User talk:MrOllie/Archive 1

CPreisinger
The mod that I listed is not owned/developed by me. I get no benefit from posting it I just thought it was a really fun game and a great example of what was mentioned in the article and I feel more people should know about it so they too could enjoy it. I'm not sure where else something like this would go or why Wikipedia has problems with this type of thing. I thought it was by the public for the public.

User:CPreisinger User talk:CPreisinger 4:34 6 June 2008 (EST).

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''Although redlinks tend to be allowed more leeway in tables, if it bothers you you should remove the brackets rather than removing the information. It can be considered vandalism.''  LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Mr.whiskers (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot
Yes, thanks. Got it. Rich  Farmbrough 21:38 31  May 2008 (UTC).

Hello, I am not spamming
Hello, Recently you removed couple of links to my blog. More specifically I am thinking to the link to my wxWidgets tutorial. Do you know something about wxWidgets? I am not spamming, I am not gaining any money from my blog and I only had a good tutorial which I wanted people to read in order to get more wxWidgets knowledge. This tutorial is good on wxWidgets community sites but is not good to appear on wikipedia external links? Also you removed some java tutorials for which I only wanted people to be aware and to get more knowledge. Is not this one of the purposes of wikipedia? One of the scopes of wikipedia is to share and increase knowledge among people, is not like that?

Thanks, Virgil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgiltrasca (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not Use Wikipedia to pass time
It appears you have little knowledge about CBSE. You make changes only to pass time.

what is your contribution to article CBSE?

Central Board of Secondary Education link
I goofed.

After spending hours putting together Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam and listing domains at WikiProject Spam I screwed up and left in the spammy cbse.co.in link by mistake, not the official http://www.cbse.nic.in. I am glad this error got corrected and I am sorry for the mistake.

Thanks for your help on this one! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SPA Question
Hello: I'm new to wikipedia and trying to understand why you recently reversed my additions to the dyslexia page. I read over the SPA guidelines and don't believe I'm in violation - my contributions were neutral (% of Americans with dyslexia and prevalence among people with ADHD) and not addressed elsewhere in the article - I was trying to provide new, relevant info with attribution. I have posted other info about ADHD, but I'm not spamming indiscriminately or posting biased info - just sharing my knowledge. Can you help me understand why I got reversed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annirodgers (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Showdown edit reverted
You need to learn what vandalism is my friend, clearly the edit by me you reverted wasn't vandalism. 24.184.206.83 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
I see that you are now removing other external links. The removal you made took out some valid ones along with some questionable ones. This is disruptive rather than helpful. It would be good if you were to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive fashion. However please be warned that any disruptive editing may lead to you being blocked. Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be mad - Keeping spamy links away is good and its not good if you remove all the links - sometimes to a purely commercial site. Certain articles needs links. Always keep your brain young and open for learning and just do not go ahead only in the way that you think right - sometimes what we think right may be idiotic - as in your case! I hope you are novice internet user and you have very less idea about websites.  Before editing wiki, just take some time to learn about websites!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.36.140 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Why are you removing the links from the Y Combinator page? I tried to argue for my point but you just removed the changes with no argument? Why did you remove them?? --Ouvriere (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was wondering why you removed the external link for social engineering (Revision 224345539 Social engineering (security))? This site is for information purposes on social engineering.  There is no adds, malware, or commercial business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.139.131 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Mr Ollie. Thank you for keeping Brand clean, it's very helpful. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

External Link??????????
Which external link were you refering to???????? Thank You, Yoilish (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

about Arab Association For Architecture & Design - Bonah
when i post a links to (bonah) i was not spaming, if you notice i was targeting specific Articles that i notice it will help that they do visit this ( Non-profit ) Orgnization community website anyway .. i know it is in arabic which make you confused to review, but i did effort to do so and i'll not do it again, thanx anyway for wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysami (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==

MrOllie Posting external links, especially relevant ones, is not a problem. These external links have been posted now for over a year and the ONLY one that has had a problem with this is you. Please stop your anal retentive crusade. 9-13-08

MrOllie I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I added an external link to "Peace" and you removed it. Are you an administrator or can any one remove edits? I'm not complaining, just want to understand you action... --amzolt (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

adweek extlinks
i am re-inserting the link to the adweek/brandweek research that polled thousands of people from around the world. i will also add the the for the international association. i understand that people have tried to promote their companies, but this is simply not the case here. Look at the board members etc. It is a collaboration from across the industry. I welcome your feedback. - thanks   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.60.98 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason we have external links on a wikipedia as you know is because this site is not the container for all information on the net. People should be free to share sites that offer more interactive technology like videos, slideshows, and interactive blogs. I hope you understand that Mrollie. Thank youYemenreform  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

How do I talk to you?
Mr. Ollie needs to understand that providing useful links is a good thing. I'd be interesting in furthering the conversation, but killing external links to non-corporate sites and research is counterproductive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.60.98 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why external links to good content are deleted. Is it because I'm associated with the company that I'm linking to?

I'm referring to: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/conjoint-analysis-tutorial which I find in no way a sales pitch.

64.146.174.71 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should not link to your company's own websites, see WP:COI. We usually don't link to such 'tutorials' on commercial sites because they serve as product promotion even when not a bald faced 'sales pitch'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I looked over [COI].  To me it reads that it is not against the Wikipedia law to include a link to something that you are involved in.  In my opinion the COI rule requires a bit of judgment.  Do you know what Conjoint Analysis is?  Are you an expert in the industry? Can you find a better tutorial to Conjoint Analysis on the web than [Tutorial]?  I would suggest that before automatically striking a link that someone has posted (just because he/she is affiliated with the site) that you make a judgment call.  As I read COI you are allowed to do this.  In your best judgment (assuming that you are an expert in Conjoint Analysis) do you think that this tutorial would enhance the over all quality of wikipedia? If so keep the link.  This would require you to go through the tutorial and make a judgment call.  Certainly there are links from Wikipedia to outside commercial sites.  Companies that make money and have paid employees can often produce high quality free content, such as this tutorial, that should be available to wikipedians.  A conflict of interest is when I include a link that would not be of interest to the average wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.174.71 (talk)
 * If your link is the best tutorial on the internet devoted to this subject, then undoubtedly someone unconnected to your company will recognize this and place the link independently. I suggest patience. I also would suggest that you are misreading the conflict of interest guideline - the thrust of the guideline is that as someone with a commercial interest in the link you are unqualified to judge if it is of interest to the average wikipedian. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you an expert on Conjoint Analysis? Are you qualified to judge? If someone who is an expert or involved with Conjoint Analysis wants to remove the link that is fine. Lets let the Conjoint Analysis community judge this. I would argue that that would be the best way to create a quality wikipedia. I understand that you are afraid of commercial motive but I believe that you have to allow businesses to participate if you want high quality. If the link provides poor quality information that is clearly spam then we should delete it. Let the democracy of the Conjoint Analysis community decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.174.71 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rejects the idea that experts are required for this sort of decision. If you'd prefer that sort of environment, I would recommend contributing to citizendium instead. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vectorcast links
I went through and added external links to where our competitors have their external links. Is there a preference given to certain companies? We are experts in these fields and we were creating links that would help wikipedians gather information for that particular topic. --Anorthup (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)]]
 * I don't see any links to other vendors on Regression testing. In any event, if there are promotional links on any given article they will eventually be reviewed and removed. No preference is given to any particular company. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

hparea links
navetz (talk) Navetz (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am new to posting on wikipedia, so I don't know how this post will look, but I wanted to ask why you are marking my links as spam? I am providing links to articles that are fully related and on topic with the post. The articles in those links are also written by anyone and it is in no way biased. The links defiantly had quality articles regarding the exact topics they were posted for so why would they be rejected? Navetz (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't meet the guidlelines in WP:EL, though. See also WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam
You deleted the following from Online ethnography -- edit summary rv spammer: I don't understand the reasoning for this deletion. I think it's possible that the Twinkle-bot may have erred in this instance ...?
 * Giesler, Markus (2008) Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution, Journal of Consumer Research
 * 1) The credibility of article's author, Markus Giesler, is demonstrated by the fact that his work has been cited in a number of books -- see here.
 * 2) This is only the most recent publication which uses the Napster controversy as a vehcile for "netnography" -- see here.
 * 3) The Journal of Consumer Research is considered a credible publication -- see here.

I have re-formatted the citation and reposted what you deleted; and I've supplemented that citation with another as well:
 * Markus, Giesler. 2008. "Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution," Journal of Consumer Research. 34 (April): electronically published August 27, 2007.
 * __________. 2006. "'Consumer Gift Systems:' Netnographic Insights from Napster." Journal of Consumer Research. 33 (September): 283-90.

I don't know how to revert the work of your bot, but I would encourage you to re-think its utility in this one instance. Does it make sense to restore these edits -- see here?

This is novel for me. I've never had the temerity to disagree with an edit in quite this manner. I'm not so much interested in this specific edit; rather, I wonder what happened here? --Tenmei (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like an Academic (or possibly a booking agent) went through and added 'references' to this article all over for promotion. That happens more often than you might think. You might gain some insight by looking at the website they've created to promote this particular paper [here]. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha. I see.  I wouldn't have encountered this before because the subjects which most interest me have little or no commercial applications.  Now that I've had time to think about it, I recall encountering something similar in editing Kenzaburo Oe.  As in this instance, the problem didn't reveal itself in any one specific edit, but rather it was something non-standard in an array of edits which caused questions to arise.  I had only watch-listed the Nobel laureate, and the reversion rationale seemed obscure until I inquired further. Thank you for helping me better understand.  --Tenmei (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. My posts are certainly oriented towards enhancing the level of information about "Webisodes and Webisodic Content" and adding a resource to those pages that is now available; www.thewebisodes.com. It would be fine with me if Wikipedia chose where the resource should be listed and am not intending to be promotional in nature. Thanks You Mdbroidy (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Red links
Saw that you just removed some red links from List_of_SIP_software. I am putting the content back without red links. Wonder why you did not remove just the links. Anyway, both these tools are free and open source software and there is a community behind it. Someone someday will create these pages at which time we will add the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleon09 (talk • contribs)


 * The list guidelines tell us not to list such things on 'List of' articles until they have Wikipedia articles, with or without links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for response but please note that the non-redirect link requirement is not mandatory subject to the entry's verifiability as a member of the listed group. list guidelines. As I mentioned both these softwares are widely used open source projects. Napoleon09 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is actually interesting that you categorize free open source software entries as WP:COI while commercial and promotional entries are left intact on the same page! You also quote WP:SU, not sure how that applies here. Anyway I have no time to argue on this, keep policing but please use better and informed judgement and read complete WP policies not selectively.  Napoleon09 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, curious to know how independent research is promotional - thanks Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swivelmedia (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Peyronie's Disease
Please stop editing medical facts out of articles. This is completely silly and shows you have some kind of vested interest in keeping medical facts out of articles. You clearly don't know what you are editing - so don't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.188.68 (talk • contribs)
 * Your long term promotions of 'fastsize' products on wikipedia do not consititute 'medical facts'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Maybe have someone with common sense look over your deletions. Why they let 11 year olds become wiki editors is beyond me. Also, feel free to ban me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.188.68 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Application Portfolio Management
I agree with Andreaskopp. You now removed some of the links but left the links to Microsoft, Borland, etc. in. Those are vendors, too. In fact MANY contributors happen to work for a vendor - that is NOT a conflict of interest per se. On that note, you can revert ALL changes in Wikipedia - obviously there is always some self-interest (if nothing else but being on the net) that contributors have. You need to look at if an edit is self-interest only or serves the community. Having links to a dozens of sites that talk about APM is useful and complies with wiki. Please revert to what it was for the last months. Mapador (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Those links absolutely do not comply with the external links guidelines and I will not revert back to a version of the page that was in policy violation due to being a WP:LINKFARM. I especially will not do that at the behest of an employee of one of the linked firms. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just took it back to what it has been until Mr. Ollie you started a war it seems. If you edit, you need to take out ALL references to vendors, INCLUDING the one to Forrester (they market and sell their research). So where does that end? You should then delete almost every page in Wiki.

These are equal references, not self promoting ones. Information is free and should be available to wiki users.

I hope you reconsider. Bekesgy (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Project stakeholders
I got your threats about 'edit wars'. Wouldn't that be true for you too? This is the fourth time you are editing a page without knowledge of what's on the page. There are different views on who is a stakeholder. I cited one from a professor. The description is important, not just his quote. The SAME view is described in the book I added as reference. It SO happens that this is a book that many use in the industry and license. We happen to license it as well. Take a look at Manta Consulting, Information Balance, to name a few who also reference Project Pre-Check. It is NOT a Mapador product nor do we see any revenues from book sales. Hence your accusation of conflict of interest is completely wrong. I understand that you must be operating with some web-crawler but those things CAN make mistakes - this is one. Hence, I would like to let the pages I spent two hours on back onto Wiki. Most of the changes are simply enhancing wiki so that there is a link from, say the project management office to project stakeholders (under 'See also'). What's harmful there??? You then went ahead and removed ALL changes I made in the past several months. WHY?? I note that now you targeted a change that was done many months ago and others are complaining too as you removed very useful material. Mapador (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing reverting the MaxDiff article
Are you an expert in econometrics? Best-Worst is the name the the original MAxDiff jouranl articles were published under. MaxDiff is actuall the commercial name, Best-Worst is the academic reference - can you imagine a commercial trademark using the word 'worst'?. please leave the update or give a reason for the reversion. Thank you. Pascale.

Please do not assume that everything is COI
You seem to assume that everything is COI, without checking the inclusion of links/references based on the inclusions' own merits. It is difficult enough, without vandalism, to try to create enough connections between different articles so that the overall value of those articles for readers is improved. If a link/reference is innapropriate, please say so, but do not remove them all by default as you have been doing. This detracts from the overall value of the articles in question. Please assume good faith; those who research a topic are in a good position to add links and improve articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.228.14 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted links
Hi MrOllie:

I have just made some major revisions to the article media naturalness theory.

I am trying to create some links to and from that article. You seem to be reverting all of them.

Can we reach a compromise? I am not only adding links TO the media naturalness theory. Two-way links are being added, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, if you feel that the article media naturalness theory is biased, please make suggestions or direct changes - e.g., the theory may be incorrect because ...

If you check the article media naturalness theory you will see that major revisions were already made to make it more inclusive, and fit the Wikipedia referencing format.

You seem to assume that there is self-promotion going on. What do you suggest? To remove the text "was developed by Ned Kock" to the article media naturalness theory?

Finally, your previous request for deletion of the article Ned Kock may have been misdirected.

--Senortypant (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really very simple, if the media naturalness theory is a notable theory, it will be noted - by others. When other editors in good standing come along and want to include these links, I'll be happy to let them stand, but when they're only added by single purpose editors, I'll remove them, as I do with many topics of dubious notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

8020world
Got a message from you indicating some edits look promotional. They are NOT. Actually, I'm only updating existing references to their new website. The original is redirecting to the new site, so users still find the content. The redirection will be valid for some time, but it is better to update all pointers. Thanks 218.82.217.162 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See your point on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. However in most of the articles I edited, the links have been there for more than a year along with other providers of models on Logistic Functions and Sigmoids. Just because the author is offering that model in a personal web page, I don't find it less valid than if the model comes from other commercial company. Again, the original links have been there for more than a year, and reading the comments on the instruction page, many people like myself find them useful. Thanks 218.82.217.162 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits
When you undid my last few edits you removed text that was already in the articles, together with the new links that I added. I simply added links to the text that was already there; perfectly legitimate practice by Wikipedia guidelines. It is difficult to argue innapropriate promotion of articles when the text that refers to the articles is already in other articles, but not links. Can you at least revert them back to what they were before my edits? This applies also to other links that I made and that you deleted before. In your attempts to avoid promotion you end up deleting whole pieces of text that have been in articles for a long time, not only the links that were added recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.74.210 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about school project
You seem to be doing a lot of the clean-up, so I thought you'd be interested in this ANI thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The author cited Wounds of War
The author, subject of this page, Brandon Wilson, apparently cited the inclusion of his essay in "Wounds of War: Poets for Peace." Yes, I added a link to the publication on the Internet, but was it necessary to delete the reference to the piece and where it was included, altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderTow2 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that mention was reasonable, I lost it in the routine of removing other improper references to that book. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of External Link
As per your suggestion, I have removed the external link. --Apelbaum (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
Why did you remove this?

Removing 1,237 bytes without providing an edit summary never looks right. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess twinkle hiccuped with the edit summary. It's part of a set of essay style that were introduced to Wikipedia, required by an assignment by a professor Graham Meikle (as you can see his student makes a specific reference to him in the edit). In particular that edit followed the essayist's trend of basing an WP:OR conclusion on a semi-related quote from one of their assigned readings. More information can be had at WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Twinkle-schminkle :) I use none of these scripts thingies - their features do not compensate for their bugs.
 * Thanks for the explanation. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

removal of external link to Skokie
I understand what you're saying about not undoing an edit to an external link, but I disagree that my external link to a poem I wrote and which was included in an anthology published by Northwestern University Press on the Holocaust, its survivors and others affected by it, and which directly related to the incident which was the subject of the movie, was non-notable. This poem (which the link specifically sends you to, was the result of a personal experience occurring during the actual events depicted in the film, and gives a personal account of the actual events which inspired the film. Also, isn't this entire subject "Skokie, the movie" promotional of the film? I guess I don't understand the distinction between self-promotion and self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderTow2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just stop adding links to your own work and/or websites, please. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Top20online speedy delete
I think you should give this article a little time before you flush it away. Certainly an encyclopedia that features 15,000 words on Scooby Doo can make room for a blurb about a web directory. This was a serious effort to get an article up on a worthy topic. I'm still working on it. Give it a week or two. And try contributing to Wikipedia instead of taking away from it. george (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just indicate how it meets WP:WEB and include a couple of Reliable sources and it will be kept. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Solar Hot Water External Link Removal
You removed my link to an article which wasn't selling anything, although you must have judged it as promotional I'm guessing. What puzzles me however, is that you left the top link in there which has Google Ads on it. Surely the creator of this page has linked to it for (partly) commercial reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas71 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie. I'm slightly concerned about the fact that the Solar hot water external links section is turning into a battlefield. While your help dealing with Ebeing's vandalism of this page is greatly appreciated, it would be best if you were to justify the removal of links on the article's talk page from now on. I can't for the life of me work out why you keep removing the solarfriend link, for example. If you keep giving "per WP:EL" as the reason for removal, people are just going to keep re-adding them. Please put your reasoning on the article talk page as recommended on the WP:EL page. Thanks, Charlie Tango (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a commercial site (it has a store through which it sells supplies), thus violating points 4, 5 and 14 of WP:EL's links to be avoided. It also appears to be a personal, self published site, which violated point 11. I don't find it necessary to start talk page discussion topics when reverting linkspam-only contributors, but feel free to start such a topic yourself if you feel it would be helpful. Instead I add warnings to the account's talk page, which is commonly done by many editors who revert spam additions. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, MrOllie. At first glance the page seemed like a reasonable external link with non-notable but useful information as permitted by WP:EL. I hadn't spotted the sales page. However, I still think that this should be added to the article talk page so that other editors know your reasoning. Simply deleting things without leaving a proper reason leaves you open to accusations of "owning the page". (Even if you were to copy and paste the answer above with a brief note, that would be a great improvement.) The whole Ebeing debacle dragged on and on and on, partly because editors didn't realize the damage that was being done over a long time. Editors move on and stop watching pages, and the next guy to come along doesn't know the story. Thanks, Charlie Tango (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Telesthesia speedy delete reasoning
MrOllie,

I'm unsure why you deleted my edit from this page, especially without flagging or giving any notice. Please explain this to me. Tuckwell (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It constituted original research. - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it did, and even so I believe it is policy to give at least 5 days notice and have it flagged to give the author an opportunity to edit the article. Tuckwell (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. Excising the original research left a dictionary definition (as has happened the last three times someone has tried to create an article on this topic), which means the page should be redirected to wikitionary. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Business Architecture - Link to BPMInstitute Business Architecture Homepage
If you could kindly explain your objection to this link rather than simply citing the general policy for Wikipedia linking I would appreciate it. I would happily link to other cites but unfortunately currently that site has probably the best and most extensive set of writings on the topic. 24.136.16.238 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable Living link
Greetings, I have no doubt you are doing a fine job keeping out the trash as far as links go but I must contest your removal of the external links to sustainable living magazine from related articles. I am sure you were too busy to research the purpose of this link before you removed it, as if you had you would have realized that sustainable living magazine is a non-profit resource for those interested in sustainability and ecological restoration. We are well aware of the policies of Wikipedia and have in no way violated them. As the External Links section of each article is in fact protected from the would be search engine boosters out there, you must realize that my adding a relevant external link to the external link section is well within the rights of all users and beneficial to the propagation of knowledge which is the first and foremost goal of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.90.10 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a self published 'ezine' your link falls under point 11 of links to avoid from WP:EL, links to blogs and personal pages. - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

MrOllie, I'm sure we all appreciate the zeal in which you approach the management of links on wikipedia. However, your lack of consistency is showing a deplorable lack of respect for myself and other wikipedia users. I understand that it may be difficult to keep on top of it all so I decided to bring a few things to your attention. www.sustainablelivingmagazine.ca is NOT a " self published 'ezine'" The creator and other members of this Non-profit organization are well respected members in the field of sustainability and sustainable development. The creator of this magazine has indeed spent some time working along side the likes of Al Gore and David Susuki in order to find effective mediums to promote the ideals and solutions required to create a sustainable environment for us all. Articles featured on this website have been created to be as objective as possible. This much can not be said for other 'ezines' linked to this wikipedia article. www.backwoodshome.com and www.countrysidemag.com have both seemed to escape your diligent censorship though they feature articles with no regard to unbiased exploration of the facts. www.countysidemag.com uses the following statement to describe their publication "There are no guidelines and no paid writers. Instead, there is an open atmosphere of neighborly sharing." A far cry from meeting the wiki criteria for notability. www.backwoodshome.com posts articles and blogs which yet again do not meet the criteria for notability and blatantly state biased opinions such as "Whenever a government official asks you a question, and you answer, you place yourself and all you own at risk. The wrong answer could cause the official to initiate all manner of nasty investigations requiring you to invest countless hours and unlimited funds in an often vain attempt to satisfy them and their rules" as written by Oliver Del Signore. As coincidence has it Oliver Del Signore is a writer, proofreader, creative consultant, website designer, and the webmaster for both of these websites. Please note, expert in sustainable living is not on this list. To sum up my point, the unwarranted removal of a link to further education and resources can scarcely be justified when you allow other websites to link which so blatantly contradict the same policies you have cited over and over again, to remain well kept and under your expert protection. They have words for this action MrOllie, but as you are an expert on the topic of sharing knowledge I am sure they bear no repeating. Sincerely

206.172.185.193 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The continued presence of any other link or article should not be construed as an endorsement of that link or article, it could just as easily mean that it has not yet been reviewed. The presence of other content which does not meet with the guidelines is not a justification for the addition of more content which does not meet with the guidelines. See WP:OSE for more on this line of argument. If you find links on Wikipedia which you believe violating the guidelines on external linking you are welcome to remove them. - MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MrOllie,

If you carefully review my last response you will notice that at no point did I suggest that the presence of other content which does not meet with the guidelines is a justification for the addition of more content which does not meet with the guidelines. I merely explained in the most profound terms why and how my linking of www.sustainablelivingmagazine.ca is not only justified by its content and intent but also it cohesion with the policies of Wikipedia. I only mentioned other sites so that you may exercise your lust for judicious link removal. MrOllie, unless you can find some justifiable reason for removal of my link, with evidence and of course following the guidelines for link removal, I would appreciate it greatly if you refrained from reckless censorship and leave my links intact. sincerely 206.172.185.193 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete the HMAC and Cram-MD5 links
You have deleted my added links over and over again. I can understand (after reading the guidelines) that the links on parallelism may not fully comply with the given purpose of external links in the guidelines (though they don't collide!).

However, the links on HMAC and Cram-MD5 are fully compliant. So, please let them be and don't just delete them again without taking a look at it (just because I posted them).

Regards, Martijnthie (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Kakuro Reversion
MrOllie, I am the newbie editor Dantow whose addition to the Variants section of the Kakuro article you recently removed. I honestly wish to be a good citizen of the Wikipedia community, so I hope you will help me understand your reason for removing my contribution, which mentions Suduro as another variant combining Kakuro and Sudoku. I have reviewed the posted policies and guidelines for Wikipedia submissions, and I believe that my addition was factual, verifiable, likely to be of interest to readers of that portion of that article, and otherwise consistent with posted policies and guidelines. If you disagree on any of these points, may we discuss your reasons, so I may either pursuade you of my point of view or learn to be a better Wikipedia citizen if I have inadvertently violated policies or guidelines? Dantow (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

snokelingguide link
Hello Mr. Ollie

I understand that you have removed my external link (snorkelingguide.info). May I ask if you have read all the pages on my site recently? There is no advertising on my site. You find some external links with some positive comments, but that is just recommendations. In fact there is alot of useful information about snorkeling. Also I notice that you removed my additional comments about where to do snorkeling. The text was absolutly correct. So why remove it?

Supervip2 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We generally do not allow people to link their own personal sites, regardless of advertising content. See the external links guidelines and the conflict of interest guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You still not answer my question, why my editorial text addition was removed. There was no valid for doing that. What you are doing, doesn't encourage anyone to add information on Wikipedia. The rules/guidelines doesn't say you can't add links to informational web pages that are related to the subject. I will complain to the leadership of Wikipedia Foundation, if you don't restore the information I added.

Supervip2 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make any complaints that you believe are warranted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

witch hunt in economics
You've systematically degraded wiki value by systematically removing all the econ links I spent over a year compiling and tracking. These articles add to the existing page with unique examples and graphs, etc. You've assumed I'm somehow affiliated with the web site? Is that how you go about building the value of wikipedia? Provide more reasoning please, it seems you're on some sort of rampage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djstreet (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After a quick search, your affiliation with the site in question and with SEO in general is fairly obvious. The links are of minimal use, promotional, and you're being coy. Kuru  talk  14:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming. WP:AGF • WP:FAITH Are you an economist? The links reverted fall within guidelines and have no SEO benefit to the web site. Djstreet (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith right up until I googled your wikipedia name and then looked at the domain information for the link you spammed. With your permission, I would be delighted to go into more specifics.  Kuru  talk  17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted definition
Hallo, would you please explain why you recently deleted a definition for Information Overload? It reads According to Basex, "Information Overload describes an excess of information that results in the loss of ability to make decisions, process information, and prioritize tasks."

Basex is one of the most important research firms in the area of information overload and their definition of the problem is far more significant than almost anyone else's (that is why the company is quoted in articles on the topic seemingly on a daily basis). I've read so much information on this topic for my job that I have become my company's expert on information overload and it is clear that their research needs to be included in the wikipedia article on information overload. Mworth (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted external links
--- Excuse me but you are removing references to my webpages where I edited content in articles with reference to my page. For example, on the bicycle page I added to uses "power generation" with a reference to my webpage about generating power with bicycles. This is not link spam. My pages are not selling anything and they contain content that is copyrighted and doesn't exist in the articles.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azxten (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have deleted all external links I had contributed. I tried to link them in a good faith, according to the guideline: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". Links were from Wiki pages of several Czech sights to the corresponding photo galleries with beautiful photos. I think it's an unique source for tourists, students etc. no matter if there is a possibility to buy these photos too. --Emka wiki (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't link to sites that exist to sell products or services. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID - MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Same issue here, I added links to PocketPC online in what I though were places appropriate to the article. What PocketPC does is not different to what Dell or Tescos does and yet they have not been removed. I didn't put the links there for page ranks, I know wikipedia links don't contribute. Please, Review your decision and get back to me with suggestions as to what I should do with these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantrac (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I replied above, we're not here to link to commercial sites for the purpose of advertising. If you spot advertising links on Wikipedia, feel free to remove them, but do not add more. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter Tool Edit
"more attempts to adverise third party addon services"

Why did you delete the Twitter tools that I added. They are the top tools to help people navigate and use Twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwell88 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:External Links, we should not be linking to these kinds of third party sites from the twitter article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Do you think there is a place for all these add ons. As a twitter user I find them useful and they are getting a lot of adoption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwell88 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

eczma
Hi Mr ollie,

Psoriosis and eczma Common Cause.

I would like edit it correctly so as to benefit many sufferers. I have simply copied in the three articles that join together to indicate a cause for eczma/ psoriosis. These are factual and are in the wikipedia. As follows. This is very acurate information. This is true information and this parasite ( ascaris)is a cause of both eczma and or psoriosis.

All I have done is join the dots wikipedia has the answers many sufferers are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raefon72 (talk • contribs)


 * Connecting the dots isn't allowed, I'm afraid. It's called synthesis and is considered a form of original research, which is against our policies here. If ascaris is acknowledged to be the cause of psoriasis, it would be best to source this fact from an article in a medical journal or perhaps a medical textbook. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the original source is this an acceptable source. Quoted From "The Cure For All Diseases" by Hulda Clark, PH.D., N.D.Reprint 2006 "Psoriasis and eczema are both caused by Ascaris. Their molting chemicals are quite allergenic; perhaps it is these that are affecting the skin. Since pets pick these worms up daily, there is chronic reinfection in families with pets. Herbal Parasite Programe- Balckwalnut Tincture, Wormwood, Cloves. Take over a 18 day period as prescribed by Herbalist/ Naturpath. Put in place a Maintainance Parasite Programe.

There are a lot of people who suffer from this and could do with this information. It is still a true claim and has been proven in various studies. Ascaris molts it's skin it's skin is an allergen that may cause hayfever,eczma, asthma etc. Ascaris infect perhaps one quater of the world population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raefon72 (talk • contribs)


 * This is the same Hulda Clark who has claimed to have cured cancer and HIV? - MrOllie (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be a better avenue. I'm just sure they're acquainted with that name.  Kuru  talk  01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 69.106.242.49
I am not sure, but these edits seem like vandalism.

Can you take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senortypant (talk • contribs)


 * I spot checked them, and it seems like they're mostly substituting Category:Internet out in favor of more specific subcategories, or removing categories which are already included by a more specific subcategory, which are both legitimate things to do. I didn't notice anything that was wrong on first inspection or obviously done in bad faith. - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Senortypant (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ollie, I was working on the US beaches site I did use a few pieces from other Water Sources but I surprised I had no early notation Please let me know I worked on that a while it was a nice site ! Where Is the Info I Put together on that site... There was no Posting Thanks Intelligentlove  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligentlove (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
How does this look (will it get Speedy Deletion)?

Article-in-Progress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Bank (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. The sourcing isn't very good. Reviews from something on the level of gamespot or PC Gamer magazine would be much better. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you MrOllie. I will look at both of these websites, and certainly request a review of Land of Destiny. Yet aren't most of the games listed here retail, instead of free? Diego Bank (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Retail vs. Free is immaterial, what matters are references to reliable sites - the ones you have thus far seem to be small selfpublished operations, which don't really meet the WP:RS guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Mr Ollie I disagree with your canvassing assessment, I two people to weigh in and did not in any way have any expectations, Mendalov did the same previously when the article started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KoshVorlon/Archive_1. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucille Starr
I correctly changed this entry to say that the Tijuana Brass did not play on these sessions as well as a link to the correct information. My source for the change is contracts for these sessions from Musicians Local 47 in Los Angeles. According to your own entry, your source is "good faith." I would really appreciate knowing why you made the change to "faith" from fact and that you have corrected your errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterRecs (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not using faith as a source, but assuming good faith on your part - that you meant well but your change still was unsuitable. You cited your own website as the reference, which is not allowed I'm afraid. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I referenced my web site because the local does not post the contracts on line. At least I relied on verifiable information. Is it your opinion that it is better to have an incorrect entry than a correct entry with a citation you don't like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterRecs (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Far enough, since you are disputing the information I have removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And, if as frequently happens with more obscure A&M Records artists, my web site is the only source of information on the web. Am I not supposed to post? Am I also to disregard the two books I've authored about the company because of Wikipedia's rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterRecs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a given bit of information is obscure enough that only one self published web site has chosen to write about it, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That is the crux of policy concepts such as notability and verifiability. - MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're still at the fact that the information I posted about Lucille Starr came from a third party and is verifiable, it's not a question that my site is the only one that published it so far. Under Wiki's criteria Einstein couldn't have published his theory of relativity on Wiki in the theory's early days either.

I'm waving a white flag and calling it a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterRecs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct, Einstein could not have posted his theory of relativity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for novel theories and ongoing work. Wikipedia is here to consume new material only after it has found its way into the 'mainstream' via multiple reliable secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoegaarden Brewery
Hey there, I just began working with a new user Betty Logan that is having some problems adding information to the article. She seems very frustrated, but appears to be working in good faith. Could you possibly pop over to the talk page there and leave a message about why the sources she provided do not conform to WP:RS? Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MUD category
If you read up on the actual history you'll see that MOOS and MUSHES are all TinyMUD derivatives. MUD really is the umbrella term to group these games together. Also, the notability of the term MU* is hard to establish and insignificant compared to the widespread use of the term MUD. --Scandum (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See talk. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard Disk Drive Characteristics
Hello MrOllie,

I'd like to discuss the addition of two characteristics in the evolution of hard drives to include in your hard disk drive article. While you have noted that this was an attempt to build demand for company's products without providing the name, my goal is to improve the information available. In the interest of hard drive users everywhere attention should be given to the importance of these new characteristics of hard drives. First and foremost it is in the interest of the end user to know that new features are created to improve backup and storage devices. Just like new technologies are created (such as solid state hard drives), improvements on existing technology have positive lasting effects. According to research by the University of Texas, only 6 percent of companies suffering from a data loss survive, while 43 percent never reopen and 51 percent close within two years. Educating people about shock resistance, fire resistance and water resistance will allow readers of this Wikipedia article to make a better educated decision.

There are several manufacturers of hard drives that offer the additional characteristics of fire resistance and water resistance including; Sentry Safe, ioSafe and VaultStor. Each of these companies utilizes both Western Digital and Seagate Technology hard drives, both of which are very important parts of the history of Hard Disk Drives.

Thank you for your time and I appreciate your reconsideration of this information. Harddrives (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A better educated decision? It's a gimmicky marketing technique and any mention of it in the hard drive article would be undue weight. When we see tomshardware and consumer reports ranking drives by fire resistance, maybe then. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MrOllie, Thanks for the quick response. I believe that if you were to ask any homeowner or business owner who has lost their computer in a real world fire or flood disaster, their opinion would be quite the contrary. While I will say that the technology is rather new (dating back to 2004 at the earliest) it is still a relevant feature and offers far more value than 'anodized colors' 'blinking lights' or 'flashy packaging' (gimmicky techniques)will ever offer. Shock resistance is part of what makes a hard drive rugged, in the same arena as fire and flood resistance. Human error (dropping a laptop, deleting files, etc) will of course always be the number one cause of data loss, however there is a difference between gimmicky and timely/relevant evolution of existing technology. I'll keep an open eye for additional reviews and benchmark testing in addition to that of the Wall Street Journal, PC Mag, and Computer Shopper and keep you posted. I thank you again for your time and consideration on this important and very relevant topic. - Harddrives (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In Response to MrOllie
Hi, I respect your revert edit but I question the rationale: the additional sources I added today to the three articles in question are relevant in each case. N Katherine Hales's book is a key-text in cyberculture scholarship and should be included in any list of references pertaining to said subject. Please see N. Katherine Hayles for verification. Both of the other texts are widely accepted as key-reading in their respective fields, published by reputable, peer-reviewed academic journals (Leonardo-MIT, Art Journal-College Art Association). Hence I do not agree with your revert edits. Please re-consider - Thank you.--Rbudegb (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Shutterstock
Hi MrOllie!

So, I'm new at wiki editing (obviously), and I'm still trying to ensure that all my citations to any site's pages are viable -- I thought because my last citation on the Shutterstock page came from Fox Business News it was reputable, but I guess they just source company press releases!!! Tricky. I want to get better at this.

Anyway, I am going to go through and give it another try... this time eliminating anything that is not concretely sourced to a legit source. If you could give it a once over upon completion to see if I'm on the right track I would truly appreciate it. I want it to read as unbiased as possible, as this is the first page I've decided to try and work on seriously to hone my skills.

Also, while i am not an employee of shutterstock or anything, I do love the site and i am a member of the community... does this present a conflict of interest? I would image that many pages are created by fans; the problems surely arise when the inevitable bias creeps in. I'll try my best to eliminate it, but I guess it is up to you to be the judge of that.

Regardless, thanks for the guidance! --venerated scholar (talk) 10:47, 05 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You want to watch our for anything that mentions PRnewswire, it's a press release service that many of the financial news organizations reprint things from. You can often find the same press release posted as 'news' on Fox Business, money@cnn.com, yahoo finance, and so on. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

well this makes a lot more sense now, although it is sneaky how pr can masquerade as news. there were a couple other sources on this page linked to similar prnewswire "stories", but I replaced all of them with verifiable content. i think it probably makes the article stronger in the long run; when you get a chance, let me know if i'm on the right track here. I don't want to edit anymore until I know I'm doing it correctly!

thanks again! --venerated scholar (talk) 10:47, 05 February 2009 (UTC)

hey - just wondering if you've had a chance to eyeball this page -- I've started editing other pages, I think I have the hang of it now, just want to make sure I'm proceeding correctly... thanks bro!!

--venerated scholar (talk) 17:27, 08 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam List
Hi Mr.Ollie, I just happened to check my messages on wiki and realised that my actions have placed a website in jeopardy. I am quite new to wiki and I am guilty of posting external links to several posts without inserting information in the content. I am new to the wiki interface and did not realise the warnings of the earlier editors also. I would like to rectify this mistake on my part.

Please please please also let me know how I can remove this particular website from the spam list also.

Yikes I posted on top of the page instead of the bottom. So here is my problem again.

Savannah Kaylee (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Savannah_Kaylee


 * Links are usually removed from the spam list only at the request of established, high volume editors. In a case like this, where there has been spamming across multiple language wikipedias from a number of apparently coordinated accounts, it is fairly unlikely that the site will be removed from the blacklist any time soon. We have a whitelist that will allow the use of the site on the specific pages that it is needed on (such as Cypress Semiconductor), instead.


 * I would suggest that you just move on and work on some unrelated pages, and preferably stay away from adding external links of any kind for some time, unless they are to unimpeachable sources such as the new york times or similar. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there nothing I can do to reverse this? Savannah Kaylee (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Savannah Kaylee


 * You can bring it up at the blacklist talk page, where such decisions are made, but they're going to tell you what I told you - removals are made at the request of trusted, high volume editors. You're just too new here. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still a new user, I dont think I can do anything to appeal against the block, other than give an apology. Is there any way you can help me out? Can you request removal on my behalf. Savannah Kaylee (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Savannah_Kaylee
 * No, I don't personally think it should be removed right now. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

citizen.nfb.ca

 * Speaking of Spam, why the mass deletion of ELs linkings to films on the Citizenshift site? The ones I saw appeared to be legitimate, featuring short documentaries about the article subjects. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have no objection, I'd like to restore at least some of these NFB Citizenshift ELs, such as at École Polytechnique massacre, where you deleted the National Film Board of Canada link as spam while retaining the one from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I don't know how familiar you are with Canadian culture, but the NFB and CBC are Canada's public non-profit producer and broadcaster, respectively and both have extensive topic-related non-commercial digital archives. For example the Citizenshift site offers excerpts of Gerry Rogers' documentary film After the Montreal Massacre, which is at least as notable than as the television news footage in CBC's digital archives. If you do object, perhaps we can discuss? thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a blog site/community video site that is hosted by the NFB (From the page 'Contribute text, photos, audio and video to an existing dossier,') That alone puts the links in conflict with WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I also removed them because they were all added by User:Timmcsorley, who's sole involvement in Wikipedia is in posting links to that site, generally a sign of conflict of interest. I'd prefer that that not be restored indiscriminately on that basis, but if you feel a particular link has high value I won't revert you if you readd it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, the Citizenshift site is a kind of open platform model, different than the NFB main site, and there is a "discussion board" aspect, per item 10 of links to normally be avoided. (And yes, User:Timmcsorley is a classic example of WP:SPA.) That said, the Citizenshift site is moderated, perhaps curated is a better word, by the NFB, so there is an effort made to only offer relevant content, even if it is "citizen"-created rather than professionally made. I most certainly will not go ahead and revert all your edits indiscriminately, but in the next day or so I propose to look through them on a case by case basis, and restore only the most relevant ELs. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Learning management system
On what grounds are you basing your claim that SumTotal Systems is not notable? WAT ( talk  •  contributions ) 03:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no independent sources referencing that article, as required by the notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

71.187.203.155
Hi MrOllie, if you catch 71.187.203.155 inserting spam again, please revert rather than remove as he was altering existing links. I've given that user a final warning. Thanks for your vigilance, Marasmusine (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the mmohub links are spam and/or don't meet WP:EL either, which is why I didn't want to restore them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Google News seems to treat the site as a reliable source, and it seems reasonably well written, so I've been using using it for citations (goodness knows MMORPG articles need a decent source.) Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry but you haven't brought any arguments to your decision of deleting the mix from Audio mixing (recorded music). --TudorTulok (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast
Dang you beat me in the reversion! :) SimonTrew (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder about it for a bit, the particular pages linked to, logo excepted, are not overtly commercial i.e. not throwing a product in your face, and it is nice to have links and stuff and the copy is quite sensible. But I guess rules is rules and also the link was broken and in the wrong place so the editor who added it had hardly added to his cause. SimonTrew (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Industry
Hi. I'm curious as to why you deleted the link to the Seth Godin article on the Music Industry. I read it just a couple of days ago and thought it was pretty good piece. Very critical but well worth a read... David T Tokyo (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

buzzfile links
Dear MrOllie and ZimZalaBim, I did place several links today on several pages. However, the links I placed were to an authoritative site with licensed data that I cannot post on Wikipedia due to copyright restrictions. The links I placed were to pages very relevant to the entry on Wikipedia. For example I placed a link to page that lists all local offices of the Centers for Disease Control from the Pandemic page on Wikipedia. The site I linked to (BuzzFile) is completely free, has no advertising and all users have access to 16 million authoritative entries. Additionally I placed a link to All Museums in Manhattan from the Wikipedis Manhattan entry. Again, is this really spam? Would users who are visiting Wikipedia Manhattan page not be interested in that? The very same types of links I posted are present on other pages and not being removed. And many to sites that have advertising. I will not post any more links, but can you kindly tell me what I did wrong?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akin67 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have found other links on Wikipedia which are also inappropriate, please remove them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored 2 of QAWXPbC64's contributions
I restored 2 edits by QAWXPbC64, to At the Death House Door and to Carroll Pickett. The links seem relevant, the only reason to remove them is if they substantially duplicate an existing reference or external link that is of higher quality. I didn't check for that, if they are duplicates by all means re-remove them. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Victor Conte page
Mr. Ollie,

Thank you for your message. I still don't understand why, for example, on the Victor Conte page there is a link to a 2003 biography but I'm not allowed to add a better biography that is more than 5 years more recent? Can you please explain to me? I wanted to discuss it on that page but don't know how to start a discussion there because there is no edit button. Thanks! Dinarabaggy (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

womenslaw
My external links I am adding provide accurate information relevant to the articles. Why are you deleting them?Elizmartin (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is your sole activity on Wikipedia adding links to this site? - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not my sole activity and even if it were, why is that relevant to whether the link is appropriate or not? I also read a lot (all the time) and wrote the original page on Restraining Orders and have helped add domestic violence information to other pages on wikipedia. The links I am adding are totally relevant and helpful to your readers. You have a for profit divorce guide link, but you won't let me put up nonprofit, free divorce information. WomensLaw.org does not sell anything -- all WomensLaw.org does is provide important FREE and ACCURATE legal information, just like the values of wikipedia, so I don't see why you won't let me or anyone else add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizmartin (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just please refrain from adding links to websites that you are associated with. See the external links guideline and the conflict of interest guideline for more information. If you have found other links which do not meet the linking guidelines, feel free to remove them, but that is not a reason to add additional links. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that, but I am trying to add links not for my benefit, but to help people who need help with restraining order and other legal information. The COI policy says: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.-- It doesn't seem like adding information to help people, including victims of domestic violence who are trying to learn about restraining orders, divorce, or custody, is a COI because I am not trying to help myself or WomensLaw.org - I'm trying to help victims of domestic violence who go to wikipedia to learn - isn't that the aim of wikipedia? A LOT of victims of domestic violence search the Internet, and they will find wikipedia, and it seems like they should also find other relevant links. WomensLaw.org has the best free, accurate online info out there, so a link is appropriate. I also added the ABA links and other relevant links that might help people. Not just WomensLaw.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizmartin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote more from the COI guideline: avoid 'linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles'.


 * Look, it's your site. The point is that you are too close to the issue to evaluate the link without bias. If you are quite sure that it should be added suggest it on the talk page of the article in question. If you are correct others will surely agree and place the link independently. Above all, do not go around wikipedia adding links to the same domain to a half dozen articles in the space of a half-hour, as all that does is trigger spam alarm bells. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted external links Passive Aggressive
I have noticed that you have removed external references that I added to the passive aggressive page. I still feel that those articles reference that where suppressed where a good contribution to the page in question. As I do not wish to start an argument, Can you explain what is your criteria? Alfaprima (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, my criteria can be found here, here and here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Naive Bayes classifier
I noticed that you removed the link in the software section to classengine.com which is a Naive Bayes web content and document classifier. This is a research software which api is available for public and it clearly demonstrates the strenght of the modified Naive Bayes method in application to real web content categorization problems. Besides, it demonstrates usage of this method to search inside topic and articles. I am completely convinced that this is a very good example which would be very interesting for the broad audience. I do not see any disadvantage of this link compared to others listed in the software section. I want to be nice and do not force it back myself and would like to convince you to revert it back yourself or let me do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proffviktor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: External Links
Dear Mr. Ollie,

Not sure how I am supposed to send you a message, it is not obvious. I am editing this page as others have as it is the only way I know how to get hold of you.

Please tell me which external link I added that you felt was innapropriate.

Thank you - TonyLoco23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyLoco23 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * explorethemed.com. I would think it would be obvious, it seems to be the only site you link. - MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Ollie, I don't want to argue with you on this. But if I understand you correctly, you have no issue with the relevancy of the links (i.e. a link to a free, interactive map of the Peloponnesian Wars with clickable map features, many of which link back to wikipedia articles is clearly relevant to the topic of the Peloponnesian Wars, would you agree?) Your only problem was the number of links I put up to the same domain?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyLoco23 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance is not the sole critera used in determining the appropriateness of an external link. See WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was removing it before, I think, TonyLoco23 started to add it himself. The text is based on Wikipedia, some of the maps are clearly also based on Wikipedia articles, so I also think it fails WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at TonyLoco23's edits, he may be the only person adding this link. In fact, that's all he seems to do. Possible WP:COI if it's his website. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's likely. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good work there, Sherlock! I've tagged his talk page with a COI tag. If he doesn't stop he'll be blocked as a spam only account. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to multi-touch regarding notability
Hi! While I don't have any strong feelings about the content removed from the article, I'd like to point out that the notability guideline only applies to whether a subject merits its own separate article and not article content. The applicable policy here is verifiability.

Also, as long as the content is not obviously slanderous or misinformative, it is polite to mark uncited content with the citation needed tag instead of removing it outright. This is supported by Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Thanks for your time! -- intgr [talk] 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shared Services
I have just noticed that the External Link to the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON) - www.ssonetwork.com has been removed from the external links section of the Shared Services Page - this link was added quite a while ago (and not by an SSON employee) - the site has a lot of information about Shared Services in which adds value to the initial the wiki entry - please advise how the link can be re-added to the entry as I think a lot of Wiki users may find this reference useful (similarily with the Six Sigma wiki external link I posted (www.sixsigmaiq.com) - please advise. Cgayner (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also a commercial site and probably should not have been added in the first place. As I don't think the link is suitable I don't see any way it could be re-added. I recommend that you read the relevant guidelines: WP:EL, WP:SPAM and especially WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid Schemes
Why was the link to laws on pyramid schemes removed? It seemed like a useful reference to me. JP (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rich Media
Why did you redirect the term "Rich Media" to the disambiguation page here? There are no articles on that page that describe the specific use of the term. The only article that actually describes what it means specifically is the Media richness theory article. The goal of WikiProject Disambiguation is to eliminate links to disambiguation pages whenever possible. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BPMN
Why did you remove the v1.2 BPMN poster? It looked fair to me. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it contained an advertisement for activemodeller and the editor who posted the link has an apparent COI about that product. - MrOllie (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all ears. If we can trace that user back to activemodeller then removing it is fair. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ActiveModeler_Avantage&action=history - MrOllie (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was most enlightening. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ladder Golf
Thanks. :) This one has turned out a bit tense and tricky, eh? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking professional help
I have raised the topic of your recent edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit to Tartine
Hi, can you explain this edit please? It's not spammed (in that I added it and I have no connection with either the magazine to which it links nor to the bakery except as a one-time consumer) and it's a link to a reliable source (a bluelinked print magazine). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We got spammed pretty hard by somebody from that domain (see here), I thought it was more of the same. Apparently it is a legit cite on that page, so my apologies. - MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your edits
MMOhut, simply stated, while not too, too notable, often also has some additional information that may be useful... I therefore undid some of your edits under WP:EL. But, eh. Erm. Why did you remove them? Is there some sort of MMOhut spamming conspiracy I don't know about that you're fighting against? (Yes, that was a joke, but it might be, so...)

Or maybe you don't think MMOhut's notable enough all together? :/

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t  /  c ) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We regularly get anon IP addresses coming through here and adding multiple links to MMOhut. Whenever it happens, I go through and remove a bunch. - MrOllie (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All right then. Eh, just take care not to remove them from articles where they're possibly relevant then... (but I guess you don't need this information.)


 * 7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t  /  c ) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Links on Solar Energy Pages
www.Solar-Estimate.org is still funded by volunteers and is a not-for-profit activity: www.Solar-Estimate.org is a FREE public service funded by donations 100%. The reason the State of California, State of Maryland, DOE and other government agencies link to www.Solar-Estimate.org is because IT IS a non-biased, ad-free, public service. Compare this to organizations like the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) who is linked into solar topic Wiki pages, but ASES sells magazines and conference tickets and links to lots of sites that give them referral fees back (like Findsolar.com). Just because ASES does not pay taxes (i.e a Non-profit) does not matter. So, I fail to see your logic here ... If you remove this link to www.Solar-Estimate.org then you might was well remove all links to any non-profits or not-for-profit projects and just leave in government links.

Look at the external links to "solar Energy" -- you will see links to "Solar Today" magazine and the Prometheus Institute -- why are we allowing these links when the magazine is clearly a commercial activity and the Prometheus Insitute is as well (all they do is sell reports)???? !!!!

AGAIN, www.solar-estimate.org is about as close to a free public service as you can possibly get.

Should I raise this up a level to let the other Wiki volunteers make a determination? Scottcronk(talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See SPAM - if you have found other external links on Wikipedia which are not appropriate, feel free to remove them, but that is not a justification to add more inappropriate links. And by all means, feel free to make use of any noticeboards you wish, or the dispute resolution process, but don't be surprised if other editors also take a dim view of you adding links to a website with which you are associated. - MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist funny
When I hovered over the diff for your reversion of the Quadriciser link, the strikeout lines made it look like Quackiciser. Thanks for the chuckle. CliffC (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Metrisoft/AmazingTrails
Ok, so I better understand the wikipedia policy toward external links. I was basically just following what other companies were doing. My only request is that you remove the other links as well.

One serious problem though, when you and Poutine removed my links, you also removed a bunch of valuable and legitimate contributions to the content. This is a wiki, not the mafia and I bet I know more about SaaS than you do. Please LEAVE my legitimate contributions alone.

Thanks,

Metrisoft/AmazingTrails —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrisoft (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikva, Niddah
Could you please tell me what is the problem with my links? I read through the rules, and i am not first time editor so what is the problem? Please explain yourself in more detail what rule did i break. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntb613 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop Removing Links
Mr. Ollie, please stop removing relevant links from wikipedia. The link: How to Read a Topo Map from the topographic map page was up and running for almost a year before you came along and arbitrarily removed it on some kind of a self-righteous quest. - czimborbryan 6-19-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czimborbryan (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My edits are in accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Yours (repeatedly inserting links to your own website), are not. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

6-20-09 Even so, I am sharing relevant information to the public via Wikipedia. I am not attempting to drum-up search-engine rankings. There were hundreds of visitors (monthly) checking out how to read topo maps coming from wikipedia...which meant that it was a needed service. Most people do not know how to read topo maps. I know that wikipedia has guidelines for determining what spam is, but this is not spam. These links add value to the wikipage. - czimborbryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czimborbryan (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple Solution
raise this issue with a proper arbitor, I am new to this and am having trouble initiating the appeal process. Just present the arguments and all the validating informating presented. If there is a proper arbitor who decides that the WP:WEIGHT criteria has been applied properly I will never post on that page again. Also have an arbitor explain to me how a newspaper is considered more reliable than records of court procedings, if its wikipedia policy to hold newspaper article as irrifutable documents I dont ever need to see this site again anyway. On that topic I can quickly document stories in the boston globe that are factually incorrect and I can show evidence that they intentionally misinform. This is way to easy to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem to be addressed
I have been reading through your page and I see a pattern here. You seem to be editing entries in a rather ham fisted manner. Further, I see that you are citing rules inconsistantly and are removing valid entries. This is the problem I am having also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverts at E Ink
Hello MrOllie, I noticed you reverted some edits at E Ink, some of which were improvements. Do you really think "cellphone" is better than "mobile phone", or that "E Ink was purchased by its primary business partner" is better than the more accurate "E Ink Corporation announced an agreement to be purchased by one of its primary business partners"? I know that seeing frequent vandalism can make experienced editors prejudiced against newcomers, but let us try not to do that. Many of them are well-intentioned, just unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works. So we should exercise our judgement and do whatever improves articles, instead of blindly reverting, I think. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Solar power
Please refrain from deleting the links to the solar calculators from both the solar power article and the photovoltaics articles. These are essential external links which assist with the evaluation of the availability of solar power. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're also vendor lists operated by for profit enterprises and are not to be linked per links to be avoided number 14. I'll remove them as I find appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I went through GA for Solar power the question about those links came up, and the point is that they are there not for the vendor list, if it even exists, but for the solar calculator. You will note that the links that you deleted recently, are not vendor lists, but are links that have been refined to point only to the calculator, and to the map. Previously the link was to the site itself so that anyone who wanted the map or the calculator could click on it, but the EL was refined so that it points only to the calculator, and only to the map, and if we look at ELNO 14, we see none of it, "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." It is none of the those, but instead is a very useful addition to the article, as it both allows you to calculate how big a solar panel you would need, plus it allows you to locate your solar panel on the map, and see others in your area around the country. I would suggest that the purpose of editing is to develop an encyclopedia, not delete it. Apteva (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you use the calculator (either of them), it then attempts to link you with a solar installer. These are advertising sites, plain and simple. Surely you can find a site with the same information that does not advertise solar installation in this way. - MrOllie (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I happent to agree with your last statement, Apteva, but this is apparently not the philosophy of MrOllie.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For one thing I do not see that "it then attempts to link you with a solar installer". I have used both calculators and found them extremely useful. Never did I get linked to, or see any, names of any solar installers. If I was planning on building a solar panel that might be my next question, and having a link there might be useful, but advertising links on the web are ubiquitous, other than on a few cites, like WP, which, however does ask for donations now and then. Honestly most people never click on ads, and you can't not link to the New York Times, or the London Times just because it is trying to get you to click on an advertiser. That is just taking it too far. Link the content, don't worry about the ads. Don't link to a page that is just all ads and has little useful content that could be found on a page with less ads. Basically what I see is that you are taking policy where no one has gone before, and stretching it to the absurd. However, you also have to be specific about your complaint, and the link is to a calculator, not a "list of manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - but I would also make the point that if that was the only page that had that content, and it had the content that you were linking to, plus a forbidden list, it would still be a valid EL, because it was essential, as it was the only place the content you were actually linking to was available. In other words, we can not control how other pages are constructed. If they help the project, link to them, if they hurt the project, don't link to them. As I see it, the calculators are essential to the project and should be linked, until better links can be found to replace them. Apteva (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between an ad supported site such as the NY Times and a directory of solar installers with a calculator app in front of it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are completely out in left field here. It is a calculator ap that also has links to other things, the same as the NY Times is a newspaper that also has links to other things. No difference whatsoever. I can however, find an "ad site", which never has any original content, just a sham of an article, normally a copy of an article. This is not one of those. You are welcome to replace the calculator with any other that provides the same information. Until then, quit removing them, please. Apteva (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit
Thanks for deleting the religious crap on the Artificial Intelligence article, I didn't even notice it despite reading the whole article many times, lol.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for MrOllie
Mr Ollie I have a number of questions about your reasoning for continually removing information that I have added to the pages of authors Sharon Kay Penman, Wally Lamb, Mary Doria Russell and others. The information that I have included about these authors has been important information about their careers, upcoming books and information about their histories. I am not close to these subjects but have in some cases conducted interviews with the authors. I am confused because my website stands to make no money and sells no product. Often times the information I have added to their pages is much newer than any previously cited and often corrects miscommunicated information. I have read the rules of wikipedia and am trying to abide by them but am disheartened when I see that you have deleted every link and fact that I have added over several weeks without any information on the talk pages. I want to be able to share information from these interviews and would like very much to receive your help in doing so. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the conflict of interest guideline, I would suggest that you mention the interview as a possible source on the talk page of the article, disclose your association with the site, and let some more neutral third party decide what if anything should go in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to inform Wikipedia users that I have conducted some of these interviews and that I still believe that the information I have included is pertinent and important information that should still be included in the author's pages. I wanted to point out to you, as well, in case you have not visited Loaded Questions that the site sells no products but provides literary news and author reviews. I am interested in contributing to the Wikipedia community and would greatly like the help of individuals such as your self in order to do so. I am hoping that you will be open and communicate with me in order to aid in this process. I have also noted that you have removed all of the Reference links to Loaded Questions - some of which were not added by myself. On many of the pages where Loaded Questions Interview links have been removed there are other links to interviews from sites that are very similar to Loaded Questions. Can you help explain to me why this is so?

KellyHewitt80 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of a link is not an endorsement of it. If you believe a link is inappropriate, feel free to remove it or start a discussion on it. It's possible that they haven't yet been reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The question I was trying to ask was why you have removed every External Link to Loaded Questions, including those not submitted by myself? I am trying to find reasoning and to find out how to have an External Link listed in an appropriate manner.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When links have been added in high volume by IP editors (or accounts who seem to be editing with a single purpose) it's common to just remove all of them. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per External Links: What Should Be Linked Item #3 I will be adding External Links to interview transcripts with Wally Lamb and Lauren Willig. I trust that if you disagree with this action you will find an appropriate manner to inquire to a change of Wikipedia policy.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding links to your own web site. - MrOllie (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I cited the External Links: What Should Be Added and have read the entire enter for External Links. Loaded Questions does not violate any of those rules. It is not a person website, does not sell anything related to the content featured and the links added have been links directly to interview transcript. When I have tried to add facts to the body of the page you have removed them and so, when trying to provide the interviews to the wikipedia user via External links External Links: What Should Be Linked Item #3 you have continued to remove these links despite that fact that I have not violated any stated rule. I am baffled by your continue insistence on singling Loaded Questions and myself out. There are no grounds for removing the External Links to interview transcripts with the author on whose page it is listed.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that in your judgment these links seem very appropriate, but we have guidelines on things like conflict of interest and spamming external links for a reason. You're too close to the matter to make an unbiased judgment. Just have patience, if the links are as appropriate as you say some third party will come along and include them. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have faith that someone will add them, a few of them had been added in the past when you removed them. I have to wonder -- have you read any of the interviews or taken time to look at the content? Who is to say that when a third party does add these links back up you don't continue to remove them out of spite and the clear dedication you've shown towards removing anything associated with Loaded Questions?14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no particular dedication towards your site in particular as you can see by reviewing by contribs and/or my talk page, I just spend some of my spare time keeping Wikipedia's external links under control. However, once I notice bulk link additions such as the ones carried out by [this IP] I do tend to keep an eye on that site in the future just to make sure there isn't a similar run of link additions, but that does not necessarily preclude measured usage. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to make this clear so that, for both of our sakes, we might not have to have any further conversation with each other. The only reason you have removed information and External links from the authors pages where I have added them is because I, as someone who works on the site and conducts many of the interviews, have added them. I recognize that you are loathe to give a straight on answer but, as I said, I am hoping to end this whole thing with a clear answer from you regarding your removal of both factual contribution (suspect or otherwise) and External Links. Is this so?KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons - they have been bulk added by IP editors in the past, added by your account with an obvious COI recently, and because it appears to be a self published site. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Ollie -- I am having a really difficult time communicating with you and am really starting to feel like you're going to do whatever it takes to stop any of my interviews (which you've never read) from being added to Wikipedia. What does "self published" site mean? Are you implying that Wikipedia does not accept information from self published sites? (I would really like to see where you find a rule or guideline that supports this.) Secondly what does a COI mean? And -- lastly -- since, in the past, I added a number of links and information to a number of pages which I believed was pertinent that all future information added by third parties will be removed? I would really like to encourage you to answer each of these questions and directly. I am trying, very hard, to meet your "criteria" but each and every time I think I understand why it is you are wholesale rejecting contributions by me or any of my interviews you come up with another excuse which you've failed to mention. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what COI means, I don't think that you should use the world "obvious" because to date you're the only person who has had a problem with this. Secondly, you continue to throw this IP information at me without any proof that it was me that did this! I have made all of my edits with an account and cannot be held responsible for items added by an IP that I don't recognize. Time for you to come up with some more reasons. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Self published is defined here. COI is an abbreviation for conflict of interest. I'm not the only person who has reverted additions of this site, here is one example. It really doesn't matter if the IP is yours or not, there has been a pattern of spamming behavior that is taken into account. I reserve the right to self determine the topics of conversation that I indulge in, including which questions I will or will not answer. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Loaded Questions is not a self published website according to the rules that you yourself just cited. The interviews that have been conducted at Loaded Questions are cited in a number of websites and articles and, in fact, as a book group reading guide in the paperback version of The Memoirs of a Beautiful Boy by Robert Leleux published by St. Martin's Griffin (ISBN:100312361696). Furthermore I would argue that the fact that Loaded Questions and myself work with a number of publishers and have published over sixty author interviews over more than two years. The site has an established URL and never reports about the work, writing or projects of individuals who contribute to the site. During this entire exchange you have chosen "indulge" in creating reason after reason for blacklisting Loaded Questions, providing answers and responses only when they fit your individual agenda. Your insistence on having the right to "self determine the topics and conversations" you participate it is ironic especially given that you also self determine what items, links and information you delete from pages. You cannot delete information, remove links and then "choose" whether or not you answer questions about why you did so. I think that you (and others reading this) ought to seriously consider the reasons you are involved with Wikipedia. I have witnessed nothing but malice and a unwillingness to work with me in finding a way to share *information* with the general public. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is becoming too personalized to be productive, I think, so I'm going to exit it at this point, with a simple reiteration that if you use talk pages and wait for uninvolved parties, the system will work. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Online Backup
Hi MrOllie, I noticed one of your recent contributions removed an external link from the online backup article. Although I do not contribute to the encyclopaedia like your good self I do use it often as a resource and thought this recent edit of yours maybe a little harsh. I read through the wiki external links guidelines and noted that the link to the online backup application in action was a link to content that although was relevant to the article could not be hosted on the Wikipedia site as it was what looked like flash. The External Link guidelines suggest that if an external link is on topic and relevant to the article then these kind of links should be encouraged to enhance the encyclopaedia rather than be swiftly removed. I have been in the storage industry for some time and think that this flash provides the viewer an accurate representation of online backup so I think that the encyclopaedia will benefit from such rich media content and would like to revert the edit. I appreciate the time and effort editors like you put in to keep the encyclopaedia in order and hope that this decision is OK with you and other editors. Mike (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On topic and relevant isn't sufficient - if we stuck to that we'd be buried in advertising. We can't be advertising for redstor here. You say that you're in the storage industry - are you related to this company? If so, please read the conflict of interest guideline and try to take it to heart. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I would suggest that "we" are not "buried" in advertising, because we do not allow any advertising. However, most external sites that we link to are supported by advertising, and advertising can almost always be expected. The fact that a link includes advertising is not a factor at all in determining if a link is useful to the purposes of the encyclopedia. The only question, is, is the information available from a better source, or not? The burden of proof, of course is on the editor who would like to remove the "offending" link because they think it can be replaced with a better link. If they can, do it. If they can not - then there is nothing they can do but leave the link - if it is in fact on topic, relevant, and I would add, useful. One of the principles of writing Wikipedia is to not delete poorly written good faith edits, but to clean them up and fix them. FYI, I looked at the above flash, and was not able to play it through, but the little I did see was not, to that point, at all useful. I will try to get on a faster computer and view the whole thing at some point, but for now I see no need for the link. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Complaint removal of all users prior contributions
I will ask you to restore the contributions I HAVE made to previous articles, this is malicious and highly inappropriate.

The issue is that you have disagreed with the contribution I made to the article in ADHD to go along and remove all revisions a WIKI contributor has made in the past, well over a year ago, is not appropriate.

Please restore the contributions and discuss things appropriately or I will make a formal complaint

--Cityzen451 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Niddah, Mikvah
Stop removing links! If you think the link doesn't belong there reply to me! You can't just delete anything you want and not be accountable! --Ntb613 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think ill add to this because it in context. Do not delete link to articles without consulting people, the links in the mouse gesture area are to freeware products and examples, some are to product pages but in this instance they are unavoidable, it is particularly unavoidable with software and more so with mouse gesture interaction because it is a niche interest in terms of software. You cannot make blanket judgements on the content of all articles, there are wider issues better left to the editors, not so vigilante. The Wiki has guidelines not rules. sames again: you cannot delete anything you see fit and dismiss anyones contribution as you see fit and defer accountability, this is extremely disruptive

Cityzen451 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional complaint: Redirect of prior contributions
The following articles were written & published well over one year ago, and were redirected to pages with very little relation. I have undone the redirects. If you have further questions about these articles, please use my talk page, prior to making changes.


 * epayables
 * eInvoice

— comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)
 * The main articles on Accounts payable and electronic billing have 'very little relation'? Seriously? - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, epayables & eInvoice are expanded terms, which are, yes, a part of Accounts payable and electronic billing, but there are intricacies that expound beyond the larger terms, and therefore each has merit in having its own articles.

— comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

mouse gestures
you clearly have little understanding of the article or computer science, many of the links you deleted are to opensources classes and and plugins. This is what happens when ill informed editors delete links that they dont understand... in effect you have vandalised the article. Thank you. and there is little point in pursuing that because you are so disruptive

Cityzen451 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no exception in the external linking guidelines for open source software. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said clearly you dont understand why they are there Cityzen451 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of link changes from allempires.com to allempires.info
The problem here is that the content of the All Empires history community, its magazine and its forum, has been copied and transferred to an illegitimate site by a former administrator, who acquired ownership of one of the old domain names (allempires.com). The contributors, moderators and administrators of the original site are all responsible for the original community whisch is located now at www.allempires.net and www.allempires.net/forum, with the magazine articles at www.allempires.info.

Legal action is in hand over the situation but handicapped by the fact that the rogue administrator, who has been requested by many individuals to remove their articles from the magazine as well as some posts from the forum, refuses to do so but lives in Iran, which is not a signatory to any of the copyright conventions.

If you wish to remove references to either site in this situation then that would be understandable, but at the moment the references to allempires.com are linking to copyright infringements, which I am sure cannot be wikipedia policy. Gcle2003 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcle2003 (talk • contribs)

Request for clarification re: Archaeology
14:08, 10 July 2009 MrOllie (talk | contribs) (67,979 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Paleodigitalist. (TW)) (undo) It's not clear to me why this was removed. Paleodigitalist (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey, I need your opinion. If you check my contributions history you'll see quite a few "Earthsiege" and "Tribes"-related articles. I have cleaned them according to Wikipedia's guidelines on videogame articles, but forum community members have started a thread from which they revert any such changes. Basically, new IPs every day, reverting with no reason and making no attempt at dialogue on either the talk page or in edit summeries. Specific articles: Tribes 2 and Fallen_Empire:_Legions. I have sought protection, but this was denied, ironically on the grounds that there weren't enough editors involved. Eik Corell (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In topic Tribes 2 You had removed important information, like how the game can now be played free, games that were inspired by it, and what has happened to the game to this present day. But what you stated in the talk page that it was a bit too much on the mod information? Yes, there is a bit too much information about the mod section, and that can be removed. But gutting the whole article, i see no point in that. TheOniLink (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My previous edits
Sir, I had edited the page of ICSE and ISC Examinations and had added information that could help the viewers of the page. I am myself the student of the respective boards and had just made a simple contribution that according to me could be useful to people viewing the topic. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish14011992 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * links to ibexstudents are not useful, they are spam. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia art, et al.
Dar MrOllie - I understand the impulse to remove that link by Rpacker - and it does seem that the author is keen to get his site referenced.... it is actually a decent site. The problem, imho, is not with listing that link under 'external reference' - the problem is in the article itself, which is poorly sourced and could use additional references. Just because that use put the link there himself, does that mean it can't be listed automatically? Or should it be evaluated as to whether it is useful or not? I don't quite know the answers myself, I'm new to wikipedia - but I do know I've stumbed upon that link by Rpacker myself, independently, and found some useful info. Deadchildstar (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If he weren't using the site to try to sell books, I might be inclined to look at it closer. As it is, it isn't appropriate. If you want to cite some of his info to beef up the article references, that's great, cite some specific text to the book. Please do not restore this as an external link, though, we have different standards for those. - MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Cowan Edit
Hello,

Not sure why my edits were reverted. They are just links to articles on the subject matter. They already went through editorial review by editor "olifilth" who said they were in compliance. Background on my talk page. Can you provide in sight - thank you. Mark Cowan (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting from your talk page: 'If you believe such links are genuinely useful, the usual approach is to suggest them on the relevant talk page, and let another editor add them if they deem them relevant.' It would be best if you stopped adding links to your own site. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello - that comment was in reference to some other type of content (an open source industry forum discussion paper) not the link to an external article. Yes we're hosting this content but we're not the author of it. Mark Cowan (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Cowan - Talk
Hello - I've opened a discussion with you on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your reply. Mark Cowan (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the clarification. Posted a reply to your comments on my talk page. I think it should be all fixed now. Mark Cowan (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

78.165.107.187
He added the link back to Licensed practical nurse and removed your warning. I don't know the history, so you should make the block request if needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be User:Selim066, blocked yesterday for adding the same link. I'll put something in AIV. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Linda Eagle
Dear Mr. Ollie,

Could you kindly tell me what you feel is a conflict of interest for this topic and possibly explain what we can do to create a page with a more neutral point of view? I have opened a discussion with you on my talk page.

Thank you! - ECBAPR (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Motivational Speaker
Dear MrOllie,

G.Wolff is a notable person, and well known motivational speaker. It is not meant to be a promotional material. They were actual, like Alexander Kluge references.Please would you explain to me why you deleted his name of the list. Thanks. Motivationweb (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

adding back some material with protocol changes
I wanted to let you know that I’m adding back, with some modification, some of the material you deleted today from postings of mine last month. You list that you’re removing “spam” which I’m not sure I understand. The only spam-like quality to those posts is that there were six of them over a couple days period last month referencing the work of only two of my colleagues and in one case linking to a page I’ve written. I’ve taken out the one reference to a trade book from the body of the text in case that was what struck you as “spam” or to not complying with wiki protocol. Also removing the links directly to that wiki page. However, all the citations in references are entirely relevant articles in APA-published psychology journals and two books from major publishing houses. These pages are tagged as needing better citation, so add additional ones that you may have, but please don’t remove relevant ones. If you're a psychologist or grad. student, just check in the APA Div. 30 materials and you'll find all the same references prominantly. Write my talk page again if you still have concerns. Carrie Myers (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you (and the other accounts following this editing pattern) find some edits to make which are entirely unrelated to Deirdre Barret. - MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kama Sutra spammer
FYI: ANI report. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Page of Dimitri Bertsekas
HI there, could you please check out the modification I made on the page? I've included citations from google scholar and other databases. Do you think this article is well established now?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdwang (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheat codes
Hi MrOllie, you should know that following this conversation with SteveJenkins, I've decided to take the whole cheatcodes.com issue to Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - you may like to comment. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for reverting your edit to Uh Huh Her (band). I actually sneezed and accidentally clicked rollback... wiki accident! X X X antiuser 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. please take the issue you have to the article talk page thanks Oo7565 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ELs
Ah, I see about the redundant links. About the links to commercial R's, I'm not sure I agree. The commercial extensions of R are notable, but probably not notable enough to deserve their own WP pages; an EL seems appropriate here. --macrakis (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

contribution
The reference to the text added to the Finance and several other sections is meant to provide the reader an authoritative reference on the subject. The additions are not spam...and given that there are very few suggested readings or texts for many of the finance topics, it would make sense to add leading books for reading. Just because I am a co-author of one of the first ones that I suggested does not mean it is less meaningful or valuable. I appreciate your concern, but respectfully ask that you not remove these additions unless you have a valid and defensible reason. Regards, KHM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmarks (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Free running
I added a link in the Free running article to a wiki dedicated to Free Running. Why did you remove it? MarcusFairclough (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNO point 11. - MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Are you an administrator? Sorry for that question but I'm new in en.wiki. I'm happy that you appreciate my edits in censorship, but why have you deleted them? However the sources are published in internet, they are reliable. Selfreferences do not mean inappropriate or inaccurate. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian rsw (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

List of online backup services
If you hadn't noticed already, there is an RFC underway because there is dispute as to whether entries on List of online backup services should be required to be the subject of Wikipedia articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

==Blue Marble Geographics

GIVE ME A MINUTE I AM TRYING TO FIX THE PAGE FOR BLUE MARBLE, GEESH!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geohead (talk • contribs)

Synchronous Technology
The problem with that article is, its not just a Solid Edge component, but has been integrated partially into NX as well. So merging is not ideal though I could merge it with Solid Edge, if you like. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter how many products they apply the term to, it is just a marketing buzzword for Feature recognition. - MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You’re right, I guess, so what would you like me to do with the article? Should I merge it in somewhere because I think it covers the new “feature” quite well, including criticisms. How about putting it as a section within Solid Edge and then linking to that section from NX? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially created an article for ST because all the other PLM components have individual articles, and so this is just as notable. Please see the first row in the following navbox. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 02:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, we shouldn't have two articles on the same thing, even if a company decides to use a neologism as a name for it. For some examples, look at the large number of brand names listed on Glossy display. These are all different names for the same thing, so we don't give them separate articles. I think the best thing is probably to merge the unique content to Feature recognition, but there really isn't much of it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfectly right, and since its primary usage is as a feature/component of Solid Edge, I've merged it into the existing Solid Edge section called Synchronous Modeling. I've also condensed it by deleting unnecessary information and have merged the external links as suitable. Is that alright? Thank you. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and there is already a mention of ST in the Parametric modeling article, which links back to the detailed explanation of the component at the Solid Edge article. Hope thats alright. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

removal of links
Dear MrOllie,

I am most surprised by you removal of several links (associated with relevant text bits) I added. All the above links were highly relevant to content of the articles in question, and link directly to copies of relevant major publications (Global Treasury Briefing - www.gtbriefing.com, Private Equity News - www.penews.com, International Corporate Rescue- http://www.chasecambria.com/) that were provided on a company website (www.tenzor.co.uk) with formal permission from the publishers and representing verifiable content. These articles are benefitial to wikipedia users (looking through visitor's numbers) and for readers of teh above publications (from editorial feedback provided. I could provide link to publisher's site, but all above publications require expensive subscriptions (and wikipedia rules specificly dissalow linking to such sites) while on my site they are reproduced for free (with publisher's permission). Most of the links were to specific publications, not to website in general. None of the publications was in any way considered advertisement or so by respective publishers.

I am well aware of nonfollow status of wikipedia links - these were provided for benefit of the users (that you desided to deprive of this benefit), not search engines.

Would appresiate if you can kindly explain rational for your removal and if you think it would be benefitial to restore the links please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor101 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the guidelines on external linking, conflict of interest, and spam. If you would like to add content cited to reliable third parties, please do so. You may cite the information to the print editions of the content, it is not required that sources be online. It would be best if you refrained from citing your own work, though, regardless of where it is published, and you should definitely refrain from inserting links to sites which you own or are otherwise associated with. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All the content was from reliable third parties as explained above. I am more than happy to re-install my contributions with reference to publication (that was their in any case) but without the link- please confirm you have no issues with this... You can easily check that publications quoted are among the best known in their respective industries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor101 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as you are not the author of any of these articles, I have no objection. If you are, see the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I read it- it says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." While Wikipedia does not require me to state my name (and for you to state yours)let us assume these are written by me- would adding a paragraph (not a citation mentioned in the policy) and adding a reference to a highly regarded third party publication constitute a violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor101 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, when operating a single purpose account for that purpose. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK- the link you provided atates what single purpose account is, not how to set it- would appresiate your advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor101 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

External Links on Jesus People
Hi MrOllie, I noticed that you reverted the external link that I provided to the Jesus People article. Can you please say what part of WP:EL it didn't follow. I looked it over and could not see. I really don't care about whether the links stays in the article, but I am unsure why it should have been removed. Can you please say why? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of Edits
Hi Mr Ollie - could you please tell me how I can put the edits I made last night back? I understand it was the links causing you the problem not the actual information. I would like that stuff back because I really felt it was an improvement.

OK - so it's the links I put on that are causing you the problem, not the extra material I added. Correct? Assuming "yes" can you please tell me how I put the edits I made back again? (PS - where I am supposed to put these comments - on my talk page or on yours?)Joanna Smith (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie - I am new to this and earlier this evening some changes to expand the working capital descriptions. Is this a subject you know a lot about? I am really surprised that you reversed the changes and I would love to know your rationale because, on my part, it's feeling like a wasted evening! Do I have any right of appeal over what you have done? Joanna Smith (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Adolescence
Hello, MrOllie. Since you have watched the Adolescence article before, will you respond here? I need a sufficient number of opinions about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Project64 - ROM Dumping...
I am sorry if I have missed something. Can you please specify why you reverted the section added on dumping your own ROM images? I do not believe your action to be justifiably applicable, however, I am willing to listen to your reasoning and respect your decision as well as take it onboard for the next edit so long as you can provide me with a reaosnable explanation to why you have reverted my text. There was no question of legality and it did obligue with the rules of the encylcopedia. You can email me about this article:

owner[at_symbol]emucraze[dot_]com ... Thank you.. ~Mdkcheatz


 * Please stop linking to your own website. See the conflict of interest, external linking, and spam guidelines. The ROM dumping text you added isn't all that relevant to the Project64 article. I would say you should include it over at ROM image, but the information is already covered there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response... I would disagree about the relevence of ROM Dumping as that is the only legal way of be able to use the Project64 emulator... Regarding your spam reference; I would maybe reconsider your personal misjudgement of legitament sources. "However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I will, however, take your side on this and leave it be. Good Day ~Mdkcheatz

Comparison_of_online_backup_services
Dear MrOllie, I have now changed the article's editor note to the following:

Please do not add weblinks or examples without an existing wikipedia article, or proper and credible citations. They will be removed immediately and you will only be wasting time for yourself and the person who cleans up after you.

If this is not acceptable to you or others let us now please proceed to mediation. Thank you for your effort. YoursMootros (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Comparison of online calculators
Hello MrOllie, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Comparison of online calculators has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (seems an informative article, & better than making articles on each of them. deprodded) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

You assumed COI by default and, as a result, violated WP policy
In this edit reversion you clearly violated WP policy, by assuming something you cannot be sure of: “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest” (from WP:COI). If you had checked my edits, you would probably have figured out by now that I am not the person you think I am, nor am I a WP:SPA. And, can you please avoid treating someone who has been contributing for over a year now as a novice? Senortypant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Online Graphing Calculators
Thank you for your reply. As you said, I will do whatever is needed to improve the pages. IGraph (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted an external link without stating why
You deleted this link from the Buckskin Gulch article. Why? I found it to be a very useful series of articles, links and maps. I am not associated with the deleted link. However, I have been to Buckskin Gulch and know how useful the page would be for people planning on visiting there.


 * Buckskin Gulch trail guide and routes

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Decision making software links
Dear MrOllie! I am very much confused on your deletion of MindDecider's reference in a comparison table of decision making software. Why? I thought the Wiki is about providing full information on various subjects and various activities, so MindDecider has a full fledged right to be listed in the software tables just as Analytica, Decision Manager and other programs do! It is NOT against Wiki rules and guidelines! You have deleted the MindDecider's article, ok, but why to delete real existing and reasonable references that complete the topic?

Looking forward to your professionalism and understanding. Sincerely, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newillusion (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was found not to be notable in wikipedia terms, so we shouldn't note it in other articles either. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Depth-of-field adapter
Just an FYI. I've added the links that have plagued "Depth-of-field adapter" to the blacklistlog Hopefully they won't circumvent by spamming redirect sites. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They were some persistent buggers. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chi-square distribution
I have undone your reversions. It seems to me that these are potentially useful links to a noncommercial website, and cover aspects of the history of chi-square distributions which are not discussed in the WP article. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Query Engineering
(edit) Hello MrOllie, I have a question re a recent edit that you made to the Engineering page. You removed an external link to an Engineering Research Institute at the University of East London, while links to a History bibliography at the University of Minnesota and a research institute at Carnegie Mellon University - why is one unacceptable while other are not? Best Darigan (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the University of East London has been spammed across dozens of articles by a single editor. - MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely relevant research (or links to such) is not spam? I would imagine that areas such as Design Materials and Manufacturing research; Control Research, and Built Environment research is relevant to the article, is it not?Darigan (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all links which are relevant are appropriate. And if the links weren't spam, they would be being added by a diverse selection of people citing the research, not shotgunned external links by an individual. I would also suggest that you read the conflict of interest guidelines before continuing to edit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick think, i reckon that i understand what you mean about relevant/appropriate, i would argue that perhaps the University of East London link is at least as appropriate as two others that appear in the Ext. Link section, but i would imagine that neither of us have any interest in getting into a "he did, she did first" argument. I'll read the conflict of interest page. If after reading it, i have any further argument/s, i shall invite you to duel tomorrow. G'Night MrOllie Darigan (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Neologisms
"Neologism" itself is a new word to me. Agree that "Onboarding" is on the line. Adding references to Onboarding article to document it's use and growth. Gbradt (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SlideRocket
You recently speedily deleted a page I was working on and I'd like to invite you to give comments and feedback on a new proposed entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natrobinson/SlideRocket. What else do you expect to see on this page before it could go live? Thanks. --Natrobinson (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2009_flu_pandemic
It was added in two places, if you intended to remove this, you only removed one of these two sections. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your change to Congestion pricing
I reverted your change there, which removed a reference from the article. Please feel free to restore your change if you can provide a decent rationale, either in the summary or on the article's talk page for why this citation should not remain. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it's a WP:COI reference being added by the author. See [here]. - MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages
Hi. When you see a new page which is abusive, like Zoe peacock just now, there is a better tag than. The thing to do is, first blank the article (it's still there in the history for the admin to check) and then tag it db-atk or db-g10. That puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and generates a suitably fierce warning message for the author's talk page. Keep up the good work - NPP needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Retail media
Hi MrOllie - I don't want to waste everyone's time in a revert war that leads nowhere, and I'm not sure whether you're watching the relevant Talk page, so I'm bringing it here - can you explain why you reverted my reinstatement of a short passage to Retail media? (Your version is 324141008.) While not of huge importance, it seems germane to the topic, and not to create any obvious problems. Feel free to reply on this page to maintain the continuity of the discussion - I'm watching it. Regards Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retail_media&oldid=324141008


 * Blogs are not reliable sources, so the statement and the blog ref were properly removed. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A fair point, but the entire article is unsourced - wouldn't it be better to leave the statement in place (it's hardly contentious) and tag the article appropriately? Barnabypage (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben Behrouzi
Mr Ollie, this page does have a neutral point of view and the references and articles are made from reliable resources please let me know what you deem un-baised. I have seen many examples of profile that I can give you examples that have even twitter profiles. I can provide examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaish (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting with the very first sentence: 'innovative entrepreneur'. It's a puff piece throughout. - MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Ollie, I have updated the page per your requirements. Kindly let me know if I need to further update I have provided a factual representation. Let me know if you need me to change any further Monaish —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Software visualization
Hi MrOllie. Could you please provide a reason for reverting my additions to a number of pages, including for example the Software visualization page. It is quite frustrating on each part to repeat things without giving an explanation for that. I've been trying to discuss this on the relevant talk pages, yet I do not get an answer. Could you please shed some light on your actions? Lucian.voinea (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a single purpose account operating with an apparent conflict of interest to advertise software products on Wikipedia. I suggest you find something to write about that is unrelated to Solidsource products. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. The reasoning is clear, although I consider it a bit unfair as long as other commercial products are featured on the same pages. I do not believe removing references to commercial products is a gain for the audience, but the system should be fair to all who care about it. Lucian.voinea (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion for the next meeting
I see you've now eliminated the most relevant link: (simply an act of spite?) Operations Management's listings of "associations" now has all but the Operations Management division. That was the first posting made by another member, and even if you had an intelligence rationale for eliminating links on the Supply Chain and Project Management pages... what on Earth are you thinking... Retrospective actions ??? Who are you people anyhow? We'll have fun with this one come August :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to the Academy of Management
Mr. Ollie - Please help me understand why you have continued to remove links to the Academy of Management that I have placed in articles on related topics (e.g. Project Management) yet you continue to allow other professional organizations to remain. The Academy is group predominantly consisting of faculty members. We have a fundamental interest in serving as a source of knowledge - and have no commercial interests (unlike many groups you seem to allow links for...). If you aren't willing to take my word for it, I can refer you to about 10 thousand other faculty members that feel the same. Please don't take actions that make Wikipedia appear to support private interests over knowledge sharing ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs)
 * They are being removed because you are a single purpose account and your primary activity is repeatedly adding the link. Regardless of the presence or absence of commercial interests, this is spam as Wikipedia defines it. Since you appear to be affiliated with this group, please also see the conflict of interest guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok - Well, if that how SPAM is defined here (wow). So, for clarity, you really believe that all links to professional groups have been added by people not involved in those groups? Or is it that any one individual is only allowed to add a single link? Just looking for what the policy is here so the rest of the academic community understands it as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs)
 * I fully agree with MrOllie here. I don't understand why you (re)add a link to "Operations Management division of the Academy of Management" in the project management article in the first place. Do you have any idea how many organizations are linked to PM one way or an other, and we can only link to few? -- Mdd (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse here - but we're the ones responsible for "teaching" project management. Again, and I know I may be giving academic credit to Wikipedia where it may not be due, but if you can name another group that has more influence on college training in project management (aside from PMI already listed) please do. If you knew anything about the field you might be a bit more cautious with your claims. In any event - I'm dropping the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring report
Thanks for making the report of the edit warring at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I went there to report it myself but found you had taken care of that already. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! --Mysdaao talk 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine Cable
There has been a discussion about the external links for several days. Consensus seems to indicate that they be kept. Please read and join the discussion before making changes. NathanielDawson (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion does not indicate any consensus for the inclusion of the links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion and make your opinions clear before engaging in an edit war. NathanielDawson (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. Well, at least two, since in this case it appears more like you versus three others, which doesn't bode well for your claim that consensus for the links has been reached. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, . This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. See: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Hu12 (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovetropolis.com Edit
Thank you for your message. I have added a comment to the article talk page. I will begin work on editing it on Monday. Lovebug079 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Reference in Cheating_In_Video_Games
Hi, Mr. Ollie! We meet again. :) I noticed you reverted an edit I made in Cheating_in_video_games, in which I was correcting an incorrect reference. Unfortunately, you revered to an inaccurate reference. Please read the referenced document (Sezen). If you can show me where in that document the definition of "cheat code" appears as shown in the Wikipedia article, I'll apologize and drop the matter. However, no such reference exists in the article. Furthermore, I am the original author the definition for "cheat code" as it exists in the Wikipedia article. I authored it in 2001, and it appears now (as it did in 2001) in the definitions list on the website for which I authored it. If you have any argument to the contrary, I welcome it. If not, I respectfully as you to re-edit the article, and attribute the definition to the original source. Thank you.Stevejenkins (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article to conform more exactly with the cited source, I trust this will address your objection. I cannot use your wording with a cite to your own website to back it up, because one of Wikipedia's core policies expressly forbids us from doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. However, you are incorrect in assuming that this addresses my objection. Instead of keeping the adequate and mature definition intact, and allowing someone else (me) to correct the reference, you change the content of the article just to match the reference you wish to keep intact? To what end? I simply don't see the logic in that. I didn't place the original definition in the Wikipedia article. I authored the definition 8 years ago, and included it on a website that is a widely regarded reference on the subject of cheat codes. Whoever did place the definition in the article likely found it via a search engine (try searching for the original definition in Google and see what you find). Perhaps it was originally credited accurately. I haven't looked that far back in the article history to know. What I do know, however, is that I saw the definition, recognized it (as its author), curiously checked the listed reference to see if the reference had plagiarized it, discovered that the reference had no such definition, determined that the reference was erroneous, and updated the reference today to reflect the appropriate source. Now, if me doing so violates a Wikipedia core policy, then I'll apologize... and ask you to both restore the definition and update the reference to the correct 3rd party source yourself. Which of Wikipedia's core policies would forbid you from doing that? Are you certain that you aren't actually being motivated by a personal dislike of me, because of our disagreement over edits in the past?Stevejenkins (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact you did add this definition to Wikipedia, here. It was later merged to the Cheating in video games article when the Cheat code article was redirected. The core policy I referring to was the one I linked above on original research. When someone inserts their own thoughts into an article without sourcing them to a reliable, third party source, the policy on original research is violated. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Business intelligence
May I suggest that you add an appropriate-content related tag to the essayist's talk page. I placed a 3RR warning, but other tags may be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Angel investor link dispute
Mr. Ollie, Hi! The Angel investor article could you use some of your input. Things have been going along as usual (with I and the other regular editors appreciating your EL spam vigilance) until this week when a [to my mind] over-zealous spam assassin with the user name Ronz decided that 100% of the external links on Angel investor were spam, and therefore wholesale deleted them. Since you, I and the other regular editors have been religious about curating those links for several years, I was a bit taken aback, and left a nice note on Ronz's page explaining what we've been doing, and why I reverted the wholesale deletion. Ronz took exception to my explanation, and has tagged the article, posting a note on the article's talk page claiming that we are all wrong, and that none of the links comply with wikipedia policy and they should all be removed. I obviously strongly disagree with Ronz's actions and assessment, particularly because we have worked so hard to come to a consensus over three years as to what links are appropriate for this article and have, among us, done such a good job of keeping that section clean. Given your own anti-spam wiki-cred, I would appreciate it if you could stop by the Angel investor talk page and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! Yorker (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have time to respond to this and the subsequent discussion on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to stay out of it given the canvass-y message I got. - MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Chance?
Mr. Ollie, Clearly, I have lost all credit with you. In fact, I saw where you called me a spammer on the Draught Beer page. This is unfortunate. I don't consider myself a spammer - the links I offered were carefully and sincerely placed. I admit that, not knowing the Wikipedia culture that well might have made some of my recent efforts seem a bit ham-handed, but I hope that this clumsiness can be overlooked. What can I do to rectify myself in your eyes? I think that, given a chance, you will see the articles I link to will be well written, of good and relevant content, not excessive, and add value to the wikipedia entries.Breddings (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are unsourced and things on about.com do not meet with the requirements of the reliable sources guideline due to the (lack of) editorial process there. I would suggest that you can best improve the articles here by adding the information directly with citations to the sources you originally got it from, rather than linking to about.com. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly I'm fighting a losing battle and you don't plan to take me seriously. I will cease trying to contribute to Wikipedia.  I wonder how many others you have so discouraged with your over the top vigilance and how much better Wikipedia would be if you hadn't.Breddings (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you well in your endeavors, and should you ever wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a way that does not also build traffic to beer.about.com, I'm sure you will be welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Prod contested
Hi. The last PROD on Integrated Environmental Solutions has been de facto contested. As you nominated the article for PROD last time and this time, you may wish to nominate the article for full deletion discussion at AFD. It isn't really, in any case, a good candidate for PROD, having evidently surviving AfD once already. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Whitley Neill Gin
An editor has nominated Whitley Neill Gin, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you called me a spammer?
I posted legitimate links regarding monitoring resources on three pages where it was topical. Why is this spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netdiva (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's apparently part of a promotional campaign by groundwork open source, and because virtually all of your account's edits consist of website promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-tagging page on George Bradt
Why did you re-tag the George Bradt page for deletion. There was a whole discussion about this in November that was closed in favor of keeping. The discussion is findable at []. Is there new news that warrants re-opening the discussion. I have an obvious interest in this. Gbradt (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those aren't deletion tags, they are tags that note areas that should be improved. - MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ollie! Happy holidays!  Just letting you know that I decided to remove the tags in George Bradt because they seemed to be addressed to me.  Let me know your thoughts on this, cheers!    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least refimprove should still be there. That article has no third party biographical sources, just some business page style mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Nice working with you,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing Modelica tool references
You have removed references to Modelica tools that I just added. Your comment why you removed it, is completely cryptic to me. If you remove something, you should explain why you did it. A reference to a several page long article does not help much.

In this particular case this is not good: There are several implementations of the Modelica language. It is not fair to remove references to major implementations that do not have their own Wikipedia page. Explain, what to do in this case.

MartinOtter (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELNO points 14 and 19. If you have third party sources as to notability, mention them without external links (or better yet start an article, if it's really a 'major implementation' you should have enough notability for an article), but we should not be adding external links to vendors just because they are vendors. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

my recent posts
Mr Ollie,

I am reading the policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is heaviest of your objections. If I would ask one of very reputable professors in the field to write you e-mail about this matter, would it eliminate your concerns?

I see that Wiki has plenty of links on other professional web-sites (MathWorld, for example). The reputability issue seems to be the only major difference. Before I ask for permission even to reveal the name, is it at all possible that links to www.opentradingsystem.com could be included or this is insurmountable?

Kaslanidi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC).


 * No, an email would be of no help at all. If you start getting quoted in the new york times or something, feel free to get back to me then. In the mean time, per WP:ELNO points 1, 4, and 11 (which don't have much to do with Verifiability), your site should not be on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem
Do you even play conquer online if you don't you have no right to undo my edit everyone who plays conquer online knows of TQ's greed its a well known fact and they make no attempts to hide it. Unlike you and Marasmusine who keep trying to hide the truth. Pyrolord777 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also if you even bothered to look I did source most of them. Pyrolord777 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your sources do not meet Wikipedia's requirements, and you are using them to derive new meaning and are paraphrasing them to shine a negative light, both of which are not allowed here. You obviously have some sort of greivance, but Wikipedia is not the place to publicize it. If you continue in this manner you will probably be blocked and the page protected. - MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of my Posts
Talkin bout chicken (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently began editing Wikipedia pages, and I would like to continue participating in the open source conversation. I have been commenting on a similar movement in music toward new copyright regulations allowing for wider participation in content creations (similar to how Wikipedia functions).

Please explain why you are deleting my posts. I am happy to make them more thorough. I can also direct you to relevant press including the Washington Post, Business Week, Wired, Creative Commons, Billboard Magazine, and more that discusses the business which I frequently post about as it is a legitimate part of the greater collaborative copyright movement championed by the Creative Commons organization.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkin bout chicken (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Try writing about the movement without promoting a specific website. - MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The page I created Indaba Music was flagged for problems, which I have fixed. I have adhered to all policies of Wikipedia. Can you take down the complaints? Thank you. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag the article, so I prefer not to. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Hopefully the person who tagged it will respond to my concerns. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Computer performance
Maybe you want to be less agile when reverting my "Computer performance" edits... that CPU benchmarks are community ones, so I dont know what is a problem??? There is no other place for such a comprehensive benchmarks, so I ask you to leave the link alone, I will revert it anyways. Thanks.--Kozuch (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a store link right at the top of the page. It doesn't belong. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all reference links and external links at Wikipedia are to commercial sites (news & company sites), so this is not a reason for removal.--Kozuch (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO point 5. You are linking to a site that primarily exists to sell benchmarking software. Please desist. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

blogtronix
why did you tag this page for deletion it has undergone substantial revision and now meets sufficient standards. it was around for 3 days without anybody saying anything, and several other people made changes and contributions. if you look at pages like socialtext and thoughtfarmer you can see that Blogtronix is at least as important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

please respond here or on blogtronix talk page... why did you tag for deletion?Elimccargar (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I tagged it because this article was previously deleted at AFD, and I do not believe you have adequately addressed the issues that led to deletion, namely a lack of verifiable references to non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, supporting the criteria listed at WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE. - MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

more than half of the references are verifiable independent sources, look at socialtext they have five references and none of them are independent. the references to blogtronix's site are only for dates and system reqs.Elimccargar (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Semioticon
MrOllie,I don't want to get in a general fight about Semioticon, except to note that many people I know respect Paul Bouissac and his periodical. But I have reverted the deletion of Bernie Hogan's article about Barry Wellman. It's a sound piece and Hogan is a respected Oxford scholar who knows Wellman's work well. You appear to have deleted many (all?) links to Semioticon articles. I can't speak for the others, but I can attest to this one. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So long as somebody (who isn't Cansem) thinks it's a good citation and wants to make the edit, I'll be fine with it. I only reverted Tvoz because his edit summary seemed confused. The site has definitely been spammed, and that abuse had to be repaired, but that does not mean that it's a bad site. Hopefully the spam won't escalate any further because it would be a shame if this had to go to the blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We're in agreement now. Good article, stays. Sad to hear that Semioticon has been spammed.Bellagio99 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad we're all in agreement then. But I don't see what was confused about my edit summary - telegraphic, perhaps, but not confused. This particular citation is a legitimate addition to the article and its inclusion is not spam, which is what I said, and why I reinstated it in the first place. Tvoz / talk 08:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming and your deletions of the "fixed point" algorithm on convex optimization
Dear Mr. Ollie,

I saw that you had removed repeatedly a reference to a "fixed point algorithm" on convex optimization.

Please consider commenting on the similar editing at Linear Programming. Following another editor's suggestion, I have raised this issue on the [| notice on the bulletin board for possible conflict of interest]. The other editor has already "outed himself" as the author of the manuscript on "fixed point" methods, and also this editor has recently received a 48 hour block; the linear programming page has been semiprotected.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contribution to Supella Longipalpa
Thank you for removing the content that was a COPYright VIOlation (capitalizing because you used the comment 'copyvio' which I was a few minutes ago not aware referred to 'copyright violation'). The article is small. About 2kbyte I think. Logictheo (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Capital, IRR and NPV


Article Working capital, IRR and NPV are continuous being edited by you i added that parts of articles for public's best interest and if you are familiar with Strategic Financial Management you can understand the worth of those words and links  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejjazaccountant (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of numerical analysis software
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of numerical analysis software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Jwesley 78 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Methods of website linking
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Methods of website linking. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Methods of website linking. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Business Ethics
I think it is a wrong decision to cut off all my contributions to the "business ethics" topic based on "original research" objection. What it is reverted to is indeed is a piece of article with unfounded and vague claims inappropriate to any standard encyclopedia. It would be appropriated if it is clarified how the present version is better than that with my contributions. My additions were indeed from within the purview of accepted knowledge on business ethics.Prober123 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As one example, (amidst many), you wrote: 'Thus, it can be said being ethical should be the default condition of corporate existence and being unethical is violating the stakes of the social and natural environment in which it is surviving.' This is POV and makes unsourced assertions, and so it does not have any place on Wikipedia. Please go back through your contributions, add sources to all statements for which you have sources, and cut out all the rest. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an axiomatic statement: being ethical is the default condition of existence. It is the premise with with ethical arguments begin. It is surprising while this statement appeared 'unsourced' while the statements in the current article does not appear to you so: 1. In the increasingly conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century, the demand for more ethical business processes and actions (known as ethicism) is increasing- and its source is this: http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/business/archives/2003/ethics_the_easy_way5043.cfm. Is it sufficient? 2. Businesses can often attain short-term gains by acting in an unethical fashion; however, such behaviours tend to undermine the economy over time.Is it sourced? It is unfounded argument. It is possible for business to be unethical and continue flourishing as it is the case with many of the transnational corporations. 3. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the degree to which business is perceived to be at odds with non-economic social values. What is the 'non-economic social values' is it substantiated with any source? Why the 'economic social values' are excluded? 4. Historically, interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. Is it substantiated with sources that 'business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s'. It is not factual that since 1980s corporates became ethical! 5. For example, today most major corporate websites lay emphasis on commitment to promoting non-economic social values under a variety of headings (e.g. ethics codes, social responsibility charters). So what? Where are the sources? Isn't it too naive and inappropriate for a free encyclopedia? 6. Is 'Ethics of accounting and financial information' just accounting ethics? 7. Is this statement sourced "Marketing, which goes beyond the mere provision of information about (and access to) a product, may seek to manipulate our values and behavior. To some extent society regards this as acceptable, but where is the ethical line to be drawn? Marketing ethics overlaps strongly with media ethics, because marketing makes heavy use of media. However, media ethics is a much larger topic and extends outside business ethics." Equating marketing ethics with media ethics is neither correct nor it is sourced. 8. This is under the subtitle 'ethics of intellectual property...': Knowledge and skills are valuable but not easily "ownable" as objects. Nor is it obvious who has the greater rights to an idea: the company who trained the employee, or the employee themselves? The country in which the plant grew, or the company which discovered and developed the plant's medicinal potential? As a result, attempts to assert ownership and ethical disputes over ownership arise-, is it sourced? does it make sense? 9. Look at this one titled as Conflicting interests. It comes under Theoretical issues in business ethics. Business ethics can be examined from various new perspectives, including the perspective of the employee, the commercial enterprise, and society as a whole. Very often, situations arise in which there is conflict between one or more of the parties, such that serving the interest of one party is a detriment to the other(s). For example, a particular outcome might be good for the employee, whereas, it would be bad for the company, society, or vice versa. Some ethicists (e.g., Henry Sidgwick) see the principal role of ethics as the harmonization and reconciliation of conflicting interests. Is the "conflicting interest" a theoretical issue in ethics? Is it that Henry Sidgwic saw 'the principal role of ethics as the harmonization and reconciliation of conflicting interests'. It is wrong. 10. The subtitle "Ethical issues and approaches" is full of un-sourced and baseless statement. One sentence goes like this, " Some take the position that organizations are not capable of moral agency. Under this, ethical behavior is required of individual human beings, but not of the business or corporation". Is there any source given?

I have not looked into the rest as I found they have to be worked a lot.

I have approached business ethics from the four most accepted theoretical positions: virtue ethics, deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics and pragmatic ethics. The four approach along with few other approaches like capability, social contract, ethical relativism approached are also adopted in most standard text books of business ethics. Standard text books take business ethics as part of the field of ethics and treat it with age old theories of ethics. Such an approach is taken by business ethics textbooks edited by Robert E. Frederick, Campbell Jones Et. Al., Jefery D.Smith. The one you have pointed out as my error that being ethical is the default condition of existence is argued throughout the seminal work Jacques Cory. However, the ones I have pointed out as erroneous and unfounded and published as the current article is not the position taken by any of the serious text books or source books of ethics or business ethics. I also used the insights from the book “There is no such thing as business ethics” by John C. Maxwell and used it in my opening paragraph. The books I treated as standard text/ source books are: 1. Cory, Jacques. (2005). Activist Business Ethics. Boston: Springer 2. Frederick, Robert. E (Ed.). (1999). A Companion to Business Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell 3. Jones, Campbell Et al., (Ed.). ( 2005). Business Ethics a Critical Approach. London: Routledge 4. Maxwell, John C. (2003). There is no such thing as business ethics. USA: Warner Books 5. Smith, Jefery D (Ed). (2009) . Normative Theory and Business Ethics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield

However, you are free to have your stand that you resorted to the current version because you found it better sourced and more authentic. I am not here for further debates. I do not claim whatever I have contributed is the best. They have to be perfected. However, i do not agree with your total deletion of all that I have contributed.Prober123 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider
MrOllie,

I hope this is the right place to contact you.

Yesterday I logged in to continue editing/adding to an article that I had spent some time researching to find that I had been labeled a spammer and to see all of my contributions undone in a matter of a few keystrokes. My first reaction was shock to see so much of my work undone and my name devalued without consideration to the nature of the content. Today I researched more carefully to see that you did not undo all of my work so much as delete all of my web based references and links. I am not sure why. I joined wikipedia a few months ago because I saw an opportunity to share my wealth of knowledge with regards to cooking. I have created pages where there where none (Flaugnarde and made small but significant contributions (changing boil to simmer in Chicken Soup) and substantive changes Sablefish when I had the knowledge and research to back it up. I have not stuffed random or self serving links with each posting. Instead I have done my utmost to make thoughtful contributions that expand upon the understanding of food with regard to cooking and added links only when I thought they were a value add or served as a proper reference. I fully understand that other users may disagree with my definition and/or contribution on a given subject and either revert or hopefully improve upon my contribution. But to see all of them reversed in a matter of minutes was a shock.

My primary trusted references are The Food Lover's Companion, Larousee Gatronomique GreatGrub and Cook Illustrated with a host of additional cook books on my shelf and experience in the kitchen. You went through and deleted all of my links to GreatGrub with apparent disregard as to the value of the contribution. This is a resource that I use and trust. When I add links from here it is because I think the recipe is valuable for someone looking to prepare that recipe and or because I have used it as a reference supporting my contribution. For example I added a link to a chocolate mousse recipe to the chocolate mousse entry because knowing how to make mousse is useful  for a fair portion of visitors looking up that entry. Indeed my recommendation would be to include multiple links to valuable recipes sites for recipes on food related pages for users to choose from as that would be a valuable addition -- I haven't acted on that but it is worth consideration and I am sure there would be much debate about this proposal.

So perhaps you did not like one of my links or the way it was presented, but know that it was not part of some link building campaign. My efforts have been inspired by out of general interest in improving the value of wikipedia for people who love to cook. And it is hard for me to conceive that in the timeframe in which you removed every link I added that you took the time to consider the thought that went into each contribution. Instead you threw me into the category of people who shove links into wikipedia without regard to the nature of the contribution.

So now that I have had my rant I throw it back to you MrOllie. I want to be a contributor sharing my knowledge and passion for food and cooking, but if I am going to be considered a spammer I will go elsewhere. If you disagree with a contribution, by all means undo it or better yet improve upon it. But I ask you to review the contributions I have made and the links/references that I have added and to please restore them. Also I ask that you remove the label of spammer that you left on my talk page  If you still believe that I am spammer then by all means do nothing and I will cease to contribute to wikipedia.

yours, MrsCellophane —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsCellophane (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recipe blogs are not appropriate external links, and are not reliable sources for article information. You are welcome to add information to Wikipedia, but you must use reliable sources. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Christopher Krovatin
Hello MrOllie. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Christopher Krovatin to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Video removal
Not quite sure whey you took the videos down: I certainly don't t have a conflict of interest as defined on my talk page. I have no interests (e.g., financial) in any of the items I posted for the videos: I don't sell tantalum or thermostats or anything. One might well argue they are not appropriate for wikipedia because of their style, which is the discussion I expected to have - wiki is working to define what an "encyclopedic video" is, and I would like to contribute to this. Perhaps with different style videos. I will see what responses appear here. Note, that these are videos produced at an academic institution (see iFoundry at the University of Illinois) for instruction. They are clearly irreverent ... but they are not commercial nor, do they promote or sell products. If you could be precise about the conflict of interest that would help. Hammack —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes, apparently they were produced by you. It would be best if you didn't add videos of yourself in this manner. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a conflict of interest ... this is a stylistic call, which is a very different thing. If I were promoting something to, say, sell, I could see this. There isn't anything to sell: These are funded and produced by an academic institution. I'm going to undo the henry drefyuss one that has clear utility in showing his designs and methods. I would the like to see a discussion to get a sense of what Wikipedian's feel is appropriate. Would you participate in such a discussion? hammack —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Bold revert discuss. You added it, it was removed, and now you should start a discussion to gain consensus for inclusion _before_ restoring it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion ... I'm going to reversion the video before this discussion - to remove any institution or personal mentions .... didn't want to be perceived as pulling a fast one so will note it is a modified video.HammackHammack (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Risk management tools
MrOllie, Why did you remove some but not all tools from this page? What was your criteria? What are your objections to RiskAoA, RiskMatrix & RiskNav?

GESICC (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Living lab
Dear MrOllie, I noticed your edit in the Living lab page. I have moved the reference to the right place. I'm currently editing this long (and quite insatisfactory) article. Please be patient, I will finish this by the end of next week. Thanks for your understanding. Of course, I'm open to discussion. Best regards. DavidBourguignon (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I look in detail, don't bother, it needs a rewrite from scratch. Somebody stitched it together by cutting and pasting online sources, so the whole thing is a copyright violation. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bother people who try to kindly contribute in editing new entry pages into wikipedia that cannot be perfect right from the beginning as it is also supposed to be a place for co-authoring articles. Furthermore, it is not a copyright violation as I'm the main author of the previous article published into an online newsletter which was used into this Living Lab entry page. Even I thought to have included a reference to it before I find time to refine properly this wikipedia Living Lab page and find other people to contribute to it. In conclusion, I don't appreciate the way you operate in removing this page (except if it is a 1st of April joke) without even contacting people editing this page by email or other means...... Marc Pallot (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (CET)

External link on BlackBerry Bold
Why did you delete the link? I've just gathered some reviews of the phone. There are tons of external links to single reviews, which makes far less sense than the link I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiasK (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO points 1, 4, and 11. Please refrain from adding links to websites with which you are affiliated, as it may be considered a conflict of interest or even spam. thanks - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Log Management and Intelligence
Dear MrOllie, why remove the references if the article says 'references needed'? The links I added certainly added value to the content —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonChuvakin (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because citing yourself or otherwise linking your own material is against various guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Links
Thank you for alerting me to the guidelines that state I should not be linking to anything I am affiliated with. I did not realise it was a problem since the links are clearly relevant and the magazine is totally non-profit and often the interviews are the most recent one by a long way. But I will cease to add links myself from now on. However please could you stop deleting every link to the magazine. We have many readers and supporters and they were not all put up by me. My username is YoungPossum. I have no idea who did the Will Self one or the second Mark Ford one, for example. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngpossum (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no exception for non profits, see WP:OTHERLINKS. And there are doubtless many relevant links which we do not link, because Wikipedia is specifically not intended to be a link directory. - MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

?
Why did you delete my comment? All I did was thank you for alerting me to the guideline that I should not be putting up links to a site to which I am affiliated, explain why I had done and request that you stop deleting every link to the site from wikipedia as they were not all put up by me. Guidelines state that I am entitled to respond to a comment on my User Talk page on your one. --Youngpossum (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)YoungPossum
 * I moved it. New talk page comments go at the bottom. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Link Deletion
I completely agree upon wikipedia's external links policies. I have added content and thought that a link to the certain page will be great for more read up. I shall try adding in more content, rather adding in the link. The only reason for me to add in the link was that i wanted to cover up some more aspects that could contribute to the page.

Thanks, Dhiraj   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiraj1984 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

External link Elliptic Curve Cryptography
Dear MrOllie, I don't understand why you have removed the external link I had added in the Elliptic Curve Cryptography article. This link was to show a practical usage of Elliptic Curve Cryptography in a mass market tool such as the mobile phone. There are not to my knowledge any practical usage of ECC in the mobile space which made this external link reference relevant. Furthermore, the application in question in free. Thanks for reviewing you deletion and I'm open to discussion. Best regards.--Philippe (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've never edited Elliptic Curve Cryptography. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It says in the history that the external link has been removed and it's signed by you MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC), hence my query above addressed to you.--Philippe (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be mistaken, my name does not appear in the history of Elliptic Curve Cryptography]. - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the history it says "13:41, 2 April 2010 87.4.151.72 (talk) (21,201 bytes) (→External links) (undo)" and when I click on talk I see your name MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC). Either way, can you do anything to put the external link back?--Philippe (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that you must be having some sort of malfunction, because I have never posted to your talk page, and nothing like what you are describing shows up on history of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (click the link). - MrOllie (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pizza in Israel
MrOllie, I see you deleted some of my additions to Pizza in Israel (in the pizza article), because you thought it was inappropriate to have links to specific restaurants. However, you also deleted the mention of Israeli pizza chains, like Agvania and Big Apple Pizza, which would be no different than mentioning the American chains, like Pizza Hut and Sbarro. If you agree, I'll put them back. (I didn't want to do that without your agreement, because I didn't want it to seem like an editing war!). Also, even if you think the specific pizza bakery in Jerusalem that prepares "Arabic style pizza" should not be mentioned, I would like to replace the description of that pizza, which you also deleted. Please give me the go-ahead if you agree this description and the names of the chains can be reinstated. NearTheZoo (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use external links to pizza chains, either. If there are enough third party sources to write a full article on the chain, that would be OK though. - MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I reentered the names of the two Israeli pizza chains (Agvania and Big Apple), but without the links.  I also reentered the description of "Arabic Pizza," but without the name of the individual restaurant that was mentioned as selling that kind of pizza.  I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, so want to make sure the way I reentered information is all right. Please check when you have a chance. Thanks for the guidance! NearTheZoo (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better. One thing, though, it is best not to source information to blogs, because they almost never meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OpenSearchServer, Emmanuel Keller
Dear Mr Ollie,

Following your invitation, I have read all the guidelines related to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. So, I added informations about me in the user page.

Regards, Emmanuel.keller (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Link Deletion Lifelong_Learning_Programme
Dear Mr Ollie, I added a link and you removed it with no explanation ? It is an example of LLP comenius project. There are 3 more examples. I can understand it does not fit wiki spirit, but then you have to remove the other 3 links or it means you are unfair to this project ? If we accept other examples, we accept all. Or none. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviermarco (talk • contribs)

Oops, my apologies!
Was about to block a user you'd just reverted, blocked you instead. So sorry about that. (sound of trout slapping me). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! - MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most ironic block reason ever, though... :) Kuru   (talk)  00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cat reversion on Elendor
MUD is a generic. Please see User talk:GreenReaper for more. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go on Elendor and ask if it's a MUD, they'll say no. See Category_talk:MU*_games - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To the reliable sources it is, then. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Bartle's Designing Virtual Worlds: 'From a non-historical perspective, the significant property of MOOs, MUSHes, and other descendents of TinyMUCK (known as MUCKs) is that they don't have computer-controlled monsters for players to seek out and, within the context of the virtual world, kill. Players of these classes of virtual worlds are the ones most likely to use the term MU*, reserving MUD to mean those games that do have computer-controlled monsters for players to seek out and kill.' - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also 'Roy wanted something that was like a multi-user DUNGE(o)N, and the acronym MUD immediately presented itself. Although this term is still in common currency to the extent that it has made it into several regular dictionaries, it is not universally accepted. In particular, many players of certain of its subcategories see it as implying some kind of combat-oriented world view, and prefer the term MU* instead (MU for multi-user and * for anything that could conceivably follow).' - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to cherry-pick DVW. Take a look at the bits where it discusses MU* being a restricted subset of MUD. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting again: 'Enough people think that MUDs are a mere category of MU*s (rather than the reverse) for it to be confusing.'. The term means different things to different communities, and in different contexts. In the context of the Elendor article, a MUSH is not a MUD. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Warmer. Still not quite there, though.  Seriously, though, even if it being "confusing" is enough, what in the world is the value of this "eww MUDs, we're not a MUD we're a randomly constructed backronym whose third letter is definitely not D because MUDs are gross" snobbery at this late date? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be concerned with the value of the distinction, only that the community of people who play these games draw the distinction. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, by Wikipedia policy, we should be concerned with what independent reliable sources say about it, which I imagine would be why you're dancing all around the DVW cite that would be terribly inconvenient. I did ask because I care about the right thing to do, though, not just Wikipedia policy, and I suppose I received an answer that's in some way about that. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced block attempt
MrOllie has a history of persistent disruptive edits in breach of Wikipedia editorial policy and refuses to negotiate. Any support to have this account blocked? MrFredPoll (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my talk page. You're probably looking for something like Administrators' noticeboard, though I do not expect your complaint to get much traction there. - MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get overly involved here, but this user does appear to have knowledge of sign languages in the areas he is editing, and edits like this are useful, in my opinion. Deciding what external links to add is difficult, and some new users sometimes appear to be spamming, but I think some just try to add links they find useful. As this editor is new, do you think you could help him engage in discussion on talk pages about what links are appropriate, rather than assuming he is spamming links? MrFredPoll, if you are reading this, please don't overreact to what others say - the key to editing Wikipedia successfully is to discuss things calmly with others and not to get angry. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are three accounts related to signplanet. MrFredPoll, above, User:fred.pollard, who is indefinately blocked (MrFredPoll is a block evading account) and User:ChrisBilby, which was discarded just before fred.pollard came into use. Chris Bilby is the registered owner of the signplanet domain. It's probably worth noting that the edit you link above is giving Mr. Bilby's self published work a prominent position on the further reading list. - MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the ChrisBilby account - thanks for pointing that out. The User:fred.pollard block was one that I've questioned (but there was no way you could have known that), so until it is clear whether that was a valid block or not (the two edits made by that account were not vandalism) then the issue of block evasion does not arise. New users frequently create new accounts (rather than ask to be unblocked, though here the talk page access was blocked as well) until they learn not to do that. Blocking people because they have created a new account, rather than explaining things to them, is guaranteed to magnify any misunderstandings. As far as I can tell, Fred Pollard is a real person and different to Chris Bilby. But really, the way to find out what is going on here is to ask questions rather than make assumptions. Both Chris Bilby and Fred Pollard appear to be the names of real people outside of Wikipedia, so I would take a less confrontational approach, one that involved talking to them and finding out what is going on here, especially regarding your point about Chris Bilby and the signplanet domain. i.e. find out what Bilby Publishing does - is it to make money, or does it also perform a community service by providing resources for Auslan users? It looks like both to me. If Bilby Publishing is one of the major resources out there on Auslan, then external links and further reading will be appropriate, though anyone with a COI with respect to the company or its competitors should declare that on the talk page and ask other editors to decide if links should be added. To see what Fred Pollard is talking about, see his post here, which gives some insights into all this (note the posting in the middle of a 5-year-old thread, indicating unfamiliarity with the conventions here). Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Business ethics article
I found his/her edit quite unacademic. It appears to me that this editor gave priority to his personal assumptions than to what is discussed in serious literature.It appeared to me that this editor suits Orwellian adage that "Napoleon is always right". I even suspect, some of the editors are planted by vested interests. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are in the right section? If you are talking about something else, you may want to create a new section and make clearer who and what you are talking about. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I've split this off into a new section for MrOllie's convenience, and to separate it from the previous section.

I thank you for creating this new section. I hope MrOlli will come with academic justification for his edit. If he fails, then I assume my doubt that some editors are planted is somewhat verified.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on Talk:Business_ethics, where this belongs. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a new message!
Hello! I was reviewing the Edit filter log for number 314, "User creates article ending with a /" and I found that a user has left you a message at User talk:MrOllie/. Since I did not see you edit there, I was not sure if you saw this or not, so I figured I would point it out. :) Keep up the good work! Avicenna sis @ 07:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Particle swarm optimization, vandalism
Hi,

You've edited Particle swarm optimization in the past. There is an unfortunate tendency for low-quality additions to be made to that particular page time and again, see e.g. the new addition: 'In recent years, improvements in communications and computing have facilitated a spur in novel approaches to solving numerical problems, including PSO, providing many more sources of contribution to the pool of knowledge surrounding the topic and its applications.' Before I remade the entire PSO page it consisted mostly of such unscientific and opinionated 'story-telling'. It is a pity that people continually degrade such a popular and important scientific page. I am 100% in support of continually evolving the wikipedia page for PSO and other scientific methods but the quality must meet scientific standards.

Please take this as encouragement to continue your monitoring of the PSO page and revert additions of low grade according to Wikipedia's standard and rules. There are literally thousands of publications about PSO, most of them very low grade, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to list every single thought on the subject, but rather to summarize the main factual contributions to the field.

Best regards

Optimering (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Merging the articles for "Hyperplane" and "Flat"
I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyperplane
 * Flat (geometry)

AfD nomination of Wizard sticks
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wizard sticks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Wizard sticks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Teamwork
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Teamwork. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Teamwork. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

On your bad edit
MrOllie, the article on "Praxis Intervention" is written based on my ORIGINAL IDEA. Either you have citation to my work there or remove it. Otherwise it appears editors like you STEAL my work. If you think it is not my work please prove it.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the article up for proposed deletion, we'll see what the admin who processes the request thinks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ePayables page
Good afternoon. I am carefully reading the Wikipedia rules on external links, references, COI, and so on. You removed my reference to free content about ePayables, but have not removed the other references for this topic that directly violate item #6 of the "Links normally to be avoided." This states, "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content..." If you click on any of the "References," you will see messages like, "You must be a member to view the full content" or buttons you can click to pay $399 for a report. Just want to make sure all contributions are treated fairly. Thanks for your consideration.Lyssa Campbell (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is one reason I have proposed that that article be merged and redirected elsewhere. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Accounts Payable page
Can you also help me understand how the reference to IAPP is allowed here on the "Accounts Payable" page?

The practice is unregulated, though there are international standard setting bodies, such as the International Accounts Payable Professionals (IAPP), an association of more than 5,000 members in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries.[1] As part of its Professional Standards Framework,[2] the IAPP has established a new definition of accounts payable:

This external link goes right to their webpage. Thank you.Lyssa Campbell (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyssa Campbell (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right about that, it is not appropriate for the article lede. I have removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Praxis intervention de-prodded
I have removed the prod tag from Praxis intervention, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have left a explanation for this at Talk:Praxis intervention. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cartoons PROD
I have removed the PROD tag from Cartoons (song) per the Proposed Deletion procedure. I have also added some external links to the bottom of the page that hopefully establish the song's notability. If you still feel the article ought to be deleted, please use the AfD process. Fishal (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agile Software Development Poster
MrOllie, I respect your dedication to bettering the content on WikiPedia. I am not as experienced as you but I am just as passionate. Regarding the Agile Poster that you and I have un-posted and posted several times. I understand your concerns about the item being on a commercial site and requiring a registration before downloading. So I decided to contact their marketing department and I spoke with a marketing manager there. I explained that I had put a link to their poster on Wikipedia several months ago but that after discussions with a number of people, it had been removed. She is checking on the possibility of writing a copyright release for Wikipedia and giving me the original vector art so that I can post it directly on the Wikipedia page. She said they also have translation information for about a dozen languages. I wanted to inform you of what I had planned to make sure that you were going to support my addition of this information before I invest more time. I think I told you that this poster has been downloaded more than 13,000 times in the last year, and that was WITH a registration form requirement. Clearly a lot of agile teams think this is a valuable graphic representation of Agile. You can reply here or on my talk page. Dbenson 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbenson (talk • contribs)
 * So long as the proper licensing requirements are met and the full size version doesn't end up looking like an advert, uploading the image itself shouldn't be an issue. You should mention that a Wikipedia-specific permission is not sufficient, it should be CC-BY-SA or an equivalent. See Requesting copyright permission for the full details. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MrO - Thanks for your help on this. I received Creative Commons License agreement from VersionOne as well as a higher resolution PDF of the poster. Do I need to do anything with their signed permission document? Dbenson 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbenson (talk • contribs)

Laser tag
This article needs to be thoroughly looked at since my edits keep getting removed. I have tried to add significant moments in Laser tag history, such as when Laser Quest was introduced to North America, but it keeps getting removed. Why is that? There are other sections in this entry which are CLEARLY advertising other companies, telling how their games operate, etc but they are not removed. Why is it that a historical moment in the laser tag timeline is removed but an explanation on how to play Lazer Runner (or whatever) remains intact? Very curious.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSloMoe (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other content in the article which may or may not be promotional in nature does not provide an excuse to add more promotional content. - MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not address my comment nor does it state that you will look into the matter that Laser Quest is an historical point in Laser tag history and therefore should be a part of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSloMoe (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, if it's a historical point it should be easy for you to find an independent source that meets the guidelines. Please do not continue add the material without such a source. - MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some clean-up on the page and added Laser Quest to the history. Are these changes acceptable? JoeSloMoe 09:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It still needs a source, as I said. Either provide a source or the text will be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Come join us
in a Discussion re Invention.


 * You can state there your comments.


 * If you accept my contribution - you don't make me a favor, it's for article's sake.


 * If you don't like it - you can amend my contribution as you like - the article is yours also.

--Zutam (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the talk page discussion. I will comment there if and when I have something to say which has not been addressed by the other editors there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

bedbug spam links + vandalism: time for semi-protect?
Wow. Some people are more persistent than bedbugs. I guess that comes of being in the business of fighting them.

Specific IP blocks might be enough except that there's also vandalism a couple times a week, which is considerably more random in its sources. I've never requested any level of protection for a page. Do you have any experience with this? Yakushima (talk)
 * They're unlikely to protect it for more than a week or two, so I usually don't bother unless there's somebody hopping from IP to IP to readd a specific link or vandalism. Just be sure to put spam warnings on their pages. If a link spammer is particularly tenacious report them over at the Wikiproject on spam and that will start the road towards blacklisting. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)