for the information.Yadsalohcin (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Stop edit warring, my edit is not a vandalism, kindly check the edit, I just replaced the picture of a headshot with another one, I don't understand why you would undo it over and over again? 104.51.180.37 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Placing photos of yourself on Wikipedia absolutely is vandalism. - MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all why do you think it is ME? You have absolutely no proof, I am going to report your account for edit warring and false assumptions. Read the terms of Wikipedia. 104.51.180.37 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no other conceivable reason that a person might vandalize that page in such a way. - MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not what you feel, is right or wrong, I have not changed the text or wrote anything bad, I don't understand why you hate that picture? It clearly shows a headshot of a man? 104.51.180.37 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Both of you should use the article's Talk page to discuss this content dispute rather than just reverting each other. I've temporarily protected the page to stop the disruption. --RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Aga Khan Award for Architecture

I am very puzzled by the rollback of my changes to the entry on the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. I am fairly new to editing in Wikipedia, so perhaps you could help me understand. Archnet.org was established, in part, to host the archives of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. We host all the documentation submitted with the nomination, as well as the jury reports and the subsequent publications.

You have deleted the links I added to our site in the "see also" section. What is the rationale for that? For example, the article talks about the AKAA seminars. I updated the cities in which they have been held, and then added a link to the Archnet archive containing the proceedings. The link was deleted.

I also took a great deal of time to either add links to many of the recipient projects listed by cycle under Award Cycles. When the project had an entry in Wikipedia, I linked to that, though I was very careful in doing so. For example, under the first cycle, one of the recipients was listed as Turkish Historical Society, Ankara, Turkey. Wikipedia contains a link to the Turkish Historical Society, but the award was not given to the society. It was given to the "library and conference center" constructed for it in Ankara. I added "Library and Conference Center," and linked it to the Archnet entry.

I added Archnet links if the project did not have a Wikipedia page. For example, all the projects listed under the 14th cycle had Wikipedia entries except the Public Spaces Development Programme. So I added an Archnet link to the entry for that project. I realize Wikipedia would prefer I create entries rather than outside links, but I simply don't have time to do so.

This is a long entry, and there are still problems that need addressing. I didn't have time to continue now, but I'd hoped to come back to it. I will try and do so if you can help me understand what I am doing wrong.

My authority entry on Archnet https://archnet.org/authorities/2691 The collection for the Aga Khan Award for Architecture https://archnet.org/collections/848

Thanks, Mikeyat (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Mikeyat

Since Wikipedia is not a link directory, external links are only used in certain ways here, which you can read about at WP:EL, but the nutshell is they should be kept to a minimum, and never placed inline in the article text or in see also sections. You said 'we' above. Are you associated with Archnet or the Aga Khan Award in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I don't think you read the entry very carefully or looked at any of the links I added, because I think you might have found them beneficial to Wikipedia users. I may have overused external links or not put them in the correct place, but they were links to the most comprehensive publicly available archive of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. You removed all of them. I'm not sure I understand why you'd leave in place a link to the Aga Khan Historic Cities Programme, but not to the archives of the AKAA. Moreover, I don't see anything on that page you referred me to that explains the problem with the links I added, but I am new to editing Wikipedia, and will defer to your judgement.

You asked about my association with Archnet or the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. There are links in the discussion above that will answer that question for you. I work in the Aga Khan Documentation Center in the MIT Libraries. It was endowed by the Aga Khan in 1977, but it is independent. Here is my profile: https://libguides.mit.edu/profiles/mtoler

I wonder if perhaps you rushed through your edits without really thinking about what I was trying to do or what links are appropriate. The Wikipedia article on the Aga Khan Award for Architecture lacks a lot of information that is easily available to readers. I accept that I didn't use external links correctly; I put them in the wrong places and used too many. But my intent was just to help users find relevant resources. For example, the article talks about the AKAA seminars, but it is out of date. Moreover, all the publications of those seminars are freely available on Archnet, as are publications, jury reports, and media on every project that has received the award during the last 30 years or so! for the past 4 decades. Surely that is worth a link somewhere?

Thanks for pointing me to the information about linking. I will bear it in mind if I ever add another link to Wikipedia.

Mikeyat (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Mikeyat

Again, Wikipedia is not a link directory, and please do read through WP:EL. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information here, in this site, not to help users find other relevant resources. Since you do seem to be professionally associated with the links you were adding, you should also read through the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest as well. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have read both pages. But you clearly do not read the things you edit or respond to very carefully. Nor, it appears, do you look at the talk pages for the articles when you reject peoples changes. I asked a number of specific questions. You did not respond to any of them. I am done with editing Wikipedia. People like you are just full of criticism, but NOT helpful at all!

2601:192:417F:CF70:717E:8FEF:9120:7721 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Mikeyat

I did read your contributions, I just disagree that they are appropriate per the guidelines I've linked for you (twice). As an editor with a conflict of interest, you really shouldn't be adding these links. I'm sorry you don't want to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you were really here to assist the Wikipedia project rather than Archnet, you'd be writing encyclopedic content, not simply adding links. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie,

You are really rather rude! How dare you question my motivation for the changes I made!

My whole career has been devoted to the dissemination of knowledge, first as a professor, then in the field of digital humanities before we even had a name for it! I simply want to help people find accurate information. I am a big fan of wikipedia. I donate money almost every year when the annual appeal appears on the pages, and I do want to help with content to the extent that I can. I have made many minor corrections on the site in the nearly 2 decades that I have been using it. These have been to many entries on topics I know something about. I don't make major changes because I find the procedures for doing so a bit challenging to understand, let alone comply with. I am a scholar and an employee of MIT, not an employee of the AKAA, AKTC or Archnet. My job is not dependent on Archnet use, and I do not get any financial incentive for referring people to the site.

I made the changes to the page for the Aga Khan Award for Architecture because I had information I could share, and I really did believe they were helpful changes, in conformity with policies. I realize I was wrong and that is why I did not try to add the links back or to reverse the changes. I apologize for not adhering to the guidelines. In fact, I have taken the information you pointed out to heart, and have not edited any other pages that are directly related to my work. Instead I have pointed out the problems I see on the talk pages.

Why, then, do you attack me personally? I have revealed myself to you and you have called out my conflicts of interest, rightfully so. But you have revealed nothing about yourself. What are your conflicts of interest.

I fully understand why you deleted the links I had made to individual projects in the lists from each award cycle, but can you honestly say that the article should not link to the Archives of the Award? Why did you also remove that link in the section labeled "See Also"? The Archnet collection is more comprehensive than the actual pages of the AKAA. This is by design. The AKAA pages in the AKTC site are somewhat promotional, and the site is not a scholarly resource, but Archnet is and the collection of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture contains every thing relating to the Award since the very first cycle, 1977-1980! Every recipient project is completely documented, and most of the shortlisted one are, as well. In fact, every project that is even nominated for the Award will eventually get an Archnet entry, though they don't contain nearly as much information and they are not part of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture collection. (Those entries are similar to what wikipedia calls stubs.)

Moreover, the archive contains all the seminar proceedings and publications of the AKAA. These are a primary focus of the article, but the article never mentions where they can be found.

Anyway, I am done with arguing this with you. If you or anyone else wants to update an entry on Islamic architecture, I am happy to help. I will refrain from doing them myself. Again, thanks for your help and for pointing me to the resources you did, but I will also thank you if you refrain from questioning my motives and from accusing me based on false assumptions.

Mikeyat (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Mikeyat

Care to have a look?

You are big in identifying and reverting self-promotion. Care to have a look at edit 1 and edit 2? It seems strange for an IP to link to three articles with the same author. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

That and the listing of the papers in the references section without adding any article content. Academic spam is often very lazy. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

question about links

Hey! I don't agree with you at all. The company I added links from is a professional source, and the links are directly to the posts explaining the pieces in detail, so no, this isnt self-promotion or any kind of promotion actually. The company has been a coin expert for 30 years. The people who write these know exactly what they're talking about. I dont need clarification on what is and isnt self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolakmag (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a web store. This is as obvious a case of link spam as we ever get on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Rollback My editing

Are you employee of NordVPN ? You have undone my editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.131.150 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Shah Mosque (Isfahan)

My organization is a non-profit and the linked 3D object is for educational purposes only. There was a link to our 3D object on Sketchfab that someone had created which is not the primary link and has less information than our own catalog page - thus I attempted to update the link with the more accurate direct link.

Seeing this was possible, I attached a 3D model of the Logberg in Iceland as an educational resource as well. I assumed if still images are acceptable as educational resources, a 3D model would be helpful in the same way. I understand that what is educational or not is subjective.

In my opinion, it seems counter intuitive that a secondary source (a random person) who adds a link - which may not be the most accurate or best link - is favored over the more knowledgeable primary source of the link. You may well avoid some instances of nefarious marketing, but the consequence is Wikipedia will be more likely to publish inaccurate or incorrect information when it was simply avoidable. In this case, the issue was exacerbated when the corrected information was rejected and the link was removed all together, depriving Wikipedia users of associated educational resources.

If the 3D model would better be placed in the Photo Gallery, consider creating an option to embed links from Sketchfab (which includes the 3D player with the model). Or is a better place for 3D models to be shared in the Wikimedia family?

As an archivist and a member of the Society of American Archivists, it is my obligation to not only preserve, but provide access to archival resources for educational purposes. I understand that Wikimedia states that it "is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational content to the world" as stated at the top of their website. If adding a link to provide educational content is against policy, what alternate solutions can Wikimedia offer to bring this educational content to the world?

- Michael Conyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arckmconyers (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia expects even representatives of of non-profit orgs to follow the guidelines laid out at WP:COI and WP:PAID. The bigger issue here, though, is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of links to external content. However, there is a sister Wikimedia project at commons.wikimedia.org, which is for sharing freely licensed media, and I believe they do accept 3d models. - MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, an object that is licensed "for educational purposes only" is not freely licensed in the eyes of the Wikimedia Foundation. For Commons to accept the image, it would need to be free for any reuse, including commercial reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In the WP:COI guidelines under Cultural Sector, there is a statement that "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to —their— resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files."

As an archivist, I provided a more reliable source link than the one submitted previously by a volunteer. If archivists, librarians and museum curators are in reality not encouraged to share their own information in the form of links to their own resources, the dialog in the Cultural Sector section should be changed to reflect that. If the policy is changed, best practice would be to inform the American Alliance of Museums, American Library Association and American Library Association of the change in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arckmconyers (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Today I reviewed the external links guidelines for GLAM external links here - https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Get_started/GLAM_external_links_guide#Can_I_add_a_link_to_our_special_exhibition_on_an_artist_or_subject,_or_mention_it_in_the_text?

From the policy page:

Can I add links to digital objects curated by my institution from relevant pages? Web materials not covered by a preservation policy should not be linked to. Permanent materials that your institution is committed to preserving on the web at a given URL may be linkable to a single appropriate article if they are unique and significant. This uniqueness may be that your institution has the largest collection of information on this subject/item/creator; that you have negotiated a liberal licence for redistribution with the creator; or that these are digital surrogates of your globally unique holdings (novel manuscripts, archival content, etc etc). Significance is related to notability; all wikipedia articles should ideally be illustrated with, and linked to, a small number of relevant examples. It is preferable to upload them to wikimedia and embed them in the page, where this is not possible they may be linked to. Where there are many potential examples that could be linked to, it is preferable to link to collections of examples. All material must comply with guideline.

According to the above policy, it appears we are in compliance. The catalog entries are subject to our preservation plan (which I can provide upon request) and compliant with existing archival standards for 3D models. The models are relevant, unique and significant - created from primary source digital images for archival and educational purposes. As far as we know, we are the only holders of this kind of media for various sites and objects, including the Isfahan Mosque. Please let me know if this policy is correct and if I am in compliance.

Thank you - Michael Conyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arckmconyers (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That isn't a policy page. Policy pages for the English Wikipedia appear on this site, not on outreach.wikimedia.org, and are clearly marked as policies at the top of the page. This does not override WP:EL and WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

ONIX AUDIO

Please explain why ten years of mulptiple users contributing are not as knowledgable as you to the company ONIX AUDIO ?

Please advise me how a link to a website by one of the parties invloved in a previously settled by a court of law dispute, can be a better resource on wiki than a UK government website with the out come and case details listed by an independant government website ..Please explain how you think in your edit that this can be a better link from a trade mark illegal website  ?

Please also explain when the document filed on a government website that states the company concerned that you added to the page ONIX AUDIO purchased the trade mark ONIX when he court delclared that they did not ? And never did

Please explain your edits and why you made them ..when an internatonal court has passed judgement that what you have added is false ?

Please explain that these strangly one sided edits ? here is the link https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o49714.pdf

Please explain how there were many links to many relevent parts of the edit you re-wrote that went to other sites that confirmed the situation and history , but now are removed due to your edit far from the required condition of wiki ?

Please explain why at firt you requested speedy deletion of the article without a single edit but when that failed you made massive changes removing the majority of the content ?

Please also explain why another user jumped in and then my user name got bloked with a few minutes of your edits being reversed for false reasons?

I wait to hear why you did these things as in my world they just dont make any sense for the interest of wiki they are odd to say the least and I think we are all entitled to explaination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Your questions are answered therein. Other users jumped in because your editing activity was not in agreement with these guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tonyb1961, What MrOllie said is correct, but I'd like to add on to this: you engaged in personal attacks, which won you over no favors, and instead earned you a large amount of ire and scrutiny from other editors. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sidenote, MrOllie, don't mind me, i'm just a friendly talk-page gnome. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This does not answer my question why an unreliable and clearly biased source was placed on wiki after the original source was a UK government website https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o49714.pdf

Please offer me the explaination of why you feel a UK government website above is not as relaible as a site made by a connected party ?. I am eager to have you explain why you feel this is the case ?

I would like you to explain , I would further add I will make a complaint that the page now contains trade mark infringment . Plese expalin how this benefits the community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, See WP:NPOV. This will be the last time I repeat this link, so feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mr Oliie

How much did you paid to effect removal ? Strange how many talk about the same things on your page ..Very strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Tonyb1961, Ollie is not paid. Please stop claiming that. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits deleted

Hello, can you tell me why my major edits on Myofascial Release (23 Jan) were deleted? I am well-schooled in this field and was very careful to not state biased or unsourced information. I simply cannot see why my statements are unacceptable. Thank you.Dr.Zannakis (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edits took the article far away from a neutral portrayal of the mainstream viewpoint on that topic - namely, that it is pseudoscience and does not work. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your opinion of "mainstream" comes from. It's accurate that this technique was frowned upon 3 decades ago. But that's an antiquated concept now, given the reliable studies on the topic (albeit relatively few), as well as the 6th international congress on fascia, where myofascial release is one of the biggest topics (and the conference is supported by both [mainstream] NIH and NSF). Today, roughly a third of licensed and certified medical practitioners (e.g., 247k PT's, 145k osteopathic physicians, 70k chiropractors) use myofascial release routinely. A third of practitioners isn't overwhelming, but it's not fringe practice either. Simply because it's extremely difficult to standardize the technique doesn't make it fringe or pseudoscience - any more than a neck massage to relieve a stiff neck makes that massage pseudoscience; it's just difficult to standardize it. What's more, the statement preceding the McKenney (2) reference is incongruous because the referenced material actually (albeit weakly) supports the technique. Here is McKenney et al's conclusion: "The quality of studies was mixed, ranging from higher-quality experimental to lower-quality case studies. Overall, the studies had positive outcomes with myofascial release, but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn. The studies in this review may serve as a good foundation for future randomized controlled trials." Again, my intend was not to portray it as mainstream, but also not to portray it as voodoo, either. Maybe the balance between relatively wide use versus scientific support can be improved? I see where some language can soften the "certainty" of a couple statements. Perhaps I can change the language a bit? Thanks for listening.Dr.Zannakis (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Zannakis, I have copied the article to a draft, at Draft:Myofascial release

Please place your proposed edits there, and i'll look over them as an observer. I will also, if it is not terrible, consult someone I know who has medical experience, and see what they think. (Nurse for many years, currently teaches at Tyler Junior College's medical department.) moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I placed the edits in the draft. After re-reading and tweaking it several times, I can't see how it is NOT being neutral AND stating factual information. On another issue, the panel to the right, "Alternative and Pseudo-Medicine Series" truly should not include myofascial release as alternative medicine, and certainly not pseudo-science, for all the reasons I outlined earlier. I would concede and say it's not scientific mainstream (yet), but to lump it into a category that includes homeopathy and psychic surgery IS a little overboard, don't you think? Not sure you can do anything about that though. Many thanks again. MZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Zannakis (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem blatantly wrong to me (i'm no medical professional) so i'll pass it along. Any comments from you, MrOllie? (Reviewing edits like this isn't my strongpoint). --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

When something is pseudo-medicine (which this is) we really have to be up front about it to avoid misleading our readers. But this kind of thing doesn't belong on user talk pages, it should be at Talk:Myofascial_release. I'm sure I'm far from the only editor who would object to this proposed new version. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, Coming back a bit later, I withdraw my statement. This will not be accepted by consensus, period, and as such I will not waste the time of my friend. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorry for the inconvenience. Sometimes I made an error in the wiki.i'm not added s.bullmask.com link on any page .i's adding useful link only for website based articles. Then I'm not making any money from these site links. Thank you sir! Mabisingle (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

modifications on some medicinal plants reverted

Hi, i would be grateful if you could give me some explanation why the my contributions on some medicinal plants (I added therapeutic indications determined by a scientific association, ESCOP) were reverted. thank you --Csupord (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

As I mentioned in the edit summary, medical claims on Wikipedia have particular sourcing requirements, which you can read about at WP:MEDRS. ESCOP doesn't meet these requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I know this guideline, which says: "Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow)." ESCOP is a scientific organization, so why are those referemces not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csupord (talk • contribs)

That refers to major medical organizations. It is for bodies like the World Health Organization. If you think ESCOP is in the same category as the WHO, you should get a consensus for that on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Jasmine Sandlas

Not sure how I mananged to add the spam link back when I was trying to revert - I blame a lack of caffeine! Thanks for cleaning up after me. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on MySQL

Why did you undo my edit on MySQL? I thought that my citation was correct. If I made a mistake. You can tell me. TheCartoonEditor (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made a mistake and I am sure I will never cite a blog ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCartoonEditor (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

COI editor

I was just reviewing Paul Akers and about to restore your version when you jumped in and did it. Based on the talk page, I don't think they will stop. I would have ordinarily reported this at WP:COIN, but since you are involved I thought I would mention it to you first. MB 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to start a COIN section myself - should be open in a few moments. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And opened. - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal trolling from user MrOllie on Minikola user account

Please stop trolling my personal page and sharing lies about me being supported by commercial entity or something, not only those are baseless claims and are totally unsupported with my edits, also I believe you are misusing Wikipedia to troll and will be reported in due process. Also I feel this like money extorting of some kind. Again you accusations are baseless and please stop doing that on me because I would be forced to take action on you inside Wikimedia community. I am regular small-time contributor, were multiple times thanked for contributions, I am a long-time member and sir, please correct yourself at this moment form baseless accusations. Minikola (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Minikola, MrOllie is a trusted,. experienced editor. If they have reason to believe you are a WP:COI WP:PAID editor, I am inclined to believe them, not you, and is the rest of us. Instead of making personal attacks (which WILL get you in trouble), try and genuinely disprove the notice. The fact you immediately reacted so poorly has me inclined to believe you are lying. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I already stated that I am the long time member and editing from time to time, and I never experienced this kind of false and unsupported statements TARGETED toward me , that could only be explained as trolling and personal attack. I am actually sending warnings that user MrOllie exactly launched personal attacks (which SHOULD get MrOllie in trouble) and that is against me that is against Wikipedia community rules. I think you didn't even take a look at the things in case and you being "inclined" does not have merit here.

What actually happened is that :MMrOllie reverted my edit (and my edit are rare and occasional and can NOT be connected by any means to anything "paid" and that is surely misjudgment. I DO NOT need to DISPROVE anything, because MrOllie is the one one making accusations need to PROVE it's accusations first, and they are baseless, exactly based on the frequency of my edits and many thanks I received, I am more then exemplary Wikimedia member.

I again see this as the case of Trolling, Lying and supporting such behaviour is against Wikipedia community standards, too, Moonythedwarf.

I reacted because I got notice about that someone LIED and launched personal attack on my Wikipedia page, and since 1995 from what time I am on the internet I am more then sure I can recognize when I am witnessing trolling. I am 40+ years old, I om here from the beginings of the internet since 1995, even before Wikipedia and I pretty sure know when someone is doing a bad thing against community standards, as MMrOllie is doing.

I ask for concluding this case by MMrOllie reverting it's statements, (do not need to apologise, everyone can be wrong any time, I could be wrong too) , and that we are back to happily editing Wikipedia, without trolling lying and doing actions against community standards. I am also being trolled to mention money extortion , based on false commercial accusations, and this could be the case for something more then wikipedia and wikimedia, but for local authorities. I am also warned "not to do Wikipedia Edits" and that is also so bad anti-community behavior. This kind of behavior is creating the culture of fear , extortion and "Trolling as rule" and that was never the case on Wikipedia.

There is the possibility that MrOllie was thinking he is doing things in the best intentions, but personal trolling is never in the best intentions and such behaviour needs correction. Minikola (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Minikola, I am sorry, but you are attacking the both of us. If you read the policy on personal attacks, you would note that what MrOllie is currently doing is not a personal attack at all. I would also like you to realise that the message he put on your talk page is a template. It is intended for use whenever anyone has any reason to suspect a user might be being paid. MrOllie is a more experienced editor than you. Time on the internet, and account age, does not determine your experience. Actually helping the site does.

The template you are complaining about explicitly tells you to just to state you are not paid and move on. Please do not try and blow this up, it will only end poorly.

And for a final note, you are forgetting a fairly important piece of policy, yourself: Assume Good Faith. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry too, but I have the right to defend on baseless accusations or blindly labelling. Accusation templates and threats sent to members by other members are a not community-like behaviour in my book.

I reacted to that "template" , because template did not sound to me like it is put there in a good faith, but as a way to avoid discussion about content. It may be I am wrong, but I surely believe that Wikipedia is not build around false sticking templates and baseless accusations, but around reasoning about better CONTENT and not about PERSONAS.

I surely appreciate good will in this matter as well as I fully accept "Assume Goof Faith" suggestion! I would love for MrOllie in the future, (but surely I can only recommend), to think twice about reasoning, before pushing offensive templates to long-time members (which matters).

I answered personal accusations from that "template", as baseless and I clearly stated not being paid (by whom???). Since I responded in timely and DEFENSIVE manner I can only conclude that offensive "template" posted on my page and accusations in it, as they are responded to, are not in effect anymore. and that this case is closed.

Btw thank you for explaining that just answering that template closes the case. Minikola (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Minikola, I will note that generally the discretion on if the PAID notice is given or not is done purely on the user's most recent edits, as it's fully possible for an actual undisclosed paid editor to hide the fact they're making paid edits by being constructive inbetween. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It is also possible that editor is avoiding content editing, by hiding behind templates and accusations, because as you stated there is no way to make sure if editor itself who is posting PAID templates is PAID itself. It is also possible to have other editors blindly support reasoning without actually taking look at the matter.

I think this is not the case, and that editor here just should use less of template labeling in a wise manner.

As far I am concerned, this Cat-mouse whitch-hunt is ended now and I have no intention of continuing dialogue on this baseless matter and I would appreciate it ends here and now. Since thing seems resolved, MrOllie can feel free to remove this dialogue from it's personal page. Minikola (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfounded Article Edit on "Portugal Golden Visa"

The edits I have made on the "Portugal Golden Visa" page are accurate and informative. The sole intention behind the edit is to add value to the article and thus enhance the value to the visitors. None of the links included in the article have any association with me, the editor. On the contrary, it is quite apparent that the format of the article constantly being pushed back by user "MrOllie" includes links, some of which are leading to a commercial site "www.globalcitizensolutions.com" and its sub URLs. It is disturbing to see that user "MrOllie" encourages advertisement to commercial sites such as "www.globalcitizensolutions.com" on Wikipedia. I hereby ask editor authorities to observe the contents provided by us, as well as the advertorials provided by "MrOllie" and make sure that whatever gives the rightful and objective value to the visitors be accepted as the current version of the "Portugal Golden Visa" article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdarars (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The presence of linkspam is a reason to remove that linkspam, not to add more - particularly not with sockpuppet accounts. If you keep this up I expect your site will end up on Wikipedia's blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are truthfully in the intention of editing this article for the better use of the visitors; I strongly suggest you to analyze the current links and remove the commercial sites such as "www.globalcitizensolutions.com". So far, it appears that you are promoting this site for some unexplained reason. On the contrary, I also strongly recommend you to analyze the "Portugal Golden Visa" you have edited out, as it has actual valuable content unlike the current one you are pushing. Please present the same respect to the community that it deserves; "sockpuppet" is not an appropriate reference for a user that have been part of the community for quite so many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdarars (talk • contribs)

1)I suggest you look at the page and its history yourself, I removed that link 10 minutes before you came to my talk page to complain about it, and 2) Sockpuppet is an appropriate label when multiple accounts arrive to push a particular link. - MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have checked the article and (1) you are right, the commercial link is removed; thank you for doing the right thing for the community. (2) I am still under the impression that the content written by user "Dogaelf" is more informative, current, and appropriate for this page. I am on the same opinion with you that any commercial or potentially commercial link on that content should be removed and replaced with an appropriate non-commercial one; however the article should be duly updated from the current version, as it needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdarars (talk • contribs) 12:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Response to Taking away the Podcast Link

I can understand your thinking regarding the podcast, Cool Dead Women. But my desire is to offer a different method to learn more about a particular woman's life. 1. Does everything have to be print-based? What about the Disabilities Act? 2. Often Wikipedia's links and references are out of date and even inaccessible, but the podcast provides very current biographical information. 3. Do you imagine I'm getting rich by doing this podcast? We have no advertisers or sponsors! This is a labor of love in "women's archaeology"! I have nothing to gain except to help people learn more. 4. Finally, does the podcast reference belong in the Bibliography? Should not be a link? Is that your point? 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeport47 (talk • contribs)

As already indicated on your talk page, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory. This just isn't the project for publicizing your podcast links. I suggest you find another project that is intended to be a link directory. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a business promotion

Hello Sir, i am sorry if this look as a business promotion but its only for educational purpose.I think the name i used looks like a business promotion but my intention was not hope u understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devansh98567 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

question about deletion

Hi. i wat to know why u deleted my edit in which i added an external link in Breast Cancer Term.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzon1234 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. its a list of 19 paragraphes. please can u direct to the specific one so i can correct my external link. Thank u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzon1234 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do read the entire policy. (And also WP:MEDRS, since this is a medical topic) I don't think your site should be linked at all, so I don't see how you could 'correct' this. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

hello friend again.

this website intrdouce in a friendly way medical experimets in the field of breast cancer which are ordered by time lime.

i'm sending u again the specific web page that i asked to relate .

http://www.re-searches.com/?CategoryID=459

This website is available in all the languages.( please notice the "flags button" on the upper right corner ).

i will appricate if you would examine it again.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzon1234 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

? Arzon1234 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

? Arzon1234 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Single-board computers table

I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but I noticed you recently undid an edit (my first) on the following page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers I was reviewing the history for recent additions and noticed you had previously reverted this edit for some reason. Not sure if this was a formatting issue or something else (?) but the content seemed correct and relevant and I didn't see a reason to undo it. Can you kindly provide an explanation or revert the edit to include the (now removed) information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeplyEmbedded (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

Dear MrOllie, I would like to know why you have deleted Earth System Governance from all pages I recently added it to? It is a very important and influential concept that should be recognized by being on other pages as well. Of course I copy paste it there because I have not written the main articles and do not want to destroy their work by totaly editing their work. Could you please name me a good reason (not just promotion!) why Earth system governance is not allowed to be on the pages? I can delete the Project Information as I can see the promotion here but not for the concept itself. So, I kindly request that you undo your deletion for at least earth system governance.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthUnicorn (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No one can restore what you've written, because you were pasting in copyright violations. If you keep that up it is likely you will be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

YIFY is using yts.mx as main domain

The current YTS (YIFY successor) which initially used yts.ag domain name, then yts.am and later yts.lt, now all of them redirect to new domain yts.mx; they have posted new blog article about it, which you can read here also: https://yts.lt/blog/yts-mx-is-the-only-new-official-domain-for-yify-movies

The current domain is relevant to YIFY page. (https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-popular-torrent-sites-of-2020-200105/) Donranase (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Donranase

As you've just said, that is a 'successor'. If and when that becomes notable, perhaps it will have a page of its own that will list its URL. But in the meantime promoting it on Wikipedia is not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, the reason why YYS and YIFY brand still stands 5 year later is because YTS current successor is even more popular than the original and continued working harder and better. People are looking for new content added by YTS successor (YTS.MX) thus searching for "YTS" or "YIFY" keywords and this Wikipedia page also benefits by the work of YTS.MX, gaining a lot of traffic of it. So not mentioning it, it would be such great mistake. Otherwise, can you please be so kind to suggest creating a new YTS page for the successor? It is already notable, live for 5 years and one of the most popular torrent sites worldwide.Donranase (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:AFC, but 'It gets lots of traffic' is not how we establish notability on Wikipedia. It will need multiple independent sources that meet our requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Reply: Dear Mr. Orlie, please check Dr. Amey Patil’s notability online. Further details on www.ameypatil.com We are creating his wiki page soon as it’s in progress. He is an through notable for rest dental field what he has achieved in very young age. We should appreciate that. Thank you. Have a great day ahead. Regards, Dr. Patil’s Media Team == February 2020 == Hello. Your recent edit to List of dentists appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Ameygpatil (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you Mr. Orlie for your prompt response. We do understand what you are trying to say and our marketing team and advocates will take appropriate action on this matter. Thank you for the information. We will make sure to give you details, and ask you for an suggestions or edits to involve Dr. Patil’s name in this list as his impact is huge on the community. Thank you. -Dr. Patil’s Media Team Ameygpatil (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:CorrinaKateBaird

I received an email suggesting I had a financial interest in making edits to the Australia section of Vehicle Insurance page. I have no financial interest at all. I do not work for any of the companies listed, but I am an expert in compulsory third party insurance. My intention was to keep the page up to date because some of the information was wrong. I note three of the changes were about Allianz, but this was a co-incidence. CIC-Allianz recently stopped offering CTP in NSW, which is why there are now only five insurers. I also noted that Northern Territory was missing, and having added their scheme, I had to mention Allianz, which runs the scheme there. I have never worked for Allianz. CorrinaKateBaird (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In this edit you included your own name as the author of the advertisement you were using as a citation. If you have no conflict of interest with the site you were linking, why did you do that? - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kalalau Trail

MrOllie, you deleted an external link of mine, saying it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's perhaps not appropriate for a traditional paper encyclopedia, but the real-time nature of the Kalalau Trail FB page is in many ways more useful than the archival content currently on the page. Updates to permit planning, trail changes and closures, and recent trek reports from users are all encyclopedic data that change daily. I do believe it is a useful link. Many users say -- after the fact -- that they wish they had known about the group before their visit. I'm sure they would have loved for their encyclopedias to reference it. Thank you. LuckyMagician (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Wikipedia doesn't link to social network sites. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of an edit with valid references

Hi MrOllie, you have just deleted one of my edits, which was a contribution with references and fixes in the article following the Wikipedia editing rules and best practices. You can check the validity of the references I put in the edits yourself. I'd appreciate if you can undo your delete.

Let me know if I can do anything to make it better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urukyan (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First, can you let me know what sort of connection you have with Burak Arıkan? - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Cloud gaming

Hi Ollie, you removed my last edit on Cloud Gaming page, you can check the references. PlayPod is the first cloud gaming platform in Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehralihamed (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked the references. This is spam. Don't add it again, with or without links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you did a mistake, if you check this website you will find a cloud gaming platform and it's not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehralihamed (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

VAT Page

Hi,

I edited a page on VAT and seen your intervention. Please give me some details as those are my first wikipedia page modifications. Kindly yours, Benoît BenoitQuerne (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenoitQuerne (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You added grammar errors, spelling errors, and a spam link. Please don't do any of those things. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Denial of Service Attacks

Hi Mr Ollie, You deleted my link to Denial of Service attacks, saying that it contains promotional material. The aforementioned content was found to be informative by me, and I have no association whatsoever with the page in question. The same goes with my post on Avast Prateek Samantaray (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't link to advertisements on Wikipedia. Repeatedly doing so is linkspamming, whether you are associated or not. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am just curious, since I am a relatively new contributor. How is a blog post an advertisement. The content in question contained pure tidbits of information on DoS attacks. It is disappointing to see sincere efforts to add content being flagged down by moderators. My content on SDP was flagged down as an advertisement because it contained citations from Gartner, an authority in bringing SDP to the knowledge of the general public. ----

+How can we include a new product in this wiki table https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhuvairam (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose account template

MrOllie, hey, just wanted to apologize for my threat to "seek a remedy for this behavioral transgression" regarding your use of the single-purpose account template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). I had no idea such a template existed and was not aware that you had used a template when I made that comment. I've participated in lot of XfDs over the years, but few of a highly contentious nature like this one. While I was indeed surprised to see that such a template exists and think it's inherently at odds with an assumption of good faith, it's clearly an established practice to use it, so your action was not transgressive as I has initially thought. Sorry about that. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hats off!

For the vigilance monitoring Wikiwhatyouwant20 and his merry men. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration

Hi. Please provide description if you are deleting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteropata (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know what is still wrong with following: <<cut and paste removed>>

I'm new here. Is that a talk page here? It was not told which talk page mine or yours?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteropata (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 

The main issue is that you are editorializing based on weak sources. The talk page to discuss this is at Talk:Carbon sequestration. Do not continue to insert your text again and again, that is edit warring. Please read over WP:BRD for a basic primer on how we do things. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake

That edit warrior - is this sockpuppetry do you think? He's reverted "biologist" in multiple times. Guy (help!) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think so, especially since he touched exactly 10 articles before hitting the controversial one. But does it really matter? Disruptive is disruptive either way. - MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Beef Noodles Soup

Hello, could you please provide detailed description if you are deleting all of my content. Simply saying "not improved" is not helpful. Thank you, I appreciate it! Tif0409 (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You added grammatical errors, introduced unreliable sources and made the formatting of images worse. And you attempted to move the article to an improperly formatted title without discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, now?

I was unaware of the rule, I appreciate your vigilance (honestly). I do this so rarely that I'm not that familiar.

I think I am now compliant by placing these disclosures on my own 'page:'

{{paid|user=SteffAW|employer=P._M._H._Atwater|additional=In her capacity of Secretary & Webmaster}} {{paid|employer=P._M._H._Atwater|userbox=yes|article=[[P._M._H._Atwater]]}}

Can the new changes to P._M._H._Atwater (which, IMHO, were not so much advertising as just a bit self-engrandizing) be allowed? If so, how will those changes now be reinstated on the page? SteffAW (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SteffAW, I'm afraid that never-the-less Wikipedia is not a soapbox. self-engrandizing edits are not permitted. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As Moonythedwarf says, we can't use promotional writing, so we can't restore the edits you made. If and when you have neutral edits to suggest, please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

YIFY talk

Hi, Do you consider TorrentFreak as reliable source for YTS.AM? I left you more info on YIFY talk page. Donranase (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As you're free, mind doing a little cleanup?

Medical simulation. Tbh I don't think I personally can clean this article up, it's too much of a mess. It may need simply reverted somewhere far back in history. --—moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about that topic to do it justice. Maybe bring it up at WT:MED? - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits from Hola Mohalla were deleted

i gave an important addition as to why the festival is called festival, please dnt remove it. my source was good, ?????? Ravimags (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Ravi Maggo

No, your source was a self-published blog. Please see WP:RS for information on Wikipedia's sourcing standards. - MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if its a self published blog, but if the information is authentic and is adding value then i think you should allow it.

Ravimags (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ravimags, I am afraid that the rest of the site thinks otherwise. It will not go through. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Maggo

Changes made by SOCRAMSILVA

Hello , so sorry for inconvenienca I'm new on the wiki, and about the electric dangerous installation in Guatemala, I changede becaus I work for the company that made this product is a big company from Brazil and the company would not like to see thier product associate a dangerous things, but we can contribute with you with more information about this kind of produc we can talk about this, so sorry if I caused any inconvenience for you, we want for correct informations about the products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCRAMSILVA (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a conflict of interest as a paid editor. You're required to follow certain procedures. I've left information on your user talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference number 1 is a dead link

The reference link number 1 from Published-Articles.com is a dead link, Please consider replace it with this active one: [https://www.webflares.com/the-nofollow-attribute-and-seo The nofollow Attribute and SEO] "https://www.webflares.com/the-nofollow-attribute-and-seo", or any active link, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedalshamsy (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A dead link is preferable to an unreliable blog, WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

According to that WP:RS, the dead link is not preferable to anyone. To solve that I added an archived page source from archive.org, hope it will help. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedalshamsy (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to February 2020- originally posted on my talk page but not sure where to reply

Hi MrOllie, I am not sure what this has to do with search engines, but someone asked me to add in the coupon link, he explained that he had recreated the old page on a live website and that was a better user experience than going to archive.org. Was he using me to get better search engine visibility? As for the VPS link, that is a legitimate use for VPSs today, my nephew is into esports, so I am not sure what was wrong with that one? Thanks Rob Robkeane89 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Cyber-physical_system

Thanks for your feed back on Cyber-physical_system. I sure don't want to use Wikipedia as promotion tool, but I thought it was interesting to have a reference to this new project and give a european taste to a very american page. Maybe I could move this refernce to Examples section, where some references to other projects were accepted !

Just let me know.

Guillaume G-G (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Any mention should be based on secondary sources (you are using primary sources) and omit the list of participating companies. Oh, and we generally make external links only inside references, not inline with the article text like that. And we pretty much never externally link to mentioned companies. See WP:EL for details on that. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits on "List of unit testing frameworks" and "List of .NET libraries and frameworks" were deleted without real explanation

Hello MrOllie,

Last week I made a few edits of the mentioned articles. They both were reverted without a real explanation. As I see it both articles are providing a list of libraries and frameworks. What I have done is to add two more libraries to that list. My intention was to improve those articles with missing libraries. Could you provide more information about why the changes were rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail Vladov (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WTAF - MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast reply. Sadly, I am a bit confused by your reply about red links as I haven't added any red links to my edits. Could you please clarify? I guess I am missing something but I can't figure out what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail Vladov (talk • contribs)

The main issue is that your account's activity revolves around listing products in various places. The secondary issue is that you seem to have a conflict of interest. In particular, It seems that you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use in regard to paid editing. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for guidance on how to proceed. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

in relation to the Thirdlane article

Thank you for your feedback. I'd like to clarify that I am not paid for creating the related content - frequent and "continuous" editing was due to the lack of experience in using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aepshteyn (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also a bit confused where you are expecting my response - here or on my talk page

The article has been deleted without any further explanation or a response after my attempt to discuss this with you. Is an article about a specific company and its products inappropriate in principal or there was something in the content that was viewed as advertisement? If so, would you have a suggestion on how the article could be improved?

Aepshteyn (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't carry out the deletion, but I'll take a stab at answering: This particular article was written in a promotional tone. Other articles on companies do not promote their products, and are written in a neutral tone. Your article also didn't come even close to meeting the sourcing requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I would suggest that you don't try creating this article again, since you've now had two attempts deleted as advertisements. But if you must, you should locate independent, reliable sources first, write the article based on what those articles say, and use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process instead of posting it directly into the article mainspace. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and you should answer the COI concerns on your own talk page. Be advised that 'not paid for creating the related content' is more narrow than what is spelled out by the policies on this. If you are paid by Third Lane Technologies for anything, own the company, even indirectly, you would be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use if you don't disclose it properly when you make edits. - MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to February 2020- originally posted on my talk page but not sure where to reply

Hello Mr Ollie, can you explain what you mean by inappropriate external links mean? I have linked to interactive maps in the past because wikipedia lack them, how is that inappropriate? 58.173.144.85 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)58.173.144.85 (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about Don't Make Me ThinkYifanwu9 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I saw you reverted my Don't Make Me Think edits to previous one with the explanation that they were "overdetailed and promotional."

I can understand "overdetailed" side, could you briefly tell me why is it "promotional"?

I really want to improve the contribution on this page, is there any guidance or resource you know that could help me on this?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yifanwu9 (talk • contribs)

The about the author section seemed promotional. The main issue, though, is that you wrote a book report rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is for summarizing what reliable sources say. Your edits did not appear to be based on any sources but your own understanding of the book. I would suggest you run through Wikipedia's tutorial at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure and the student editor training at https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the resource. Would you mind telling me how did you conclude my edits were not neutral? If you have read the book, you can definitely tell none of my edits come from my own opinions, they are all based on book content.Yifanwu9 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

17 keyboard edits

Hello MrOllie The references I've been adding to these 17 pages are the latest textbook on the subject area. See this review from the international sound magazine Sound On Sound, London. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/book-review-classic-keys-keyboard-sounds-launched-rock-music

All the pages I've been posting to are covered comprehensively in this new book - the first to cover many of these subjects. Docrobbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding any book to 17 articles in one go isn't appropriate, let alone your own book. Please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and don't do this sort of thing in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this reply. I have to assume you've followed up the links I provided? The book Classic Keys has been overwhelmingly welcomed as the book that this hobby area has been waiting for for many years. The Wikipedia information in these subject areas is, in many cases, severely lacking. This was a great deal of the motivation for doing the research that went into this book. I find it strange that you'd prefer that I didn't update Wikipedia. I was editing all the pages sequentially to be time efficient, not to spam - I'd ask you to consider that there is a difference. This is not your typical case. I've just noted that you've directed me to the "Plain and simple" reference and I'll follow that up. But now that I know you're actually there, and not a bot, would you please follow up the links I provided and consider that this is information that is pertinent to these Wiki pages being brought up to a factual level by someone who has previously supported Wiki and was intending to again - not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie I have read a great deal of the links you've directed me to and I can understand why you've sought to apply the rule that you're using to revert my additions. I had reached the conclusion that I was going to walk away from attempts to add to the knowledge base of Wiki. I'd concluded that I was in the category of the frustrated editor mentioned in this phrase - "by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration." But then I came across this Wiki advice: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. See also Be Bold The 5th of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: WIkipedia has no rules Ignore all rules essays and related topics" So, one more try, could you please read the supporting links that I provided to make a direct assessment of the relevance of this material I was posting to the Wiki subjects?

Academic support for the book. “An extremely thorough and informative book that reveals the evolution and inner workings of keyboard instruments that changed contemporary music for the good, forever. As an educator, I feel that this book should be required reading for every contemporary keyboardist.” Dave Limina Piano department chair, Berklee College of Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the purpose of WP:IAR, I'm afraid. It does not justify adding your own book despite a COI. The entire point of the COI guidelines is that you are naturally proud of your own work, and that pride makes it impossible for you to judge it neutrally. - MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

So I'm asking you to judge it neutrally. The Sound on Sound review was written by their senior technical editor who regularly writes on this subject area. Sound On Sound is the World's premier magazine for sound technology - and has been for decades. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/book-review-classic-keys-keyboard-sounds-launched-rock-music He had no relationship to the project. I'm in Australia, my co-author is in the US, he's in England. If anyone was going to be critical of this book, it would have come from someone like Mr Robjohns. The book also passed the test of finding a formal university press publisher and was assessed by a reader in their music faculty before being accepted for publication. No easy feat in this day and age. This is actually the first book that covers most of the instruments that I was posting to. The previous best source (which I was also adding to many of the posts) Vintage Synthesizers deals mainly with synthesizers, is a compilation of magazine articles, and has only two "overview" chapters to cover the subjects covered in our 416 page (160,000 words, 500 colour pictures) book. The praise for the content of this book is clearly seen in the 5-star reviews by buyers on Amazon - these are the people most immersed in this subject area. Well known keyboard musicians such as Rick Wakeman, Steve Nieve, Chuck Leavell, and Donald Fagen were prepared to endorse the contents once supplied with pre-publication copies despite having no relationship or knowledge of the authors - and for no payment or inducements. This is a link to another on-line only keyboard publication review: https://synthandsoftware.com/2020/01/book-review-classic-keys-by-alan-s-lenhoff-and-david-e-robertson/ The book has passed a great deal of vetting. If you're wondering why I was also posting to subjects such as Pipe Organs - this book has a three chapter historical introduction to the development of keyboards since antiquity to provide the context for the instruments of the 20th Century. This section is a good primer for someone looking for an historical summary - something usually missing from single-subject books. And I should have added this. This is what Barry Carson, the writer of the two relevant chapters in Vintage Synthesizers had to say after he'd purchased a copy on Amazon - posting to one of the long established forums that deal with parts of this subject: Barry Carson on combo-organ@groups.io Got the book yesterday! Amazing! More information than I knew existed and the pictures are gorgeous - some of those photos look like you could reach into the book and play the instrument! Incredible job you guys!! It must have been an amazing amount of work! You mentioned writing this book years ago! It looks like you must have been working on it ever since! It truly is and will be the definitive work on this subject! Both of you guys should be incredibly proud of this!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie So I'm asking you to judge it neutrally. I haven't heard back from you in a few days? What is the process for determining the accuracy of the offered information? It is ironic that the substantial modifications that I made to a number of keyboard pages went unchallenged in 2012 despite some errors I inadvertently included and other errors left in because I didn't have the data to correct them. These pages have stayed largely as I left them, errors and all, for seven years - apart from people making minor rearrangements, word choices and the constant addition of songs. Equally ironically, you accepted the changes I most recently made to two of these pages despite there being no substantiation for them - yet removed the reference that would allow people to decide whether the changes I'd made were justified. Seven years is a long time to imagine that someone will chance along who can both spot the errors, and be bothered to change them. Of the articles I sought to amend that had bibliographies, there are many examples of listed books that are entirely peripheral to the subject of the article that go unchallenged year after year. And, as you saw (and retained in some cases) I was more than happy to include the only other book that has general relevance to many of these keyboards (which has never been volunteered by the normal Wiki process). Header panels above these articles often make the call "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources." Strangely, for a digital project, it seems that 'reliable sources' needs to be a pre-digital printed book - something that is rapidly disappearing. Or perhaps a journalist's article in a magazine that still has a printed presence - something that is also rapidly disappearing. And a journalist's article is likely to be an expedient exercise in generating 1000 saleable words in the shortest time - almost indistinguishable from a blog you might say. The exercise of getting something like a history of 20th Century keyboards published these days is close to impossible because it's hard to sell. It passes a great number of gatekeepers to gain publication. Classic Keys cites more than 100 research books in its bibliography and names around 70 interview sources spread throughout the vintage keyboard world - including (now retired) staff of the former manufacturing businesses involved. In asking you to examine the evidence and be a 'neutral judge' of whether this book belongs in the bibliography of these Wiki keyboard entries, I'm effectively asking “why is it more appropriate to wait while some random person makes that link?” Surely that is not in the realm of "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, Wikipedia policies are not magical incantations like some old martial arts film that you can just invoke on a whim. You have to explain why they are relevant to this case. Explain thyself. @Docrobbie:, I haven't picked up Classic Keys: Keyboard Sounds That Launched Rock Music but the SOS review does indeed sound good; if it's another good book we can use for improving some keyboard articles, we'll use it. Have a chat on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

They are relevant in this case because the admitted author of the book added it to 17 articles. If it is a good book we can certaintly use it - if he suggests it on the talk page and some neutral editor agrees. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm a neutral editor (assuming that writing several GAs on the subject including Hammond organ, Mellotron and Rhodes piano and GA reviewing Roland TR-808 is "neutral") and it looks fine to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie and Ritchie333 I'm glad now that I waited to cool down before weighing into this again. Thank you for joining this discussion Ritchie333. I would welcome editor Ritchie333 or other regular editors of the keyboard articles making an assessment of Classic Keys and its relevance for inclusion as a reference source. David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

IBM i

Hi! I noticed that at IBM i, you warned a newbie user with two warning templates for a single edit. I'm guessing the newb may file bitten. Jacona (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a single edit, he's added that (spam) site to the article twice, along with three other articles. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Coaching

The edits you are making to the coaching page are in fact allowing personal promotion rather than creating a "neutral" space. Some of the edits that I made were to eliminate the sources that are not in fact relevant to the increase of information, and are purely self-promotion. Additionally, some of these categories are not accepted in the realm of coaching at all.

I appreciate your tenacity and willingness to fight for a commonplace of knowledge on Wikipedia, and I assure you that I am also doing that. As someone who comes from a Coaching background, I understand this topic well.

Sequoiacraig (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your position is that the NY Times, the official journal of the U.S. Cooperative Extension System, and a book published by Routledge are self promotional? You're going to have to make a case for that and get a consensus on the article's talk page before proceeding. - MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hello MrOllie,

I am confused to why you reverted my change in the previous section about Usenet. I added links to a section SPECIFICALLY about different types of newsservers, which I would add on to later. If you feel like the selection is too small I can always make it bigger. I do not try to promote any specific server, as shown by the plethora of newsservers I linked. I am also confused about why you reverted my part about SSL ports and the change of ownership in Highwinds media, both of which are accurate... There are times when you like an edit, and I want my edit to be one of them. Whatever I can do to make my edit better would be appreciated. Thank you.

Edit. It seems like MANY OTHER PEOPLE have suggested the same edits I have. I am not the only one. Please reconsider this. Readnews1 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You added external links to a section which is for internal links. Wikipedia is specifically not a link directory so a Wikipedia article is not a place to host external links to usenet providers. If you want to build such a list, I suggest a site which is designed to be a link directory: curlie.org is a decent one. - MrOllie (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean thank you. I just made the SSL change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readnews1 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Floor cleaning article

Issue regarding edits: sir, may I know why my edit was not approved so that I can better my experience and learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megha Parmarr (talk • contribs)

Your addition wasn't on topic for the article - Floor cleaning isn't a place to write about flooring materials in general. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank You for Special:Diff/943527408/943533771! 45.83.220.164 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie why did you remove my entry on granola? do you work for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissalo44 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Medical claims have special sourcing requirements, see WP:MEDRS for details. Your edit did not cite a MEDRS compliant source. - MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem about reverting edit

I made a edit in the page titled "Hooke's law", under section "External Links". I made that edit due to previous link had some problems with their applet. So I added one new link and redirected old link but you had reverted my edit. What's wrong with my edit and why you undid it to the old link?Pasinduravimal (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this was almost a year ago, I don't remember. - MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Link adding Issue

Hi, I hope you are fine. I just did minor changes in article and added the citation as well for better understanding and now I got the message its spamming. I just want to know that is it spamming even I am referring to the Orignal content? TrackingWorld (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

First, your additions were subjective opinions and could have been removed on that basis alone. Second, We don't use advertising as citations. Third, just because a spam link is added as a citation does not mean it is no longer a spam link, see WP:CITESPAM. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Podcasting/Internet radio

Maybe you missed the cite in the contribution I just posted. https://web.archive.org/web/20000605144850/http://aviation.wmich.edu/interviews.html

There's the source for where this material comes from. It's an old University webpage, scaped by the Wayback Machine/Archive.org

What else would you need? Did you listen to the OGG file of the 1999 WMUK broadcast? I don't see how as it was removed faster than the entire length of the audio file so it doesn't sound like you listened to it. That public radio interview is the basis of the entire post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmichigan (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a primary source. We need some secondary sources. I believe that this broadcast happened, but we do need some indication that the world at large noticed and found it worth writing about. - MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

srilakshmics

Hi MrOllie,

This is srilakshmi, I got your notification, no I am not paid by the organization. I am very much interested in contributing to community-related to religion, spiritual & topics on AI, ML & data science.you please check my contribution. I will never go against any policy. anyhow thank you for your advice. looking for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilakshmics (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You are exclusively using Analytics India magazine as a source. Why is that? They are not reliable. This story, (which you cited) for example, is false. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey De Smet

Dear MrOllie,

You undid one of my changes at List of mathematical software. I 've restored it as I believe it was made in mistake (a parallel edit maybe?). If that's not the case, please contact me here with a justification before doing so again: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ge0ffrey/

With kind regards, Geoffrey De Smet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ge0ffrey de smet (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It was not a mistake. See WP:NPOV and WP:COI. These list entries must be short, to the point, and neutral. I prefer to keep all Wikipedia related communication on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to Ordnance Survey

Do you know enough about the topic to assume these subjects will never become articles?? Not only do I totally disagree with you, I have in fact been researching both for some time. I thought that by adding these links, it might encourage other people to do the same!!

{Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)}

That's great, I look forward to seeing your writing on the subject, but it seems very unlikely to me that that writing would be hosted on separate pages, rather than as new subsections on the existing article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

IBM RFT and new external links

Hi MrOllie,

I read the guidelines but also note that IBM RFT is already a commercial product and so I figured external links to related commercial products was in scope of fair use of the wiki space. The question would then remain, "how related" and "relevant enough", that it is not a spam entry but an actual related product. I think it is a legit related product and that IBM RFT does not live on an island and that this is a natural flow of exploration for users interested in this topic. In any event I respect your decision and thanks for the feedback.

Ptrrssll (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of products are related to lots of other products, but we don't list them since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a product catalog or a link directory. - MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hair Highlights

I agree with everything you said. But you keep resorting a dead link. Find an actual working link. Should I go buy the domain of the deadlink and point it to pornhub or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krashx6 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

1) That's not an excuse to add a spam link. and 2) The dead link has already been removed. - MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

CipherCloud

Hello, MrOllie! I saw you removed all my edits from the CipherCloud page. I really wanted to help the project and removed most of the words (in my opinion) directly related to the puffery, advertising, retaining only technical information. Also , I re-organized the "Recognition" section only adding one new industry award - most of my job there was formatting and actually removing puffery - I made it shorter. And the last change I made was adding a few more categories. After updating the page, I came to conclusion that there were enough changes to remove tags since the page looked cleaner and most of the buzz words were also removed. As far as I know, according to the Wikipedia Foundation guidelines any user (even IP) who does constructive changes and correct the problems on the page, may remove the tags if they are no longer relevant. I'm not related to the company and did this clean up because I correct the pages almost every day - my IP is dynamic and there is nothing I can do about it. Please, let me know in detail what was wrong with my edits as I spent my precious time on it. I saw you reverted my changes very quickly and have an impression of biased and not fully verified revert (just 4 minutes after my edits - it doesn't look enough to check all the new articles and compare the pages). All I want is to constructively improve Wikipedia pages, so please, advice how I can improve it and what else can be done to make it better for the tags being removed. Tags are not the "permanent curse or opinion" - they are suggestions to improve constructively an article and if the updates meet the criteria, most of the tags can also be removed . --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:7899:1EE9:82EB:D186 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with MrOllie that this was pretty obviously non-neutral editing. DGG, I know you've looked at a million of those articles--can you look at this? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Drmies, Please, can you detail what was non-constructive and what can be done to make it right?2601:1C0:CB01:2660:7899:1EE9:82EB:D186 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

even the current version has, in m opinion, a considerable amount of promotional content. It can be improved by avoiding repetition of the company name, & removing trivia such as people joining the board of directors. The other version has extensive minor detail, and, especially, too man yunsourced phrases and sentence explaining why the product wa useful. Advertisement do that ;encyclopedia article s just explai nwhat it does, as shown by reliable 3rdparty sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DGG - Thanks for the objective review. More or less understood what to do next and I will try to revise it one more time once I have that time... Honestly, it would be great to see the best examples (1 or 2) on Wikipedia of the neutral company or software pages in order to understand what kind of articles do not cause arguments among the editors. Cheers!--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:45A0:C21E:18A1:2A11 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)