User talk:MrOllie/Archive 8

About WebTV history
Hi MOllie. Why did you delete the article about television station "TVONLINE"? Is a real story and was writen in Wikipedia about 9 years ago. Also we added many of references. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.23.229 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You have no consensus for your changes and 2) Your sources are terrible. We have sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Body suit (tattoo)
Why did you remove my contributions to this article? I added new photos of which I myself am the maker and the source. Renewals every once in a while enhances Wikipedia. Besides, topics like these shouldn't require scientific citations. InvestigadorDeTodo (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my contributions to this article? In follow-up of the statement that "The term is also sometimes used in reference to a large leg tattoo that covers a person's leg in a similar manner", I added two photos of the same, photos of which I myself am the maker and the source. Renewals every once in a while enhances Wikipedia. Besides, topics like these shouldn't require scientific citations. InvestigadorDeTodo (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are already too many photos on those articles, and yours didn't add anything new or improve on what was there. They also appeared to be added for the purpose of self promotion based on the image captions. - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, your bold statement "They also appeared to be added for the purpose of self-promotion based on the image captions" lacks a proper foundation: The photos were made by myself, and therefore do not infringe any copyright. The information added about what the designs are based on, should be considered as a reference. Therefore, I consider your changes as quite arbitrary and as a discouragement for any other contributions. InvestigadorDeTodo (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

on behalf of Greatness v2.0, We demand freedom of speech and stuff. To be able to speech freely we need our editing rights back. long live Greatness v2.0 and Fano2go — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fano2go (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing data lake article
Greetings. You have removed the edits the data lake entry that added further refinement to an overly vague and misleading statement about data swamps. You stated the reason for the removal was Medium. OK. There are similar citations from corporate blogs at Sonra, Equinox, blue-granite and SAS. I used the Medium link because it was a direct link section of the article. However, in keeping with the other citations, I can use the full link here https://blog.openbridge.com/8-myths-about-data-lakes-c0f1fc712406. --173.48.113.176 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines carefully and avoid self published blogs as sources from now on. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, there are already a number of self-published blogs listed as citations. Clearly, they met some threshold that contradicts your opinion. They have been there for over a year yet they remain even during your "remove the self-published citation" editing. If this was a concern for you would I would expect you would also take the minute to remove the others. For example, why leave sonra.io? It was published to the entry by the Sonara company. What about equinox.com? I'm all for consistency, but clearly, there is a subjective interpretation.173.48.113.176 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a big site and there are only so many volunteers to make fixes. If you have found improperly sourced content, that is a reason to fix that sourcing, not to add more bad sources. - MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, putting your edits in the context of Wikipedia makes it seem overwhelming. However, we are talking about an article that has a few hundred words that you have invested a fair amount of time editing. I have to assume you are actually reading the article prior to edits. Your subjective editing makes it unclear as to which citations in the post are "bad" as you described them. You refuse to engage in any constructive dialogue on these other examples, which is what the talk page is for. If you are actually concerned about quality, drive-by removals are helping nobody. 173.48.113.176 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference missed
You recommended the page on 42Gears for deletion citing lack on notable awards. I suggest you look at the recognition in Gartner Magic Quadrant which is one of the most sought after in the enterprise software industry. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3883574/magic-quadrant-for-unified-endpoint-management-tools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userosp (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Magic Quadrants aren't awards, they're market research reports. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Greetings, this is a reply to your message to me. So, I have replaced some dead links on some Wikipedia pages with links of a website called sciencehook.com, I accept that I am associated with that website but when the content which was there on those dead links is almost same as the content we have on our website, then what is the problem in linking to it. I have seen links to many personal blogs from Wikipedia, I accept that those were big websites but still, they are personal blogs and when Wikipedia can link to such blogs why cannot I have my links on Wikipedia, won't this be a bias? If you agree with my point, please verify the content and get my links back.Saibaadshah167 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're spamming links on Wikipedia. If you continue, you can expect your account to be banned and/or the links to be placed on our spam blacklist, preventing them from being added in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Spamming means adding links which are not relevant and do not have good content, But i am adding links which are very much relevant and has almost the same content which is there in the previous links. Then, how is this spamming? Can you answer it please.Saibaadshah167 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Spamming means, for example, hijacking a reference to a high quality source like the Centers for Disease Control with a link to your self published blog. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * But here i have replaced only those links which are dead, i did not replace any link which is up and running and by replacing dead links i thought that i was adding value but you say that it is spamming.Saibaadshah167 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

edits still being removed
Hi, we have created a user page and disclosed our information. No one is being paid to make edits. We are correctly factual information, and we are the owner/distributor of Fischinger's films. Why is the reference to our archive, which holds his papers, films, photographs, etc constantly being removed?

Are we not allowed to post links or information as to where people can find his films? Our edits about the DVD releases and vimeo excerpts/trailers were removed.

thank you Center for Visual Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVMarchive (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if you're not being paid, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organisation or DVD sales. We don't list stores where you can buy prints on Vincent van Gogh, either. - MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

taking away restoration credits for a project, publicizing commercial painting sales but not nonprofit archive
Dear Mr. Ollie, Please explain. We understand ok, no dvd reference. BUT please help us understand why, in the External Links section of Oskar Fischinger

Wikipedia allows a listing for a PRIVATE family trust that ONLY sells and profits from their own paintings. Posted there by a represenative of that organization. You ARE listing an organization that only sells paintings, even though below you stated: "We don't list stores where you can buy prints on Vincent van Gogh, either."

Yet Wikipedia does NOT allow a link to the nonprofit archive holding the artists' papers!and films and other scholarly resources, which offers scholars worldwide access to study this artist! CVM is a non profit which restores and assists study of the artist's work. The Fischinger Trust is NOT a non profit, they are a private family trust that does nothing but sell paintings(they should not be using .org, that is deceptive)

So please, we cannot understand, why do you allow one to be listed but not the other?

thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVMarchive (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia policies don't draw any distinction between for- and nonprofit organisations. We also generally provide one link to an article subject's official site when we can. A family trust and/or an estate website is commonly used when the subject is a deceased person. - MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

NEW Q: this is still not making sense according to your earlier statements, about linking to sites that sell.

Center for Visual Music is the official estate of the films and the papers for the subject (by gift of the Fischinger Trust years ago). Would you like to see the deed of gift and paperwork? The deceased is a FILMMAKER and the entire wikipedia article is about his FILMS, thus the relevant link, if you only allow one, is to the estate of the films. Please put back the link to the official website for his FILMS, which is centerforvisualmusic.org/Fischinger

you are instead providing a link to a trust run by one family member, that is now semi-operational and is only devoted to selling a few of their paintings. That is WHY they transferred the rest of the estate (films, paintings, animation drawings etc) to Center for Visual Music years ago. You are denying researchers worldwide the accurate information about where to research the deceased's papers and films. It is instances such as this, that again prove why Wikipedia is stil not respected in many circles, especially in academia and film history. You fail to provide the accurate, relevant information.

If you only wish to use one link, then use the one that is most relevant to the entire article, which is for the FILMS. You can also remove the link to the German filmmuseum which has only a tiny collection. Why allow a link to a museum, yet not to the official archive that owns the films and the deceased's papers? This makes no sense whatsover. It seems wikipedia is favoring large organizations such as the Frankfurt filmmuseum rather than the official estate of the films, which is a smaller US archive. You are also favoring the Whitney and not giving due credit for the project to the actual curators/producers.

Why are you continually removing the preservation credit for the Raumlichtkunst project (same page)? It was shown at the Whitney and many other museums. It is not a project of the Whitney.

You are also allowing 2 articles to be listed there completely unrelated to Fischinger! The Rimington and Klein are not related. This is why we continually reject authors' footnotes citing Fischinger, when they come to us for permissions and photographs for their books, journals, articles, dissertations, magazines, etc. As we explain to them, Wikipedia is simply not accurate regarding Fischinger. Try as we might to correct this now and then, you continually refuse to use updated, correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVMarchive (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have factual corrections to make, sourced to independent publishers that meet our sourcing requirements, Wikipedia welcomes that. But if what you're really here for is to get links to your organisation and add promotional text, we're really not interested. Also, please stop cutting and pasting your comments into this talk page multiple times, it isn't necessary. - MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help with adding info
Hi Ollie, thanks for your work! I'm developing a free open-source app for statistical simulations, just decided to add it to the Visual programming language article. It was my first edit on Wikipedia, so I am not surprised that it was deleted. Does it make sense for me create a separate article? Is it ok, that I contribute to the product, I'm going to describe? Could you help? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonzemlyansky (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally only link things when they have preexisting articles. As to whether you should create a separate article: probably not. See our guidelines on conflict of interest. However, if your topic meets our guidelines for inclusion, which means that it has at least a couple of citations in reliable newspapers or similar, then you could create an article through our articles for creation process. - MrOllie (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Capoeira debate
The capoeira debate in the history of hip hop dance primarily concerns the possible influence of Jelon Vieira. The quote I added appears to be the only substantial public statement Vieira himself has made on the topic. Isn't his personal statement in a published source more relevant than the other quotes merely speculating on his past history? Thanks.Martin S. Ware (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. An interview with Vieira is a primary source. - MrOllie (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but the representatives of the other side of the debate (Pabon and Crazy Legs) are also primary sources, as they are breakers from the 70s and early 80s. See the first sentence of the third graf, "Several breaking practitioners and pioneers tend to side with the camp that does not believe breaking came from capoeira." If the debate is a he said/he said between Vieira and people like Crazy Legs, why privilege quotes from one side of the debate?128.104.43.82 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure they are primary sources, but even accepting for argument that they are, WP:SELFPUB point #1 draws a distinction when a source is making self-serving claims. Vieira is the only one who is trying to claim credit for himself. This is easily fixable, though. If this is a notable claim then some unrelated ethnographer or dance historian will have made it, just cite that. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation- I'm new to contributing. I'll look for commentary on Vieira's claim by an outside scholar. I will say that I disagree that the Crazy Legs pull quote is not self-serving. It is well-known and much cited though, so I see why it belongs here.128.104.43.82 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

VA Loan Limits in 2020
Why do you keep erasing this edit? This is a legitimate update that included a reference with verifiable sources. This update is also corroborated by other news organizations that reported on it. It is not spam. It is a verifiable guideline update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisnsalem (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't use sales and/or marketing sites or vendor blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Difiggiano
Difiggiano du gobpfereckte krippel du. --Holzmacher (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

About External Link Insertion
Hello,

I just wanted to know about External Linking on Wikipedia. Why have you just removed my link?? That was also informative not promotional.

Please help me with your guidance. What External Link does Wikipedia support??

Thanks!!

Hope to hear from you soon Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonakshi Rastogi (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Your links are obvious spam. We accept links to reputable publishers, such as major news outlets. - MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

What if someone doesn't have any news site just a blog or website having useful resources and information?

They also have the right to spread useful information to their readers. If any blog post provides you useful information about anything then I don't think there is any problem in adding their links. There are many readers who want to contribute or share their information with everyone.

I am also not here to do spam. It's just that I want to provide useful information to the readers.

What if I want to add a relevant and useful link? Will you allow me for that??

Thank You, Sir!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonakshi Rastogi (talk • contribs) 14:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You have the right to spread useful information to *your* readers on your own site, but you do not have the right to spam Wikipedia's readers with links here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop deleting important links!
Just do it. If you are unable to see relevance, it's because of you, not because of bad links. --Holzmacher (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Need Information
So what kind of links does Wikipedia Support?

What if I want to provide Wikipedians useful information??

Do I have that right or not?? And also what kind of link does Wikipedia need and support?? If someone is providing you with useful information, isn't is right or good for Wikipedia??

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonakshi Rastogi (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered in the section you started above. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove the interesting extension and application of Bloom filter?!
I had added a discussion about "network traffic digesting" which uses some extensions of Bloom filters as its main data structure. The discussion was supported by credible references. But you removed the discussion and the references! There are still related references in the page regarding the discussion I had added, but there is no explanation for them in the page, such as:

- Shanmugasundaram, Kulesh; Brönnimann, Hervé; Memon, Nasir (2004), "Payload attribution via hierarchical Bloom filters", Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 31–41, doi:10.1145/1030083.1030089, ISBN 978-1581139617

- Haghighat, Mohammad Hashem; Tavakoli, Mehdi; Kharrazi, Mehdi (2013), "Payload Attribution via Character Dependent Multi-Bloom Filters", IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 99 (5): 705, doi:10.1109/TIFS.2013.2252341

I had added the discussion for the above references and also I had added two new references. ZakharShomali (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote "There are still related references in the page regarding the discussion I had added" - but that was your first edit. Have you been editing using a different account previously? - MrOllie (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I haven't added the two other references mentioned above ("Payload attribution via hierarchical Bloom filters" and "Payload Attribution via Character Dependent Multi-Bloom Filters"). While they aren't used in the page, I added a subsection for them. Actually, "traffic digesting" is the main function of "payload attribution systems". Please read the abstract of papers. Thanks. ZakharShomali (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems you have removed the two references! I suggest that you find the time at which the references had been added!! And also its account and IP. However, I cannot realize why you have removed the useful materials! ZakharShomali (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet
Not a sock puppet.

As I've written in the talk, this is the one and only account I have.

I've written to Binksternet and am willing to co-operate.

If I break my word, I will accept full sanctions.

Everyone is entitled to a second chance, and this is one I would like to take.

Thank you, Eoghan Lyng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLyng (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to be unblocked, go back to your original account and request it there. Right now you are evading that block, which means that your new account is a sock puppet (just like all the others). - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles Gasparino edits
Please note that Mr. Charles Gasparino has again removed the section about his false claim to a Pulitzer nomination. I've added an edit warring notice to his user talk page, and added a section on the talk page of the article about him. I won't add the section again to the article, as he would just remove it (he has already removed it six times). I suppose he'll continue indefinitely until blocked. I'm not sure what else to do, but wanted you to know about the new section on the talk page.Extremely hot (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to message from June 2019
Hello MrOllie,

Thank you for reaching out regarding concerns about me having an undisclosed financial stake. I have declared my association with one of the organizations mentioned, however the reason we made the posts was not meant to be promotional. The reason I wrote about the mental health assessments is because I believe they are making very valuable evidence-based contributions to youth mental health and suicide prevention, which are both pressing concerns in schools and youth clinics. Check Yourself and HEADSS are clinically validated assessments that would be useful for school counsellors, researchers, or clinicians to know about if they are working to promote youth mental health.

If you believe the original edits I made were overly promotional, please let me know what specifically reflected this and I would be happy to make edits. I just think it is important to get vital information about these assessments onto Wikipedia, which is a credible and trusted resource that could help save the lives of adolescents everywhere.

Thank you again,

Paprika 17:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is very natural for one to be proud of one's own works (or the works of their organization) and assume that they will mean as much for others as they have for oneself - this is exactly why Wikipedia has conflict of interest guidelines that discourage such editing. It can be very easy for enthusiastic writing to be read by others as attempts at promotion. Please read our COI guidelines over, and proceed in the future by proposing changes on the talk pages associated with articles instead of adding them to articles yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. For a clearer understanding, could you please let me know if this would seem less promotional? There is no longer any mention of our organization at all. This would be for the Patient-reported outcomes Wikipedia page. I am having some trouble understanding the difference between this and, say, the section on that page about "PROMs in Epilepsy in Rural Maharashtra, India."

"PROMs in Youth behavioural health

PROMs provide valuable insights that can have a critical impact on mental health care decisions for youth. Schools throughout King County, Washington have been using PROMs to gauge youth behavioral health with their new Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) program. Using the Check Yourself screening tool developed by Seattle Children’s Hospital, King County schools are able to measure, understand, and nurture individual students’ well-being by collecting information about lifestyle, behaviour, and social determinants of health. Check Yourself uses PROMs with data analytics to identify at-risk youth so that school staff in King County can direct at-risk students to the services they need."

Paprika 17:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This still looks like advocacy. Wikipedia is expressly not a place to get the word out about things like this, even if they are worthy causes. We don't write about save the whales charities on Whale, nor do we have a link to the ACLU's donation page on Civil liberties. Please use the associated article talk pages for this from here on out, so others will have a chance to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you know how often the talk pages are viewed, or how quickly they get updated? Again, I am struggling to see the difference between adding in a "PROMs in Youth behavioural health" section and the already existing "PROMs in Epilepsy in Rural Maharashtra, India" (especially since some of their citations link to a case study on a company's website). Paprika 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParnikaG (talk • contribs)

Woah, a barnstar!
I was looking at Micro Saint Sharp, because the user who performed the most edits had a username of "SimulateSaintly". I was really curious myself, because it seemed as if they were editing for the software company. I was still really supportive for improvement, but I wanted to find out whether they had any connections to the source. Turns out, they confessed that they worked at the developer's company. Now, I had been watching this article all the way through AfC, as well as several other software articles that also progressed through AfC. I was going to tag it with my new found knowledge, but it turns out that you had already did your investigation, tagged the article for maintenance, and disappeared. This is a long-winded way of saying thanks, and here's a barnstar. Utopes (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I notice a lot of this kind of thing by watchlisting the various 'list of X' articles in the computing space. - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Mantle cell lymphoma
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume you are not a haematologist, so why do you think it is right to undo relevant comments on the MCL page?78.144.82.40 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires sources, it isn't a place for you to add your personal commentary. - MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-appointed Wikipedia police like you are going to cause Wikipedia to atrophy and die because in areas like this it is dangerously out-of-date. People who know what they are talking about are too busy advancing the subject to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules. If you want to be useful, actually read the articles and research the subject instead of just arbitrarily reversing entries.78.144.81.175 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bitbucket link
You seem to have deleted a good source repository I had added to Shunting-yard_algorithm. Please refrain from making irrelevant edits. You are harming a global community of students and professionals in computer science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engrtech (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read over our guidelines on external links and do not add links to people's personal sites or self published content. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Paperless Office Edits
I don't understand why you would remove my edits to the Paperless Office page. Having an app for visitor login is part of the paperless office movement, and I even cited a website for what I added. This is really discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beakersneaker (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't use product advertisements as citations. - MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that was a blog post about how salespeople can see in a visitor logbook what competitors have been out there, and using an app can prevent that. Wouldn't that need a citation? I don't think it was an ad or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beakersneaker (talk • contribs)


 * It is a blog written and hosted by a software vendor who would very much like us to buy their logbook software. In other words, an advertisement. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Workplace Democracy" article editing question
Hello, Mr.Ollie -- Just now my suggested External Link to the existing "Workplace Democracy" article was removed by a "reverting" action, with which your name was associated in an Alert to my account. I need you, please, to help me understand why that was done. Thanks in advance. [workdemoc@verizon.net] olomouc 16:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbernste (talk • contribs)


 * It was a link to a website promoting a book and Wikipedia doesn't link to such sites, see our external link guidelines. Since this appears to be your own website, please also review our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mr.Ollie, I thank you for your prompt reply. Because other books were already included in the "External Links" of this Workplace Democracy article, I did not realize that Wikipedia had a prohibition against books being there.

. Regarding your removal of the sentence in the article's section "Studies by management science" which referenced my 15-nation, 50-company research findings, I then followed your linked directions to read the Conflict-of-Interest page, and saw this section shown below, where Wikipedia states*: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason...if it is relevant...and is not excessive." Additionally, I am a "recognized authority in the field" as Wikipedia requires (and Mr. Ellerman, whose writings you link at the end of the Workplace Democracy article, has stated publicly — as have professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other universities, as shown at www.workdemoc.com/experts-reviews). Therefore, I hope that you might reconsider, and restore the sentence that completed the first paragraph in the section "Studies by management science".

.*[“Citing Yourself: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."]

olomouc 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbernste (talk • contribs)

Posting porn related pics in wiki
I think some cultures, pornography is taboo. And we know that pornography is harmful for health. So we should not be as such showing such contents in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is used by young people as well as older people. Children often search online in Wikipedia to learn. And it will be harmful for them to look as such sexually related pic. I therefore ask you to be thoughtful regarding this. Thank you! Aman ibn Abdel Kalam Azad (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia does not suppress content based on local laws or customs. PS: Erotica is a fairly tame example. See something like Sex position if you really want to get offended by something. - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to message from June 2019
Hi again, it appears you archived my earlier message regarding patient-reported health outcomes, but I was still hoping for a response.

I will post content to article talk pages as you suggested. But do you know how often the talk pages are viewed, or how quickly they get updated? Again, I am struggling to see the difference between adding in a "PROMs in Youth behavioural health" section and the already existing "PROMs in Epilepsy in Rural Maharashtra, India" (especially since some of their citations link to a case study on a company's website).

Paprika 19:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParnikaG (talk • contribs)
 * It might take a long time, it might not. This is a volunteer project, no one is on a schedule. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

21 century food history
Hi Mr. Ollie, I just saw my article was removed from the topic of food history. Do you have any suggestions to make it better? Ab3l100 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3l100 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that you're writing it like an essay, which expresses a point of view, and not like an encyclopedia article. I suggest you read a selection of featured articles and try to match the style. You're also using sources that don't meet our sourcing guidelines, such as press releases and blogs (anything on forbes.com/sites is a blog, for example). You've also (twice now) created a fork by creating a new article to house content that was rejected from a related article. Don't do this: you need to use the talk pages and gain consensus for your changes, not just move them to a new article and hope they fly under the radar. - MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your response, I am just new to Wikipedia and still figuring out my way around it. I did not mean to do to be sly, in the next article I will make sure to discuss it on the talk page and get feedback from you also. Thank you. Ab3l100 (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To improve using your words
Hi MrOllie, you reverted my text in the page of kiss. I think that's a preventative idea from garbed English word. However, the idea in Romantic kiss is not based in primary sources, details with research, or simply doesn't referring the meaning by using own words of any editor. This type of kiss often leads to sexual arousal by having nerve endings in our lips. Then send a message to brain. Afterward, the brain releases neurotransmitter chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin, which have a responsible for euphoric sensation in our body. Can you interpret my concept in the article with the reference? How Life Changed (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can sort of understand what you're writing, but much of what you're writing is not in the source you provided, and as I indicated your english is very confusing - it would be best if you found someone to proofread your contributions. - MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links to Wikipedia - June 2019
Hi Mr.Ollie; You should reconsider about my external links. "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia." All my works are completely relevant to the articles and cited by following Wikipedia spamming guidelines (WP:SPAMMER). -Devendar1985 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Autodesk article
Can you please explain your position on external links? Your comment and removal of content about the Autodesk File makes no sense. What specific Wikipedia rules are you invoking to determine the ratio of content vs an external link?

All seems rather arbitrary. Ambitus (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See External_links. For starters, "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." Any further messages here on this topic won't be responded to - this is what the discussion already on the article talk page is for. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Authority on Bluetooth Low Energy
Dear MrOllie,

I noticed that my section on security has been removed and in my earlier post, I realized that there was no citation. But in my latest post, I did add the citation. Can you please help me understand what is lacking? I am an authority on Bluetooth Low Energy and not only do we manufacture Bluetooth Low Energy devices, but I also preside at conferences on the same topic with reference to the application of BLE in Industry 4.0.

ISAE2019 (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)ISAE2019


 * Please read over our pages on conflict of interest, sourcing requirements, and original research. Wikipedia generally does not accept blogs as sources, especially not a blog belonging to the person making the edit. We need independently published sources with a reputation for fact checking. - MrOllie (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

food history 21st century
hi MrOllie, I have reworked on my previous article and i would like to move it online again. I have shown my article to Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) and she has confirmed with me that the article is ready to be moved online. Should I insert my article into Food history or is there another method I should be completing. thank you. Ab3l100 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Cornhole
hi MrOllie, I am the Media Director for the American Cornhole League and am an expert in the sport of cornhole. Just wondering why you keep removing my edits on the Cornhole page. Thanks! Tryder707 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Tryder707
 * I have added a connected contributor (paid) notification to other editors at Talk:Cornhole., I urge you to heed the warnings on your Talk page and in my reply to your message on my Talk page.  General Ization Talk  14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides General Ization's paid editing concerns (which are very real, you should look over and abide by those guidelines) Wikipedia needs independent references. We can't mention your organization based only on links to your organization's web site. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Internet of Things
Greetings, many thanks for the information provided in response to my contribution to the Internet Of Things article.

The contribution in question was a reference intended to support a claim made by a different wikipedia contributor. The reference points to a scientific paper published in a leading international peer-reviewed academic journal. The paper has been made publicly available online under the CC 4.0 open access licence. As such, there is no monetary gain to be made by any of its authors.

If this practice is not permitted, then I believe it is in the best interest of the wikipedia article to either have the original claim corroborated through a different source, deleted or flagged as being in need of citation.T.nilsson (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit Reversal
I was wondering if you could just explain why my edits on the clash of civilizations page was reverted. Thanks in advance. Hun322 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

TOTP Library implementations
Hi, this is in regard to my addition of a library implementation for TOTP because of the external link to the project's homepage. While I agree that linking to the project's homepage using a citation is undue, I believe that a reference to such a widely used and supported library (it is actually an optional dependency for qca, the cryptographic basis of the Qt Library and by extension many official plasma network applications) is useful to many readers. Since I am new to article editing, it would be kind of you to tell me what style could be used to reference this library without interfering with external link guidelines. Thanks in advance Mahlersand (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's that important you should be able to find independent sources that meet our guidelines, I'd use them to add a sentence or two about it to one of the existing sections rather than starting a list section - especially since that article used to have a couple of list sections that were removed because they kept getting loaded up with spam links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it is currently the only one listed in the Comparison of cryptography libraries article that can perform those actions, and as far as I kow the only low-level implementation generally considered secure. Since it has its own Wikipedia article, I guess it should be all right if I linked to that? However, since neither of the sections already in the text seem fitting, would it be advisable to create a "See also" section for that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahlersand (talk • contribs)


 * A see also would be fine, but I'd probably add the Comparison article there rather than favoring one particular library. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the comparison article doesn't feature any information on featuresets, but I have read through all the documentation files. It's the only one ^^. I might get onto roughly outlining the focus and features of those libraries in the future, though.

Inappropriate external links to Wikipedia - June 2019
Hi Mr.Ollie; All my works are completely relevant to the articles and cited by following Wikipedia spamming guidelines (WP:SPAMMER). The external links don't contain content that is written like an advertisement or promoting any specific product/service. This is my contribution page - (Special:Contributions). Please let me know about the inappropriate external links added. I will not repeat those mistakes in future. --Devendar1985 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS, we don't use self published blogs as sources or external links. - MrOllie (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

These external links are not self published blogs or articles. These are the authenticated data from Hindu scriptures published by an organisation named Religious Guardian Services - Organised by group of spiritual Hindu Gurus and Speakers. It aims to educate people on traditional Hindu culture, festivals, rituals and more. Apart from that according to WP:RS on context matters WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. --Devendar1985 (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Revising my changes
Hello MrOllie,

As you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm still absorbing the guidelines for edits and participation.

I made a few edits today, with due diligence. I kept my edits relevant and easy to read, even linked internal Wikipedia links and cited the most relevant external links. I wonder why my edits were removed?

The International Dota 2 article
I enhanced the information about 2019 prize pool situation and provided the most relevant links for user's reference the prize pool tracker and The Verge (among the big publications).

Lucifer
I added information for the season 6 demand by the fans. Cited it with the relevant entertainment site link to share info on the petition (also tried citing Change.org link but I received warnings so removed it)

Obfuscation
The article didn't have much info. Being a tech-savvy person, I added some information about obfuscation in regards to networking. Even cited the relevant source with more information on the topic.

I would like to ask what went wrong? All the information was factual and the citations were all relevant. I would highly appreciate your reply in this regard.

Aurangzeb Durrani (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the Dota 2 article you added an inline link to an unofficial prize tracker. We don't do this. Your other two edits used poor sources. Read over our guidelines on sourcing and use high quality from now on and you should have no further problems. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks MrOllie. Highly appreciate your response. Reviewing the sourcing guidelines now.Aurangzeb Durrani (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links to Dream dictionary
Hi, can you let me know the problem with adding the external links on the following page? The existing link to "Curlie" produces a 404, but this is allowed to stay? I've been attempting to add a relevant link to an external site based on the topic of the page, but you keep removing it. I'm aware that nofollow tags apply and therefore I have no interest in promoting the link.

Dream dictionary

84.64.37.240 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note about the Curlie link, I fixed it. Your other link doesn't meet our guidelines, see WP:ELNO. Being 'relevant' isn't enough, if it were Plumbing would be overrun with links to local plumbers. - MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagix and Imagix 4D
Hi, Please let me know what was "wrong" with the edits re Imagix and Imagix 4D. Ksradcliffe (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits were promotional, and unsourced. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. So, as a user of the product over several years, am I not a valid "source"? In an attempt to NOT be promotional (I am aware this is not a marketing doc), the edited description was carefully compared with other descriptions on the page. It did not seem to be out of bounds with the existing descriptions IMHO.Ksradcliffe (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, personal knowledge does not comply with wikipedia's policies on verifiability and sourcing. If other descriptions are promotional, that's a reason to tone those down as required by the neutral point of view policy, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I returned the description to its original state. The change at the end of the line was retained.Ksradcliffe (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic Resonance Article
Hi Ollie,

I can see that you have reverted the changes that I have made in the MRI article in the "Economics" section. I understand the reason for your correction, however, current information written by another provider (linking to their own services) doesn't give a true representation of the current MRI prices in the UK, hence why I've added a different price and backed it by a reference to a service. I hope you can consider revising this and getting back to me.

Many thanks, Marija — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marijadr (talk • contribs)


 * We shouldn't be including any pricing info or using any providers as sources at all, so I've now cleaned it all out. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AnyDesk Article
Hey. Can you please have a closer look at what and why I edited the AnyDesk article before reverting it blindly? Yes I'm an employee and you are probably used to all that PR shit, but I'm not 'spinning' anything here. There is no need to explain tech support scams again in an article about a specific remote desktop software, when we already have an article for that that explains it in detail. Thank you! N0mfg (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) As an employee you shouldn't be editing that article at all. 2) A summary of the scam AnyDesk is being used for absolutely is appropriate to place in that section. Readers shouldn't be expected to click somewhere else to get context that is vital for understanding why exactly ISPs are deciding to block this software. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I get your point (2) lets keep your revert. Thank you! N0mfg (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Managing Hair Loss
In the managing hair loss wiki, the link I posted earlier today regarding hair loss cure research centers around the world is very detailed and accurate. The page on which I posted the link dealt with an assortment of topics related to hair loss, including research and future treatments such as hair cloning and hair multiplication. Thank you.

Aids to Navigation
Hi - I don't understand why certain additions, like Light Buoys and photos of Navigation Buoys, have been removed. They did not include brand names, but referred to a new TYPE of buoy, or applications of navigation buoys around the globe, like all other photos. If we follow your reasoning, we should probably remove NOAA Buoy, #11 and #14 which are promotional, unlike the additions we put on the site. Additional examples: Envirtech Tsunami Buoy MKIII; DBi; etc...seriously? Please explain.

Furthermore, Navigational Aids as header on the Buoys page is completely wrong. Navigational Aids = AtoN = buoys, mooring, lanterns, etc... While this page is talking about BUOYS only, hence Navigational Buoys. Please don't remove corrections when not necessary. Tamaradeprez (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you an expert? Are you employed in the industry? - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I’d rather have you answering my question. Why did you remove the photos of the non-branded navigation buoys? Besides discrimination, I can honestly not come up with a valid reason. Tamaradeprez (talk)Tamaradeprez


 * I removed them because they added nothing valuable to the article that was not already demonstrated by the preexisting photos. Your turn. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * really? I hadn’t seen any photos of mooring buoys yet. A bit more constructive feedback would be helpful. Tamaradeprez (talk)tamaradeprez


 * Constructively, I think it is very likely you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service, particularly the section on undisclosed paid editing, and most likely the FTC regulations on native advertising as well. - MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Brock1700
Hi MrOllie, was curious as to why you undid my edit to the Brockton page? I am a former city official and I'm trying to give readers more informantion about the city and make it look more attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brock1700 (talk • contribs)


 * You added a number of unsourced facts and opinions. The purpose of Wikipedia is to neutrally summarize sources, not to make anything look attractive. - MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what was an opinion or nonfactual? As a member of the historical society for the city all things said can be found on our website or on the cities. The current page does not reflect the cities rich history like other cities pages do. and the current student head count is 18,000 according to the current mayor which was said during a recent meeting this month not 15,600...

Project Management Institute
Hello MrOllie, Could you please explain me the reason for deleting the edit? There is no information about mode of exam so I have updated this. I have been teaching PMP for a decade now, and I find this as valid information in PMI page. Let me know

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

The PMI certifications were conducted through Prometric test centres till 1st July 2019. Currently PMI and Pearson VUE partner to deliver full suite of certification exams in over 5000 locations

LetLive (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty minor detail, and the sourcing was only to a press release. If no independent media outlet has found something like that important enough to write about, neither should Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Perplexed by your decision to remove mergers and acquisitions from Skillsoft
Your summary called these multi-billion dollar events "routine business activity", which is not any kind of explanation for removing them. If I were researching the history of a company, that's exactly what I'd expect to see. Is there some guideline page I'm unaware of that calls for excluding such basic information? That's rhetorical, but if you feel the need to answer, go to the article's talk page – I won't be watching your user talk. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of quality management link
Hello Mr. Ollie, I am a bit confused as to your decision because I feel it is very relevant. The page I added the link on is about quality control and management and the link I added is a Quality Control/management terminology page since many people get confused about some of the terms. I think it is a great resource for users visiting that page, especially those users new to the Quality management industry. I train people on quality management standards as a consultant and I get many questions regarding quality management terminology which is why I thought it was a valuable resource for users. This was the page you removed the link from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_management — (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)  --SMR518 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)SMR518


 * Wikipedia generally doesn't link to vendor or consultant sites in that fashion, it gives the appearance that we're promoting them. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove section on surgical coaching?
MrOllie, Could you give me more information on why my section on the Coaching page about Surgical Coaching was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addifaerber (talk • contribs)


 * It was a tautology. We could list just about every field by saying X Coaching: A coach who improves X. The other sections have standalone articles where readers can get more detail - without that summary sections aren't helpful. - MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My edit on Mobile ticketing in Mobile Commerce
Hi, you have reverted my edit on Mobile Ticketing section on Mobile Commerce page. Could you please tell me the reason? Because, I have used a credible source and I made sure to the best extent to avoid plagiarism, even if there were technical terms. If it needs any alterations or modifications, kindly advise. Your guidance is much needed. I'm new to Wikipedia and I would like to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha.piccosoft (talk • contribs)


 * It wasn't well written, the source is only a hair away from being self published, and the actual content was already well covered elsewhere in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

WinZip Scam
Hi. You have reverted my Edit on the WinZip article where I added the fact that their so called "System Utilities" are a scam. Of course this is rather unfortunate since without this warning the article makes WinZip look like a legitimate company. This way the Wikipedia supports their scam. Now you asked for "much better sourcing". The source I linked is an official statement from an employee of Malwarebytes, a renowned security company specialised in fighting exactly such scam-ware like "WinZip Malware protector" etc. What other source do you need? What kind of source would you accept? (By the way: The fact that those WinZip utilities are scam are a fact known probably to every computer expert on this planet. I myself work in a company where we see victims of this scam on a regular basis.) --B00nish w4rs (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it's not a very good piece of software, but we have policies on this kind of thing for a reason, and to make value judgments in Wikipedia's voice (or to use words like 'scam') we need high quality sources with editorial staff and such, like reputable newspapers, magazines, academic papers, etc. Malwarebytes forum posts are essentially self published. - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it help if similar information were found on Malwarebyte's website and not in their forums (even if it was posted by Staff in the forums)? Because they have this: https://blog.malwarebytes.com/detections/pup-optional-winzipdriverupdater/ ... finding such information in a newspaper seems rather unrealistic. Especially since such system optimization scam is done by 100 companies with 1000 names, so if it's covered by the media it's covered in bulk without naming 100 different names. By the way: Wikipedia actually has a whole list of similar scammy software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rogue_security_software ... looking at the sources I feel according to your standards, a big part of this list would have to be deleted --B00nish w4rs (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Corel, though. They're a major software company, not a fly-by-night scam outfit. If some division of Corel has gone rogue and is producing malware it should be making the news somewhere. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where would it make news? We're living in 2019... 1. There is no relevant "tech journalism" in common newspapers/magazines. Their so called tech journalists are mostly clueless clowns that write cock-and-bully stories for a readership with age 70+. And the few cases where there are relevant journalists they have much bigger stories to cover than some scam that we've seen in 1000 different forms. 2. Most of the specialised tech magazines themselves have gone rogue long ago... it's just advertising for their advertisers, no jorunalism. They actually do comparative tests of different scam software and then sell this junk to their readers. It's sad and ridiculous. When searching on Google News about this topic I find 500 copies of some obscure "system utilities market report" on 500 fake-business-news-sites. That's how the internet works nowadays. IMHO Wikipedia should be a source of trusworthy information, not a cementation of fake news --B00nish w4rs (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR and WP:RS. Wikipedia is explicitly designed to summarize quality sources. If you disagree with that philosophy you may find editing here won't make you very happy. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not editing here to make myself happy. I'm editing here to protect naive users from an evil scam scheme. But I recognize that Wikipedia obviously has a quite different understanding of "quality" than I do. Anyway, would you consider a support article from Microsoft (you might have heard about them, although they aren't a quality newspaper) as trustworthy source? Because Microsof actually has support article where the generally discourage the usage of topols like the "WinZip Registry Cleaner" even that kind that is less scammy: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2563254/microsoft-support-policy-for-the-use-of-registry-cleaning-utilities Also I'd still be interested why the Wikipedia List of Rogue Security Software (rightfully) contains dozens and dozens of programs that are documented by much less "quality" sources than the ones I presented for WinZip? At least I posted official information provided by a major IT security company... in the list of Rogue Security Software most of the entries are just some forum posts by random dudes or even worse. Wouldn't we have to delete this whole list because it was obviously not published in the New York Times? --B00nish w4rs (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your Microsoft link doesn't mention WinZip, unless I'm missing it. As to other articles: I don't know. Wikipedia is a big place and there are only so many volunteers. There is probably lots of content that doesn't comply with policy, but that does not mean we should add more.You could bring that up on the talk page of the article you're concerned about, perhaps an interested editor there will discuss it with you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Malwarebytes is complaining about a "Potentially unwanted program" that does exactly the same as Malwarebytes itself does. "Scam" is a strong word and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice.  Dbfirs  06:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Hack Forums
I see you reverted my edit due to COI. Actually that quote currently on the page is the result of a COI from the editor and I have reported it hoping to get the malicious and opinionated statement removed. I reviewed the article he quoted and found a less biased and more truthful quote to use. Since it's a COI for me to edit the page what do you suggest I do to have that quote altered to "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning."? Can I request another editor make the edit or does that violate a WP policy? I've spent many hours trying to read and report the malicious editing being done on the page. Gotchynow (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've already done that by reporting it on the COI noticeboard. Just have some patience. - MrOllie (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Script?
Is this a script somewhere or do you have it saved and simply paste when appropriate? --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's uw-paid1, which is one of the warning templates available in Twinkle. - MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Either way I was going to steal it but nice to know its in Twinkle. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Conjectural history
Can I ask why you're removing the edits I made to the page (and some others)?132.66.231.214 (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.231.214 (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you appear to be here to promote the works of David Schorr rather than to build an encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Simkovic
Hi MrOllie. I just noticed this edit from you with the edit summary, "rm more refspam from Simkovic sockpuppet farm". I'm currently seeing 34 references to the same author. Is more cleanup needed? Is there a discussion somewhere? --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is more cleanup needed - I got fatigued after a while and slotted it lower in my to-do list. You can find some more details and a partial list of sock puppet accounts at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hy, you reverted what I added on 2 articles today, I would like to know the reasoning
first I added a section on the "Lead Cooled fast reactors", the section I added was from the french development of hybrid reactors, I did so because I noticed a very similar german project, the dual fluid reactor, which is mentioned. So I thought that from an encyclopedic interest it might be useful to get all developments in the field, when you reverted my changes I see you let the german project untouched, which makes even less sense, because if you believe the french project doesnt deserve to be on that wiki article than why does the german project remain on that article? A few minutes later I found the same problem on "metal cooled fast reactor" article and i did a truly minor change just modifying the "IS" to "ARE" so from single to multiple and also added the name of the french project alongside the german project name. Again, you reverted my change from the second article and left untouched the german project which, by the way, from the looks of it, was a minor add on an article where it had nothing to do there and yet no moderator thought at the time to reverting that change. So why the discriminatory edits? If you truly consider these projects dont have a place on wikipedia you should delete both entries, OR let them both, otherwise it makes no sense one to be while the other to be denied access on the articles pertaining to the same subject. thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhon Antaeus (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, as I indicated in the edit summary of that edit. We don't rely solely on marketing materials. I didn't review other content, so if there is other improperly sourced content that is a reason to remove that content, not to add more improperly sourced stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * my reasoning is if what the german team added was ok with whomever moderator reviewed it, while you dont, so either the other moderator was mistaking or you are mistaking, but the fact that you believe its a mistake and letting the other edits in places makes a new injustice, OR you are wrong, and my entry should be left alongside the entry of the german team. Typhon Antaeus

deletion
Hi ! why did you deleted all the "Tutorials, courses and dictionaries" from the Hebrew language article ? Eliran t (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * They were redundant with the stuff listed by the Curlie link, and the subsection was being targeted by linkspammers. - MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Response with some questions
I responded to your comments on my Talk page with some questions as I need direction for how to proceed in the future.RosieRascal (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding edit
Hi there MrOllie,

You reverted an edit that I made to the Conformal Coating Page. I was trying to find a specific reason and would like to get your input on this as to way the content added was removed. thank you! Nathandotfrey (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources were terrible, and it was a fairly obvious violation of Wikipedia's terms of service with regard to paid editing. Also, WP:NOTHOWTO- MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your "violation of terms" as I am an employee at a company. You statement that the sources were terrible however proves how useless wikipedia is due to admin like yourself. The two sources you state are "terrible" happen to be the same sources NASA and other government agencies work with for conformal coating related endeavors. But, I'm sure you know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathandotfrey (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi, I noticed that you removed my addition to the list of job schedulers page. I understand now that your criteria are to only include companies that have a Wikipedia page. How can I start the process of adding our product and organization to Wikipedia? Is there a place we can begin? Thanks for your help and consideration. RedPark15 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redwood used to have an article, but it was deleted because the topic didn't meet Wikipedia's minimum inclusion standards. It doesn't look to me like that has changed. - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable usenet providers
You reverted/altered a change I made today on the "Usenet" article. If you look at today's Top1000 rankings (http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt), you will see that some of the listings you removed ARE very relevant. Usenet.Farm, Uzoreto(Vipernews), UsenetExpress all carry a large portion of the usenet feed. With the way usenet has progressed, these extra backbone providers are very important to the open nature of usenet. They should be listed. You just listed the two most well known retail sites in usenet, which does not tell the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryGyles (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only links to existing Wikipedia articles in see also sections. If these services are obviously notable, I suggest you write some articles first. - MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * How about just removing the references I placed on the listings instead of removing the listings completely? I only placed the references there to help out but if they are disallowed, it makes sense to just remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryGyles (talk • contribs)


 * See MOS:SEEALSO. See also sections contain *only* links to existing articles. The problem is not only the references, but having any non-wikilink in that section. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

you just reverted my edit on meaningful learning
I think It will be better to link the article to Meaningful learning page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 贵树云野 (talk • contribs)


 * Maybe you haven't noticed this, but all your edits are inserting junk HTML code into the pages you're editing. - MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Reversion on Async/await
You reverted my addition of the Perl5 example on Async/await, probably because it cited my own blog as a reference. Would it be better for me to pick some other reference, perhaps the metacpan.org page [] LeoNerd (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert ChipIn in crowdfunding history?
I added ChipIn as one of the first Crowdfunding sites. There are tons of press around ChipIn. Why did you remove it?

I am a co-founder so know about the company. We did $100 million of crowdfunding before we sold it.

Wayback machine didn't capture the older versions but here is one from 2016 that clearly is about crowdfunding https://web.archive.org/web/20061104204020/http://blog.chipin.com/about. On this page you can see it was a CommerceNet company, the premier ecommere organization.

ChipIn was on national news and major newspapers like NYT, and the WSJ. Here is one that puts ChipIn.com in the same category as Kickstarter.com.

I know I am a founder so must looked biased but am 100% certain that ChipIn was the first commercial general purpose crowdunding site. If you have access to experts in the space, I am sure they will agree.

Here is a video by some dude years ago that shows how it worked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ApUFZas5vM. Another exazmple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SZ2tTQCGBE. Sorry I didn't keep video archives.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olagon (talk • contribs)


 * 1) Did you notice that every other crowdfunding site listed there already had a Wikipedia article? It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. 2) As a co-founder you have a massive conflict of interest and should not be adding references to it to Wikipedia anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we should have other folks create a stand alone article. ChipIn was the first general purpose online crowdfuding platform period. The fact that you won't list it is a material deficit of the quality of this article. I know there are tons of other platforms but this is the history section. Isn't that part of history? The first general purpose crowdfunding site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.246.224 (talk • contribs)


 * 'Have some other folks' probably won't work, unless they're truly independent. That is, not directed or employed by you in any fashion. As to mentioning it as the first on the crowdfunding article: Maybe, if there are independent sources that meet wikipedia's sourcing guidelines that say it is first. We can't use anything written or published by ChipIn, or selfpublished youtube videos or blogs for that kind of thing, though. - MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Chief Data Officer entry stating "Rv malformatted links
Mr Ollie - thanks for the review - you reverted the changes I made to the Chief Data Officer entry stating "Rv malformatted links to junk sources.

The topics of data strategy and chief digital officer are currently being defined in practice by the organizations that are creating the strategy and the roles. There are no definitive sources for this material.

The five links added are as follows - with my justification for using them:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategic-assets.html - Business Dictionary is a widely used source of definitions, their definition of strategic assets concurs with many prominent business texts

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/make-room-executive-suite-here-comes-cdo-2-0 - the MIT Sloan Business School is one of the foremost institutions in the world, with well researched and widely read articles.

https://www.firstretail.com/the-role-of-the-chief-data-officer-cdo/ - this is my own post, that was created after researching hundreds of job adverts for CDOs

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-does-every-company-need-data-strategy-2019-bernard-marr/ - Bernard Marr is a well respected industry data scientist who has previously held key roles at IBM, teaches at Oxford University and has published a book on Data Strategy

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Data-Strategy - as practitioners are defining and redefining this space, this provides a great sampling of what data strategy is

Please let me know which are the offending links and what would constitute a valid source and how to properly format the link and I will amend. Gammydodger (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Dean Kamen Page
Mr Ollie, kindly stop reverting my changes. Your facts are are a bit off base. I would be happy to discuss in person. Deankamendeka (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a fan site, changing the article to include promotional language isn't appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

SOCP Removal of Solvers section
Can I ask why you removed this section on the Second Order Cone Programming page? It seems to be a standard section for similar articles e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming#Solvers_and_scripting_(programming)_languages and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_programming#Solvers_and_scripting_(programming)_languages  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingRandomlyC (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Updating my organization's page
Hi there, I am the marketing and communications manager for the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Our page is very outdated and needs to be updated. I've tried twice, but the content has been removed - one time I got a note that said I was doing it for financial reasons and the other reason was that I copied someone else's content. I used content from a .org account: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_museum_of_science_industry_omsi_/#.XWPweOhKiUk - which is run by the Oregon Historical Society. And since my organization is an academic science institution, I think that information should be valid to use, especially since I site it in the article. My question is this: how do I go about properly updating OMSI's page on wikipedia? Thanks. 14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfarmer1982 (talk • contribs)
 * You can't turn a Wikipedia article into a marketing brochure. You're also in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. You need to read the policies that have already been linked on your user talk page and comply with them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with and support what you're saying - and I'm not looking to create a marketing brochure at all - much of the information on our page is outdated or completely incorrect. What I'm asking is, how do I go about updating the information on the page? Do I have to put a COI caveat or something at the beginning of the article? I just want to go through the proper channels. Thanks. Johnfarmer1982 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)John
 * Please read the stuff on your talk page, including the links, it is all spelled out there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts of blogsareforever.com
Hi, I saw a number of articles on my watchlist were being hit by this spammer and that you had reverted. Just thought I'd drop a note that I've reported the link to XLinkBot to autorevert. Since the user that is spamming the link has the same username as the link being spammed, I'll be raising a request on WP:UAA as well. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Pastoral Care is not Pastoral Ministry.
Pastoral Care includes non-religious and is scientific. Spirituality in the context of pastoral care refers to the human spirit, which is genetic, measurable and heritable. Pastoral Ministry is specific to religion primarily christianity and is historic. Spirituality in the context of pastoral ministry refers to subjective supernatural experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiaali'i (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but none of that is a good reason to surprise readers with a piped link. - MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a reference to a book and website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiaali'i (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted to revision 912501746 by Vermont (talk): WP:UNDUE reliance on a single source - Pastoral Care links to the human spirit - wikipedia source. Pastoral Ministry links to christian ministry - wikipedia source.  There is a clear distinction between these two terms and is evident in the content posted by others especially referring to religion. Fiaali'i  —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bodystorming with dancers and scientists
Hello, I am not sure why you removed the section on Bodystorming with dancers and scientists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodystorming) and the links to rapid prototyping. This is my first entry on wikipedia so I may have missed something critical and if so would appreciate your guidance. I also would like the entry reinstated as it was strongly cited and is information that needs to be shared as part of cancer research. Thanks for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44arts (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. You will need much stronger, independent sources if you want to claim that dancing is critical to cancer research. - MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim in the wiki entry that bodystorming is critical to cancer research but it is being developed with that in mind. I am simply stating that it is a method that exists with several independent magazines and journals stating as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44arts (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie:

This is University of Minnesota Dance Program Director and Black Label Movement Director Carl Flink and one of the founders of The Bodystorming System with recognized cancer researcher David Odde, who was elected as a 2017 AAAS Fellow. I am honestly surprised at your response to Michele Steinwald's inquiry. The Bodystorming System has been at the center of two formal and fully sponsored residencies at MBL and NCBS in Bangalore, India. It has been cited in David Odde's Lab's research and the subject of an invited article in Trends in Cellular Biology, among other independent sources. At no point, did Michele make the claim that dancing is critical to cancer research. Who do we go to in the Wiki community to resolve this disagreement? 73.94.200.175 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:DR - MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ollie:

I have looked at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party

Step two of that process states: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation.

I look forward to your responses to both Michele and my inquiries above. 2607:EA00:107:1C07:30AA:A225:D529:96B2 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe I've already addressed all specific questions. - MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not. You stated that Michele is claiming that the bodystorming system is "critical to cancer research." That claim was not made and you haven't responded to her question about that. You also claim that there are insufficient independent sources. Michele included many sources not driven by David and myself: two invited TED Talks, an invited essay in Trends in Cellular Biology, a Science Magazine new article, among many other news and academic sources. David also has reviewed articles that cite bodystorming and the NCI has provided funding for the further development of the method for patient advocacy. What standard are you applying? What would be sufficient in your eyes? Are you representing an organization with specific standards Michele can read? We are trying to understand your role here as an editor since your previous comments are extremely brief and non-specific. Thank you for the engagement. 2607:EA00:107:1C07:A8CF:E6A0:6760:753C (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RE: "you haven't responded to her question about that" She hasn't asked any actual questions that I can see.
 * RE: "What standard are you applying?" See the policies I linked above.
 * RE: "What would be sufficient in your eyes?" Lots more reliable sources, and at a minimum the promotional name dropping and external links to specific people and dance companies should be removed. But this technique is very fringey. Wikipedia is really for writing about very well settled science and widely used methods. We don't write about new and unproven techniques, by design. What we really need is some actual evidence that the wider world has taken notice of this aside from the novelty factor.
 * RE: "Are you representing an organization with specific standards Michele can read?" I'm not representing any organizations.
 * - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Tektronix
These refs are a long way from spam. is a new editor who has been trying to work here to expand articles, based on these sources, and despite asking the Teahouse (and getting little help there) they've had a pretty hostile reception so far. We all know how horribly hostile this place is to new editors, especially the more knowledgable and keen they are. Can we not cut them some slack here and try to make some use of this material, not just revert it on sight. Thanks  Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They're an employee of Tektronix (though they have not made the required disclosures), editing articles directly to add external links to their employer. This is textbook spamming behavior. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating reversion
I appreciate your clearly longstanding work to keep this page quality up. I have a question: You reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=910960402&oldid=910959179 To me it seemed relevant as evidence of the quality of the original work, that it would stand up well this many years later. Was that unclear, or does that fact not seem relevant, or something else? Kcrca (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written for a general audience, it isn't an outlet for scientific news. Replicating research and confirming results are important to science, but not really the kind of thing that should go into a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think this is more general than that, but then I'm a scientist so I probably err more on that side. Thanks for the reply. Kcrca (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bagholder and FPGA
Hello MrOllie, I added a scholarly source to two Wiki articles which desperately lack proper citations. You deleted those references. Why? How comes you don't want the quality of Wikipedia to be improved? Orenof (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, You were very fast at deleting a source that I had cited. Could you now please also have the decency to timely explain why you denounced that very source as SPAM? That would be very kind! Orenof (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a volunteer here (like most everyone else), I'll respond on my schedule, not yours. - MrOllie (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, We're all in the same boat, all just unpaid volunteers. A constructive collaboration on Wikipedia requires that edits are made not at will, but are fact-based and justifiable. In that sense your feedback is long overdue despite your packed schedule: why do you deem the source that I was citing as SPAM? Please do share your reasoning with the Wikipedia community. Maybe we can all learn from it.

Orenof (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

External Links removed
I uploaded a couple of external links to the Gargoyle Gecko wiki page but they were immediately removed. One link was to a thorough care sheet for these animals in captivity including a list of health issues, concerns and ways to avoid/reverse/treat. The second link was to a morphology page describing various pattern and color traits that can be found in this species. These topics seem appropriate for the encyclopedia on this species, and there is another link to a breeders website for care as well so I am not sure why mine was taken down when theirs remains. The remaining listed external website has multitudes of products for purchase. Just trying to understand the difference. Gargoyle Queen (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Kurtoskalacs
Dear MrOllie, Why did you delete the best book on the cultural history of the kurtoskalacs and all the information on its international trade corporation? Note that they published information on 19 languages on the cake and are the only reliable and controlled source of professional information. Have a look on the Hungarian and German version of the article, the info is present there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.62.70 (talk • contribs)
 * The English Wikipedia isn't a place to promote Peter Hantz and his works. I can't speak for the Hungarian and German Wikipedias, they have separate policies and inclusion standards. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this is not about Peter Hantz, but about the Kurtosh Kalacs Trade Corporation and the best references in the field, published in 19 languages. The references on the leaflets you deleted were edited by the Trade Corporation and not by Hantz as far as I know. Morover, you deleted the link to the EU TSG document. Please do not initiate an edit war by deleting important references. --193.225.226.58 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * They're not important references. There's no need to mention the trade corporation on that article at all. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's only your opinion. I think you have no clue about the field. --193.225.226.58 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CAEplex
Hi MrOllie

I am the founder and CEO of the startup that built the CAEplex platform. Two years ago the article was removed because of insuficient notability. I now think the software has notability, as shown by being the only FEA platform that is fully integrated into Onshape

Other similar platforms (not fully integrated) include Simscale and CONSELF. The content of those entries and the one in CAEplex are similar.

In any case, I added the disclosure in my profile page at User:Kuroshivo

Regards

User:Kuroshivo —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the disclosure. Please read over the guidelines on conflict of interest, in particular you should not be writing about your own company or adding links to it elsewhere on Wikipedia. Instead, make suggestions on article talk pages. Thanks again! - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing me out these issues. Kuroshivo Fri 30 Aug 2019 19:20:11 (UTC)

Mountain car problem
Hello MrOllie--

Thanks for your effects to make Wikipedia better.

Could you please kindly tell me why my previous editings on "mountain car problem" were reverted, so that I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future? Thanks!

Zhiqingxiao (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Implicit metaphor
I noted that you removed an edit I made regarding "implicit metaphor." Would it be better placed elsewhere?? Jeanninegrimm (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bible study content should be kept on religious articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yamaha DX1 External Link reverted
I linked to a video that is basically a 30-minute documentary on this synthesizer, which gives viewers the opportunity to see and hear this rare instrument. It seems like valuable additional information to me - but is it not good to link to videos?

Syntaur (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not good to link to videos, especially when you're linking your own videos to a half-dozen articles. - MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Campy Agar - Campylobacter
Hi Mr Ollie

I'm a microbiology student at the university of Delaware I added the sentence about CAMPY agar to the campylobacter page. We learn about and use campy agar in the lab for identification of campylobacter. Most microbiology media's purposes are described in package inserts for that media provided by the manufacturer. If I were to add the CAMPY agar to the campylobacter page and site (not link to) another non-commercial/non-manufacturer page would that be acceptable? This is my first edit! Thank you kindly Sylviastransky (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you didn't list brands and/or particular products, that's not reeally what Wikipedia is for. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New unpaid contributor who needs your help (and patience as I try to comply)
Mr. Ollie, I am a new unpaid contributor, unemployed and on Social Security Disability due to my debilitating, neurological health issue, and am struggling to show compliance. The fallout of my disorder includes brain fog and I also struggle with clearly understanding rules. I most definitely want to comply and satisfy the requirements. Considering this, I was wondering if there might be a simple and concise way for me to understand how to share that I am unpaid, have no employer, nor am I a client for any company. I feel embarrassed to admit some of my shortcomings and challenges but I am sincere about wanting to comply. How do you feel about assisting me so that I can satisfy your request? BeyondSleepy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

== Question re: Sleep Disorder - Idiopathic Hypersomnia Characteristics and Diagnostics Criteria similar to the Fact Sheet cited for Narcolepsy (and edit to include a second inquiry about sharing a more current citation for Sleep Disorder, Type, Primary Hypersomnia, Idiopathic Hypersomnia ==

Hi MrOllie, I was interested in adding a citation to the Sleep Disorder wiki on Idiopathic Hypersomnia (IH). It would be similar to the fact sheet cited for Narcolepsy. For viewing reference, it can be found here: https://www.hypersomniafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/IH-Characteristics-and-Diagnostic-Criteria.pdf The IH fact sheet is published by a non-profit organization supporting the disease and validated as such on the NIH-GARD website section on Idiopathic Hypersomnia. As with the Narcolepsy fact sheet, the IH fact sheet is also medically vetted. What do you think?

I appreciate the opportunity for your help and consideration in adding parity for Idiopathic Hypersomnia in the Sleep Disorder wiki. Regards, BeyondSleepy (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit to include second inquiry: With my learning curve, I also wanted to make an inquiry about adding a more current citation for Sleep Disorder, Type, Primary Hypersomnia, Idiopathic Hypersomnia. The current citation is from a 2012 source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444520029000310?via%3Dihub). More current information can be viewed in publications from 2017 including https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493205/ and https://www.sleep.theclinics.com/article/S1556-407X(17)30020-6/fulltext.

I hope time, much sooner than later, straightens my learning curve but until then, in an effort to both save some edits on your part, as well as, update the page with more current information, I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you again, BeyondSleepy (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC) ≤
 * Please read over WP:MEDRS, most of your questions are answered there. In particular primary studies should be avoided in favor of reviews and textbooks, and patient advocacy organisations such as the hypersomnia foundation shouldn't be used as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link WP:MEDRS and connected information to reference. I understand that the Hypersomnia Foundation is an organization and one that you shared should not be used as a source; however, it can become somewhat confusing as there are other foundations that have been used as a source in wikis, the National Sleep Foundation comes to mind. There is a challenge as unfortunately, often textbooks, if they even mention Idiopathic hypersomnia are behind and current research is not yet incorporated. So, relying on current textbooks is problematic when they do not yet reflect accurate and current knowledge. Time and eventually textbook updates should, hopefully, and much sooner than later, rectify that. With the newness of information, primary studies are often necessary resource but in lieu of that not being a preference and something to try and avoid, I defaulted to using the reference work. I considered the IH-Characteristics to be the best source for signs and symptoms of Idiopathic Hypersomnia and not unlike the Narcolepsy Fact Sheet, a review article that summarizes the current state of understanding - an overview that discusses information and provides citations to the sources (and I could add those citations to the entry). 1. 2015 Review article in Chest, by Khan/Trotti et al, “Central Disorders of Hypersomnolence: Focus on the Narcolepsies and Idiopathic Hypersomnia” (free download at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4694150/ 2. Sleep Medicine Review article, by Billiard/Sonka et al, “Idiopathic Hypersomnia” (request through a medical library: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26599679 3.International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3): http://www.aasmnet.org/store/product.aspx?pid=8494. 4. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) p. 368-372 Hypersomnolence Disorder: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm About adding a more current citation for Sleep Disorder, Type, Primary Hypersomnia, Idiopathic Hypersomnia. It seems valid to replace the current citation from the 2012 source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444520029000310?via%3Dihub). with the more current 2017 source using either the https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493205/ and https://www.sleep.theclinics.com/article/S1556-407X(17)30020-6/fulltext seems valid. MrOllie, I do appreciate you sharing your concerns and as I move forward with contributions, will strive to comply with the various wiki guidelines. I will also try to be more concise. ~ BeyondSleepy (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your more recent studies are primary sources, not the sort of review articles we need. Neither are fact sheets or summary articles written for the general public - please do familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS, review has a specific (somewhat jargon-y) meaning. You seem to be concerned that Wikipedia doesn't reflect the most current research - this is by design. Wikipedia deliberately waits for new medical research to become very well vetted in peer reviewed publications (hence the emphasis on review articles as sources). This makes Wikipedia lag somewhat behind the latest developments, but increases reliability overall. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, Among other places, the Sleep Disorder page has a fact sheet for Naroclepsy which by virtue that you have not removed makes it okay but a fact sheet for Idiopathic Hypersomnia is not ???. Plus, from what I saw in WP:MEDRS and the various other connected pages, primary sources do not seem forbidden but rather resources like textbook sources preferred. So and yes, the public not having access to more accurate wiki information is disconcerting because, as IH is finally gaining legitimacy across the board (even the better known Narcolepsy researchers like Mignot, Arnulf, and others of merit) have expanded their publications to include Idiopathic Hypersomnia), a highly public and frequently accessed resource like Wikipedia by virtue of increasing reliability overall lags behind with more accurate and expanded information. I am concerned and think it matters because patients are suffering and many in the community, including student's and medical professionals - did you know current sleep medicine education (all sleep medicine not just IH even if it gets a mention) amounts to about three hours of training, if that much) and those are travesties. People deserve and need to know. I may not have at my beyond sleepy fingertips, the best-fit publications and your preference of peer-reviewed, but as shared before, I am a patient and advocate functioning at varying levels of deficits with small windows of opportunity and inconsistency...So perhaps in the vein of support, the integrity of source, and the power of knowledge, perhaps you might be willing to share a couple of names of peer-reviewed publications so that I can eventually search for the information in those and similar sources. MrOllie, as you work so hard to maintain the Wikipedia reliability and with Wikis being such a popular and thereby powerful and wide-reaching resource, I think there are missed opportunities. ~ BeyondSleepy (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not assume that because I have not removed a particular source it is 'OK' - Wikipedia is a huge site and I haven't (yet) had time to review everything on it. - MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie, Sometimes, I am mistaken but I would not presume to assume - as the saying goes, well, assumptions are not good for either party. When I looked at the edits to the Common disorders section on the Sleep disorder wiki, the edits also included Narcolepsy and that edit included reverting the citation was back to the Fact Sheet...So I am not trying to poke at you, but rather had what I thought was a legitimate and comparable question. ~ BeyondSleepy (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Somnolence Physical Health missing/removed entries
MrOllie, Perhaps this is a simpler to resolve contribution ask. I am uncertain of the reasoning behind removing the Somnolence Physical Health entries for Idiopathic Hypersomnia (IH) and Kleine-Levin syndrome (KLS) and leaving no reference to either. Like Narcolepsy which is still listed, both IH and KLS are also disorders of the nervous system. Hypersomnia was also removed from the same category and yet along with the term Hypersomnolence and which classification system is being used, the DSM-5 or ICDS] 3rd edition either it can refer to either the symptom of [[excessive daytime sleepiness or specific disease category which includes Idiopathic Hypersomnia and other related disorder or both. WIth your help, I was wondering what the most successful edit would be to give Hypersomnia, Idiopathic Hypersomnia, and Kleine-Levin syndrome]] parity with Narcolepsy ~ BeyondSleepy (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This sounds like something that should be handled on the associated article talk page, other editors may want to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Particle swarm external links
Hello MrOllie,

I am new to Wikipedia and want to contribute some videos and artciles related to PSO. What is the best way to do so respectively the best practice ? Here are my suggestions:

Thank you and good night,

Hendrik

Hennegrolsch (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In general read over our guidelines on external linking - videos and primary source papers generally aren't used as links. Also see the guidelines on conflict of interest - you should not link to your own papers. In the specific case of the article you edited there was also an edit comment you apparently missed warning users not to add additional links without using the article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Item # 2 in 'External links' is a video (inconsistency) ... I suggest to append a Wiki Commons link (category 'particle swarm optimization') where the videos are placed: , directly underneath the last entry of External links'. What do you think? Hennegrolsch (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mountain car problem
Hello MrOllie--

Thanks for your effects to make Wikipedia better.

Could you please kindly tell me why my previous editings on "mountain car problem" were reverted, so that I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future? Thanks!

Zhiqingxiao (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a book that has zero holdings in worldcat. To use as a reference, it needs to be available to readers. This also seems to be a primary source - I think we need a secondary source here. - MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind explanations :) Zhiqingxiao (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Particle swarm external links 2
Dear MrOllie,

I suggest to append a Wiki Commons link (category 'particle swarm optimization') where the videos are placed directly underneath the last entry of External links'. What do you think?

Thank you,

Hendrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.73.30 (talk • contribs)


 * The media on commons don't seem especially helpful to me, but I wouldn't revert you or anything. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

bet-at-home.com article
Hello MrOllie! The required disclosure has been done on the user page Bah2011 (talk). Changes done before in the bet-at-home.com article were related to actual company figures as stated in the Interim Financial Report 2019, as well as actual developments regarding the activities of the company. Tried to phrase the changes in an objective and neutral way, according to the policies of Wikipedia, and back them with notes. Can you publish the changes then please? Bah2011 (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I will. In fact, I think that article needs less information about sponsorships and marketing relationships, not more. I'll make a note to trim more when I have the time. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

OpenFOAM
Dear MrOllie,

Please note that you have removed various citations in OpenFOAM article, and then tagged the entry as "self-published". I am very tired of senior users who do not care about the plagiarism by removing links indiscriminately.

Kind regards, 17kuti (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I removed a number of inline external links that were not supporting the content in any meaningful way, and I tagged the entry for relying excessively on self published sources, which it does. The links I removed were self published as well. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have indiscriminately removed citations, I am afraid. Therefore, the entry content has full of plagiarism. For example, was this link Nabla Ltd self-published? Or could you please now indicate where all "Solvers" section information come from? 17kuti (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As indicated at the top of that page, 'Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed' - it is not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "It is not a reliable source" is your opinion, not a premise. Companies House may not verify the content submitted, yet veritably and tangibly publish whatever information submitted by a third-party. In addition, I am kindly waiting an answer for the second question to understand why you caused plagiarism in an entry, please. 17kuti (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly what the relevant guideline says about such sources. If there is no fact checking they are not reliable by definition. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the English Wikipedia's sourcing policies. This is important - as OpenFOAM stands (and indeed as it stood before I started editing) it qualifies for deletion due lack of reliable, independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If it qualifies for deletion, please go on and delete the entry. 17kuti (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eventually, but for now I'll give the tags a while to work. Someone may want to spend the time to find good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not able to understand it properly
Hello Sir,

Please describe it more because i am not able to understand it properly it need some explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.74.246.10 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Psychopathy
Psychopathy

wondering why this was reverted:

“Psychosis refers to hallucinations, delusions, and related symptoms. Psychopathy refers to lack of fear, guilt, empathy, and impulse control.”

It’s basically summing up the Wikipedia pages on the two issues. As it stands, it just says there’s a “distinction” between the two conditions — which is frankly a massive understatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker718 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It was redundant with text already present. - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Traditional dance?
Would it be all right to mention on the Dance troupe article that Los Tecuanes de San Juan Bautista is Mexico's largest traditional dance troupe? Reference is [https://thetablet.org/dance-troupe-brings-mexican-culture-brooklyn/. I think that the largest traditional troupe of a country would be worthy of mention on Wikipedia and The Tablet (Brooklyn) appears to be a reliable source but I just thought that I'd check with someone else before I begin to add sentences that could appear to be unencylopedic promotion of organisations.--PizzaBurgerChicken (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the troupe has an independent article, you could list it in the see also section. If they don't, better not, it would probably be WP:UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing Issues
Hi Ollie,

I oversee the social medias of all London productions of Spring Awakening - I appear to have an issue with updating the 'casts' to add the new revival members.

Please let me know why this issue is occurring.

Many thanks, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringLDN (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read over our guidelines on paid editing, and conflict of interest, both of which you can also find on your own talk page. You should not be editing about your employer like this. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not being paid to edit the page, nor am I paying anyone else. I also don't have personal contact with the West End company production, but I am aware of the revival (as I mentioned earlier, from supervising the social medias of a variety of different shows in London) and thought to update and add the new information to the page? SpringLDN (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No matter how you slice it, your position 'overseeing social medias' is not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I truly don't understand the issue - I'm trying to update the information on the page? I don't want to be disruptive or cause any trouble? SpringLDN (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have a massive conflict of interest and should not be adding to or updating that page. Please actually read the conflict of interest guidelines you have been linked and use article talk pages instead from here on out. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @SpringLDN: Further, you have failed to cite any reliable sources for the information you're trying to update. Where are you getting your information? —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There are tickets for the show being sold online and an Instagram page for spring awakening. I'm really struggling to understand why I am not allowed to update the page, but I won't make any more edits if it's causing an issue. Julia Braidon (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Julia Braidon: You've failed to provide a source that actually lists the cast members. Playbill didn't mention them. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

naanii.es links
Mr Ollie :-). thanks for your comments - but your definition of ' inappropiate links '  when we rather ad content and quality references is very interesting. Please kindly stop deleting our inputs. Thanks and best regards - you delete us because of Brexit we are not UK or US ? Thanks and best regards - I believe WIKIPEDIA should try to be neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulilo10+ (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You're spamming Wikipedia. Keep it up and you will be blocked and/or your site will be added to the link blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your comment, but you are not right and seem not to be neutral. I am sorry. We do not SPAM, and do NOT  only ad references for this quality Lifestyle Magazin, but review general publications and ad all kind of content and comments and references to improve Wikipedia. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulilo10+ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ollie - please kindly UNDO all you deleted / modifications from our quality improvements of WIKIPEDIA Encyclopedic (neutral) content. THANKS ! Or otherwise please kindly advise on new political or other guidelines WIKIPEDIA and / or you might have received - to act in such surprising aggressive way :-). Best regards and have a nice evening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulilo10+ (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to put your spam links back. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Cocktails (alphabetical)
Mr. Ollie, My list which I have been working on List of Cocktails (alphabetical) was marked for speedy deletion. Your message to me said there would be a button I could press to object to the speedy deletion. There is no such button.

I would like to strongly object. I use the alphabetical list myself. For me, it is MUCH better than the List of Cocktails which exists.

That list assumes you know what liquor is in a Harvey Wallbanger. Not everyone knows that.

What about a Martini? Is it vodka? Is it gin? It depends.

The list that exist is useful but not universally. My alphabetical list is DIFFERENT than a list by liquor type.

Please put in a button so I can object to this speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone else already removed the tag, don't worry about it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie,

You said someone already removed the tag, don't worry about it.

Here's the thing. I DO WORRY about it. I want to object to the speedy deletion. If you mean "don't worry about it your list article won't be deleted" then fine. If you mean "don't worry about it, someone removed the button and it's no big deal that they removed the button you don't really need to object to the deletion" Then I have a big problem with the button being removed.

I REALLY REALLY use the alphabetical list. It's much better in a real bar, the Prime Time Pub, than a list by liquor type.

Isn't the fact that several real bartenders use the alphabetical list on their phone to call out drinks and test each other's knowlege evidence that the list is DIFFERENT. Isn't a table of contents different than an index?

Alex Miller xandermiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It won't be speedily deleted. However, it does duplicate another article and someone may (or may not) start the full blown deletion process for that reason. If that happens, it'll run for at least a week and you'll have an opportunity to comment. - MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My Edits
Thanks MrOllie, I didn't read your earlier message seeking a response before making those additional edits which you reverted, my apologies. I did respond to your message on my talk page about not being compensated. I hope this provides clarity, I will seek to do my best work as a Wikipedia contributor/person. I am learning in fits and starts... but am usually pretty good once I get going ;) Am I now able to revert the links or would you prefer that I not for now? Many thanks Hotondo22 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the List of OAuth Providers edit, if that is not ok please let me know, thanks for all your efforts, they are certainly extensive! Hotondo22 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

LA Fashion Week
Thank you Mr. Ollie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowiepics (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of TLS implementations
You just removed my additions regarding a TLS implementation from the Comparison of TLS implementations. You note that: "We don't base entries on the list on external links." I am wondering what this means, because there is an entry from Apple: Secure Transport which IS just an external link. OTOH there is an entry from Erlang: Erlang/OTP SSL application When you removed my additions for the first time you wrote: "linked article is about a programming language, not a TLS implementation". This is exact the case for the Erlang entry. Of cause Apple and Ericson are big companies that everybody knows. Several hours of my work just moved to the wastebasket. Can you help me to find a way such that my work is not wasted? Hans Bauer (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing the other two out, I removed them as well. RE: wasting your work - You seem to be singularly focused on editing about Seed7. That's fine (provided there is no conflict of interest), but I suggest that you invest some time in working on unrelated topics so you can gain some experience and perspective on how things generally work on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In the past my focus was on many, mostly computer related, Wikipedia articles. I invested some time on Wikipedia. But in recent years I have not so much time to spend. This reduced my focus, such that it looks like I am singularly focused. Now I spend most of my time and energy outside of Wikipedia: In the real World. In real life the probability, that somebody throws my work away, is lower. I can understand that Wikipedia has rules. But in this case I don't understand them. Are just TLS libraries allowed in the comparison, if they have a Wikipedia article? I would consider this constraint as too strict. As a reader I would like to see all TLS libraries. There are not so many TLS libraries, so this would not blow up the article. Most TLS libraries are written in C, some in Java. When a library is written in Erlang or Seed7 it shows diversification (you know the thing that reduces the possibility that an animal becomes extinct). Ok, I digress. Basically I ask you for help to save my work on the Comparison of TLS implementations. What is necessary to add the Apple, Erlang and Seed7 TLS libraries back to the comparison? Hans Bauer (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a list of things that already have a Wikipedia article, which is the most common list inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. I suppose you could make an argument of notability if you had 2 or more independently written sources about the TLS library, but I took a quick look and didn't turn any useful sources up. As an aside, the refrences on the Seed7 article itself are quite weak. I would worry about shoring that up first - you have one substantive source that looks like it had no editing or peer review, and one that is only a trivial mention. Everything else comes from the language designer. An article needs at least two high quality independent sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Godmother (cocktail)
The list of IBA cocktails is the foundation of Wikipedia's cocktail contributions.

Every IBA official cocktail has it's own Wikipedia page and rightfully so.

Except ONE cocktail doesn't have it's own Wikipedia page.

If you go to Godmother (cocktail) you are automatically routed to the Godfather (cocktail) page

The fact is:

The Godmother is a variation of the Godfather The French Connection is a variation of the Godfather too.

The French Connection has it's own Wikipedia page, the Godmother routes to the Godfather.

I would like to make a real Wikipedia page for the Godmother (cocktail)

How do I do that if it automatically routes to the Godfather? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * When you click on Godmother_(cocktail) you'll see a little comment at the top that says "Redirected from Godmother_(cocktail)" - click on that link and you'll be taken to the redirect page. Once there you can click the edit button and overwrite the redirect with a real article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, thanks, I did exactly what you said. I changed the redirect to a real official IBA cocktail page and linked to it from the relevant lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You cancelled the first web travel reality show - NomadCommunity
Dear MrOllie, indeed I added an information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television. At the bottom of 1980s–1990s section I added that: in 1999/2000 NomadCommunity.com realized the Interactive Round the World Tour, creating the first web travel reality show. You cancelled it saying it didn't include a citation, which is true. The point is that the news was reported especially on hard copies (see this press review from 2000 to 2001 http://www.matteopennacchi.com/press-review/ It was also reported on National Geographic and TIME Canada http://www.matteopennacchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2001-02-TimeMagazineCanadaweb.jpg The website is still there www.nomadcommunity.com and you will find the videos, voting formes etc... Please help me to insert this lovely Information on Wikipedia. Best regards Aleandro Matteo ≈≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleandro Mattei (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like reprinted press releases to me, but if you have a good source that isn't a press release, cite it directly. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Subheading and Section Headers on the Wikipedia article web page.
You took my off addition to the to the [|Article (publishing)] Wikipedia web page.

I added these words:

Subheading and Section Headers

Some articles will have several bold words at the beginning of multiple paragraphs. Subheadings not only help the reader to quickly glance and get an idea of what the article is about, but subheadings also simply help the reader to read a long article. If a long article has no subheadings, it can be tedious for the reader due multiple paragraphs after the other. Subheadings make a long article more manageable to read for some people. In fact, the words, Headline, Byline, Lead, Body or running text, Subheadings or Section headers and Conclusion are all Subheadings of this Wikipedia article.

---

Now... I don't mind someone taking off my work but I expect that person make to put back what I was writing about and make it much better. You have students, excellent professional writers to horrible disgusting professional writers, and every type of writer in between, reading this web page and this is an important part of article writing which should not be left out.

I just talked to one of my professional writer friends and he agreed this should be part of this Wikipedia page. Mr. Ollie, if you are working to update the "Article (publishing)" Wikipedia web page, that is fine. If you just deleted my edit and you REFUSE to add it and make this Wikipedia page better, I will be reporting you. --MikeWest (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You failed to cite any sources, and your text contained self referential text, which is to be avoided on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you make it better. And by the way, everything said was true. And if you want people to help make Wikipedia better, then it's help me. If you don't have time to help me, then you have the time to make Wikipedia better by adding the appropriate content. --MikeWest (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Nah. If you want to add text, it is up to you to add sources, not up to others to fix your edits. - MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

bet-at-home.com
Hi MrOllie, changes made in the article about bet-at-home.com referred only to facts and figures which have been published in the financial report. No changes in the part about sponsoring. Why have the changes been reversed? Bah2011 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC):


 * You also added a product offering sourced to unreliable sources - and since you are a paid editor and apparently don't understand Wikipedia's policies, you should not be editing the article directly *at all*. Use the talk page, please. - MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. Why is the source unreliable? I am not sure if you can check this within one minute. Only because of the reason that Bah2011 is a paid editor you can’t say that Bah2011 don’t understand Wikipedia’s policies. When started writing the article Bah2011 took part in the “adopt-a-user” program. According to Wikipedia's policies the article is written in a neutral way based on facts and figures. But if you think that the article is not correct at all than please help to improve it not only with deleting updates. Bah2011 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It replaced the more reliable Bloomberg reference, and used a weird-looking esports link. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 10:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Learning Management Systems
Hello MrOllie I did not write nor edit the paragraph you removed I just fixed a broken link on the Learning_management_system page and changed it to a more neutral location afterwards. There are other LMSes mentioned in the article. I really can't see any differences here. What do you consider a valid mention of OLAT and Microsoft SharePoint as stepstones in history of LMSes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom gross (talk • contribs)


 * Whatever is a fair summary of what the reliable sources say about the subject, but we don't have a reliable source that says anything about it yet. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools
I added Memsource to the list of computer-assisted translation tools. You removed it again without any clear reason. It's a real tool with a solid user base (bigger than most other tools on the page), and the information was objective and correct. Could you let me know what your motivation was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4C58:BA00:E91A:8D6B:AC1A:F4FD (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See the talk page of the IP address you were using at the time. User_talk:2A02:A03F:4C58:BA00:C8AA:F1CC:6541:C561 Please consider registering a Wikipedia account, you won't be able to find your user talk messages with a constantly changing IP address. - MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you removed Memsource from the list because it doesn't have a separate article yet. That is not a valid reason to remove it from this list. The article is about 'Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools', but you try to turn into 'Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools with a separate page on Wikipedia'. According to the Wikipedia philosophy, this list should be unbiased and verifiable, and as complete as possible. By removing tools which don't have a separate page, you don't respect that. Additionally, Memsource (and others not on the list such as Fluency, Wordbee, XTM Cloud) deserve a stand-alone article, as they does meet all of the criteria of the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4C58:BA00:E91A:8D6B:AC1A:F4FD (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's the most common inclusion criterion for a stand alone list or comparison. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really a strong motivation for removing content that is objective, relevant and verifiable...

Serverless computing reverts
You have reverted a few of my contributions, one with no explanation, the others commented with "meaningless buzzwords". As someone who works professionally in the industry, I do not believe this to be true. Anyway, two main things to discuss:

1) Laravel Vapor is indeed a new tool offered by the Laravel suite, which you can read about here: https://vapor.laravel.com/

2) Serverless architectures use containers -- not virtual machines. There are significant differences between the two, with the former being much more lightweight and having significantly less overhead. This is an important part of the architecture. If you wish to understand better, there is a great article from the martinfowler.com blog here: https://martinfowler.com/articles/serverless.html

HarryLarold (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You failed to cite a source, and what you added was marketing babble. "Empowers users" isn't going to be acceptable anywhere outside some form of marketing.


 * 2) You also didn't cite a source here, and you reinstated your edit once another user objected to it. You should be discussing this on the article talk page. And if you're going to use industry jargon like 'ephemeral compute containers' you have to define it. What you did made the article harder for a layman to understand. Thanks for the blog link, but please be advised that Wikipedia generally doesn't use blog posts as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) If a citation is required to list laravel tools under the tools section, should we removed the others (which don't include citations)?


 * 2) How are we defining layman in the context of this article? When making the change, I was working under the assumption that a reader knowledgeable about virtualization (virtual machines) also is informed on containerization (compute containers), and the word ephemeral is very important to accurately describing the architecture.HarryLarold (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said above, please take this up on the article's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help - HarryLarold (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Response
Good day Sir/Madam! I am not linked to the organizations and people I am making and writing articles with. But I appreciate a lot your concern with regards on this matter. As a new member, I am assuring you and the Wiki community that I will not go against the standards. Thank you and God bless! Jsnueva1022 (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social networking site - please don't write about yourself or add any more photographs of yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Eagle article
Sir, I noticed that you remove some photos in the article. I am sorry for the redundancy of uploads. I appreciate your actions very much! Thank you. Jsnueva1022 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Medical Credentialing and Billing articles
I am not employed by anyone, I am a self-made individual and bored. I make edits where I see edits needed. You will find that the majority of my edits have nothing to do with any form of commercial activity. I've linked to both commercial and non-commercial entities on this platform. XanderL (talk)
 * You can quibble about the definition of employed, but the fact is you're edit warring to put links to your own company into Wikipedia. That's spam. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not spamming anything, I put credible links to a qualified resource on the subject. XanderL (talk)
 * Your company's webstie is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictures of Philippine Eagles “Gemma” and “Tinuy-an” in Philippine Eagle article
Good day Sir/Madam! I noticed that you deleted the two photos of Philippine Eagle named “Gemma” and “Tinuy-an” took inside the Philippine National Museum in the Philippine Eagle article. Yesterday, you allowed those photos but the other two photos were deleted by you for the reason that it is a redundancy of uploads. After that, an anonymous user removed the two remaining photos permitted by you to be posted and change the two by other photos. And then, you removed it also. Now, I am exerting any efforts to bring it back again in the said article because they are very useful in public viewing. For now, I will hand-off on that article. I want your decision prevails. I am hoping for your kind consideration in this matter. Thank you and God bless! Jsnueva1022 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You can clearly see reflections in the display case, which distracts from looking at the intended subject of the photo. You shouldn't re-add them. - MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting Photos in the Philippine Eagle Article
Thank you Sir/Madam! I understand. I will provide again photos of the eagles without glass reflections. I am so sorry for my recent action. God bless! Jsnueva1022 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Alien Cabal
Here's a YouTube link to the game I added to the list, clear as crystal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dAcqYXZuI4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDEdminson (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything? It's a list of games that have Wikipedia articles, not a list of games that have youtube links. - MrOllie (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Alien Cabal
I just made an article. Of course, I may have done it without attribution. I may need some help with that. If the page is deleted, undo the revision again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDEdminson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pressure measurement
Hi Mr. Ollie,

Thanks for your quick reversion of the COI edit. While you're at it, you may want to see this. Looks like that photo is either a copyvio or was uploaded by the company themselves. (I'd take care of it myself but am about to jump on a plane.) Have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing the links of my last edit on WooCommerce page
Hi MrOllie I have edited the WooCommerce page 2 days ago and now I noticed you have removed them. what about add the links again but as a new source in the bottom of the page? Is it okay? I'd love to publish content and edit Wikipedia pages. It makes me feel more confident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amin.hamyar (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that link isn't acceptable as a source or as an external link or anything else. Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs for promotional purposes. IF you want to edit Wikipedia, I suggest you add information based on high quality sources, such as newspapers or peer reviewed scientific articles. - 11:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Hi, my user name is parminder.kapoor and I'm trying to make some edits to an article and would appreciate if you accept the edits that I've made and if they are wrong in anyway, please do let me know. My email address is parminder.kapoor@gmail.com.

Parminder.kapoor (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 


 * We don't use blogs as sources, I'm afraid. Please see our sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding the name Julan Shirwod Nueva(myself) in the list
I am a new editor here in Wikipedia. I am Julan Shirwod Nueva, a Waray poet, using the username jsnueva1022. I have proofs that I am one of the well-known people in our province of Samar because of my award-winning literary works and spoken word poetry performances. You can verify me in my different social media accounts such as Facebook and Twitter. But I have just read a while ago that promoting one’s self even he/she is truly belong to the said article is not allowed here in Wikipedia. I do understand that. I will wait for other people to add me in the list provided that it is verified legit. Sorry for my action. Jsnueva1022 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Business process outsourcing in the Philippines
This revert doesn't have an edit summary. Do you care to explain the issue you have with my edits? — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have any issue with your edits, I was trying to remove content added by Wbucklar, which was refspam. I didn't realize you'd also edited some prexisting text. I just restored that portion of the edit. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :) — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please Review George C. Marshall Foundation Article
Mr.Ollie - I have removed large portions of advertising and spam from our page. Can you tell me if it is cleaned up enough? I addressed the COI on my user page after taking a WikipediaDC workshop on Monday, 9/23/2019. I hope by deleting the promotional content I have complied. Thank you - Cathy DeSilvey (VACatlett) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VACatlett (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please check again the DataMelt article
Mr Ollie. I've updated DataMelt article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:DataMelt I've added a new review dedicated to DataMelt (Aug 2019). Also note that 8 citations on DataMelt discuss only DataMelt program and nothing else. The names ScaVis and jHepWork you can see in the titles of these reviews are just older DataMelt names (release names). They are not just generic reviews about "many programs". I've made this text clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)


 * I still don't see sources that meet our sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Fashion Week in LA Page updates
Hi there Oshwah,

Thanks for reaching out. I'm an avid fashion communications expert here in the los Angeles area for the last 20 years. The main reason for the edit was because the items added to update the page contained no articles of reference and also added lots of advertorial bias for one of the main event organizers over another. The other contributors are clearly avid fans of particular organizations which is fine but having contributed to this page far longer than anyone else it's a little detrimental to simply revert when others are openly allowed to change a narrative to suit their own commercial needs not backed up by fact.

So that's why it was reverted back and I would appreciate it if anything future posted would also abide by the same rules. I will make sure to make this clear in any future edits, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaithfullyFashion (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read what you're deleting again, then, because you are deleting referenced content. - MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding an image on unlimited scrolling on social media newsfeeds
According to the feedback received, I have changed the text in the image to be neutral and reuploaded it for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media#Physical_and_mental_health. But I see that it has still been removed. Please let me know the reason.

The most recent version of the image is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlimited_Scrolling_on_Social_Media_Newsfeeds.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avimanyu786 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Convenience link to centralized thread: Talk:Social media. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Chopard
You shouldn't be neglecting this opportunity to watch this Video where the proofen Material has been shown, that Jean Alesi wore a marineblue-Cap with the logo branded on them.

Best Regards

Gurkenfahrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurkenfahrer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chadhury88?markasread=171743963&markasreadwiki=enwiki#September_2019
Re:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chadhury88?markasread=171743963&markasreadwiki=enwiki#September_2019

@Mr.Ollie : MrOllie (talk)

You can rest 100% assured that under no instance am I directly, indirectly, or even remotely compensated by this organization.(or any related orgs) I can officially state this for the record. Thank you for asking.

Chadhury88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhury88 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

NetCrunch
You deleted NetCrunch entry from a comparison of network monitoring software because of missing English page right?. The software has been on the list for more than 10 years and is legitimate to be there. I do not know who deleted NetCrunch page and I'll work re-instantiate it. I understand that that missing NetCrunch page is the only reason you did this. I would appreciate any help. Tomaszkunicki (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for an explanation. I have no intention to hide anything so I do not mind disclosing I'm the creator of the software and use my own name. I just think that removing legitimate software used by thousands of people seems discrimination to me. So let's talk how to bring NetCrunch back to the list.

Tomaszkunicki (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please explain Nespresso edit.
Hello, I'm a big Nespresso from Kuwait, and they recently launched the Vertuo line here in the Middle East in only three countries (Kuwait, KSA, and UAE). I got excited about this and immediately edited their page to add this info while also adding a valid source. However, after a few days, you edited the page again and undid what I added. I was surprised and sad at the same time, so I made a user just to contact you to know why you did this.

Thanks and regards, Chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecondChanceQ8 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Kindly confirm if this is good to be used as citation
Can you look at this and confirm if now its citation is apt to be used. MrOllie in reference to your input dated 14:55, 27 September 2019‎ Reverted to revision 918208152 by MrOllie (talk): Webmd and press releases are not usable sources here

Park, Jin; Kim, Dae-Woo; Park, Su-Kyung; Yun, Seok-Kweon; Kim, Han-Uk (2018). "Role of Hair Prostheses (Wigs) in Patients with Severe Alopecia Areata". Annals of Dermatology. pp. 505–507. doi:10.5021/ad.2018.30.4.505. "Hair prosthesis". Wikipedia. 5 October 2018. "Alopecia Market Size Worth $4.8 Billion By 2026 | CAGR: 8.3%". www.grandviewresearch.com.

thanksSooryaman (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For the first, Please see WP:MEDRS. Medical claims should be sourced to review articles. That looks like either a primary study or a letter to the editor. For the second, no, never cite to other Wikipedia articles. The third is a press release and should not be used. - MrOllie (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding independent sources for 2getheraudio example on the Pay-What-You-Want page
Hello,

I see you have removed the example of 2getheraudio company in the Pay-What-You-Want page, as an advert, because of last of independent sources. I understand that providing the company website as a reference could be considered an advert, so I'm providing a list of established industry blogs describing the model used by this developer. This company is an interesting example because of being the first such model in the music software industry-first and the combination with the charity part makes the model unique, so please consider re-evaluating your decision and referencing any of the sources provided. Kind Regards. Adam.

https://ask.audio/articles/pay-what-you-want-for-new-synth-effects-plugins-and-donate-half-to-charity (this reference is probably the best)

http://www.synthanatomy.com/2018/09/pay-what-you-want-for-the-new-re4orm-synth-fx-plugins-support-the-charity.html

https://rekkerd.org/2getheraudio-releases-re4orm-virtual-instrument-re4orm-fx-effect-plugin/

188.146.187.23 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use blogs as sources either, see WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Re message
10//19:  I  just NOW rec'd notice that I have messages re edits Ive made. You left me a msg on May 19, 2019, re an edit of mine that you deleted. As far as I can tell, there is no link, so Im unable to tell WHICH subject matter, topic or person you are referring to. Please direct me to WHAT you objected to or didnt like. Thank you. LMilagros5472 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding spelling of Nasaraean
I have updated the spelling from "Nazarean" to "Nasaraean" as spelled in the Panarion of Epiphanius and left a link to it. It is the same spelling used in the Nazarene (sect) wikipedia article. This is also to avoid confusion. Why did you undo the update?

Kon-Boot
Hello, why u have marked my edit as spam? I've provided reliable information. You can even delete the link. How i can start participating in wikipedia if you destroy my first edit. That is very encouraging :( ImmortalRiot (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for advertising particular software, sorry. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean reference to legit security software used for pentests is an advertisment? Shouldn't you delete elcomsoft, aircrack and others from the same page then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalRiot (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my reference?
Why did you remove my edit from Forced marriage article? It was appropriate.

Kind regards Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwinmedia (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS, we don't use commercial blogs as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear sirs

Thanks for your response However, it wasn't a blog, it was news based on cited news.

Thank you for your reply.

Regards Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwinmedia (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Either way it wasn't a proper news outlet with an editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking. But no big deal, now you know to use a newspaper or major news site next time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update bet-at-home.com
MrOllie: Parts, which need to be updated, have been added on the talk page of the article of bet-at-home.com. Can you update the mentioned facts? Thanks. Bah2011 (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie: Altnernative source added to the talk page of the article. Can you please check if it's ok? Thanks. Bah2011 (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Osteoarthritis
[] Why did you revert? I think the revisions are adequate. The beginning of the management section displays the overall strategy and the NSAIDs are slightly restructured for a more systematised view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander K. Angelov (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Medical Imaging
Dear Mr. Ollie, you just reverted all changes to an open access text book under CC 4.0 BY by Springer. I think it is a great resource for wikipedia. I also think this is a relevant source, as the book only published in 2018 has more than 50.000 downloads by now. Should I first use the "talk" function to start a discussion whether this is an appropriate source?

Best,

BigAndi — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigAndi (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I tried to use the "talk" function. Please advise, if this is appropriate.


 * Please read the conflict of interest guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got an error that I have to do at least 10 edits before I can upload an image. Only discovered Wikimedia commons after the upload form directed me there (after 10 edits). I hope you can see that I am a new user. --BigAndi (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

/* Other medication */ Showing that there is evidence for nutritional therapy in endometriosis and fertility.
I am sorry but you are operating on double standards. Reference 53 is by the same researchers at Vanderbilt University that I chose to cite. Since when has Yale University research been worthy to dismiss. I have been involved with ASRM and know personally those researchers who are known for the work they do with endometriosis and nutrition. I am trying to help the sufferers of endometriosis, many of whom get little help from the drug and surgical treatments and there are thousands of women who have been helped with nutrition. Unfortunately nutrition research does not get the financial backing that drug companies have. Ccfd9 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has very stringent requirements for sourcing medical information, which you can read at WP:MEDRS. Preliminary findings and mouse studies don't qualify, I'm afraid. Policy here is to wait until the medical community has largely finished work and new findings have reached wide acceptance. If there is improperly sourced content in the article, that is a reason to remove that content, not to add more improperly sourced content. - MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just read an interesting article which states: "There are volumes of excellent peer-reviewed studies documenting research and clinical experience showing a healthy diet, nutrient supplementation as needed. Physical exercise and stress and anxiety management regimens can either completely prevent illnesses or be incorporated into medical treatment protocols successfully. However, there is no profit to be made in prevention." It then goes on to say: "Wikipedea editors take full advantage of flawed medical literature if the conclusions serve there purpose and agenda." I conclude that my finding research that meets your requires is an impossible task. 2A01:4C8:C1B:A19A:BCA1:CD4C:259D:6586 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not really surprising that Gary Null doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated comparison table to follow changes in FEA-compare project
I have updated the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_finite_element_software_packages, however, you have removed some links. Could you please provide more details on this? Probably I should remove\update this links if FEA-compare project, so to avoid additional clashing next time I have updates from FEA community and copy-paste the table, which I generate from the project data. It would be nice if you can e-mail me the answer to k.ladutenko@metalab.ifmo.ru as soon as I have no idea how to track updates on this page, relative to my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.157.121.221 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Update figures
can you update the bet-at-home.com article as mentioned on the article talk page with actual figures from the interim financial report? An additional source has been added. Thanks Bah2011 (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

PHRs by country
see talk page. Please advise how to change the contribution so that it would not be reverted.EncycloABC (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

/* Pain Management */
MrOllie, what issues are occurring with the updating of the IR page? In the original post and most current, you said that there are sourcing issues. Are the sourcing issues in regards to the links provided? Chasept (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Medical content on Wikipedia has stringent sourcing requirements, which you can read at WP:MEDRS. Your citations didn't meet those requirements. Additionally, other parts of your additions appeared to be completely unsourced. - MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Hy Can You Explain Me Why You Are Removing My Edit articles Information. PakEditor14 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of your edits are factually incorrect - for example you're changing figures to the number of generally elected representatives without considering the seats reserved for women. In other places you are adding social media accounts that are already linked from the main official site, which Wikipedia does not do per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Migraine edit
Hello MrOllie, you have removed our external link within the article body. And after reading your message I understand why. However, I do believe that the article might be a useful addition to the topic. Would it be possible to add it at the bottom of the page, in the section 'external links'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MlvAya (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, we don't add sites for promotional purposes. See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not remove information from the Graphing calculators page. Hello, I'm Notrium. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Notrium (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not vandalism, thanks. Sometimes people have differences of opinion - in this case, my opinion is that we should not be linking to specific calculators on the Graphing calculators page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalker) Also, looking at the history of Talk:Graphing calculator, it appears that the article is intended to focus on graphing calculator hardware, not software that has graphing functionality. So I endorse MrOllie's removal. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the relevant pages again, NumWorks is hardware and software. Notrium (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove encyclopedic content from Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Notrium (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation that "we should not be linking to specific calculators on the Graphing calculators page" is bogus. If one removed all the links to specific calculators, the page would be almost gone and pointless. Wikipedia has the linking feature for a reason. Notrium (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not vandalism. You should read the policies over again and refresh your memory as to what vandalism actually is. Also, Don't template the regulars - MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What you did was vandalism and you are going to get another relevant template if you repeat it on any of the pages I watch. And that essay is wrong, templates are always useful. Also, please ping me in the future when addressing me so I could see your responses (I am not necessarily watching your Talk page). Notrium (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you really think I'm a vandal, take it to WP:ANI. But stay off my talk page in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not trying to make enemies with you, or get you sanctioned (unless you are a repeat offender). I am sure I made even worse errors in my life, and maybe even on Wikipedia; but the facts are that your edits were indistinguishable from vandalism (because of no edit summaries or bogus ones), and quite stubborn at that. To reiterate my points above, you were removing a link to another en-wp page, while leaving other equivalent links in place. Furthermore, the links you were leaving were to pages of calculators by very "big" corporations, while the one you removed was of a calculator from a small corporation that threatens to disrupt huge interests of the big corporations, so it was possible to assume that your edits were made by someone linked to those interests. I am writing this just to try to bring you closer to my view of things here in the interest of alleviating the animosity that is present and in assumptions of good faith. Notrium (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Stay off this page. - MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep_off_my_talk_page! Notrium (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Notrium: As a fellow editor, I remind you that the place to engage in discussions to build consensus (i.e., "bring you closer to my view of things") is the talk page of the article in question, so that consensus may be gained among a broader group of editors.As an administrator, I remind you to assume good faith in your fellow editors and not accuse them of vandalism when they are making good-faith edits. Repeatedly making such accusations could be interpreted as harassment of an editor, especially if you continue to post to their talk page after they have requested you not to.Finally, I posted this here because I prefer to keep threads in one place. However, I will not make any further replies in this thread at this page. If you wish to follow up with me, you are welcome to open a new thread at my user talk page. Otherwise, if you wish to discuss article content, I suggest you take such matters to the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Graphing calculator). —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

rankme.online
Question- Could you please explain why my reference link is not accepted? I mean I have seen some links in the reference section that are quite old. Just added some pieces of fresh article to read. Moreover, the explanation was quite easy to understand and simple, which will definitely add value to the readers. Hope, you reconsider my request. Looking forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himank0210 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use advertisements as reference. - MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * MrOllie (talk)- Ok got you! But I am confused as I can see many other direct links which are endorsements but I am unable to understand what's pulling you back from stating them as "advertisement". Could you please explain! What is that you include in references??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himank0210 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a very large site and volunteer time is limited. You may find bad references, but the existence of a bad reference is a reason to remove the bad ref, not a reason to add more links to advertisements. - MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

question
can you paste the sentence from wikipedia's official policies that says a researcher cannot add their research to wikipedia articles? not your interpretation, the actual sentence? In the conflict of interest, I did not find anything that applies to the situation where a researcher adds their research to wikipedia. and I failed to find a "self-cite" policy page. so please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalhealth123 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:COI and WP:CITESPAM - MrOllie (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read these sections, there is nothing saying that one cannot add her research to wikipedia pages. If you cannot point to exact sentences from these sections to prove that, please kindly undo all the changes you made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalhealth123 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mentalhealth123: "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references.... Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work..." —C.Fred (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

are you sure this means that a researcher cannot add 4 relevant global studies from globally recognized journals to 4 wikipedia pages? do you call it spamming? I don't think so, and why is your interpretation more correct than mine? what you are doing (reviewing other people's profiles and contributions across pages to undo their legitimate contributions) approaches my definition of trolling and hatred, but I don't wish to impose my interpretation on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalhealth123 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sure what the policies mean. Let's put it a different way: Researchers are generally subject matter experts who are up to date on lots of developments in their fields. If they come to Wikipedia to make it better, they will generally cite lots of different authors to add different sorts of interesting, relevant information. These folks are invaluable and are some of our most respected community members. On the other hand, some academics show up on Wikipedia and add short, low-content blurbs to articles for the primary purpose of linking their own writings. Which kind of contributor do you want to be? - MrOllie (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think just adding a few sentences based on one's expertise would be a good contribution most of the time, given that nothing is being removed and other contributors and researchers are also free to add their own bits and evaluate the new contributions. The point is there are millions of ways of making a contribution on a website like wikipedia and we should not morlaize some ways demonize others on subjective terms and based on personal feelings. Scientifically speaking each contribution should be evaluated in the context of a given article and its given section, and most of the time the contributor's background and identity is irrelevant (unless financial benefit is involved). If a contribution is perceived inaccurate, others can challenge it on scientific grounds. I disagree with running background checks on others (by inspecting their contribution history) unless this is done by a robot as it makes the issue personal and leads to identification of people and inevitably triggers personal feelings towards the contributor and all sort if unfairnesses and biases that may emerge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalhealth123 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You can think that, but the Wikipedia community has come to a different conclusion, which we have codified into the policies that were linked for you above. - MrOllie (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my edits?
Hi there,

What is wrong with my edit of the call tracking page? Why did remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiAccure (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Because it's obvious link spam. Don't add it again. - MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

what?! how is it spam?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiAccure (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Scholars Strategy Network edits
On September 17, our organization made some changes to our very outdated Wikipedia page, including fixing the address to our new office location and updating our list of local chapters. Why did you reject these edits and revert it back to the old version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj11k (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The edits were very promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing space. Also, they were in violation of our terms of use, which prohibits undisclosed editing by paid advocates. Please read our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and our policy on paid editing. Certain disclosures are required, and you can make suggestions for factual corrections on the article's associated talk page. Please do not edit it directly again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your feedback and wrongful removal of content
No, we are not paid contributors to this public platform that provides truthful accurate information. As far as we know, every detail that was outlined in the Wiki page is relevant and true. We are sorry if you feel as if several of her sections are not of merit. Particularly her accolades including regional, national and international achievements. However, we disagree. As an example, one in particular that you cut is a very prestigious journalism award and is the exact award earned by national CBS News Television journalist Norah O'Donnell as is currently listed under her 1 of 3 awards. We would like to call to your attention other female journalists/broadcasters such as Katie Couric, Ann Curry, Robin Roberts, Christine Devine (Most Likely To Succeed), Pat Harvey (American award-winning), among many others, who have the same or similar details expressed in like manner to that of the preexisting Wiki site where significant content was removed. Also, it should be noted that she cannot be put in a box as a journalist and should be credited with her other titles by which she is also known, such as actress, producer, businesswoman, author, etc. (verifiable on IMDB, Barnes & Noble, countless other credible sites). An example of this statement would be a reference to American Actress' Wendy Williams and Kelly Ripa, as well as Jenna Bush, respectively, who are all credited for their media roles, among other occupations.

It would be wrong to make a difference between her and her counterparts on the public platform. Anything depriving her of her work and due mentions is mere discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouscontentent (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why are you using plurals? Who is 'we'? - MrOllie (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

/* Surgery */ I added information about scoliosis surgery. There are two types of surgeries that are different than fusion which there was no mention of.
Hi, why did you delete my post. I think wikipedia should be comprehensive and all inlusive and not leave out the different types of surgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menachem O (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has very stringent sourcing requirements for medical content, which you can read at WP:MEDRS. The sources you are citing do not meet these requirements. MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, why do you delete it? just because there isn't so much data it doesn't mean it does not exist. The fact is that in 2019-2020 there will be hundreds of people getting these kinds of surgeries. I think they should at least be mentioned in the right way of course. How can you say it should not be mentioned at all? Isn't wikipedia an information base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.85.156 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't here to be a list of everything that exists. If there isn't yet good data Wikipedia can't write about it, that is the crux of the WP:MEDRS guideline I keep linking for you. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Which clause in the link is being violated if I mention that there are such surgeries being perfomed? I am not writing that it is a good surgery or anything like that. Additionally, one of the surgeries (ApiFix ) just received FDA approval. Also, I see that wikipedia does cover treatments not accepted by the scientific and medical community as long as it does so in informative way. So why is this different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.85.156 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Home staging
I don't understand why my edit is a commercial spam. I do not accept money or work for IAHSP/Barb Schwarz. my information is accurate and wiki version of home staging is short, mis-leading & missing tons of information. especially the person who created the home staging industry & genre.]jsw432 —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's one of the more promotional pieces of text I've seen, and you didn't include any usable independent references. - MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Psychopathy
Hi, I see you responded to my question about why this passage was deleted:

“Psychosis refers to hallucinations, delusions, and related symptoms. Psychopathy refers to lack of fear, guilt, empathy, and impulse control.”

Unfortunately, I can’t find your response. Could you please re-answer? Thank you? Seeker718 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It was redundant with text already present. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Overly aggressive edits and mis-categorization of valuable citations as "spam"
It appears you are extremely aggressive with your edits, unnecessarily so. Policies have been clearly followed and much of the academic articles cited are indeed articles that contain large amounts of references and comprehensive literature reviews. Perhaps you need to investigate these sources more closely before removing edits that you simply believe are "spam. 155.68.177.102 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, you were adding a bunch of citations to yourself, and you didn't realize it was a problem here. That's fine, now you know it's looked upon poorly by this community to insert mentions of yourself and your work into articles. But by no stretch of the imagination were the citations backing those unnecessary self-name drops comprehensive literature reviews. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you actually read the articles. The cited dark tourism paper, for example, contains a rather extensive literature review. As it stands, the dark tourism page on wikipedia contains outdated (and incorrect) information. It seems, however, from reading your list of replies to folks on here, that you are more interested in gatekeeping and exerting your power with snarky remarks than actually improving accuracy of the articles on this site. Perhaps a more developmental approach with contributors might help craft better information and resourcefulness. 155.68.177.102 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem. You seem to mean something different than most people when you use the term Literature review. The paper you cited presents new findings, therefore it is not a literature review by definition. - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So papers that contain a comprehensive "Literature Review" section are not considered literature reviews by Wikipedia standards IF there is ALSO a new contribution in the paper? This is a significant difference between what you have on your site and what is actual practice in academic publishing. Perhaps it's time to update this.

Hmmmm... the Literature Review link you posted... "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (May 2014)"

Seems Wikipedia does have a lack of understanding of what a Literature Review is AND is even asking for help with it's own definition!" 155.68.177.102 (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel free to take it up on WP:RSN, but we both know it's tangential to the real issue, which is the inappropriate promotion of one particular author. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

155.68.177.102 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again.... Gatekeeping>Quality of Content. There's nothing tangential as the real issue is accurate information. Right now, what you have in Dark Tourism is simply not accurate and your insistence on being right (with an over-itchy trigger finger) is what's preventing accuracy on that page.

155.68.177.102 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As a first time contributor, it would have been helpful for you to let me know of potential problems before automatically assuming I'm a "spammer" and quickly removing ALL my contributions without really examining the content. A more developmental eye makes this community better. Incessant gatekeeping makes Wikipedia worse. 155.68.177.102 (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System
User:Jmoskowitz I believe I addressed the concerns you had in which you tagged this article for speedy deletion. Someone in fact removed the main objection during an edit as they recognized the total rewrite of the page to an encyclopedic format which you requested. It was noted that the rewrite in the new format was of a similar nature to the SPOT Satellite Messenger page which has been on Wikipedia for some time. Citations will be available shortly as they are in media that are being published in November 2019. A requirement for citations flag has been added to the page. These were all noted in the talk page to address the speedy decision issues. Can I request that you now remove the request for speedy removal tag? I did not believe I can just remove it myself without an editor to approve it. Thank you for your reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.84.141.9 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's still an unsourced advert. The tag should remain. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

BeamXpertDESIGNER
Hello, many thanks for the quick reaction. Of course, you are right about the potential conflict of interest. But maybe it is better for the quality of Wikipedia to let people contribute to very specific content like simulation software who know what the software is doing? The references should prove the relevance in this particular category. You are also welcome to forward the article to an expert in content. Additionally, I would assume that about half of the articles in "List of computer simulation software" were written by people who are close to the company or product. Best regards BXMann (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism warning - Hybrid mattress sub-category
Hello, I'm Fhavro. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you would like to contribute to my sub-category "hybrid mattress", please feel free to do so. If you remove this sub-category again, I will have to report vandalism. The goal of wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Feel free to google the term "hybrid mattresses", or consult with someone who is an export in this field. Your deleting of the category "Hybrid Mattress" would be the same as deleting the category "Hybrid vehicle" under the Cars page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhavro (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * MrOllie, thank you for reverting. While I'm not sure the text was spam, it was a copyvio. I have revdel'ed the two infringing versions. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The text wasn't bad, but the reference link seemed to be pretty clearly spam. - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:BonzoFestoon
I am very inexperienced at editing on Wikipedia and do not know how to correctly reply to your message, so this will have to do.

I was not paid to update Wikipedia, nor will I receive payment directly or indirectly for editing any Wikipedia content. I saw an edit of a page be undone for an incorrect reason. The original content that was removed was not written by me nor any one paid to add the content, as far as I know. I undid the reversion to put the missing content back and then updated the references to be current as the old references where being redirected. If you notice on the talk page of the article, one of the complaints is that the list is incomplete. I was trying to address that talking point.

If the original reason that an edit was undone was incorrect, then should not that content be put back into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonzoFestoon (talk • contribs)


 * That list is of software that has a Wikipedia article. You were re-adding a link to an article about a software company, which is not the same thing. Looking at your accounts contributions, all you have ever done on Wikipedia is add links to Leadtools to various places, which is why it looks like you're mostly here to promote Leadtools. If that isn't the case, I look forward to your future non-Leadtools contributions. - MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we just remove the link since there is not an article for Leadtools? --BonzoFestoon (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That's what happened, it was removed from the list. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean the hyperlink. Leadtools has been on the list since at least 2010. Why remove the entire row when the only problem is the link? Sorry if I am asking noob questions; I am just trying to understand the politics/rules of Wikipedia. --BonzoFestoon (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Because (as I wrote above) it is a list of software that has a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Leadtools row was no different than the AnyDoc Software, Scantron, and Readsoft rows. All of those point to articles about the corporation. --BonzoFestoon (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer time is limited, as you just noted, it took a while for someone to notice the Leadtools entry - they apparently didn't check the whole list. If other stuff is improperly included, it should be removed, not used as a reason to keep other improper stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I completely understand. Is it possible to edit those rows and somehow link them to a "stub" page that someone can create when they have time? Would that be better than just removing the entries on the list?  I truly do appreciate your experience and time in answering my questions. --BonzoFestoon (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiplex polymerase chain reaction
Hi, just wanted to let you know I opened a discussion on the talk page about external links on the Multiplex PCR article after you removed the section. Thanks. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Content and citations question
I added content to the Wish list page in 2017 and cited the source. The source has been removed, but the content still stays. Should sources be removed in bulk just because someone else cited the same source incorrectly elsewhere? Techymom (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC). I am looking through Wikipedia to see what content has been added from that site and share it here. If there is value to the content added, can you please add back citations for it or remove the content. For example the page you edited is full of dead links and links that have no referenced content. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wish_list&diff=922863702&oldid=809412393

Someone else contributed it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_gift&diff=922863580&oldid=919698371

And a larger contributions still remains here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridal_registry&diff=prev&oldid=814942351

As well as extensive edits and content added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&diff=922863893&oldid=851831693

In this page there are two dead links and a spam link that still need removed, but the content contribution was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Santa

Would you mind reviewing and giving credit wherever it is due. Techymom (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is obviously reference spam being added by a series of promotional sock puppets. If this link is added again (by any account or IP), I expect it will be added to Wikipedia's blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Muso805's edits
Why are you systematically undoing this editor's edits at album articles? The book they're citing each time – All Time Top 1000 Albums – is sufficiently notable, and often quoted by others, as a guide to best pop/rock albums. I don't think it's necessarily worthy of inclusion in the lead each time, as Muso805 has added it, but they definitely should not be removed in a blanket purge. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is undue weight at best, especially since Muso805 seems set on systematically adding mentions in all 1000 album articles, even restoring them and calling established editors vandals in edit summaries. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's absolute rubbish. In that link you provide, all of the other best-albums mentions are just as WP:UNDUE, particularly 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, and editors regularly go from article to article using the same source when adding that sort of information. And "established editors"? – since when is there any sort of hierarchy on Wikipedia. And Muso805 only said "removed by possible Vandal", anyway. God's sake ... JG66 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What an excellent loophole! If I were to say that your talk page comment was possibly insulting garbage, would that be alright as well? - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so super-sensitive to what someone says when they're referring to something really mindless I've done in article main space. JG66 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ollie. I am adding references from the All-Time Tope 1000 Book to get a fair balance between the Rolling Stone Top Albums published in USA and the All-Time Top 1000 published in the UK with 4editions. I am simply getting the balance right as it is unfair for only the Rolling Stone and other US published sources are mentioned. I need to speak to a senior editor to re instate all these deletions. This is pure vandalism.Muso805 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you really think I'm a vandal, See WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you please answer my last posting regarding 'getting a fair balance' or is there a way of getting this arbitrated as it seems grossly unfair what you are doing/have done.Muso805 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Larkin's book already appears in many album articles, anyway, eg it's been cited in the lead at Revolver (Beatles album) for years. Please respond as other Editor's think what you have done is wrong and must be re instated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I was serious, above. As long as you continue to believe I'm a vandal, no discussion here is going to be accomplish anything useful. Take it up at WP:ANI. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my requests. If your reason for not responding is because of the word vandal, then I will take it back, but I am not going to allow you to make over 100 deletes without having some kind of discussion and arbitration from other Editors. I think what you have done was hasty and you are misinformed about the "citations to research published by a small group of researchers". This book was from the then largest poll of votes (as stated on the cover of the third edition). This book is cited on Wiki many many times over many years. The last book was out in 2000. My main reason for adding reference to this book is to get a fair balance between the Rolling Stone Top 500 and Larkin's Top 1000. There is also many references to 1001 Albums To Listen To before You die -- this book is a collection of albums from a small team of writer/researchers - maybe you are getting Larkin's book mixed up? His book is highly regarded and I think it is important to get the balance right between the USA (Rolling Stone 500) and the UK (Larkin's Book). After all the Rolling Stone book was from writers only -- Larkin's book was a much bigger base of people, including writers, musicians and most importantly the fans like myself. Please enter into sensible dialogue as I hope you will see that what you have done is simply not fairMuso805 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC). PS I have just seen from the cover of the 3rd Edition it states "Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics". That I hope you will agree is not as you state "your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers". I will await your reply and if you are still in dispute then I will seek arbitration. Muso805 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

129.15.133.239
Hi:

Just want an information : why did you have reverted this IP as spammer and demanded to block it? I looked at the references it added to different articles and they are genuine Journals' articles in general. They might not be added all at the proper place but they don't seem to me to be spam.

Pierre cb (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * They were adding a paper by the same author to a dozen of articles, in many cases referencing nonsensical content, such as the article's opening word. Textbook case of WP:CITESPAM. Also, I didn't 'demand to block it', I posted the standard user warning templates for the situation on their talk page, that's all. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the information. Pierre cb (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman edit war
Ive created a dispute regarding this that perhaps you'd like to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman

Additionally, I've reached out to several news organizations to let them know we are seeing some edit wars on a page for a guy caught modifying comments on his site. I also sent them some screenshots of User:16912_Rhiannon from Beutler Ink (paid wikipedia editors) personally selecting opencooper by name to make edits. That individual is the editor I am in the edit war with.

What are your thoughts? Do you think a major news event (Even a negative one) is worthy of a seperate section on Wikipedia?

Complete candor I am documenting all of this for a news story about Wikipedia accuracy and astroturfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are: Use the article talk page. Don't edit war. - MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi MrOllie, would you mind please editing out my surname above per WP:PRIVACY? (I have also mentioned this in a previous note to Siihb, so they're aware not to add it elsewhere.) Appreciate it, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 15:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Intrusion Detection
What was the reason for undoing my edits on Intrusion Detection page? Miklosq (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was more than 2 years ago! I don't really remember, so all I can do is paraphrase my edit summary: You added a bookstore link to an article, we don't do that. - MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluetooth history
I have edited the Bluetooth history section again. Now with references.

The history description has been unchanged for many years at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

This page is of high interest in Sweden since it is a Swedish invention.

The later updated page on the english site has led to articles recently in news which gives a false narrative.

Mats Lindoff who at the time was the person to whom then Bluetooth project reported has also tried to set the record straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matslindoff

Best Örjan Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orjanjo (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:COI, you probably shouldn't be editing this at all. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Duct (flow)
Your note said you removed a link I added in my edit but, I see that you removed the entire section of content I added as well. I could understand removing the link but, the copy as well? I will make the edit again without the link if that satisfies you... I think it's important for people to know "how" ducts come to need duct cleaning in their homes and businesses. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealLikeSnow (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you work for a company that sells duct cleaning services, you should not be using Wikipedia to tell (or imply that) people need to get their ducts cleaned, even without links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kotlin Page Edits
Hello, in regard to your recent reverting of the Kotlin page, please let me clarify a few points.

1. I was not aware of any Wikipedia policy of paid editing, and have no issue in disclosing this and will appropriately update my page to indicate this immediately. In my edit I point out that I work at JetBrains and represent the foundation. There's no ill-intent behind the edit. Also I am not being directly paid for my edits but doing it as part of my role at JetBrains (my employer). 2. The changes are to accurately reflect who is developing Kotlin and who is sponsoring it. In addition it accurately highlights the role of the foundation. The simplification made by the previous change does not reflect this.

Furthermore, the kotlinlang.org site accurately reflects that Kotlin is developed and sponsored by JetBrains. The kotlinfoundation.org site, accurately reflects the role of the foundation which is verbatim what I put in the edit.

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


 * Re 1: Ok, now you know to use talk pages instead of editing articles directly from now on. That you're being paid as an employee and not specifically to edit doesn't matter for Wikipedia's purposes.


 * Re 2: It it was (and is) accurate without your edit, which clearly indicated the sponsorship. Your edit just served to make the text more promotional. Wikipedia isn't here to be a marketing publication. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie I apologise for my lack of expertise in using Wikipedia or this format of exchanging messages, but in regard to the last message on my paint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hadihariri), I fail to see how the fact that I work for JetBrains has to cause a conflict of interest in me correcting inaccuracies on the Kotlin page. I didn't realise conflict of interest and facts are incompatible. Secondly, I fail to see where my English is hard to understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, professional marketers and salespeople often don't understand why their style of communication is incompatible with building an encyclopedia - luckily, you don't necessarily have to understand, you just have to comply with the policies that were linked on your talk page. I didn't say a word about your English. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, the reference to English was from the other person indicating that is unclear. Just wanted to pre-emptively make sure there's no misunderstanding. The edit in regard to the 2nd point is not accurate because it is interpreted that Kotlin is being sponsored and developed by The Kotlin Foundation via JetBrains and Google. This is not the case. The Kotlin team is entirely employed by JetBrains and it is developed by JetBrains, with contributions by Google and other external contributors. This is once again indicated even on the kotlinfoundation.org site. The foundation is not there to sponsor this and there is no financial support to sponsor the development of Kotlin. In regard to it being about promotion, if indicating who is developing and sponsoring Kotlin is promotion, then so be it. Finally, please do not pass judgement on myself. I'm a developer and not a professional marketer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And yet here you are, adding marketing content to Wikipedia about your employer (and not for the first time). Anyway, take it up on Talk:Kotlin with an edit request, if you must. My user talk isn't a good venue. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. I happened to notice this interaction. In case you're interested, Hadihariri has posted about this question on the article talk page. But, that's not at Talk:Kotlin, it's at Talk:Kotlin (programming language). Cheers. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Recurring reverts
Wiki policy advises against reverting (deleting) user contributions and rather proposing amendments instead in the talk page. This is the sixth time you have removed my input, which has taken me time to adapt based on the feedback from the talk page. I feel this is really inconsiderate behavior. I will be reporting it to the edit warring page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimâ (talk • contribs)


 * You have not addressed the substance of disagreements on the talk page. The onus is on you to get consensus for your changes first Not to simply keep restoring them with minor tweaks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. These were small contributions considered important. Hours of my time were taken up rethinking and reviewing the page. Your behaviour is very disrespectful. Each time coming up with something new to block the contribution. If you are unhappy with a contribution  you should rather propose edits to improve the contribution.     Ultimâ (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS again, your interpretation is backward. You need consensus to support your edit. - MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

added reference to blog where elements of the definition of both data lake and data swamp were originated.
@MrOllie, While I am new to editing Wikipedia, my edit should remain. The definitions I find on this page for both the Data Lake and the Swamp are essentially an exact description I have evangelized for over 2 years now. My initial find for the Data Lake definition back in early 2017 was weak and incorrect in many ways. Now, I see almost a direct, word-for-word definition from my blog post. This is of course good, as I believe the definition to be much improved. I am adding a reference to it only. I have created an account now, and perhaps that was all that was lacking. Please let me know if there is something else needed to keep this reference on the wiki page.

DaleTAnderson (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson


 * We don't use blogs as sources for wikipedia, see WP:RS. Additionally, you should absolutely not be linking your own blog on wikipedia. See WP:ELNO and WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * MrOllie, fine, my Blog is not promoting a service or a product, but it is embedded in a software vendor website. I do not work for Talend at this time, but the definitions encapsulated on this page come from me.  What would you propose as the proper citation? DaleTAnderson (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Daletanderson


 * The CIO citation that's already on that sentence seems sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie, actually the CIO reference doe not contain the definition at all, and while I am not asking it to be removed, it does not provide a valid citation. If my definition is to be use, perhaps my article (blog) should be the correct citation. DaleTAnderson (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson

@MrOllie, also I would point out that the blog I reference may easily be considered an acceptable external link as "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." DaleTAnderson (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson


 * You should really read the whole guideline, blogs are specifically addressed in WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie: actually I did read the guideline:

Links normally to be avoided See also: Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:

Official links An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

I suggest that the guideline does not absolutely exclude blogs as citation, but recommends if one is to be given that it is directly 'notable' to the wiki page article. In this case, the definitions of the wiki page are a virtual match to my definition proposed in the blog. Therefore, the citation of the blog is valid.

Of course I want to follow wiki guidelines properly, yet it seems inappropriate not to cite the source of the definition.

DaleTAnderson (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson


 * An official link is something akin to linking Coca-Cola's corporate website on Coca-Cola. An abstract concept does not have an official site. - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie, OK, so what is the proper way for me to have a citation as an originating source of these definitions? DaleTAnderson (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Daletanderson


 * We'd need something published by an independent party in an outlet with some editorial control and fact checking reputation. An academic paper, book from a reputable publisher, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie, that seems a bit limiting. Many articles are self-published or published on corporate website these days. Academia nor any published book cam e of with the information referenced on the wiki page. I was a bit stunned when I found my virtually exact definitions updated on the page earlier this year, with some minor improvements since. How is it possible that the person who creates an accepted definition is not cited?DaleTAnderson (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson


 * Wikipedia is specifically designed to be a tertiary source. We summarize secondary sources, who in turn work off the primary sources. This is necessary so that Wikipedia articles can represent everything in proper context and don't become an indiscriminate collection of factoids. - MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie, when then I'd say it is failing in this case. The CIO reference is not correct, I came up with these definitions, and there should be a way for me to get proper citation. The link to my Blog is a reasonable way to do this. Perhaps we need consensus, after other can read the article and confirm that the content is directly supporting of the wiki page itself. How do we proceed, as not having a citation for me as a contributing reference is wrong. DaleTAnderson (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson


 * Ordinarily I'd say use the article's talk page, but it is a pretty low traffic article. I suppose you could bring it up at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I think it likely that the regulars there will tell you pretty much what I'm telling you. - MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie, I may do that, yet if it is such a low traffic article, then the citation I proposed would be considered minor, yet accurate. I believe that to be fair minded and appropriate without abuse of the wiki guidelines. There must be room for appropriate citations that may be a bit fussy to strict rules. Which may not need to be so strict in a case like this. I suggest the citation stand. DaleTAnderson (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)DaleTAnderson

Heads up
how the heck does this work?!. i added content to address the misuse of the term 'heads up' in place of the correct term which is accompanied by the original patent that is 'head up'. furthermore n o citation is required when a term is grammatically incorrect as it doesnt make sense when a pilot or operator only has 1 head. (most humans as far as i know). if you want people to contribute, citing colloquial evolutions of improper use of language doesnt yield quality reference material. Finally, the method of notification (we removed it and archived it so if you want to put it back with citation you can- or talk to me here) also isnt intuitive and as a result im editing this section as there is no real 'talk to me here' as directed in the notification. heads up is a common miss pronounced version of the correct term 'head up'. its incorrect adoption of 'heads up' is just ignorance. .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorweakness (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOR. A citation is most definitely required. - MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding new parts
Hi and hope you are fine. In pediatric migraine there are challenging discussions about preventive medications. I tried to add some new parts before making an account but they all were deleted. Propranolol is not the best preventive drug in children and right now, Topiramate is the only FDA approved drug in pediatric population. Scholar articles (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at WP:MEDRS - Medical articles on Wikipedia have special sourcing requirements. In particular, they should be based on reviews (particularly systematic reviews) and not primary studies. Yes, this makes Wikipedia lag a bit behind the latest developments. That is by design. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested further reading of freshly released book
Hello, MrOllie!

Thank you for leavening message on my talk page! I put there some questions. I feel really upset that you immediately put the template message on Bloom Consulting page and deleted all my updates from Nation branding page. My intent was just to update pages and give more structure on Nation Brand page, talking about different types of indexes, there is no information about Bloom Consulting country index, but they really do have them. I would appreciate, if you take of template message and maybe give me some hints how to do better, so I would not brake the rules.BalluHome (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A series of single purpose accounts have been trying to add promotional material about Bloom Consulting for years. I suggest you get started on Wikipedia and 'learn the ropes' on some topic that hasn't been tainted by attempts to advertise in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. - MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

My answer: Sorry, I was not informed about this, i am just interested in this topic, later on I might edit some other pages, but I am a bit scared to do that, as I have feeling that it is impossible to add here something, if u are a new user. Maybe I am mistaken.. I will try to edit some other page, lets see how it goes, if I again gone be called as advertiser, then I don't get the point of this platform. If you follow the pages of Nation branding, why don't you update the content with fresh information? I guess that would be ok, as you have the years of experience. I don't want to assault you, I simply would like to understand, who is allowed to update those pages?BalluHome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

FreePascal page - removal of link
Why did you remove the link I added to an example of FreePascal software? Yes, the link was to my software, but it is free and open software, and thus useful for someone who might want to look at what can be done with FreePascal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanv (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a link directory, see WP:NOT and WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There are still many links there (and many you have removed). Who are you to decide which ones are notable? Looking at the ones you removed versus the ones you left, there is no obvious pattern. As I mentioned before, on an article about FreePascal, links to the source code of actual non-trivial applications written in it are useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanv (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The obvious pattern is that I leave links to other Wikipedia articles and remove ones to external web sites. You can read about the reasoning at WP:NOT and WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Supply Chain Page
Hi MrOllie,

I'm curious as to what the problem was with my edit to the Supply Chain page. I added a citation where one was needed, that explained Thomas Stallkamp's (Chrysler) introduction of the term "extended enterprise". Thanks.

B2btech (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed Reference Link from Wiki page
Hi,

Greetings!!

I have placed a reference link in following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel

Which is removed now and got this message from you support: Information icon Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have used following reference link: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/cost/how-much-power-does-a-5kw-solar-system-produce-per-day/

with this phrase: "that produce around 20kw for an entire day"

Please help me out how to add a reference link in page and I was following all the wiki guidelines but still it is removed. let me know where was I gone wrong in adding link.

Regards, Nishantsofttrix (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Nishant


 * We don't use vendor blogs and/or advertising as sources, see Reliable sources . - MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of legit links.
I received a message from you with a request not to add links. I have added one or two over the years but this got me scratching my head. Reason being that the few links I have added were all either legit references or links to exceptionally important additional material.

Things like a link supporting an otherwise unsubstantiated declaration (not made by me), e.g. someone claims some important public figure says X (where the link points the interview in which they say X). Or, a link to a video lecture given by the world leader in a field discussing the branch of that field that he started, on the page where that field is discussed. I am a qualified expert in the fields that I contribute to and hence believe I know the difference between spam and genuine value.

Now I do appreciate that you are aiming to keep this platform clean and spam free, however, in this instance, I think you have reduced the value of the platform. Id be quite a bit happier if you had least had replaced those references with better ones.

Please may I suggest that you 1. take a closer look at what you are stripping out (just because its on a platform designed to look appealing to the public doesn't mean it is promotional drivel. The world is changing), 2. ask before you act, and 3. refrain from interfering in fields you are either not familiar with or where you maybe prone to pushing a particular bias.

I wish you all the best and thank you for all the good efforts you have made.

Enzosinisi (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Every link you added pointed to your own website. These were not 'legit references' - they were blatant self promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ref spam
Dear MrOllie, I'd be interested in knowing you rationale for removing "The critics of opportunism also note that opportunism is a hard to capture concept in empirical studies. Individuals are unlikely to answer truthfully questions about opportunism that makes an “unflattering behavioral assumption” (Williamson, 1995, p. 29) about how individuals behave when transacting ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovelas (talk • contribs)