This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Mr. Ollie,

Responding to your message for editing a Page (Bhagavad Gita - Wiki). I have gone through the article and decided to add a link since the exhaustive information on the page required a summary. I would love to know - How did you come to a conclusion that the link is INAPPROPRIATE. Have you read Bhagavad Gita or any contents of the link I've shared? I am sure not! Out of other 4 links that have been on the page

1 has been forced to remove the content for copyright violation ( https://archive.org/details/Shrimad_Bhagavad_Gita-Sanskrit_Audio) , 2. other is a blog ( https://www.thebookmatrix.com/2020/01/baghavad-gita-holy-book-of-hindus.html An audio podcast summary for the Baghavad Gita is available from the Book Matrix). It doesn't exclusively deliver information about Bhagavad Gita. Rather it promotes the picture of the blogger and their site.

Please help me understand why these links have not been marked by your learned eyes and removed? I cleary see a bias attitude here in removing a link just because it doen't interest you personally for whatever reasons.

The topic I've edited is Bhagavad Gita - A text we learn from our childhood and fortunately I've been teaching it for past 20 years. I've decided to add a link after listening reviews from a lot of Wiki users, who felt a Summary of the text has to be there despite having exhaustive information on the page. Had there been any intention of promotion then I would have done it through a channel that brings audiance that through some anonymus username, and not through one that's intended for information.

I would definitely expect a response here from your busy schedule. Please also help me understand if the policy that you are so loyal about, doesn't ask you to inform a user to remove his additions by himself than removing it first and dropping a message terming it inapproprate without having slightest knowledge about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeesheetal ( talk • contribs)

If there are other bad links, they may also need to be removed, I haven't (yet) had the time to review every link on Wikipedia. But even if there are bad links, that is not a reason to add more bad links by linking to your own website. See WP:SPAM and WP:COI. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,I want to know why you deleted all my part. I described the advantages and disadvantages of product bundling. I think this is necessary. Please tell me the exact reason. Thank you. Tingkai Wen ( talk) 13:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Tingkai Wen, It contained several links to promotional blog posts. MrOllie ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I accepted your suggestion, deleted the inappropriate promotion website citations, and found suitable academic literature support again. Thank you.

Idk why you deleted citation (maybe it was based on you own "anti-spammer feelings". But there were a links to sources, not a random software pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph1993BLP ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Joseph1993BLP, Wikipedia does not use vendors as citations like that, and you are the 6th account that has added inappropriate links to that company. If this continues it will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie ( talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie, May I know the reason why you reverted back my edit on Bhagavad Gita. - MRRaja001 ^{( talk)} 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

MRRaja001, It was contradicted by the contents of the Authorship section on that article. MrOllie ( talk) 19:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: In Indian Subcontinent and the countries around India Vyasa is generally regarded as the author of Mahabharata in which Bhavad Gita is small part. In authorship section they are all the opinions of various authors. But they are not the people who decides who wrote the work right. As far as i know the thing which is widely believed and in usage should be added to infobox. - MRRaja001 ^{( talk)} 14:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

MRRaja001, Feel free to take it up on the article talk page, but 'widely believed' is not the standard on Wikipedia, WP:V is. MrOllie ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: I have sorted out many Indian Hinduism related articles with similar issues. Anyways, I'll discuss about this on talk page, Thank you. - MRRaja001 ^{( talk)} 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, Can I please know the reason for reverting my work on poor posture. It would be very helpful for me to know the reason. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun Neelagiri ( talk • contribs)

I sent you a message about this on your user talk page yesterday. Please read it there. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, Thank you for the clarification and fast response. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun Neelagiri ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Hello MrOllie, can you please help me? Varun Neelagiri ( talk) 02:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Varun Neelagiri, You must read and understand WP:MEDRS if you want to add biomedical information to Wikipedia. Student papers and sites like 'spineuniverse' are not compliant sources. Medical information must be sourced only to very high quality sources, such as systematic reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOlli, can I add the rm section after the lead or at the end? Thank You Varun Neelagiri ( talk) 12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't add it at all in my opinion, it is redundant. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. You rejected my most recent update to QR codes with the following cited reasons: Source is 1) unreliable and 2) does not support content added

I find both of the above assertions to be incorrect, and have asked others who have reviewed the references and encouraged me to circle back with you. Please clarify for me why you categorize programmable web to be unreliable, and how the you perceive that the article does not cite multiple QR code Apis for creating animated qr codes. Thank you.

Pcmillerwiki ( talk) 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Pcmillerwiki, It's a listicle, and it does not contain most of the information you were trying to add to the article. I also suggest that you read WP:COI and WP:PAID, it looks like you may be in violation of Wikimedia's terms of use. MrOllie ( talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Olie

You did not answer my question as to why you arbitrarily judged programmable web to be unreliable. That the article is a 'listicle' in no way makes that point.

Regarding the term 'listicle', as a list, it confirms that multiple entities exist as the article asserts. How is anyone supposed to site that multiple entities exist without pointing to a list? How is validity of the specific subtopic to be established without asserting multiple entities supporting it?

Regarding the notion that the reference does not contain most of the information, yes that's partially true (not fully), but also irrelevant, unless you are asserting that wikipedia entries can contain no valuable information themselves, and are only vessels of pointing to outside internet sources.

Regarding your citing of COI, I think you confuse having the potential of COI with actually having COI.

Regarding your citing of PAID, I can affirm to you I'm not getting paid of compensated to try to improve this article.

````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcmillerwiki ( talk • contribs)

I didn't judge the whole site to be unreliable. However, that article, a top 10 list of APIs based on view numbers, is not a reliable source for anything. Re: PAID, you're splitting hairs that our policies do not split. Someone who works at a company making animated QR codes should not be trying to add content about how great animated QR codes are. - MrOllie ( talk) 03:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie

Regarding your view numbers observation, that is not a reliable measurement for validity in any sense. There could be a website with the launch codes of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal, but you assert that if it has no views, it's not valid? Re PAID, you are wrong again; You are effectively asserting that a participant in an industry is unable to contribute to the community's understanding of available options. This is not splitting hairs, you are simply incorrect in that assertion. Keep in mind, industry participants are frequently the foremost able to contribute to the community's knowledge of a topic, especially on newer applications. Yes, bragging about a particular vendor's superior abilities - or even mentioning the vendors specifically by name - *could* be *possibly* PAID and COI, and I would applaud rational actors in the wikipedia community to guard against that, but that's not being done here, and you know it. Or you are under the influence of a controlled substance while affecting wikipedia community experience. There's no use of the word 'great' in the article update I put up, that is entirely a mental projection on your part. I'm getting strong signals from your approach that you are deeply un-objective and frankly rather trolling-addicted yourself, making the wikipedia user community tangibly suffer for it. Further obstinance and harassment and unobjectively and unprofessional trolling by you could result in permanent banning of your access to / unemployment by wikipedia by the founding organization. That's not what I'm after, but that's what you're looking at. I urge you to reconsider your evaluations for your own benefit. I'm still open to arguments of yours that hold, but each and every one you've asserted fails outright, or certainly upon deeper inspection. There's a fine line between community-interested editor and outright harasser. Where are you going to put yourself? Pcmillerwiki ( talk) 06:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Pcmillerwiki, I find this collection of straw men, personal attacks, and threats unconvincing. If you truly think you will get me permanently banned over this, I'll see you on WP:ANI, but I think we're done here. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEGOTIATE /info/en/?search=List_of_manual_image_annotation_tools Please explain why you are removing links that are valid and well cited? Why do you accuse of spam and negative things when sharing valid info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples and oranges2222 ( talk • contribs)

Maybe you could explain why you showed up twenty minutes after User:Johntorknik to promote the same nonnotable software he was. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Who are you working for? Why do you choose to leave certain software on? Diffgram is noted on this list https://awesomeopensource.com/projects/annotation-tool And there are many tools on there - the ones listed on the current page are not truly any more notable then those tools. Maybe it would be better to delete the page since clearly the definition of notable here is poorly defined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples and oranges2222 ( talk • contribs)

I will take your unresponsiveness as a tacit admission that you are using multiple accounts. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take your unresponsiveness as an indication that 1) you are clearly working for a commercial competitor or one of the firms listed on that list 2) you are not looking to in good faith establish what is the criteria to be on that list

WP:THIRD I would like to get someone else's view on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples and oranges2222 ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If you honestly think that I am working for a competitor to squash your open source project, the place to bring that up would be WP:ANI. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before you post there. You can find the list inclusion criteria on the talk page. Independent, reliable sources are required. None of the sources you are adding (reddit, medium.com seriously?) meet the sourcing requirements. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: Could you please share the written documentation for inclusion criteria for list articles? Jamplevia ( talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Jamplevia, If you have general questions about Wikipedia I suggest you inquire at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

OK Jamplevia ( talk) 12:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The last time I went to the teahouse they disparaged something I was working on. Years later people have made comments on related material that strongly suggests that their advice was not very good. Jamplevia ( talk) 11:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Health Benefits of Solapur Pomegranate.

Medicinal properties present in it makes it useful for health as well as skin and hair. Some other health benefits of Solapur pomegranate are:

Maintain Cardiovascular Health. Beneficial For Digestive System. Control Diabetes. Helpful In Pregnancy. Reduce The Risk of Cancer. Enhance Immunity. Strengthen Bones. Control Blood Pressure. Anti-inflammatory. Beneficial During Menstruation. Help In Weight Loss. Protect Bacteria And Fungus. Relief In Kidney Stone Problem. Fatty Liver Problems. Improve Sexual Ability. Assisting In Alzheimer’s. Useful For Skin. Effective For Hair.What is Solapur Pomegranate?

It is basically a type of pomegranate found in India at Maharashtra (Solapur). The team of ICAR has researched and modified Solapur pomegranate with more nutrients and taste.

Appearance And Texture.

It is dark red colour, weighing around 40-41gm and size of seed is medium. Solapur pomegranate is also called Solapur Lal or Solapur Dry. The growing season of this variety is from November to March. Pomegranates were grown in Solapur in 10th century and during 14th century Solapur got the status of an independent state of India.

This variety is suitable for all age groups. Fruits are sweet but deep red and it is high in vitamin C and E. It is low in fat, cholesterol and maintains an ideal blood sugar level.

Solapur Pomegranate is a part of a healthy diet. According to the research, pomegranate juice helps to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke. It is a rich source of betaine, gallic acid, and kaempferol. Now let’s know about its Health Benefits. Nivideta ( talk) 09:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that my edit introduced grammar errors. You think sentences like these were good English?

Python 2.0 was released in 2000 and introduced new features, such as list comprehensions and a garbage collection system using reference counting and was discontinued with version 2.7.18 in 2020

Python 3.0 was released in 2008 and was a major revision of the language that is not completely backward-compatible and much Python 2 code does not run unmodified on Python 3.

Warlighter ( talk) 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Warlighter, Yes. Certainly better than "It is not completely backward-compatible so that many codes written in Python 2 require modification to run with Python 3." which is clearly incorrect. Is English your first language? MrOllie ( talk) 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You also stated that 'it fixes blatant violations of guidelines'. Which guidelines would those be? What problems are you fixing specifically? - MrOllie ( talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What is incorrect about my version? In what possible universe is three occurrences of "and" in one sentence good writing? Are you high? Warlighter ( talk) 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Warlighter, I'll be happy to answer your questions, but not if you ignore mine. MrOllie ( talk) 18:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: why did you delete everything I wrote — Preceding unsigned comment added by S45353341 ( talk • contribs)

It was unsourced, and contradicted the existing content of the article that was properly sourced. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: Sorry for reverting the change you made on the page Human-Computer Interaction. I realise my mistake and would restrain from such ignorant reverts in future. Nickjohndoe ( talk) 05:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie: my Modal testing edit was completely within Wikipedia rules. What is your problem anyway? Look at the modal test article on Wikipedia and there is several information missing, including my addition that is important - Modal test types. Please let me know what am I doing wrong, because I certainly don't. Why I not allowing to edit the article and citation? Based on Wikipedia rules:

Wikipedia permits editors to use any citation system that allows the reader to understand where the information came from, and strongly encourages the use of inline citations to do so. Common methods of placing inline citations include footnotes, shortened footnotes, and parenthetical references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntu79 ( talk • contribs)

No, the extensive attempts to spam dewesoft links from numerous sockpuppet accounts are not 'completely within Wikipedia rules'. If I see this even once more I am going to submit dewesoft.com to the spamlink blacklist. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

your "Cryptocurrency" revert

I was searching list of all Market Cap for all Cryptocurrencies in this Cryptocurrency, but only found the total Market Cap. I then searched internet, and found the following link is relevant to "Cryptocurrency" .

• [https://coinmarketcap.com/ Cryptocurrencies Market Cap and daily prices]

Regarding to you deletion, I checked Wikipedia:External_links, noticed the following:

"What can normally be linked

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

I feel that the above link is useful. May you look into this again? -- Gluo88 ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you looking this page? http://www.craobhcuigdeag.org/ İs Empty Not page inside, why so delete my link? Not adv. not nofollow, why doing that? I just write blog page and writing English. Why you making that? I'm Not spam. I Do real. Thanks, Best Regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muratbekar ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not link to marketing materials such as vendor blogs. Adding such links is linkspamming. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,
Thank you for your concern about Wikipedia integrity.
We've noticed that you have placed Tranio.com on Wikipedia's blacklist (apparently by mistake). Tranio.com is a high-profileв international platform with an editorial expert team. Tranio.com's trusted and quoted by huge media outlets all over the world. Tranio.com's info from its expert surveys naturally contributes to the articles on Wikipedia on real estate and investment topics. Tranio.com doesn't violate any rules, rightfully mentioning only in reference block. Other users can link to our studies as well as Tranio.com is a well-known source of knowledge.

We ask you to return tranio.com from the blacklist where you placed it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekabug ( talk • contribs)

It wasn't a mistake, it was spammed by a dozen sockpuppet accounts. You probably just noticed this because another sockpuppet, User:ErganolQute, just tried to add another link today and hit the blacklisting. MrOllie ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

At /info/en/?search=Depression_(mood)

You said "individual clinic site as medical source"

This is incorrect. I am citing PHQ9 and not the clinic. I am also citing international research and not research done by a puny clinic.

The surrounding context of the citation is taking about this tool (PHQ9). PHQ9 is a clinically validated gold standard of measuring depression.

At the destination URL the visitor can see:

1. The 9 questions that are in PHQ9

2. Take the scale to see if they have depression.

I have been involved (for good or bad) with this for 10 years now and I might have more knowledge on this. Maybe I should have worded the citation better ?

Knownnotknown ( talk) 14:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

–

I have changed the citation to make it clear that the citation is to a live version of PHQ9 tool and not an individual clinic site.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 14:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, You have been adding links to random small businesses. This is not how we source Wikipedia articles, see WP:RS. Are you affiliated with any of these businesses? Are you attempting to perform SEO? If so, you should know that links on Wikipedia do not affect search engine rankings. MrOllie ( talk) 15:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

-

I am trying to be helpful and become a wikipedia contributor. I am not affiliated with these businesses. I read up on no-follow links when you mentioned it previously. I know that these links do not have marketing value.

I am not adding link to small business in case of the depression tool. That is a real live PHQ9 a clinically validated tool. I truly believe that this citation will help people.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also about my edit to the debtors prison article -- I wanted to improve wikipedia by removing link rot.

I do not know why I am not being welcomed!!

Knownnotknown ( talk) 15:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

--

You keep saying "inappropriate link to random clinic with a journal cite" as the comment when you are reverting my edit.

This is underhanded. I have already explained that the link is to the clinically validated tool that seems to be only available on that website. I am linking to the tool, I am not linking to the clinic.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. We do not use blogs anywhere on Wikipedia, and in the medical space sourcing requirements are even more stringent. MrOllie ( talk) 16:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Have you tried using the tool. This will literally save lives. Trust me I have been there.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

--

Also i find it interesting that all your contribution to wikipedia is reverting edits. We really need a 3rd opinion on this.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, You were just edit warring to put a self published lawyer blog in on another article. Re the medical source (also a primary source, which we do not use for such things): Go to WT:MED and ask which of the two citations meets policy. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There you go once again you choose to ignore what I wrote just 2 paragraph above about the Debtors prison article.

1. I was trying to fix link rot

2. I am not a lawyer and it is not a self published lawyer blog.

3. Now I know that Link rots cannot be fixed with blog links

Trying to confuse others by referring my mistake on debtors prison article while we are debating depression PHQ9 is not fair.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In the above message you say "Re the medical source (also a primary source)"

Are you asserting that PHQ9 is a primary source ??

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, Your ignorance of and apparent refusal to read and abide by Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are the common thread. Yes, it is a primary source. Again, please read WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS), which I have linked for you several times, for what that means. MrOllie ( talk) 16:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again you are throwing the rule book at me. How convenient that this is the 3rd reason you have come up with to undo my edit.

Give me a specific section or line from the rule book.

Knownnotknown ( talk)

If you want to contribute on Wikipedia, especially on medical topics, you must read the whole thing. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the whole thing.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, If that were true, you would not be replacing a peer reviewed medical paper with a lower quality source. Again, if you don't believe me for some reason, ask on WT:MED. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read my comment in the undo log?

"You have replaced a useful citation with a research paper where the 9 questions are listed multiple pages down. This research paper belongs to PHQ9 specific page and not in this context where the tool is being discussed."

This is a discussion of the tool and not about the research on PHQ9. Did you know that PHQ9 has a standalone page which talks about the research ?

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, I read that, yes. Since it is plainly in conflict with WP:MEDRS, that is why I assumed you are unfamiliar with (or refusing to abide by) Wikipedia's sourcing standards. We're talking in circles here. Please take it up on WT:MED, where you will hopefully find someone you are willing to listen to. MrOllie ( talk) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

First you said "this is a primary source" and 5 minutes later you say "it is a lower quality source" and earlier you have said "this is a link to a clinic"

which of these rejections reasons do you want to stand by ?

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, A primary source is a lower quality source, as is a link to a clinic. The three statements all mean the same thing. I'm done here, since it seems to me that all you really want to do here is try to twist my words. Take it up on WT:MED. MrOllie ( talk) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Before we say sayanora to each other. I want to make sure I address your twist of what I have been saying for hours now:

Stop asserting that this a link to a clinic. This is a link to a live incarnation of the tool about which that specific line is taking about.

Knownnotknown ( talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, I will not top asserting something which is correct. At any rate, I have opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression, since you have not do so. Direct future discussion either there or to Talk:Depression (mood) so other editors may weigh in. MrOllie ( talk) 17:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

At Tire_recycling you removed an addition made by me stating as the reason "backlink farming". The information added was obviously relevant to the topic and the page did not have that particular piece of information. Can you please explain how exactly specifying the substantial released when tires are burnt can possibly be a link farming? You also keep removing my reference at Tire_rotation for the same reason? Is owning the reference reason for removal even though it includes relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Murr ( talk • contribs)

I didn't revert you at Tire recycling, that was someone else. But you can expect that you will be reverted by multiple people as long as you're spamming blog links. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

)

Saffysprocket ( talk) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Recently you complained about me adding Z1 Storage on Amazon S3 wiki, under the S3 API compatible suppliers section.

Reply:

Hello there, Z1 Storage is an S3 compatible data cloud provider in Africa, as the page has numerous other providers listed, it's only logical Z1 Storage's link can remain there as well? . Nofollow for URLs is perfectly fine, I'd still like to have that edit on the page. Thanks, Z1 Storage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1 Storage ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1 Storage, Wikipedia is not a venue for your to promote your business, and it is not an external link directory. MrOllie ( talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply:

I know it's not an external link directory :) Z1 Storage is a S3 Compatible cloud storage provider in Africa. Why can't we have it under the S3 compatible section? We are S3 API compatible, in fact, the majority of our service runs this way. -- Z1 Storage ( talk) 13:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1 Storage, I just removed the whole list. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, we should not be maintaining lists of competitors. MrOllie ( talk) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Alright at least it fair now. Have a good one further. -- Z1 Storage ( talk) 14:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there MrOllie

We are correcting outdated information from several years ago, all of which has been cited and take a neutral slant. Certain brand ambassadors have not been with our company for several years (since Obama was President and Harper PM), while others are new. Our company was sold several years ago and yet the "community's" Hydroxycut page does not note this until we made said edits. Also of note, we did not stand to correct or edit any of the negative information out there on the platform, which has been sourced. Iovatehealth ( talk) 23:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC) JD at Iovate

Please read all the guidelines that were linked for you, you should avoid editing the article directly and use talk page suggestions from now on. Wikipedia is not a social media site, and it is not a place to do promotional writing about your company. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

You reverted the recent creation of a page for the public figure J. Hutton Pulitizer, claiming the article was "blatantly promotional." Can you please cite your concerns so that this change can be reverted? Wikipedia itself mentions on the now non-existent page that, "It is a topic more specific than currently provided on the target page or section of that page, and so a subject that may be suitable for expansion in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of notable people."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Loltardo, It was full of promotional language (' highly active technology start-up founder'), ('prolific inventor'), ('11 billion devices utilizing his vast patent portfolio') are just a few examples. More importantly it had zero independent biographical sources. IMDB is not a usable source at all (its bios are written by the subjects), and the rest of the sourcing was either similarly unreliable or trivial coverage. It did not meet Wikipedia's minimum notability requirements. MrOllie ( talk) 17:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, the current article summarizes text-based (NLP) and not image-based (Computer Vision) classification techniques. So I added the research if Computer Vision does add value to the latest NLP classification techniques. Our research shows that visual elements add accuracy to document classification tasks. This was the reason to link the page. What can I do to solve your request "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia."?

Computer Vision does add additional accuracy to purely text-baxed classification of documents by taking into account visual illustrations in documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiaiwiki ( talk • contribs)

We do not use advertising materials such as vendor blogs as sources on Wikipedia. You can 'solve my request' by not adding links to vendors to Wikipedia in the future. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to thank you for deleting my versions on the page "biological immortality" that aren't well done because of source-citing problems. However, I think deleting many information (it wasn't me who added those informations) isn't constructive since they are verified and well-cited articles. This will only make the page less informative for readers. Thus I revocated that last version, please talk here if you need any discussions.

Thanks, Max Exon ( talk) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Max

Please have a read of WP:MEDRS, which outlines minimal sourcing standards for biomedical information on Wikipedia. If something is cited only to single primary studies, animal studies, or press releases, it is not 'verified and well-cited'. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

:I read the article 
WP:MEDRS, and thus I agree that some informations had to be deleted, I already did that in the most recent version. Nevertheless please consider that an information that you deleted was published on Nature, one among the biggest science journals (not primary study) and thus it was indeed verified.

Thanks, Max Exon ( talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Max

regarding the change to Digital Twin Article: I am Sergio d'Arpa and I founded the first clinic in the world that uses digital twins.

My clinic has no concierge or surgery room, it has only been collecting patient data for over three years to build digital twin. The our main activities is digital twin.

In the Wikipedia entry there is not link to my clinic, to my blog or to other advertising link.

The current references are articles I wrote for a telephone company (Tiscali) and on a site of a national association on digital culture (Assodigitale).

I have invested more money for studies how use of digital twin in RCT Randomized Clinical Trial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.31.34.27 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not for self promotion. You should not be adding mentions of yourself to Wikipedia articles, particularly not based on sources you have written yourself. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sychonic. Thank you. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

in Unmanned_aerial_vehicle you are trying to remove a content with 3 references. instead of removing the content please revise the references or remove inappropriate references. please refer to : Wikipedia:Content_removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.113.145 ( talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:UNDUE, we need some indication that someone other than Darvishpoor (is that you?) has used this system of classification. See also WP:3RR, as you are now in breach of the rules on edit warring. You should stop making the same change over and over and establish a consensus in favor of inclusion on the article's talk page. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have provided two other references(5 in total) for you, I wasn't aware of primary or secondary references, please take care about references, while I'm pretty sure about the content but I can't provide any reference instead of scientific papers (which most of them are not open access and you should pay to access, but all of them are published in high-rank journal[progress in aerospace sciences, impact factor~9]).

I send the references again: 1- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042120301068 (the content is taken from this ref, please refer to these figures taken from this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-categories-of-UASs_fig88_349204469, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Classification-of-UASs_fig1_349204469, but I'm sure that similar classifications is used by others as well [in fact this is a completely standard and accepted classification and I was surprised when I couldn't find it in the page, I can also provide some references for each part of that classification], for example two followings:)

2- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278593412_A_Review_on_the_Platform_Design_Dynamic_Modeling_and_Control_of_Hybrid_UAVs (originally this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7152365)

3- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316673697_Classifications_applications_and_design_challenges_of_drones_A_review(originally this: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.04.003 and this open access figure from the paper: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-types-of-air-drones_fig1_316673697)

Although I'm pretty sure that this is a standard classification but I couldn't find it exactly in any other reference instead of [1], but you can find it partially in [2] and [3]. I will not change it again (I wasn't making same change over and over, I just tried to address your comments each time), please take care of it by yourself, if the above mentioned references are enough please keep it, because I'm sure it's comprehensive, standard, accepted, helpful and with a reliable reference, but if it's not appropriate based on Wikipedia's rules, you know...it's OK.

note 1: other classifications in the page including: 1-"UAVs typically fall into one of six functional categories (although multi-role airframe platforms are becoming more prevalent):" 2-"Vehicles can be categorized in terms of range/altitude. The following has been advanced[by whom?] as relevant at industry events such as ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems forum:" 3-"Classifications according to aircraft weight are quite simpler:" have no references. please take care about them as well.

note 2: no I'm not Prof. Darvishpoor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.113.145 ( talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie - I recently made some changes to the Trusted Reviews brand page and these have been disallowed and you have reverted them. You have stated that this broke policy so I just want to see how I get this live in a way that is compliant? The information I provided was factual and the information on the page at the moment is simply wrong. Not trying to game "Black Hat" the system just trying to make sure that all information is factual. Eamonlooney1 ( talk) 16:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read all the links in the message that has already been left on your user talk page. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is also a good introduction. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Why did you remove my addition? I spend an hour on this. Your reason that this does not belong there does not make sense, I often see articles where trends/recent developments are added at the end of the introduction.
2. Even if you think my addition are on the wrong place, why did you completely remove it and not put it to the right place?
3. Why did you remove the new tool I added? There is another tool listed.

Jadzia2341 ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1. If you have seen other articles discussing recent developments in that way, that should also be removed. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spreading the latest developments.
2. I don't think it added much to the article. The point of the article is to describe the process, not to highlight individual implementations that happened to be larger than others.
3. No, there isn't. There is a second external link which leads to a large database of tools. It is not a link that promotes a single tool.

- MrOllie ( talk) 15:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding point 3, that seems right, and I can accept that.

Regarding point 1, the site you referenced has the title "2.9 Wikipedia is not a newspaper". I fully agree with that. But if you read the four points Wikipedia lists there, none of them seem to apply here. Recent development are not news. These recent development took place over the past several years (several years is "recent" in science).

Regarding point 2: The site describes important methods and principles in virtual screenings. The scale of the screening is "method" actually, because it can dramatically improve the quality of the virtual screenings results in terms of potency and the true hit rate. These were 3 Nature paper I have listed as references, and even a News and Views article in Nature about this. This is a highly important aspect of virtual screenings, cause it helps to solve one of its biggest problems: false positives.

Jadzia2341 ( talk) 15:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to have no objection or counter argument, I would then add again my parts about the ultra-large virtual screenings unless you want to add them back again by yourself.

Jadzia2341 ( talk) 23:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Jadzia2341, I continue to think this does not belong on that article, especially not in the lead. Please open a discussion about this on the article's talk page rather than my user talk, perhaps someone else will weigh in there. MrOllie ( talk) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki. In edit source I used few external links for reference purpose. every time I do edit is removed. If anyone can answer to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajsharmaBond007 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki and I have few objection. It will be great if you can answer to it. Robot_competition on this wiki link, there is a list of robotics competitions. I added one of the prestigious international competition in this. If you have objection to add external link, its fine but did wiki removed information of new competition. How would you consider it advertising if its a information of competition? By your definition, I should consider everything is an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajsharmaBond007 ( talk • contribs)

On that article there is a list of major competitions that are each notable enough that they have a dedicated Wikipedia article. That is not the case for what you were adding. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So you mean to say, there should be various articles to be written from different users including me, then only I'd able to update the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajsharmaBond007 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If reliable, independent sources exist to support the article, sure. See WP:AFC for how to get started with that. I should also note that if you are associated with this competition in any way WP:COI and WP:PAID may apply - which means that you may be required to make disclosures as described on those pages. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie—Thanks for pointing me to the WP guidelines on contribution. However, I do not agree with your comment that neural network compression is largely "off topic for [the data compression] article". You could have a look at data compression papers published in the past five years (in e.g. Proc. Data Compression Conference). Are you a data compression researcher yourself? J6ancmvs ( talk) 21:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the example "Electric Vote" from the liquid democracy article? I believe, this example fits very well with the other examples for liquid democracy. The platform is open source and the removed passage was clearly not promotional in my opinion. Deleting the entire "Liquid Feedback" entry also does not seem justified to me (e.g. LiquidFriesland, which was left in the article is based on LiquidFeedback). As mentioned above: Please tell me, if there is a misunderstanding... otherwise, I would prefer to undo your removals... thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5BA0:10:F105:0:0:0:1000 ( talk • contribs)

It was promotional and had no independent sourcing. Wikipedia is not a directory, so should not be used to make lists of nonnotable examples. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

On the talk page for User:Joesequino, under the heading February 2021, you rightly flagged a concern that this user is an undisclosed paid editor. I share this concern, and posted evidence that he is in fact the Vice President of Marketing at Winning Moves.

Josequeino has now at last responded to your posts on his talk page, so you may wish to follow up. Gregorytopov ( talk) 14:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could you please add some justification on why you removed the following references on adaptive just intonation? ("rm vendor sources / mentions" is not comprehensible to me)

1. http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx => tonalsoft is a freely accessible encyclopedia on "microtonal music theory" and no "vendor source".
2. http://www.hermode.com/example.html => this reference contains very helpful examples on adaptive just intonation. Hermode tuning is a well established integrated feature in many professional DAWs (e.g. Ableton, Logic Pro, ... - all of these DAWs have a separate Wikipedia article). I wouldn't consider this a "vendor source" as Hermode doesn't seem to sell their technology directly to end customers...
3. https://justintonation.tp3.app/ => this is a free software from the university of Würzburg and helped me a lot to get some practical experience with adaptive just intonation. This also is not a "vendor source".
4. https://wmich.edu/mus-theo/groven/compare.html => this is a reference to the groven piano project from the Western Michigan University. It contains some nice examples of adaptive just intonation and definitively is no "vendor source".

... I understand, that one has to keep Wikipedia cleaned up, but I believe the following references add value to the article and should not be removed. Please tell me, if there is a misunderstanding in my explanations... otherwise, I would prefer to undo your removals... thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5BA0:10:F105:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, we do not list examples or add links for the sake of having links. If you'd like to help with building such directories, curlie.org is a decent site that hosts such things. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I somewhat disagree. Originally, you stated that the mentioned references were removed because they were "vendor sources / mentions". This is clearly not the case. Now, you state, these references would form some sort of "dictionary". I believe, an article should cite its sources and http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx is definitively one of the sources for this paragraph. And to my knowledge, substantiating a paragraph with relevant examples does not contradict the Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory-policy or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5BA0:10:F105:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 23:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your Talk page. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

DriverSafety speaking. Why did you remove this section: Medium-cost driving simulators offer a practical compromise by matching training needs with the minimal requirements of a realistic driving environment. For example, the information drivers require is predominantly visual <sup>[1]</sup> Novice and aging drivers are frequently involved in traffic crashes at intersections. <sup>[2]</sup> Therefore, a 180-degree forward field of view on simulators would be ideal to train drivers to safely negotiate intersections in real traffic. <sup>[3]</sup>

Each statement is referenced to published research. No commercial product is referenced. The information contained in this passage is intended to inform and educate. Please explain why you removed it. DriverSafety ( talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not for advertising, and it is inappropriate for someone who works at a company that makes medium cost driving simulators to add text to an article talking up how great they are. Promoting the industry in general is nearly as bad as promoting your company in specific. It is also an example of WP:SYNTHESIS, combining sources to make a point that none of them make individually, which is foribidden by Wikipedia policy. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

This page describes driving simulation and provides information for interested and uninformed readers. Commercial brands are mentioned, like SEGA. Should that section be removed? The National Advanced Driving (NAD) Simulator is described. The university that houses that simulator rents it to commercial interests and also markets NAD mini-sims to driving schools. Should mention of NAD be removed? This page also mentions cost considerations, i.e. high- and low-cost driving simulators. Isn't that a form of industry promotion? This page repeats unverified claims that low-cost simulators are considered "good enough". This claim is not referenced and not information is provided about selection criteria for goodness. Why mention any anonymous claim if it is not examined or explained. The text you removed on medium-cost simulators added information to a section that was describing (therefore promoting) an industry. The additional information was included in an effort to help readers understand criteria (from published research) to consider in an evaluation of simulator quality. The adjective "great" was your your inference and your addition, not mine. The text I added merely explained what a driving simulator is capable of doing with details similar to the detail about the six-axes motion system. All the references to simulator research still on the page mention simulator manufacturers by name in the method sections of the articles. None of the research references you removed described research that was conducted by the manufacturer. Each of those studies was conducted by university researchers who collected and analyzed all the data and the studies were published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. One of the studies even won a prestigious award from the Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. Such awards are not given for commercial research. None of the photos you removed had any commercial branding. You should be truly fair and remove every single photo from that page that shows a commercially available simulator. MrOllie, please reconsider your edits. It appears to me that you are confounding valid, objective information about driving simulators with self-serving promotion. If any form of industry information is against Wiki's policy against commercialism, why not remove all the pages on flight simulators, a major industry? Why not remove the company page for CAE, a manufacturer of flight simulators? I believe that you are throwing out the baby of education for Wiki readers with what you mistakenly perceive as the bathwater of promotion. Respectfully DriverSafety ( talk) 10:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You should focus less on what mentions your competitors may or may not be getting and instead focus on complying with the COI and paid editing guidelines. Don't add promotion (especially not synthesis) and don't add photographs of your company's products. You really should not be editing that article at all. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, You did not reply to my questions. I follow the Wiki rules to the best of my ability at all times and accept all my fellow editors corrections without question when I have unknowingly broken a rule that I understand. I do not understand your corrections. I am knowledgeable about driving simulation because of my industry experience and I am acutely aware of knowledge gaps and misconceptions tolerated or promoted for commercial gain. My goal as a Wiki editor is to improve the quality of the information on that driving simulator page for the benefit of the general public, so people can learn about driving simulation from an objective source, and not from a company brochure. Wiki is a great source of free and trustworthy information. Please review the other numerous edits I have already made to that page to improve the sense and clarity of the information there. Is it really Wiki's intention to have incorrect or incomplete information available to the public. As an editor, you and only you can see a direct link from me to the company, but nothing I have recently added to the public page shows or indicates such a promotional link or motivation. Aside from alleging commercial motivation, please specify how my edits have been promotional vs. educational. Respectfully DriverSafety ( talk) 13:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have replied to those questions as much as I'm going to here. I understand that you don't like the response, but I do not view it as my role to argue about tangential issues with paid editors. I have reviewed the edits you have made to that page, which have inserted promotional mentions of your company, attempts to build demand for its products, photographs of your company's products, and citations to papers written by your company's employees. It really is Wikipedia's intention to leave information out when it is tainted by promotionalism. If you don't move on to edit on something unrelated to your professional interests, I think it is very likely that your account is going to be blocked as soon as an administrator notices what you have been doing. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I will not argue with you. I both respect your point of view and resent your allegation that everything I have added to the driving simulator page is tainted by promotionalism. This is inaccurate at best. Generic photos of simulators do not exist anymore than generic photos of cars do. These are commercial products. Why deprive readers of Wiki of images that do not show brand names? I have tried to respect and work within the rules of Wiki. I never tried to bypass these rules to promote my company's product. Wikipedia may be the only place where an interested party may learn about driving simulation from someone who actually understands driving simulation. Are you qualified to write about this subject? Are you even interested in this subject? My contributions are not about product promotion. They are about public education. All the research I cited was conducted by third party researchers and peer reviewed. There was no promotion in those scientific articles. The research articles advanced knowledge about a subject, driving-simulator based training, that has the potential to save lives, lives lost due to systemic ignorance about driving risks that is best addressed in the safe environment of driving simulators, like flight simulators for pilot training. But the use of driving simulators as training tools is not advanced when there is little objective information available. The public generally does not read scientific journals. The public generally reads Wiki. Wiki is the place for informing the public in a non-commercial way, which is what I did and have always done. You do not agree. I will not argue with you. You win. The public and the Wiki community loses. DriverSafety ( talk) 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a doctorate and i jave extensive research publications under my name. Since my blog is new doesn't mean that my content is poor. Jasky786 ( talk) 08:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we just don't link to blogs. See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie ( talk) 10:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Ollie,

Although you've reverted my suggested links, I still feel these add value to the readers as they are official websites to these businesses and can't be found elsewhere on the page. Can you pls reconsider? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaBoomer ( talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia we don't add external links in the middle of articles like that, and practice is to add one external link to the external links section and/or the infobox. We don't add multiple official sites. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why removed Uses and Benifits of Recurring Deposit? New Basti user ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie—after some final consideration, I am still convinced my edit there (which you have reverted) is of general interest to the public. If it is the particular reference which I have included that bothers you, would replacing it with this review paper (which cites the original reference I included) solve the problem?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-020-0174-8

As you may already know, photometric stereo is an old, classical vision problem. It's not like there are a bunch of "competing" methods trying to stand out from the crowd. J6ancmvs ( talk) 19:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a classic problem. We should avoid cluttering up our pages on classic problems with lengthy digressions on extensions that aren't relevant to a lay person's understanding of the main topic at issue. In any case, the proper place to discuss this sort of thing would be Talk:Photometric stereo. Other interested editors will not find this discussion on my user talk. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it—thanks. J6ancmvs ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Should one wait indefinitely until given the go-ahead by an established editor? I could pen the section under your supervision. J6ancmvs ( talk) 20:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,
After trying to contribute to Wikipedia with the info from Tranio.com's expert article it turned out that the website is on the spam list. I added some info about Viennese cafes statistics and put a link to Tranio's original survey in the 'References' section as it said in Wikipedia rules. What did I wrong? How can I contribute further? Please remove Tranio from the blacklist as many users refer to it when it comes to real estate statistics.
It's well-quoted on the Internet (Bloomberg, the Times, Guardian, etc.) RE platform, not a blog, so don't kill it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErganolQute ( talk • contribs)

Tranio registered a dozen sockpuppets to spam us, it is not going to be removed from the blacklist. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't prove that it was Tranio who registered these sockpuppets, so you can't just put it on the blacklist. Probably these were the competitors who tried to drown the website. And the competitors have the whole spam pages on Wikipedia while nobody cares. There were just the references to Tranio as I can see. Anyway, references to the articles and surveys successfully complemented the Wikipedia articles. See tranio.com metrics: DA 53, spam 1 % (MOZ), 260k visits per month (SimilarWeb), Trust Flow 19, Citation Flow 63 (Majestic), well-indexed in Google (~44k indexed pages). Blacklist the accounts, not the trusted website! ErganolQute ( talk) 02:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't really care who was doing the spamming. There was spamming, and there is no reason to think that spamming won't resume if it is removed from the blacklist. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am not being paid by my employer for these changes, though I am associated with media I referenced using two legitimate news sources. I have no personal or profitable stake in it, nor was I requested by my employer to add a reference in. The podcast is closely associated with the family of the victims (as they advocate for themselves and their family members who are the three women mentioned in the title of the page). It just made sense to add it in since the family of the Springfield Three is associated with the podcast. Bookphilia ( talk) 15:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That's still a conflict of interest. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why the list of platforms was removed from the Microstock Photography page after my edit? I am just trying to understand if I did something wrong. Expressive101 ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie, can you provide update on the above Expressive101 ( talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we generally do not build lists of vendors per WP:NOT. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I saw the list already there, and thought to add a relevant detail, but I understand now. Thanks! Expressive101 ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to delete; not sure how to pose a question directly to an editor. Article MASTER FRANCHISING You mentioned "we don't use blogs" but I didn't link to a blog. Also you reverted to "hands over the control of the franchising activities in a specified territory" That is simply horrible language; "hands over control" is hardly language that should be in an encyclopedia, no? I am new here, so I don't want to revert changes back to my changes; I realize I am likely missing something. Kindly explain?

Franchisemichael ( talk) 21:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)M.P.

Franchisemichael, I was referring to the spadelaw post, which is a blog in all but name. In any case have a look at WP:RS. We don't use self-published sites as sources. It is very, very common for law firms to throw up this kind of stuff as a form of SEO, they should not be cited. The other link you added was pretty obviously self published sales material as well. RE: 'hands over control', the encyclopedia should have some level of formality, but we do want to write in a vernacular the average person understands. The additions you made were overly technical. We want the opening sentences to be as easy to understand as is practical. MrOllie ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Your link specifically says don't use self-published websites about a person. The fact is that ALL websites are in some way self-published; whitehouse.gov is self-published by the U.S. Government. In fact the only type of website I can think of that isn't is a site that primarily uses User-generated content; which is a prohibited source. One of the partners at this law firm (which I have no association with) was one of the people tapped to be one of the original Rule Review Commenters for the original US Franchise Law and has been practicing franchise law since before there was federal law ( https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/04/12/06-3395/business-opportunity-rule).

RE "hands over control" is a colloquialism, and even the as used is inaccurate.

"gains the sole rights to recruitment of franchisees in its geographical territory, and also the responsibility of training and supporting the same" is formal, but far from technical. The most technical word in that statement is "geographical".

Having said that perhaps "is granted both the right to recruit new franchisees and takes on the responsibility to train and support new franchisees within it's territory" would be more in line with your stated preference (if that is more than a preference can you please point me towards the wiki rule?)

RE: FranMart; that was a lazy add. I was introducing a term (sub-franchisor) and they were an easy reference. I will find a better one for when we collectively agree on how to make the opening paragraph not read like a 6th grader wrote it. Franchisemichael ( talk) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)MP

MrOllie I know this page is also self-published, but I believe it would be a suitable reference for sub-franchisor definition. https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/081507050K3.htm. 22:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)M.P.

All web materials are not self published, no. Consider something like nytimes.com, where a journalist needs to put their article through an editorial process, or a scientific journal's website, where submissions must be first accepted by an editor and then peer reviewed before publication. RE: using a legal code, we consider that a WP:PRIMARY source, which is sometimes allowed, but use is generally discouraged. If you have questions about how sourcing works on Wikipedia, I suggest asking at WP:TEAHOUSE, there are many helpful people there. The present lead may look it was written by a sixth grader, but at least it is also understandable by one. "a franchising contract in which one party (the franchisor) grants a license similar to a standard franchise license, but with additional rights and obligations to a second party (the master franchisee). Specifically, generally the master franchisee has gains the sole rights to recruitment of franchisees in its geographical territory, and also the responsibility of training and supporting the same." reads like the intended audience is a law student. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie nytimes.com is in fact published by The New York Times. More to the point you took the rule you linked to out of context. Irrespective and moving on.

Your critique of my original post is well-taken, I will assume that you then likely find my re-write acceptable, though I see a couple of opportunities to make it more concise and reader-friendly. I will use https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/franchising_past_meeting_materials/2011/w18.pdf as a citation for sub-franchisor; it likely doesn't need a citation, anyway, but it is a new term being introduced. I assume you accept that, though "It is very, very common for law firms to throw up this kind of stuff as a form of SEO," this particular citation's credentials are suitably backed up and not just a "BLOG". Franchisemichael ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)MP Per your most recent edit, the aba citation stands for both.

Franchisemichael, I have no problem with citing the bar association, but self published pages put up by individual law firms are not what WP:RS has in mind. MrOllie ( talk) 23:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie your opinion on that came through loud and clear, and since the ABA citation supports the entire paragraph I left your removal of the citation. I think the matter is too bed (with entirely more back and fourth then should be needed; I haven't had that much exchange with most of the magazines I publish in but such is the ways of a democracy...). I, for one, consider the matter handled if its handled to your satisfaction. Franchisemichael ( talk) 00:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)MP

Hello Mr ollie, i had edited a page titled salesman(Wikipedia). Infact i just added two sentences about the TRAITS a salesman must possess, without copying from any source. I say it again...just two sentences. I demand a proper explanation for removing my edit. Mageshwar Selvam ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mageshwar Selvam, Material on Wikipedia must cite a reliable source. See WP:V and WP:RS. You can't just add your personal opinion to an article. MrOllie ( talk) 18:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok fine, I will add proper citations to my edit Mageshwar Selvam ( talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Why was my edits removed and I had shared the link to the Business model Canvas that I designed to substantiate the difference and also the explanation is available in my blog on linked in. Why is that deleted? Palecanda ( talk) 14:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to add things that you designed (see WP:NOR) nor is it a place for you to promote your blog, see WP:ELNO, WP:COI. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

I've just edited the List of home automation software page to add Domoticz, one of the 3 most used open source home automation controllers. It was really strange that a so important project was not listed, I thinked.

Then, I clicked on Domoticz red link to create a draft of Domoticz page, and I've seen that that page already exists and it was disabled on March because it seems to be an advertisement.

I'm just a Domoticz user, I use it for my hause. Domoticz is a free open source multi-platform software released with GNU GPL license, so it can be used by anyone freely. I've read the original Domoticz page (now disabled) and it seems to be ok, similar to openHAB and Home Assistant pages from my point of view.

Please can you review the Domoticz page and enable it, as like as my edit in the List of home automation software ?

Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psubiaco ( talk • contribs)

No, that draft needs substantial rewriting and sourcing improvements before it can be approved. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, my source clearly established the AAMC did Not include any veterinary or podiatric medical school in any MCAT validity study. The link is here: [1]

Why do you continue to remove the edit, without any reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5A06:2A00:FDEC:D7D:2D42:9ACE ( talk) 06:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, see WP:NOR. If you want to add that to the article, you need a source that specifically says that. - MrOllie ( talk) 10:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, the sources from the AAMC specifically state what schools were included in the MCAT's validity studies. If you visited the above source and read its content, you would see what schools were included and would see no veterinary or podiatric medical schools were included. There exists no interpretation of the source on my end. In case you do not know much about the subject of the article you continue to edit, allopathic schools are MD-granting medical schools and osteopathic schools are DO-granting medical schools. Where in the source I listed, did it not say what schools were included in the validity studies as you so claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5a06:2a00:e01f:93ec:ac1f:736f ( talk • contribs)

Drawing attention to particular categories is the problem, and is the original research. We also don't say they didn't include any schools in Iowa, because secondary sources don't note that. MrOllie ( talk) 17:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC) - MrOllie ( talk) 17:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The AAMC markets its MCAT product for use in podiatric and veterinary medical school admission markets and its MCAT product is widely used in these markets. The particular statement draws attention to a particular fact the AAMC has conducted no research about the validity of its product in these markets. Wikipedia does not forbid content in articles that "draw attention to particular categories" (I am not certain what you meant to say with that statement). I will continue to undo your edits as they are vexatious and do not aim to enforce Wikipedia's Terms of Use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5a06:2a00:90b3:eafd:7f89:ae96 ( talk • contribs)

We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you continue to edit war in direct opposition to Wikipedia's policies, (In this case WP:NOR, which I have linked for you several times) I'll just ask for the article to be protected and you won't be able to edit it further. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, your edits are vexatious and Wikipedia will not support your attempts to protect the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5a06:2a00:7d7f:72ef:cd71:5f3a ( talk • contribs)

If you really believe that, the place to report it is WP:ANI. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you an example MrOllie , Yts used to be an extremely popular torrent site but it was shut down a few years back. But in place of this anew yts has come along and become almost equally popular. This is clearly a clone and not part of yts brand. But in the case of EZTV it is same site just stolen by other people and run by them. That's the difference. PeakyblindersOMGS ( talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No, this is factually untrue. They are domain squatters who took the domain name and nothing else. In any case, you should be discussing this on the article's talk page, not my user talk. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback! This is my first edit and I'm learning how to use Wikipedia. I'm in no way affiliate with the website nor promoting the product or website. I randomly choose an article I found and thought it was an additional reference to the "K-Beauty" entry. If that does violate any policy, I would love to know why? What product is it promoting? It took a look at the nature of skincare and where it may be headed in the future and in particular in the US. I take all your feedback as an insight to better learn how Wikipedia cites sources, and how to edit a source. Thanks a lot Perseverance4444 ( talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance4444, We don't use sponsored content or other forms of advertising as sources for Wikipedia. - MrOllie ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input MrOllie. I would like to know what makes you think that the content is "sponsored" does the content is labeled as "sponsored"? Is it the tone of the article, structure of the text? Images? Please if you can specify. Perseverance4444 ( talk) 00:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance4444, it says 'Courtesy of AMWAY' at the bottom. It is obviously a paid advert. - MrOllie ( talk) 00:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No that is not the case for this article. Not all articles with the mention "Courtesy of" are paid articles. This is your opinion. Since the Magazine is featuring artists, brands, and creative professionals, all mentions below are credits added at the bottom. Having said I appreciate your fast input. Anything else apart of the "Courtesy Mention"? Perseverance4444 ( talk) 00:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance4444, It is full of promotional mentions of Amway. It is plainly an advertisement. - MrOllie ( talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie I may understand your point. As per your information, Amway has built the Asia Beauty Innovation Center in Seoul regarding the K-beauty products, so it is more than obvious that the brand is mentioned more than one time!" Perseverance4444 ( talk) 01:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop it. Just stop it. You are way out of line. Chicago Smooth ( talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all of your Wikipedia edits are attempts to promote Currie. If anyone is out of line it is you. - MrOllie ( talk) 00:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

someone has to make an effort to promote Currie when he has all of these racist editors attempting to diminish his notability. I challenge you and any editor on Wikipedia to name an African-American dating coach for men that is more notable than Book Author Alan Roger Currie. I challenge you to. The man is an award-winning former comedian, the first major African-American men's dating coach in the Pickup Artist industry, and he has a number of national television appearances and nationally syndicated radio appearances. What else does this man need?? Chicago Smooth ( talk) 01:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

He could well be the most well known 'African-American dating coach for men', but that doesn't mean a thing if the entire category exists below the notability bar. Have you ever heard the expression Damning with faint praise? - MrOllie ( talk) 01:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

my simple question is this: why was Currie's page here on Wikipedia initially approved in March 2015 and remained active for five plus years? It was only removed after a racist editor decided he did not like it, which is total B.S. If Currie was truly "non-notable," then his page would have never been approved in the first place. As I said once before: If Currie is deemed "non-notable," then the following people should also be considered "non-notable": Ross Jeffries, Steve Pavlina, Tony Gaskins, Dan Peña, Zan Perrion, and Roosh V. If those men's pages remain active indefinitely, then I would consider it extremely SHAMEFUL that Currie's page is not reactivated. #FACTS Chicago Smooth ( talk) 01:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Smooth, Perhaps whoever reviewed it in March 2015 simply made a mistake and it took a while for another editor to notice that. You should assume good faith rather than assuming everyone involved in the multiple AFDs is a racist. Perhaps you should consider that the sources required to demonstrate that Currie passes the notability guidelines simply don't exist. As to your other examples, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. MrOllie ( talk) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

could care less about reading that "OTHER STUFF" crap. It's B.S. Sorry, but I will continue to believe that most of your editors are racists and incredibly inconsistent when it comes to enforcing your B.S. "notability" criteria Chicago Smooth ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please could you let me know how talking about an important invention in 3d printing is promotional? No mention of a company has been stated, a relevant citation has been added, what is the issue? Why can't LCD printing be discussed in 3d? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharliarmy ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Tharliarmy, Who says it is important? A churnalism rewrite of a press release is not sufficient sourcing. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I think most people involved in the 3D industry would say it is important, just the same as all the other updates to technology that have been noted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharliarmy ( talk • contribs)

'I think most people' is not the sourcing standard on Wikipedia. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of content and citations to the herpes virus article: I don't understand why you keep deleting the herpes virus treatment supplement and my quote. This is the source from a health journal: <<link removed>> This article does not mention the name of the drug, the doctor... So why? Would you consider a commercial spam post? This is my first time on wikipedia, Phong. Vuvanphong99 ( talk) 02:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has minimum standards for medical sources, which you can read about at WP:MEDRS. Your link does not qualify. - MrOllie ( talk) 03:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Social_network_analysis&oldid=prev&diff=1027045266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxbox ( talk • contribs)

Links to Wikipedia pages should not be formatted as external links, and should not be in further reading sections. They can sometimes go in the see also section, but only when they are not otherwise linked in the article. The page you added was already linked higher up. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. IDCOVReveal ( talk) 18:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Be advised that IDCOVReveal reported you at WP:COIN. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ElKevbo ( talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What's good!?

Bryant frontskin ( talk) 13:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion here. Thanks. Bwrs ( talk) 01:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have given reason why Holi is not primarily a celebration of Radha Krishna Love, it is a festical which started in the Satayuga following defeat of Demon King Hiranyakashyapu. In the Dwapar yuga (which come after the thousands of years later), it assumed another aspect of Radha Krishna love. But that is primarily in the Braj region, rest of India Holi is about victory of good over evil, hence the Holika Dahan that takes place before Holi celebration. There is no Radha Krishna ritual associated with Holi celebration outsde Braj region. If it was about Radha Krishna love then the festival would have been celebrated only among couples, not with family and friends and the community at large. Shatbhisha6 ( talk) 03:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been reverted by another editor as well. The place to make your case is Talk:Holi, not my user talk page. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know what were your reasons to revert those edits. Was it because the other editor did so?. Shatbhisha6 ( talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your reversal of my recent edit to temporal network, you seem to be under the impression that self-citation constitutes conflict of interest which is not the case. I'm pretty sure you agree that knowing about a subject to the extent of writing scholarly articles about it does not disqualify people from writing about that subject it on Wikipedia. Please consider reverting you reversion. Arashbm ( talk) 00:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Arashbm, As WP:SELFCITE says 'When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it', that is restating the preferred procedure used for conflict of interest editing. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not (and was not) in doubt about the relevancy or excessiveness of the added content. Are you in doubt about these criteria? I added a medium sized paragraph with multiple well-reputed published citations, in compliance with content policies. I happen to be co-author of one of those citations. Of the other citation in that article, I or my current or former supervisors are/were directly or indirectly involved with almost every single one. Same is probably true about almost everyone else seriously and actively working on this subject. This is a very well-known phenomenon when working on a relatively niche subject. Are you in all seriousness suggesting that no subject matter expert in a niche subject can edit articles on their area of expertise without asking for permission first? I'm pretty sure that's not how this Wikipedia thing is supposed to work. Arashbm ( talk) 01:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie You keep reverting my edits without trying to resolve your misunderstanding (or mine) through discussion. The guidelines are in plain and clear English: There is no burden of proof on me here, and it is the original author that is in charge of deciding whether they need to ask the general opinion about their edit or not. I'm clearly not in doubt about relevancy or excessiveness of this edit. If YOU have doubts, feel free to take it up here or in the talk page or dispute resolution or anywhere else. As you clearly ceased communication, other than through the revert button, since my last comments, I'll give it a couple of days and re-evaluate. I really don't recommend reverting my future edits for the third time given your apparent history of engaging in edit wars and avoiding conversation. Arashbm ( talk) 18:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Arashbm, When someone else has reverted you, as a COI editor you should not repeat your self-citations. If you would like to ask for more input, WP:COIN is a good place to ask, or perhaps WP:TEAHOUSE. I do not view it as my role to argue with COI editors ad-nauseum. Or, of course, as a subject matter expert, you should be familiar with a range of sources from others, you could cite one that doesn't 'happen' to have your name on it. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looks like you should be asking for more input, since you are the one making accusatory claims about my academic integrity. But I'll let that slip. I'll ask someone else to comment on this. Arashbm ( talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Arashbm ( talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I disagree with your removal of the MANUFACTURER list from the Voice logging page. Note that these are NOT VENDORS (e.g. VAR resellers or car dealers). Here is another page which lists MANUFACTURERS: Automobile industry. Please revert.

stevens94 ( talk) 19:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Vendors, Manufacturers, same difference. Wikipedia isn't a directory. - MrOllie ( talk) 01:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that you haven't removed the manufacturer list from the Automobile industry page. Can you explain your inconsistent interpretation of the Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevens94 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The situations are different. Automobile manufacturers are independently notable, voice logger companies are not. What you're trying to do is more like adding a list of local plumbers to the article on plumbing. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the manufacturers on the Voice logging list are publicly traded international corporations, e.g. NICE Systems and Verint Systems. They aren't plumbers. How is this different than auto manufacturers? What exactly is your definition of "independently notable"? - stevens94 ( talk) 12:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:N. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific. Are you suggesting that I create a new page entitled "List of Voice Logger manufacturers", and then link from Voice logging page? Also I still don't understand your reasoning that auto manufacturers are OK and voice logger manufacturers are not. - stevens94 ( talk) 13:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that Wikipedia is not a directory and lists of nonnotable companies are off-mission for this encyclopedia. If you would like to maintain such a list you should set up your own website and do it there. RE: the auto industry, you are comparing apples and oranges. The Auto industry is a large portion of the world economy and is written about extensively by independent press, including a large auto-specific specialist press. That simply is not true of the voice logger industry. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain your assertion that the multi-billion dollar voice logger industry is not a "large" portion of the world economy (please define "large") and is not written about extensively (it is indeed written about extensively)? Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to provide info about industries that YOU don't understand? I've been working in the voice logger industry for 15+ years, and this page is extremely useful for others in the industry (particularly for owners of old discontinued equipment which have no web presence). You seem to be more concerned with policing the site under your personal interpretation of the guidelines. I'm very disappointed in you MrOllie. - stevens94 ( talk) 13:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, please also see WP:COI. The phone book is useful, too, but, again, Wikipedia is not a directory. We don't host everything that people find useful. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

On June 6, 2021, I added a new line to the finite element software list for the Software FlexPDE, which you deleted a few minutes later. Can you please tell me why? I have been using this very inexpensive script-based FE solver for many years here at the university in science, education and commercial applications. From my point of view, the program should be considered in this list. Gottkehaskamp ( talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie

This is regarding your reversion after your previous revert was undone due to suspected vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Reverting subsection titled " Explain reverts". Please respect the time spent by other authors on creating content by giving them a reason for your reverts. Your pattern of constantly reverting articles without providing reasons, as demonstrated by protests from others on your Talk page, will only serve to disenchant new content creators who spend several hours researching and adding useful content only to see their valuable time and energy wasted away callously without even the courtesy of an explanation by you. Explaining reverts will also serve to educate new authors to create more standardized content.

Now to the topic on hand, the reason given for your reversion was "again, see WP:MEDRS, we generally do not report on animal studies or single human studies. Systematic reviews should be used." Are these new rules you have created on your own? Where is this mentioned in WP:MEDRS?

WP:MEDRS clearly states that "Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader." My new additions regarding animal studies clearly and explicitly mention that they are just that.

V/R,

ChiranjiviVyasa

ChiranjiviVyasa ( talk) 19:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I generally do give reasons, that others are not satisfied with them is a separate issue. Have you read all of WP:MEDRS? I think the parts about animal studies and systematic reviews vs. primary sources are quite clear. Your previous versions did not clearly indicate that the animal research is probably not pertinent to human longevity - thank you for correcting that. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and for acknowledging the change in placement of the animal studies content.

However, I am still confused by the interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Perhaps, this is because there appear to be other single studies on humans in the article as well that are clearly not "literature reviews or systematic reviews". Should we go ahead and remove all of them, along with their associated content? Just wanted to make sure since I'm new to this, and do not want to end up vandalizing the page inadvertently. ChiranjiviVyasa ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are other sourcing problems, yes, they should be fixed, either by improving the sourcing or removing the content if only primary sources can be found. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	I've seen you around, you do an exceptional job on fighting spam on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping. Pahunkat ( talk) 12:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

removal request of unlawful affiliated site on this page ht t p s://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Comps_(casino)

reference number 18 has no relation to the topic and uses page for placing the affiliated site. JustJason.F ( talk) 12:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie I did not understand why did you considered a public domain images about Islamic Hijab inappropriate for Wikipedia can you please give me a clarification ? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by لانا مزهر ( talk • contribs)

See WP:ELNO. If you would like to contribute images you may upload them at commons.wikimedia.org. We shouldn't add an external link to another site, though. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand why the paragraphs I have added to different exercises is reverted. It is information that is neutral with a reliable source, still it is removed and reported as spamm due to unreliable source? The source added is a workout website with detailed description on how to do different exercises. Since the gym exercises cannot be written as "How to do" but need to be neutral and informational on Wikipedia it is important that the reader can follow another link where they can see how to perform exercises. The sources used previously to the paragraphs posted is mainly books which is not easy to get.

I have read the wikipedia guidelines several times, but I still do not understand how my posts are seen as spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygreatness ( talk • contribs)

You're spamming links to your website (problem 1) which does not meet our minimum standards for a reliable source (problem 2). If you have 'read the wikipedia guidelines several times' you have definitely not understood them, because this is clearly not allowed behavior. Please reread WP:SPAM (particularly Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam, WP:RS, and also WP:COI and WP:PAID since this is apparently your own web site. To be perfectly clear, do not link your site again. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Zencardo ( talk) 05:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC) I would like to say that I added some best information about the relationship coaching which is from a proper site that are expert in this domain. The only motive was to add some value to the particular article about relationship coaching since it is verified by some top icf accredited relationship coaches. I hope that you understand my point and re add it as it will help the readers who are also trying to pursue career in this field.

Hi MrOllie, I don't understand why my additions to Sultan Choudhury's wiki page, and the Islamic Banking and Finance pages were removed? I can add them again without adding links but I was just trying to cite sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AreebSiddiqui14 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for individual banking services. The advertising is the problem, not the links. Mentioning vendors by name is not appropriate, and most people of note sit on lots of boards, so mentioning one company in particular (with promotional text attached as well) is also not appropriate. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I know you're removing edits with good intentions. I agree that we don't want [Single-purpose account|single purpose accounts], undisclosed [Conflict of interest|conflicts of interest], or academics [who just plugging their paper on every page| /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam]. I also understand your inclination to trust a long-standing wikipedia editor over someone new like myself or my student (who was learning to add to Wikipedia to he too could make good faith contributions). I've taken on board the suggestions of yourself and your colleague to disclose COIs, I've also made good faith attempts to improve the reliability of the entries by leveraging better, more reliable evidence (the page was seriously referencing a youtube video before my edits). Still, you not only reversed the edits but reversed other contributions that strengthened the encyclopedia. I have made every effort to ensure my edits were "good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Can you please help me understand what you see as the ongoing problem? Can you please outline what you see as the way forward? Noetel ( talk) 00:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Noetel, The way forward is to use the talk pages to request edits when you are conflicted, as you have been doing. If there are any other students waiting in the wings, please ask them not to restore your citations to articles - they are just as conflicted as you are. Please wait for neutral editors to respond to your edit requests, and please be patient, that process tends to get quite backlogged, or, alternatively, try your hand at adding some information that doesn't have anything to do with you or your close colleagues. As a subject matter expert I expect you are familiar with a range of sources of diverse authorship, why not make some additions based on those? MrOllie ( talk) 00:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I encourage most of my students to edit pages that have nothing to do with mine, but Asghar wanted to share this paper because those pages were so poor. I'll ensure they don't edit things related to my work. However, when someone who has nothing to do with me reviews one of my talk requests, implements my edit, and you undo it, it's hurtful. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mindfulness&action=history I am trying to make this a more reliable space for people to learn. I'm learning how to do it right and following all the community norms. Your reversals make that feel futile. Noetel ( talk) 01:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you are under the misapprehension that I am a student of Noetel, you are quite wrong. I have no CoI with respect to Noetel's work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Chalst, No, I'm not. That discussion is in reference to a different user with only a couple of edits. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie People generally contribute to things they know. Nobody prefers to poke nose in places where they have no knowledge. There are several external links above the link that I have added. I clearly see a biased approach in removing links. I have added citations wherever I have additional resources that can be used. If Wikipedia is to operate like this then every page on Wikipedia should be stand alone page with zero external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucha31 ( talk • contribs)

You've been systematically spamming links to an unreliable source across more than a dozen articles. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am citing those articles because I have read them. Did you go through all those articles? Tell me rational for removing each and every link. Tell me how the topic was disconnected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucha31 ( talk • contribs)

The 'rationale' was that you were systematically spamming an unreliable blog for the apparent purpose of advertising. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not rational but your bias. If you are unbiased remove all these external links in Principal Component Analysis:

ALGLIB - a C++ and C# library that implements PCA and truncated PCA Analytica – The built-in EigenDecomp function computes principal components. ELKI – includes PCA for projection, including robust variants of PCA, as well as PCA-based clustering algorithms. Gretl – principal component analysis can be performed either via the pca command or via the princomp() function. Julia – Supports PCA with the pca function in the MultivariateStats package KNIME – A java based nodal arranging software for Analysis, in this the nodes called PCA, PCA compute, PCA Apply, PCA inverse make it easily. Mathematica – Implements principal component analysis with the PrincipalComponents command using both covariance and correlation methods. MathPHP – PHP mathematics library with support for PCA. MATLAB Statistics Toolbox – The functions princomp and pca (R2012b) give the principal components, while the function pcares gives the residuals and reconstructed matrix for a low-rank PCA approximation. Matplotlib – Python library have a PCA package in the .mlab module. mlpack – Provides an implementation of principal component analysis in C++. NAG Library – Principal components analysis is implemented via the g03aa routine (available in both the Fortran versions of the Library). NMath – Proprietary numerical library containing PCA for the .NET Framework. GNU Octave – Free software computational environment mostly compatible with MATLAB, the function princomp gives the principal component. OpenCV Oracle Database 12c – Implemented via DBMS_DATA_MINING.SVDS_SCORING_MODE by specifying setting value SVDS_SCORING_PCA Orange (software) – Integrates PCA in its visual programming environment. PCA displays a scree plot (degree of explained variance) where user can interactively select the number of principal components. Origin – Contains PCA in its Pro version. Qlucore – Commercial software for analyzing multivariate data with instant response using PCA. R – Free statistical package, the functions princomp and prcomp can be used for principal component analysis; prcomp uses singular value decomposition which generally gives better numerical accuracy. Some packages that implement PCA in R, include, but are not limited to: ade4, vegan, ExPosition, dimRed, and FactoMineR. SAS – Proprietary software; for example, see[75] Scikit-learn – Python library for machine learning which contains PCA, Probabilistic PCA, Kernel PCA, Sparse PCA and other techniques in the decomposition module. Weka – Java library for machine learning which contains modules for computing principal components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucha31 ( talk • contribs)

Those aren't external links. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

At some point they all cite external sources.

Yes they all cite external links, they just consolidate that info. Stop erasing other editors hard work because you are on some kind of crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.101.68 ( talk • contribs)

Please read WP:RS. Wikipedia has minimum sourcing standards, and blogs and web stores do not meet those standards. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS. Has exceptions for newspaper/magazine blogs if you bothered to drill down. Watches worn by notable persons have many commentaries in such blogs. You seem fixated on removing “blog sourced” citations…it’s not always the case blogs are considered unreliable, you have to consider what the particular subject is. 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 01:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources in question were not newspaper blogs, none of the exceptions apply in this case. I agree that it is not always the case that blogs are unreliable, but it is nearly always the case. Thanks for your improvements, it looks like only the crownandcaliber.com still needs to be removed or replaced. MrOllie ( talk) 01:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and I appreciate your consideration of my viewpoint and understand and concur on your position on most blogs, tried to accommodate by replacing citations to sources without obvious ties to commercial websites marketing watches, which WAS a problem. Hopefully it will resolve the issue. Feel free to replace the crownandcaliber.com with a more acceptable citation source, or if one can’t be found-then remove the content yes. I prefer to retain content that editors have worked on but may have questionable citations by researching and replacing such with acceptable citations, rather than deleting entire swaths of constructive content due to bad citation practices…comes across as heavy handed when this is done and somewhat disrespectful of possibility inexperienced editors who are spending time trying to be helpful and informative but might not be familiar with every page of the (often arcane and incredibly voluminous) Wikipedia rule book…I sure don’t know most of it! 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 04:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, I see there are two promotional links available on the Indira Gandhi National Open University page under the reference section. Reference no.13 & 15 are not anyhow connected to University and they are private websites for AdSense. Please do not allow such promotions on Wikipedia. Pls, respect the guidelines. You are systematically providing marketing links & misinformation to Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuj823 ( talk • contribs)

The presence of other inappropriate links is not an excuse for you to add your own spam link. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Finally you removed all the spam links that good. However, Wikipedia is a public forum it does not give you a license to misuse it. If you misuse it others will also attract to the same. Hope you will not add more links like this later.

Hello Mrollie, just returning the message and I won't be editing pages how I was which is good to know as I had received some incorrect information, can you point me in the right direction for proper Wikipedia editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmoa ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, thanks for your point regarding too many self-citations to the article on the privacy paradox. I apologize and want to state that this wasn't my intention. So far, the paragraph was outdated and one-sided; for example, offering the perspective of the privacy calculus I believe is crucial for a better understanding. So if you may, I will now reintegrate my original changes, while citing only two of my own articles, which are necessary for the arguments. Please get back to me with further feedback you should have. Fyi, I've written the privacy paradox page for the German wikipedia, which was received favorably. Thank you! TobiasDienlin ( talk) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see that you deleted also the two citations I kept in the article. I understand that you want to prevent excessive self-citations, and I honestly agree. But surely it's by definition a grey zone, and trying to prevent self-citations should not come at the cost of clear reductions in quality? Also, I feel treated a bit unfairly: How can I possibly falsify the accusations? I deliberately use my actual name here to be transparent. I cannot imagine you would have deleted those two citations if you hadn't known my name? I will now reintegrate the two citations, because they are a crucial empirical support for the points made. They belong to the most cited papers on the privacy paradox and the privacy calculus ( Link Google Scholar ; Link to Google Scholar), and including them surely improves the article. But I'm happy to consult others and accept if they don't agree with my perspective, or please provide quality or content-related reasons for the removal of the links, and I'm very happy and open to discuss them. Thank you! TobiasDienlin ( talk) 07:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

TobiasDienlin, Even if you hadn't used your own name, I think it would have been obvious given the number and type of self cites. It is not appropriate to edit war in self citations, especially not to tilt the article toward your own views on the subject. This is exactly why we have WP:COI guidelines that say you should not be making these edits yourself. MrOllie ( talk) 11:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that my first edits included too many self-citations. Overall, and if I've counted correctly, I've added 14 citations, and 5 were from articles I coauthored. So I agree that this can be considered excessive, and I apologize. However, please remember that by now I've removed 3 self-citations, and my final edits contain only 2 self-citations, both of which are I believe central to the field. I have read the COI guidelines regarding self-citations, which are as follows: "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." I'm of the position that adding two self-citations out of 11 citations overall shouldn't be considered excessive. Also, it is certainly true that I'm now adding the perspective that the privacy paradox phenomenon is debated; however, this is nothing to criticize. Instead, it is making the article more balanced overall, given that many (and in my perception the majority of) scholars indeed question the existence of the privacy paradox (see Gerber et al., 2018), a position which was completely absent so far. I'm convinced that my perspective is legitimate and fair, but it seems further editing or discussions with you will not be fruitful. As suggested by the guidelines, I'll now put my thoughts in the articles' talk page, and will see what others think. I folks agree with you, then I'm of course happy to change my opinion here. Thank you. TobiasDienlin ( talk) 11:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, For your information, I've now addressed the case in the article's talk page. Please let me know if that's okay or the way it should be done. I'm new and still learning how to use wikipedia correctly, trying to understand norms and behaviors. Thank you :) TobiasDienlin ( talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings MrOllie,

I would like to reach an agreement on this revert.

The reason for the revert was "WP:UNDUE weight on fringe view".

If "fringe view" refers to the concern for suffering of non-human animals in wild nature (WAS) in general, then I don’t think the reason applies. One reason is that WAS has been recognized to the extent that at least two charities - Wild Animal Initiative and Animal Ethics - are fully dedicated to the problem of WAS. (Wild Animal Initiative is on the Top Charities list of Animal Charity Evaluators. <sup>[1]</sup>) Then, several other organizations (including the Center on Long-Term Risk <sup>[2]</sup>, Sentience Institute <sup>[3] [4]</sup>, 80,000 Hours <sup>[5]</sup>, Rethink Priorities <sup>[6]</sup>, the Centre for Effective Altruism <sup>[7]</sup>, Sentience Politics <sup>[8] [9]</sup>, the Center for Reducing Suffering <sup>[10]</sup>, and the Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering <sup>[11]</sup>) have dedicated some amount of their work to the problem. And several authors and academics have published on the topic. <sup>[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]</sup>

Another reason for not rejecting WAS as a “fringe view” is that it can be argued that WAS is just an extension of the established and widely recognized field of animal welfare.

If "fringe view" refers more specifically to spreading WAS beyond Earth, then, as I cited in the reverted sentence, the risk has been discussed both in academic papers and in research articles. One can also independently argue that if WAS and space colonization are legitimate topics warranting their own Wikipedia articles, then the risk of Earth-originated extraterrestrial WAS is justified to have at least a mention in the space colonization article.

Based on the above reasons, my current view is that at least a brief mention of the risk of spreading WAS beyond Earth is justified.

The only counter-argument for adding the mention that I can think of is that the risk of (Earth-originated) extraterrestrial WAS may sound like a science fiction. But so arguably is space colonization, which has an extensive article nonetheless. And if colonizing other planets is discussed as a future prospect, then, one can argue, the risk of extraterrestrial WAS is similarly real.

What do you think?

ObjectiveSubjectivity ( talk) 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you should be bringing this up at the article talk page, not my user talk. Other editors will doubtless wish to weigh in. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Why was my edit on MP3 player reverted? There is nothing advertizing about it whatsoever. It is a study that gives the main manufacturers of these products. It is not backed by nor supportive of any specific company or brand. I therefore do not understand the reason why this was reverted. -- Gammbow ( talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't name drop particular companies, and we don't use press releases as sources. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Then how can we add this vital information to the article? See a article like Personal computer or Smartphone have sections that show sales/market share of manufacturers of those markets. Somehow this MP3 player should have this too. -- Gammbow ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If the only source is a press release, it isn't vital information. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think the pictures are advertizing then how about keeping the images as examples (of dictation devices) but without mentioning the brands (Olympus and iRiver) in the caption? That should be neutral and totally legal. -- Gammbow ( talk) 14:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't illustrate anything in the article in any meaningful way. Wikipedia isn't a product catalog, we don't need branded photos of things. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Care to create a category on Wikipedia after Superjail!? -- 73.6.75.134 ( talk) 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. I refer to your edit here: [2]. I am assuming good faith. Can you please explain in a bit more detail what the issue was with all three of these sources? I'm not seeing a problem. All three sources passed through review at both GA and FAC. Damien Linnane ( talk) 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They were part of a pattern of self citation by near SPA User:Macdorman - MrOllie ( talk) 16:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to express my appreciation for your messages addressing the three topics raised. I am a new "editor" and have been busy as you have noted. Please know that nothing edited has been with an intent of bad faith or personal gain. I cite research which is viewed important by peers and sometimes I have been a contributor. Most often, these peer-reviewed scientific published articles have been leading ones on the topic and add richness, more complete information on a topic. Too much pertinent information is not clutter or harmful. Of course, I do realize you are not saying they are. I will remain cognizant of your concern as I move forward. Thank you again for your vigilance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castinglight ( talk • contribs)

We do have guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:MEDCOI for a reason - while the occasional self cite from an expert editor is allowed, we should not see the same name over and over in your edit history. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, appreciate your comments but as an expert (not self-proclaimed) in the fields of medicine and law, is ones work not to be cited just for purposes of conforming to a rule? I am pleased to cite all pertinent work by others as well without being excessive but citing the most important contributions in my opinion. I am pleased to entertain any work you may wish to request I perform for Wikipedia. Thank you Castinglight ( talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Castinglight, The COI guidlines are built around the idea that what is most important in your opinion is often skewed by matters of professional pride. Afterall, you wouldn't have spent your life working on something if you didn't personally find it important. If you are primarily here to cite your own work, the process we have for that is to use article talk pages and the requestedit template. You can find specifics in the guidelines page you have already been linked. If you are here to build an encyclopedia in general, as a subject matter expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources from diverse authors, why not cite some of those? MrOllie ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me state that I am not here primarily to cite my own work but I was not aware that an editor who happens to be recognized by peers as an expert must refrain from citing work recognized by others as significant. Furthermore, I have only been "here" for less than a week and I do expect to continue to help assist with certain pages for which I have expertise but have not published. You may notice that I do not self-promote within a page, neither entering my name or pontificate on some supposed importance of work over anothers. Most are one to two sentence edits rounding out a subject so that the reader gains broader understanding, and adding reference. I do take your point and I do hope you, mine. Sincerely Castinglight ( talk) 23:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I do hope you noted the number of edits I have contributed where I do cite references of which I am not an author/ contributor. Castinglight ( talk) 23:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I do note that you are unfairly reversing contributions in your own subjective opinion as COI. Please examine ones own behavior, thank you. Please restore. Castinglight ( talk) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Castinglight, This is not my 'subjective opinion', it is clearly a COI. If you would like to get more opinions, you may ask at WP:COIN, but you definitely should not edit war your citations back into the articles. MrOllie ( talk) 23:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sir, If you are fair, you would: 1. see that not all edits involve my work. 2. there is no self promotion or COI. Castinglight ( talk) 23:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I do feel that you are unfairly targeting. It is not coi. How am I too address this? Castinglight ( talk) 23:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely doubtful that anyone who does not hold a COI would see it that way, but, again, feel free to seek more opinions at the appropriate venue, which would be WP:COIN. Do not edit war to keep in citations to yourself across multiple articles, that is a great way to get an admin to block your account as soon as they notice what is going on. MrOllie ( talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel if you are unwilling to try to reach a resolution other than undoing nearly all my edit contributions then how to move forward? you have not addressed concerns i have raised regarding your characterization of my edits as coi and of course the edits i have made where no references have been made only textual. I hope you think about this some more and restore. No edit wars. I am new to this and no harm, no foul but the works cited and comments made were important. Castinglight ( talk) 23:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For the wiki record, because that is what this is, you have removed references where they were sorely needed as there were not provided in the pages you "restored", undoing the addition of references citing primary sources for the reader. In some cases, the most comprehensive report on an entity and/or the subject. You ought to re look at that. Thank you. Castinglight ( talk) 00:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Castinglight, Per WP:MEDRS, Wikipedia doesn't cite primary sources anyway. MrOllie ( talk) 00:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Point taken. As stated earlier, new here and havent memorized the handbook. Again, just want to make clear to you and for the record that i have no COI here and no self promotion intended despite your perceptions. Merely thought all that was being contributed was acceptable. Simply that. Thank you. P.S. of course, nearly all wikipedia science, technology, medicine pages are replete with primary source references. You could have used that reason for most of the references I added instead of claiming COI for everything. Castinglight ( talk) 00:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Castinglight, If you're citing yourself (lots of articles) and changing/adding content about yourself (( 2010 United States Senate elections , List of pathologists)_ , you have a COI. That's what the term means. Wikipedia is a big place and volunteer time is limited. If there are other problematic references, that is a reason to fix those references, not to add more problem references. MrOllie ( talk) 00:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have learned a lot from you. Thank you. I will remain cognizant of this conversation in future work here. Have a pleasant week and thank you for your time. Castinglight ( talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am not understanding why you have re-edited the "Legal Origins" entry.

I was just re-establishing the version that was posted from 2016 until some months ago when someone improperly cancelled the discussion of the most recent and advanced part of this theoretical and empirical discussion. To do so, I added a discussion of the strand of literature considering legal institutions as a rational social choice. As you can easily check on google scholars, these papers are cited hundreds of time by the most prominent scholars in law and economics If you are not an expert, please allow someone who isd to re-establish the correct summary of the existing knowledge. Isn't this the sense of wikipedia?

All the Best, Mwiki101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwiki101 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia takes a very dim view of registering new accounts to evade blocks and to try to evade scrutiny, especially to promote the works of one particular academic. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MrOllie, I noticed that some points discussed on the page are not referenced too, and that's why I didn't actually reference it. I also don't understand why you are being so particular about providing a reference when I add something in this article, so please do explain the reason to me. It seems that you have changed the way I added a sub heading to make the first few paragraphs a little easier to read, and I didn't really understand why. Thank you. Kripa36 ( talk) 04:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Kripa36, Any unsourced content may be removed at any time, see WP:V and WP:RS MrOllie ( talk) 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How about the sub-heading? Kripa36 ( talk) 13:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead section summarizes the rest of the article. Moving part of that summary into another section was not an improvement. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of my edits have been reverted, I am an academician, I have no time to register in an account. I want only fill the gap of the content of Wikipedia which lacks to be desired ... most of the content is inaccurate, or bad. Or simply badly written. The ref I added is well-known scholars whose citations surpass the 5000 citations. Reverting me this you are making harm to Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should be written by scholars, not lay people. I am trying to help but you are reverting my edits. charles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.57.106 ( talk • contribs)

You spammed your name onto more than a dozen articles, this is blatantly inappropriate. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not spamming anything my name is Charles, and I am placing citations of other colleagues .. do you see my name in your entries?. I do not know what do you think is inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.57.106 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia keeps records of all edits. We all know that Korstanje has been spammed multiple times over the years. You aren't fooling anyone. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Korstanje is a well renowned scholars with more than 7.000 citations and one of the fathers of dark tourism fields. Why I am unable to cite him?. Peter Tarlow is the father of tourism security, I cannot cite Peter Tarlow either too?. If you deal with academic themes, you have to follow academic rules. Encyclopedia are filled the voices of renowned experts, this is not like to have a lot of authors in an entry. Many of the cited experts in WIKI entries are not leading scholars. They are not renowned experts. I feel you reconsider your stance. Korstanje records here. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=srtyQKMAAAAJ&hl=es&oi=ao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.57.106 ( talk • contribs)

Just stop spamming Wikipedia. ≈- MrOllie ( talk) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings MrOllie I have been working on the edits of Dr Davis, as you would know. I just wanted to run by a few links from you before editing them. During my research I came across the Nobel Peace Prize 2007, which was given to Al Gore and IPCC. Upon further research I came to find that Dr. Davis was one of the lead authors of the report and team that won the Nobel. I have also found out that in 2012 IPCC has clarified that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to IPCC as an organization and not to any one particular individual. This made me think, whether or not it could be said, "Davis worked as one of the lead authors and team lead for IPCC, on the report that won the Nobel Peace Prize." I am mentioning the links below and awaiting your guidance.

https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=319 (This link of the report and at the end of the page, here name is mentioned under the heading of "Lead Authors".)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150525014000/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf (This link is the public statement from IPCC.)

ClimateShield ( talk) 20:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ClimateShield, I wouldn't personally. You should raise it on the article talk page, other editors may wish to comment. MrOllie ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie Ok.

tell me, please, how corporate self-promotion (whalewisdom( https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=whalewisdom&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1&ns0=1)- 10 links,insidermonkey( https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=insidermonkey&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1)- 12 links) differs, or maybe, corporate spam not spam at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poul Revere ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited. The presence of other problem links is not a reason to make more work for us by adding more spam. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

///so, you prefer deliberately close your eyes on corporate spam, even if provided with proof? very comfortable, if not also profitable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poul Revere ( talk • contribs)

• Poul Revere, we clearly don't close our to corporate spam, which is why MrOllie reverted your additions of spam links. And if you do that again, you will be blocked. Now, if you intend to improve our beautiful project, you might could look at those other articles and remove any spam links. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Dear MrOllie, those hedge fund articles are awful. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Drmies, They sure are! 1 part promotional text to 1 part listing routine business activity no one really cares about. But at least we are accurately mirroring the flaws of the financial press, I suppose. MrOllie ( talk) 16:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

so, eventually, no disabling for these links their authors, no blacklisting for the corps, only small talks with a threat to me

Drmies, MrOllie, in a matter of fact, even if I waste my valuable time for free and edit those spam cases instead of you, your ClueBot NG count it as vandalism and reverting, so you could keep protecting corporate spammers such as walewisdom, gurufocus, insidermonkey, and so forth as you please, you are confirmed hypocrites. Under disguise of spam-fighting, you just provide pro-corporate censorship.

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I just received your message regarding our contribution to Wikipedia. We are not a large corporation. We are a small Indigenous social enterprise from a remote community in Northern Canada that added a factual category to the Wikipedia page "Hand Warmer". While the use of links to our website may violate rules, the complete removal of the sheared beaver fur product category is not accurate nor a reflection of available hand warmers. We have since revoked your complete removal of the hand warmer type. The citations remaining do not point to our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmhougan ( talk • contribs)

With or without the links, and regardless of how large or how small your organization is, Wikipedia is not a site to place advertising content. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nor, Seanmhougan, may you edit on behalf of an enterprise, as you state above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us. Would you be so kind and add the sheared beaver fur category to the product page then so it represents factual and full information? I'm confused as to why you have not flagged the link going to Zippo's website? That is a corporate website that sells one of the product categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmhougan ( talk • contribs)

No. That page is about powered warmers, chemical or electric. What you're writing about are mittens. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

They are not mittens. They are fur inserts that act in the same way as chemical inserts by insulating one's own body heat. Small piece of sheared beaver fur that is inserted into a mitten like the chemical inserts. The title of the page is "Hand Warmer" which encompasses just that. Sheared beaver fur hand warmers do all things listed in the introduction paragraph:

• held in the hand and produce heat on demand to warm cold hands • commonly used in outdoor activities • other types of *sheared beaver fur warmers* are available to provide soothing heat for muscular or joint aches

learn more here: <<link redacted>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmhougan ( talk • contribs)

You're describing a mitten. That's what a mitten is. If you wear it inside another mitten, that's just wearing two mittens. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I added some of my OWN published content, and this is deemed 'promotion'?. It is a source of multiple publish information, written by myself. I'd like to provide this information for others, so am confused as to why I don't meet the criteria after having read what was required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hawkins ( talk • contribs)

Yes, linking your own content is considered promotion. Also, self published material does not meet wikipedia's sourcing standards. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are so many links to random reptile care-sheets (some are awful) from just regular people with a website. My content is peer reviewed for publication in various magazines, etc, and are used by many. I'm just trying to provide relevant, updated, and importantly, correct information.

Dear MrOllie,

I am new to providing content to Wikipedia, so perhaps I lack some basic knowledge, but why is my addition of TICS to the list of static code checking tools removed? And more importantly, what should I do to get it back on again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeBeeJee ( talk • contribs)

That's a list of software that already has an article. If you would like to start an article see WP:AFC and Help:Your_first_article MrOllie ( talk) 16:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Olli I am afraid you are wrong with your notations. We have this public up which belongs to a computing center depending from a public well known university. This IP is used by professors and students, probably some of them are detractors or exegetes of M. Korstanje, he is a specialist in tourism but we have no links to him. Please avoid to block us for this reason. we are not starting any campaign. Many students edit Wikpedia content because it is part of the curricula. Jose Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.57.106 ( talk • contribs)

Stop spamming his name (or take a walk down to his office and ask him to stop) and you will have no further problems. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

no intention to disturb. Korstanje lives in England, not here in Argentina .. probably a student was populated Wikipedia with his references I have no clue really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.57.106 ( talk • contribs)

How strange, several pages around the web say he works for a uni in Argentina. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not know really where he lives now, I attended a conference two years ago where he was a keynote speaker. he was working in Leeds U, West York, UK. I know Korstanje is included in my syllabuses and educational programs -as mandatory bibliography even here in the University of Buenos Aires, I bet a student want to introduce him obsessively. He hates social media and is not active on the net.

MrOllie, I noticed the wikipedia policy. While it does warn against the spamming with "excessive self-citations", my contribution of two citations have no interest in promoting the authors of any of the publications cited. The purpose of contributing to the page is to provide a highly relevant scientific information which is peer reviewed and found to be evidence-based. So I do not agree with your accusation of spamming, self-promotion and self-citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshmsk ( talk • contribs)

You should also read WP:MEDRS. Your citations don't meet minimum standards for sourcing biomedical content on Wikipedia. Peer reviewed is necessary, but not sufficient in the medical space. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, can you please give me a proper reason for revert changes...? That will help me to understand your point of view. Skpa87 ( talk) 06:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Skpa87, You wrote your personal opinion into the articles and did not write in encyclopedic tone with statements such as the 'specs are decent'. MrOllie ( talk) 11:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for response, I will keep in mind. Skpa87 ( talk) 19:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie is there a reason you deleted all of the changes recently made to Aging in Place wiki? 162.129.250.20 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary, they were full of citations to blogs, advocacy groups and other unreliable sources, inline external links, and tables of data that do belong in a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie ( talk) 00:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am from Wikipedia I am a Wikibot don't revert my edits because we are writing true poet name not spam so from this time don't revert edits from Wikibot. This is last warning to you don't revert edits which is done by wikipedia I check past edits done by users so I saw you that you revert an edit after that I research about that person which you revert edits so I saw that the person is a real poet so I have write about him.

And another last warning if you revert edits which is done by any person without researching about it you will be blocked. Wikibot Research of Reverted Edits ( talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikibot Research of Reverted Edits, You're not fooling anyone. Just stop spamming your own name on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 12:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The customer totals that are cited for the carriers are outdated and inaccurate. See here.

AT&T considers any SIM card on their network to be a "customer", while Verizon and T-Mobile do not include wholesale or M2M or IoT customers in their totals like AT&T does. Each carrier reports their customer totals differently, making an accurate ranking impossible. For example, the Wall Street Journal is reporting here that T-Mobile surpassed AT&T, and is now #2, which would make AT&T #3 (not #1 as the Wikipedia article claims). AT&T's CEO also confirmed that they are #3 in customers here. Dnywlsh ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to update with more recent sourcing, do so, but you should not say sources that are only a few months old are 'outdated' and delete. That WSJ source you're citing here is older than the stuff you were deleting. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The numbers being cited were from 2020, and were around 1 year old. They were very outdated, given that several quarters have passed since then, and the carriers recently reported their Q2 2021 numbers. Dnywlsh ( talk) 19:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

May of this year is two months old. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to Verizon/AT&T, which you also reverted for no reason. I see you have a long history of reverting edits without valid reasons. Dnywlsh ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer that to a history of deleting things without valid reasons. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no such history. I deleted the information which was incorrect. The customer totals were incorrect, and the carrier's rankings were incorrect. I provided sources for that. Dnywlsh ( talk) 16:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to say but I have to warn you for your behavior in Wikipedia You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. , Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Front-end web development, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Hacker8679 ( talk) 11:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, I myself is a front end web developer I tried to add more information to the page but you reverted the changes for what? Adding the correct information? That page need a lot of editing its full of outdated info. I don't know what you think Front End Web Development is, better go search about it on Internet and kindly give proper reasons when you revert the changes. We all here are trying to add proper info in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacker8679 ( talk • contribs)

See WP:V and WP:NOR. Everything added to Wikipedia must cite a reliable source, you can't simply add what you personally think about a subject. - MrOllie ( talk) 10:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie you need to stop spamming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacker8679 ( talk • contribs)

I think that word does not mean what you think it means. Also, you can't just add whatever personal opinion you have to an article and then slap on a citation to something vaguely similar and hope no one checks. MrOllie ( talk) 11:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you first yourself take a look in Internet or buy a book to understand what Front-end development is and then make decision reverting my contribution. Hacker8679 ( talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You're new here, so I get that you don't really understand why what you're doing is against Wikipedia's policies. Please read and try to understand the policy at WP:NOR. If you don't want to listen to me, ask at WP:TEAHOUSE for more input. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, could you please clarify the reason for reverting these changes? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miosi042 ( talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia we don't use marketing sites or blogs as sources, they are not reliable. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, why did you say it was misleading? the link was correct, talks about the European Billionaires of 2021, the link doesn't give any commercial activity, no Ads, just extra information. Why is this not allowed, can you please help me understand, so I know for the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederik Van Lierde ( talk • contribs)

You wrote 'remove wrong html tags', and added a link to your own website, of course it was misleading - your real purpose was to add the link, not to remove an html tag. Linking your own website (and writing articles about yourself and your website) is not allowed here. The articles are going to be deleted, and if you keep adding links as you have been they will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist sooner or later. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please advise me why you removed the list of competitors? You are against commercial pages, but you allow RetailMeNot, a pure commercial page, but remove their competitors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederik Van Lierde ( talk • contribs)

I'm not against 'commercial pages' when they are neutral and based on a variety of independent, reliable sources. I am, however, against someone adding the name of one of their own sites to a bunch of other articles. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was adding more than that, you remove all my updates, and my work, non-commercial information. It is not how you feel, but how the data contributes to the value of the article. About the link related to Billionaires and Fountain of Geneva > you were wrong, you assume it is to promote me, but it was not. How can we solve this? About commercial pages, competitors who are on Wikipedia is valuable data. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederik Van Lierde ( talk • contribs)

No, Wikipedia is not a business directory, we don't compile lists of competitors. It is being solved as we speak - deletion processes are ongoing. As you're learning, Wikipedia isn't a venue for self promotion, so you can help out by finding some topics that are unrelated to yourself or your work. I suggest starting with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia desperately needs more coverage of the historical contributions of women. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My name is Peter I am helping in contributing the field of tourism security, Emerald group publishing is not a predatory publisher it is one of the leading publishers in tourism. May you please revert your deleting? even Emerald has a Wikipedia entry already existent. /info/en/?search=Emerald_Group_Publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.101.27 ( talk • contribs)

No one said that it is? I did remove a cite to an IGI Global publication, they are well known to be a predatory publisher. I also did remove some writing about a book series as non-encyclopedic. On the tourism article, we care about information about tourism, not meta-information about who is publishing information about tourism. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ok IGI global probably, someone has removed my entry about Emerald group?.... ok sorry for bothering you. I restored the erased material about Emerald, I am not familiar with IGI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.101.27 ( talk • contribs)

I removed it again. Advertising the existence of a book series is not encyclopedic content. That article is about tourism, not the publishing industry. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It is no my attention to promote this series, even I am not dealing of what these books discuss. I only mention the series as the first one dedicated to tourism security. The subtheme in this item. this is not spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.101.27 ( talk • contribs)

Call it what you like, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

ok. may I consult you earlier than updating material? this is to save my time

Good Day Mr. Ollie,

It has just come to my attention that you have removed a recent edit of mine from the UC Berkeley Wikipedia page.

You cited that your reasons were "acclaimed"? Not remotely neutral."

While I can understand your perspective on this, I ask that you remove or edit the specific word you are unhappy with instead of omitting the entire paragraph. This is because the event that I described in the article was a real-life event that happened at our campus in 2017. An event that I was there to witness.

The reason why I am so fed up with the continuous reverts on our school's Wikipedia page is that I am a senior student at Berkeley this year. As a part of our school's Berkeley College Republicans club, I am completely appalled by your website's repeated censorship of historical events.

I ask that you revert an edited version of the paragraph our club added. Otherwise, I have no choice but to ask our school's administration faculty to investigate and file a complaint to Wikipedia to take down the entire article.

Obviously, as a member of the Berkeley College Republicans club, I do not wish to engage in a conflict with Wikipedia. I hope that we can resolve this disagreement in a cordial way that is beneficial to both our school's interests and those of Wikipedia readers.

If you wish to contact me specifically, please communicate through my talk page.

Thank you for your understanding and time.

-- G1umkhan ( talk) 20:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Get consensus on the article talk page, user talk pages aren't the place for this. Also, see WP:NLT. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Since your "talk" message is non-specific, I am not sure what you are referring to. I made changes on four pages this afternoon. . On the first two pages, Probability [1] and Statistics [2], I added an External Link to lecture slides that have been cited as useful introductory material elsewhere. . On the Neural Network page [3], I added references to two dual-author journal papers that have been widely cited in the areas of function approximation and neural control [4] [5]. The two additions do not, in my opinion, represent undue reference to the work of a small group of individuals. . On the Navion page [6], I modified a non-specific reference attributed to me, giving a more specific PDF as a reference. I modified an existing sentence describing experimental aircraft that were used for research at Princeton University. I referenced a PDF: [7] I added a sentence giving further information about these unique airplanes. Incidentally, this information had previously appeared on the Navion page and had been stripped off by an unidentified user. I don't believe that any of these edits violate the spirit or editorial policies of Wikipedia. I do believe that they provide useful information to Wikipedia users.

Please restore this material at your earliest convenience.

Robbbb (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't just about the four edits you made this afternoon, it is about the total history of your account, which has been singularly focused on adding citations to and mentions of a single person. As the message on your talk page indicates, the Wikipedia community views excessive (or in this case, exclusive) self-citing as a form of self promotion, and an inappropriate use of the enyclopedia. As a subject matter expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources written by a diverse group of people - please cite those, instead of only yourself. I don't doubt that you believe you're providing useful information, but the reason that wikipedia has conflict of interest policies is that when it comes to ourselves and our own work, it is nearly impossible to remain objective. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You removed the backlink about [ [3]]. This link is not inappropriate. As I can show you hundreds of links linked to affiliated blogs. If a website is providing the right information along with using affiliate links, that does not mean the website is spamming. We write content by spending sleepless nights. Every website has a different model of earning to manage the content and other expenses. As nothing is free on the internet. Even Wikipedia asks for money donations from users. So, I request you to please allow my link to be associated with this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouravsingla05 ( talk • contribs)

It was a clear case of linkspam. I see your account is blocked now, but I'll let you know anyway - if the link gets added from new accounts, it is very likely that your domain will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr.Ollie has removed one of my citations on Wikipedia because it was provided from a White Paper published. Understandable. However, I have pointed out to him that there is another article in the same Wikipedia article that is referencing a White Paper, however, Mr. Ollie has failed to take action in this circumstance.

Other citation referencing a white paper is: /info/en/?search=Workplace_wellness#cite_ref-57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameercontributes ( talk • contribs)

Like everyone else, I'm a volunteer here, I'm not required to take orders on what to work on next from you (or anyone else). - MrOllie ( talk) 02:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course @ MrOllie:, but since this is now on your Wiki page, let this be a public reflection of your biased action and targeted attack towards one source, whereas you are clearly showing willful neglect for another citation (within the very same article, and it has been explicitly pointed out to you for the third time now) that is posted against Wikipedia's rules. This has been pointed out to you, yet you have failed to take action. Just for public records... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameercontributes ( talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't make edits on behalf of linkspammers, even when they are concerned that their competitors might be getting more links than they are. If you're really concerned about this and not just trying to make some kind of point, you should take it up with other editors. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie My humble apologies for adding links to the Youmanity page on Wikipedia. The only reason for this was to underline the work that the charity does to promote social inclusion. As someone who reached out to Youmanity in times of need, I truly appreciate their work for the wider community.

I feel bad now because the charity is not aware of my wikipedia involvement and their page has been flagged for violating Wikipedia's terms of use.

Again, I apologise to you for having caused this issue and hope that my mistakes will not reflect negatively on the charity ( /info/en/?search=Youmanity )

Aida Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aida Johnson ( talk • contribs)

Mr Ollie, I would like to inquire as to why my wikipedia edits were removed. It appears as though you saw one of my wikipedia edits, reversed it, then went to my contributions page in order to reverse all others for seemingly frivolous reasons. For example, my entry on anhydrous aluminum chloride was removed because youtube was apparently not a trustworthy source. If you would have read into the content of the edit however, you would have noticed that it was a minor edit that didn't even require a source. Certainly not anything more credible then a youtube link on how to prepare anhydrous ethanol for potential use in the preparation of anhydrous aluminum chloride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invictusmakur932 ( talk • contribs)

We don't use Youtube or patents as sources on Wikipedia, as they are self published primary sources and Wikipedia is built on reliably published secondary sources, such as newspaper articles and peer reviewed journal articles. See WP:RS for details. There is not really such a thing as a 'minor edit that didn't even require a source' - all additions to Wikipedia need to be properly sourced if challenged. You are correct, I did look at your contributions page. When a new editor improperly sources information in one article, is a standard practice to see if they're doing the same thing in other articles - that sort of check is why the contributions page exists. - MrOllie ( talk) 10:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie! I have gone through that electric guitar-page a several times, and it only mentioning the tonewood quality of a cheap electric guitar doesn't make sense to me. Electronics are the heart of the electric guitar. And if someone has knowledge about those, a small quote like I provided would be a nice addition.

At the start of this year, I bought 5 cheap electric guitars to test. Opened them up. Measured resistances and tested every setting to see how they worked. And I backed up that small quote with the content I made about that test. Pictures of those electronics and actually measurements results. Those definitely add value to the electric guitars-Wikipedia page. Can you clarify why you removed it? My team has combined 82 years of experience about guitars, and you state that the test performed by us is spam...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 ( talk • contribs)

Yes. Wikipedia cannot use blogs as sources (see WP:RS), and we consider site owners linking their own sites to be linkspamming ( WP:SPAM). - MrOllie ( talk) 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find that to be true. I found this from the page your referred: Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs.

Note this MR.OllieCitation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.

I was building a helpful encyclopedia. I added facts. I'm an electrician by vocation and measured the electronics of an electric guitar with a multimeter. Also, I checked solderings. This info gives visitors of Wikipedia valuable information about the quality and durability of cheap electric guitars that the article talked about.

Ask yourself, if someone adds value to the Wikipedia page and backs -up info with real proof. Is it against guidelines? No.

Like scientist making a statement about his recent legitimate test where tests were performed by proven to work and also scientifically proven methods. Like I did with a multimeter.

I did it 1 time for an article I have gone through several times. It was lacking balanced info about cheap electric guitars. I added valuable info and backed it up with a real test. That's not against any guidelines due to my understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 ( talk • contribs)

A self published blog is not an acceptable source, full stop. Adding a link to your own blog (which contains affiliate shopping links), is in violation of our guidelines, WP:SPAM and WP:ELNO. This is absolutely against the guidelines. If, after reading them thoroughly, you still believe your blog is a reliable source, feel free to bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard, where they will likely repeat what I've just told you again. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Why you didn't say that affiliate thing immediately. You didn't even check the source the first time? I hope that's not the case. And now you are only using affiliate-link to support that it wasn't a real test and worth mentioning. I'm going to do what you proposed. Thank you for the tip! Have a good day!

PS. You gave me tip, I'll give you one. By being more supportive to ones that work really hard and give value to the niche they're in would make you a better moderator. Plus, it would strengthen Wikipedia as a community. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 ( talk • contribs)

That it is self published is enough to rule it out. The advertising links just add to the infraction. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I contacted the board for clarification. That Electric guitar page refers to MusicRadar (affiliate and ad site), StewMac (Music store that self-publishes its content), and lespaulforum.com. All this is a bit confusing to me.

Hi Mr.Ollie, is there any particular reason why you removed a list of links from the further reading section of the non-monetary economics page? May be you want a separate section? No short descriptions of the sites? I would like to hear your objections so we can have consensus on whether this is a problem and if so, what the solution could be. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosama ( talk • contribs)

It's not a matter of formatting or sectioning, I reviewed the links and found that they did not agree with the content lines given in Wikipedia:External links for various reasons, in particular WP:ELNO points 1 and 11. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed, 'it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic' but 'Some acceptable external links include those that contain *** further research *** that is accurate and on-topic'. I will do the further research myself and then see whether any site merits mention in the text. And spend more time on the guidelines. Ramosama 3 aug

we only added material that supports the excerpt, we have explained in several occasions we have no contact with Korstanje. But for Mr. Ollie, korstanje is a doomed person who should not be included in Wikipedia despite he has published a lot of paper. This is ideological discrimination. Wikipedia is being vandalized by Mr. ollie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.101.27 ( talk • contribs)

Just stop spamming Wikipedia, please. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie - I see you reverted some additions in May on the grounds that they were promotional. Would it be acceptable instead to simply list the collaborations (i.e. without the preceding text?) - I do think these are relevant additions to provide a fuller account of the organisation. Full disclosure; I am on the Board of Directors of OASPA. Thanks Point of Presence talk 10:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think these listings are appropriate without secondary sources that comment on them. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ok. thanks Point of Presence talk 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, you have added conflict of interest tags on all pages where I added edits. Note that Wikipedia stipulates that "interest is not conflict of interest" and "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject." I am an expert on organic geochemistry. I am a scientist and an author. As such, I am associated with some of the entries. You added COI tags to the entry for Susan M Gaines and Carbon Dreams, and your reversed multiple factual edits and additions in pages on organic geochemistry, biogeochemistry and biosignatures. All of these were minor, non-controversial edits and no specific reasons were given for the tags or the reversals. Please carefully remove the blanket article tags, which are hard to remove, and review the edits you find controversial, changing them if need be and adding information about why you are changing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurids2 ( talk • contribs)

Adding mentions of yourself and your books, as you did for example here and here is a textbook example of a inapproriate editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia isn't a venue for you to write about yourself or draw attention to your works. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I added a reference to Guardian article and expanded the discussion of climate change fiction, which is totally appropriate for these articles. This is no reason to add a COI template to every page I contributed content to or to revert substantive or even language edits without noting that there is some factual reason for doing so. Wikipedia does not prohibit adding relevant content just because one happens to be involved with that content, as long as it is appropriate and well-referenced. Any mention of my own books comes from the references cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurids2 ( talk • contribs)

No, it is not 'totally appropriate' for you to add self promotional text to Wikipedia articles. [4] - MrOllie ( talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion that should be of interest to you over at the COI noticeboard, because life is like that. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you reverted the Navion page, you removed information that was already there and that I was clarifying. This had nothing to do with self promotion. Perhaps you can go back to my message to you and to earlier versions of the page to see what I am talking about. Robbbb ( talk) 22:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That content (either version) shouldn't be on the page and was removed deliberately. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie! As you reverted the last edit I made, I then started to do more research about the awards. While surfing, I found a couple of legit and credible sources that explains about the awards and the achievements Devra made. You raised a point where you mentioned it's about getting paid or not. I'm certainly not doing it for money. I legitimately think putting such achievement in a non-promotional way could be quite informative. I gone through all the edits most of the editors and contributors did previously, and came up with a new edit that I would like to perform. Just need to ask you if you think I should do it or not. Please put your opinions on this. Thanks! Alex Cloe ( talk)

'I'm certainly not doing it for money.' is not precisely what was asked. Are you related in any way to Davis or her organization(s)? - MrOllie ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It seemed like you did. Anyway, no not really. I don't know her personally. However, I've read a few of her articles and watched her talk shows where she explained about the health risks to humans and other animals because of 5g technology. I quite agree with her opinions and do not at some points. Alex Cloe ( talk)

Thanks. There have been a string of new user accounts at that page who are associated with Davis and would really like the article to only say very positive things - it has been a problem. You can find the talk page at Talk:Devra_Davis. If you need help figuring out how to use talk pages, see Help:Talk pages. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I added the disclosure on my profile (correctly, I hope). Per your request to respond, wanted to make sure you were good with this before I move forward. Katherinej99 ( talk) 15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Katherine

Katherinej99, Thank you. Please read our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest thoroughly, which you can find at WP:PAID and WP:COI, and note in particular that you should be making suggestions on talk pages, not adding references to your company yourself. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is to notify you that I have reverted your reversion at Jamalouki. If you have concerns about an editor being new and removing CSD tags, I trust you know where to go. Please do not add that CSD tag back. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Sdrqaz: It was the article creator logging in to an old account to remove the CSD tag. They had a bunch of socks that look very much like WP:UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo <sup>bons mots</sup> 23:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ponyo (and for your use of the pixie dust), but I stand by that declination. When the sock had removed the CSD tag, it was no longer purely promotional so I would have contested it either way. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that you recently edited the Wikipedia page for decision analysis, and appear to have removed all information about software packages. I would like to understand the reasons for this. Was that just an accident? Do you feel that the list of software packages was too incomplete to be useful? Is it inappropriate on Wikipedia to include software packages (including commercial software) on a page like this? Should they be given their own page? I feel that the page would be more useful if it did include a pointer to software, but want to understand the motivations for your changes before making any further edits. Riskanal ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Riskanal, It was not an accident, I removed it deliberately. Per WP:NOT and WP:ELNO, Wikipedia is not a place to build directories of external links. If there is sufficient sourcing available for any of these software packages to establish notability, they could perhaps have their own Wikipedia articles. Since we're here to build an encyclopedia and not a link directory, that would be the way to do it. MrOllie ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

I was going to remove the COI banner on the CoppeliaSim page, but saw that it was already removed by user S.sessa and added again by you. So before going ahead I wanted to make sure everything is in order and the article contains enough neutral contributions. Thanks freewolf ( talk) 14:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Marcimatz, Thanks, the latest source additions get it over the bar in my opinion. I cleaned out a bit more redundancies and promotion and removed the tag. MrOllie ( talk) 14:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MrOllie! freewolf ( talk) 11:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ollie

I want to inform you that you have removed the wrong link from two articles which is Mehnd] and Jagua Tattoo. I have added a link in these two articles, which increase the article's value, which comes from a trusted source. Would you please Recheck it.

Because visitors who are reading jagua tattoo article on Wikipedia if they want to know about the design and some details they can read this arti jagua tattoo design and history which I have liked but you have removed without reading the article. The second article was mehndi. In this article, the citation link was not referring to the correct topic, which refers to a low-quality Mehandi article then i removed the link and linked it with Henna Mehndi design< which you have removed.

Pealease recheck it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azam4141 ( talk • contribs)

No, these were clearly spam links and should never have been added. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, how am I supposed to inform that a test for early detection of pancreatic cancer is now available without mentioning the company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemligDuva ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a place to get the word out about new products and services. If you don't have independent, reliable sources you shouldn't mention it at all. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Per this it has only just started to be tested and is not in use. SmartSE ( talk) 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00733 considered unreliable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Decentralization&diff=1038423567&oldid=1038422162

Aidepoetus ( talk) 13:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Aidepoetus, papers on Arxiv are not peer-reviewed. Drmies ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm reading Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts Aidepoetus ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as Drmies says. Also have a look at WP:FORBESCON since I see you using those - Forbes contributors and 'councils' are blogs without editorial oversight and are also considered unreliable on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

You marked and removed the citation I added to legal financing as an unreliable source unjustifiably, especially given several of the page's citations. However, more importantly, the citation is a reliable source given the particular subject matter.

Some reasons supporting the argument that it is a reliable source:

1. The company and the website’s copy are led by a licensed attorney. Multiple attorneys are on staff to assist with legal questions regarding the subject matter.

2. Express Legal Funding is a licensed consumer litigation funder in Oklahoma, one of the few states with regulations addressing the industry specifically.

3. The website ranks #1 in the Google search results for the keyword “legal funding,” which means Google associates the website with high E-A-T, which points to reliability.

ALFA does not list credentials on their website supporting their reliability.

Thanks.

Very much appreciated,

BIOHAZARDMM BIOHAZARDMM ( talk) 21:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BIOHAZARDMM, No, we don't use marketing materials as sources, see WP:RS for details on what sort of sourcing we do use. MrOllie ( talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie

Recently I added a link to the molecular dynamics page in Wikipedia. the link is a thorough scientific article about molecular dynamics concepts in an ad-free scientific weblog, which I believe contains some points which are missing on the Wikipedia page and could improve the knowledge of readers. So I insist that please reconsider deleting the link.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein309 ( talk • contribs)

We just don't link to blogs on Wikipedia. See WP:EL. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DESIGN THINKING I have just joined Wikipedia to edit the Design Thinking wikipedia article. We have worked on developing (1.) an evidential historical account of Design Thinking from psychological research as early as the 1930s to early developments in DEsign thinking in Innovation managmeen. Through this research we provide a historical accuraye account as well as (2.) provice construct clarity of Design Thinking (What Design Thinking is and what theory it is based on). This is not a promotional intent.

First citation in the wiki article. The paper is providing an evidence-based accounts on Design Thinking (the construct) as a cognitive, practical, cultural, and organiztional appraoch. We called it Design qualities constituting Design Thinking.

Second citation in the Wiki article. It also provides an evidential account on the thoeries on which Deisgn Thinking is based. These are the theorries, such as Selz (1922) Productie Thinking theory; Duncker(1935/1945) On Problem Solving (Psychologie des Produktiven Denken); Wertheimer (1945) Productive Thinking; Guilford (1950) Creativity. Hence the citation to the first History line in the table.

I really encourage you to read the article to see that this is providing insights of what design thinking is and its long history. Thank you for considering leaving the citation in the article as it provides a evidential account on the history, construct, and theoretical foundation of Design Thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeDesignPractice ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a place to cite your own work. Please stop. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I encourage you to have a discussion (as encouraged by the wiki-rules: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset), not just dissmiss it. I thought that Wiki is about new and evidential knowledge based on work, such as acadeic articles, newpapers, etc. that provides deeper insights into a specific phenomenon or construct. Why can the author who spend years to develop these insights not contribute to WIki? That is your opinion, not the rules of Wiki. However, I will leave it up to you to consider the changes. Have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeDesignPractice ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@ CreativeDesignPractice: Your addition of your newly published preprint article to Design thinking is pretty clearly WP:REFSPAM—adding your own article as a reference on Wikipedia the same day that it is published online is as blatant as possible. Also, the article is behind a paywall, so if you really want us to read it and evaluate its content then you should post a copy somewhere that is freely accessible. Biogeographist ( talk) 17:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Biogeographist Dear both, apologies sincerely. It would have been tremendously useful to provice new users a link to how this dicussion would be possible. Again I apologies for not being aware of this. I have now added a outline on the Talk page (knowing now how to approach this discussion). I have spend years now to track the theoretical foudnations and providing construct claity of a very fuzzy concept by researching ove 50 years of development. My intent was to add evidence on the contstruct and provide theoretical foundations that go back to Selz (1922), Duncker (1935), Wertheimer (1945), Guilford (1950) and others. Happy to provide more of the insights and happy to share the paper in an email. From my point of view, there is a need to update the loose dicussion on the foundations of Design Thinking (lack of theory) and claity (lack of construct clarity) as it prevents the field from critically examine and develop it further. I hope this show my intention and again apologies for not knowing how to apporach it as a discussion.

Hi, dear MrOllie,

I can see you have removed external links to Librow scientific formula calculator from “ Formula calculator” article — understood. (By the way you have removed proper formatting of algebraic expressions along the way.) So my question: how to do that properly? —  MicroCreator ( talk) 20:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link directory, and generally should not be used to promote particular software packages, so there really is no way to add the link you'd like to, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That is clear. I am not about external links but about logic in general. For instance, “ Formula calculator” article has two references to button-operated calculators (not formula ones) — Windows calculator and Calculator (Apple) — and none to formula calculator. What is the right fix for the point from Wikipedia perspective? —  MicroCreator ( talk) 21:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way I have noticed you have edited my comment and removed the discussed link to the Librow calculator. Why? —  MicroCreator ( talk) 04:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I prefer not to host inappropriate external links on my talk page. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As you already said the link is useless for internet bots, so it could be useful only for public — does “inappropriate” mean “the one I do not want public to see”? And how do you discriminate between “appropriate” and “inappropriate” links? For instance, Windows calculator article has external link to Windows calculator — is it “appropriate”? And you did not answer my question about “ Formula calculator” article which does not reference any formula calculator. —  MicroCreator ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

MicroCreator, Inappropriate means against the policy as laid out in WP:ELNO. MrOllie ( talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, you are referencing the section “Links normally to be avoided” which contains a list of criteria. Which namely point do you apply to lable Librow calculator link as “inappropriate”? —  MicroCreator ( talk) 13:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

4, 11, and 14. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So you see www.librow-calculator.com page as:

   a. Blog, personal web page and fansite — point (11) of 
WP:ELNO;
   b. List of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers — point (14) of 
WP:ELNO.

Please confirm. —  MicroCreator ( talk) 14:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

MicroCreator, I'm not here to go back and forth with you on this ad nauseum. If you have questions about the policy on external links you may ask on WP:ELN. MrOllie ( talk) 14:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have the question about your removal of the link to Librow calculator, which you still cannot explain me clearly. Instead of clear explanation you are creating that “nauseam” referencing policy which definetely is not applicable in the case. You are supposed to be an expert in Wikipedia editing and I am a novice who does not know much. Everything started from your link removal and leaving the message in my page so that I can talk to you and get an explanation. So I am here to get an explanation. Or if that was a mishap — I can understand people can see Wikipedia as an attractive place to add external links, so useful links could get removed sometimes as well — I wish your revision of the point and your expert advice. —  MicroCreator ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear, MrOllie I have not added any inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, today I saw some dead link on it, after that I wrote a detailed article on it and replaced it with my link. If you think this is inappropriate, then please guide me how I can contribute to Wikipedia.

here is the link which I replaced: http://ecogeek.org/2008/02/solar-notebook-go-anywhere-sustainably/1 You can check it, it is clearly a dead link. That is why I replaced this link with my valid link which is <link redactyed>.

Please response

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush0071729 ( talk • contribs)

It is better to retain the existing archived link than to replace it with an unreliable blog or a spamlink. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Hereafter I will not repeat my mistake.

Dear MrOllie,

You recently deleted the Scaaminfo.com link form Cybercrime article. But, please let me explain. At first there was scam-info.com link on the same place from more than a month but scam-info.com got hacked due to which whole content from scam-info.com moved to scaaminfo.com.

You should know that Scaaminfo.com doesn't promote anything but only provide the information about latest online scams and make people aware of various kinds of cybercrime.

You can check the Scaaminfo.com articles where there is no any promotion but only the reviews on latest scams to make people aware of scams. I suggest you to read any articles at Scaaminfo.com then you will find out those articles are researched based, not just random articles.

These days there are millions of people getting scammed by various online sites and activities. So, Scaaminfo is saving those people from those scams.

You can find lots of scam ads on platforms like Google Ads, Facebook, etc. Scaaminfo is doing research on those ads and making people aware of scams by posting reviews.

Aforementioned, Scaaminfo.com was named scam-info.com but scam-info.com got hacked and I guess attacker must be one of those scammers. So, even Scaaminfo looks like new site, you can find all the contents form Scam-Info in Scaaminfo which was online from a year.

Providing link to Scaaminfo site won't harm anyone but will do good by letting them know about latest cybercrime. Helping sites like Scaaminfo will help society to save from scams. There is not even a single thing that Scaaminfo is promoting.

AND, there are also broken links on external links section of Cybercrime article. You can check them and delete them.

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

No, it never should have been added in the first place, under either URL. Wikipedia is not a place to list your self published web site. See WP:ELNO - MrOllie ( talk) 21:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But, helping Scaaminfo is like helping to fight with scammers. Google Ads, Facebook are not taking care of their ads seriously due to which lots of people are getting scammed. So, it is for a good cause, not to promote anything.

And there are also broken links on Cybercrime article such as "CyberCrime Asia Research Center – Information about computer crime, Internet fraud and CyberTerrorism in Asia". When you click this link, that lead to domain sale page at premium price. Check these kinds of links on cybercrime article and delete them.

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

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not to fight scammers. Also, please don't direct me to delete other links, I'm a volunteer here and I do not take orders from you. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding, I was not ordering you. I was only letting you know that there are those kinds of links. Sorry once again if that sounds rude. And sorry for all trouble.

I just deleted this conversation but you displayed it again. Do we need to keep it on display? I contacted you only to clear the confusion and now I understand everything that you said and I appreciate your help for that. So, I request you to let me delete this conversation. I don't want to make it public.

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

Most Wikipedia users prefer to keep archives of past conversations. You should never delete comments on any talk page but your own user talk page. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Since it is your talk page, so I'm requesting you to delete this conversation. Displaying this comment will only harm my business but won't help anyone here who read this comment. I already agree that I will not put any link again. And if I ever need to put link of some website, I will ask you here first. I never thought that this conversation will be displayed here in public, otherwise I wouldn't have comment here. I was only trying to contact you to clear the confusion. So, please I request you to consider one time and delete this conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroka ( talk • contribs)

No, I don't think I will. Also, you should look at WP:PAID - you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please consider. I already agreed everything you said and I now won't put any links again without asking you. And I didn't do anything like said in WP:PAID. No one has paid me. I only put the link of the website thinking that may help the viewers since that website provides the latest updates on Cybercrime. But, now you already made it clear that can't be done and I'm completely agreed with you and appreciate your guidance and help. I did it unknowingly. So, please consider and delete this conversation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroka ( talk • contribs)

If you have a business that could be damaged by your Wikipedia edits, you are editing with a financial conflict of interest and WP:PAID absolutely does apply to you. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm really honest, no one has paid me since I was putting the link of my own website. So no one has paid me. If you need a prove, I can prove that. I thought my website link will help the visitors in Cybercrime page, so I put the link. And I also thought that may help to increase the ranking of my website but I didn't know that will be anything bad to Wikipedia. If the ranking of my website increases, then that will help lots of people to save themselves from scam. I'm not alone, we are team and our website is operated as a company. You can see even we haven't put any advertisements on our website. So, I thought our website won't violate the Wikipedia rules. If I knew it would violate the Wikipedia terms, I would never have post the link of my website here. So, I'm extremely sorry for that. And I already agreed everything you said and now I won't put any links without asking you. Actually, I no need to put any other links because I only have this one website and you already said I can't put the link of this website. So, please consider once again and delete this conversation. It will ruin by business reputation having this conversation on public.

And if I ever did something wrong again, then you can ban me and then you can again make this conversation public. But at least for one time please consider and delete this conversation. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroka ( talk • contribs)

Re 'I only have this website', in 2017 you were on my talk page because you had been adding spam links to your other website. After you got those warnings, you switched to adding the links while logged out to avoid scrutiny. I'll make this simple for you: I'm going to leave this on my talk page. If you stop commenting in this section, after some time an automated process will move it into my talk page archive, where it will remain. In the future if I see anyone, from any account or IP, adding a URL to a website associated with you again, I'll forward this whole mess to the blacklist requests page and they will most likely add your domains to Wikipedia's blacklist. That will prevent these links from being added to Wikipedia, and will also lower the ranking of the sites on the popular search engines. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That was back in 2017 and that time my website has promotional links. After Wikipedia explained me that I can't put website link with promotional materials, then I never put any other website link again. Now it is 2021, which is 4 years later and this time I did put the link to that website where there is no promotional activity (you can check that if you don't believe). I was only confused because that time Wikipedia told me I'm not allowed to put any link with promotional activities. So, I thought my this website link won't harm anything since it doesn't have any promotional link on it. If that time they had explained me that I am not allowed to put even a social awareness kind of website, then I would never have put this link in first place.

From 2017 to 2021, I didn't put any other link after that (You can check the history). So, in 4 years, I did put only 2 website links which proves I'm not here to spam Wikipedia but only unaware of Wikipedia terms. Trust me, it was just a honest mistake. So, if you still can consider, please delete this conversation since this will ruin the reputation of my website which I made by doing very hard work each and everyday by only sleeping around 5-6 hours per day. If I was someone who was here to spam the Wikipedia, I would have put several links not only two website links in 4 years.

Hope you will consider. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroka ( talk • contribs)

Do not edit comments as you just did. Talk pages are meant to be an accurate reproduction of the discussion as it happened. It is time for you to just walk away. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all help and explanation on Wikipedia terms. From now I make you sure that I will not repeat my mistake.

Dear MrOllie, You deleted my external link from the nail-biting website. You were absolutely right to do so, I apologize. I am still a beginner. Just wanted to say, you were correct as I could not thank on the page itself, have a great day Firefly015 ( talk) 06:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am tryng to understand how Wikipedia works. It is very new. I have inserted and edit information and pictures reguarding conveyors. You wrote me not to insert links. I understand, but I saw under References there are already links. What is the difference? Just to understand. I would be grateful if you could explain me how it works.

Thank you in advance Kind Regards StefaniaBiffi ( talk) 12:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You must read and follow the guidelines laid out at WP:PAID and WP:COI, (including the required disclosures, you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use) and you must not use Wikipedia for advertising, such as inserting links to your employer, adding images of your employer's products to articles, or adding mentions of your employer. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ok thank you StefaniaBiffi ( talk) 12:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ollie, I have read and it is so that if i insert information or pictures very neutral it is fine? The important is that I don't mention or put some link. Right? StefaniaBiffi ( talk) 13:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

StefaniaBiffi, It is not fine if you continue to write about your company, including by adding images of their products, but you may certainly make unrelated edits. MrOllie ( talk) 13:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ok I see. Pictures and information that are not company related. Now what I can do? May I still keep my profile? StefaniaBiffi ( talk) 13:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

StefaniaBiffi, Again, you need to make the required disclosures as described in WP:PAID. MrOllie ( talk) 13:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok Ollie thank you very much for your kind reply. I wish you a nice day StefaniaBiffi ( talk) 13:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I received your email about deleting the two inappropriate external links I added. I apologize for my misconduct, and I will not make this mistake again in the future.

Let me explain, as a person who specializes in Rapid Prototyping, I do think that these professional articles written by Michael of this company are very good, even more informative than many articles in Rapid Prototyping's References. I recently read some of his articles and think it is worth sharing with others. I didn't think about advertising and other issues, please forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youlin2021 ( talk • contribs)

Well, now you know. Wikipedia does not link to marketing materials such as vendor blogs. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, The content of these two articles is indeed very meaningful to the professionals of Rapid Prototyping. It is better than many references on this Wikipedia topic. It is a pity to delete it. How can I do to add it back properly? Although it is on a certain company’s website blog, the content does not involve advertisements, nor does it promote the company’s content. These two are good article on this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youlin2021 ( talk • contribs)

You can't add it back, we don't use self published links such as vendor blogs as external links or as sources. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:EL. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is confused for me, In the Reference of the Topic, you can still see some articles from vendor blog. No one delete them. This is the case on many Topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youlin2021 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a large, active site and volunteer time is limited. We can't get to everything right away. If you have seen other citations that are inappropriate that is a reason to replace those citations with proper ones, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Understand that. How can I replace or delete those improper citations. It seen no one want to correct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youlin2021 ( talk • contribs)

You can start by reading WP:V and WP:RS thoroughly, since you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If you have follow up questions WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask them. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to editing but am curious as to why my addition was deemed as an inappropriate external link. I wasn't trying to link to the website, I was just trying to cite the website I got the information from. Perhaps, I did the citation incorrectly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehancoc1012 ( talk • contribs)

Advertising materials such as vendor blogs are not acceptable sources or links on Wikipedia. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I added references and a bit of important information on the topic. I wondering why tthey were removed. Tanrobby ( talk) 04:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I wasn't born yesterday - when someone with an obvious conflict of interest adds something and gets reverted, and then 'new' accounts show up to make the exact same edit, it is pretty obvious what is going on. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Please specify which of Wikipedia rules did you follow reverting the update of Known error page, in particular, considering the following text:

• Importantly, it should have a workaround and a documented root cause.

Known error:

• Is created via an incident or problem or individually
• Is Can be associated with keywords to make search easier
• Has a status so its progress can be tracked
• Can be linked to a parent error
• Can be associated with a type to group errors
• Can be associated with a category from the incident catalogue
• Is closed at the end of its life cycle.

Thanks

Hello MrOllie,

Please specify which of Wikipedia rules did you follow reverting the update of Service Portfolio (ITIL) page that contained the clarification of this term.

Thanks

Hello MrOllie,

Please specify which of Wikipedia rules did you follow reverting the update of Gojko Adzic page including info on projects that this individual participates in, the link to his personal official website and social media profiles.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miosi042 ( talk • contribs)

See WP:ELNO, you have been adding inappropriate external links alongside your contributions. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Forget it Miosis042, I see him/her as a wikipedia bully. Behaving as holier than thou Rahuldevnow ( talk) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. I see you reverted my content move from Toebox to Toe box. I may have done this incorrectly, but if so, can you please arrange for the copy to be done in the proper manner? Thanks! Lambtron talk 15:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Lambtron, I left a template explanation and instructions on your talk page. MrOllie ( talk) 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't move Toebox to Toe box because Toe box already existed as redirect to Toebox. How to fix this? Lambtron talk 15:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Lambtron, By following the instructions at requested moves as it says on your talk page. MrOllie ( talk) 15:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That's because MrOllie AKA Wikipedia bully is prejudiced Rahuldevnow ( talk) 16:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

It seems you have deleted the links on the data masking page. However, you didn't delete the links from other vendors like IRI. Any particular reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentis John ( talk • contribs)

I didn't review all the links on the page, I was just dealing with the set that had been recently added, and which had been systematically spammed by two other user accounts previously. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand the rules regarding the promotion of vendors. I just expect the rules to be the same for everyone. Just because someone did it previously doesn't make it right, does it? - -- Mentis John ( talk) 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie:, i don't think I'm elevating anything to be honest as YTS.AG is by far one of the most popular torrent sites in existence already. So i believe it's fine. Jaconsarto ( talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaconsarto, 'It's popular' is not a reason to change the sectioning of the article about the original group, especially in a way that is inaccurate to the text. Take it up on the article's talk page rather than edit warring. MrOllie ( talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie:, should i start a talk page discussion or a RFC? Jaconsarto ( talk) 17:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie:, i guess I'll start an RFC tomorrow. Hope you will participate in it. Jaconsarto ( talk) 17:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently several of my updates to the Electrical Transient Analyzer Program were reverted. My changes were simple updates to the general information about the company. An updated company logo, a new company building picture, etc. Really minor changes, just to bring the information up-to-date. Yes, I am an employee at ETAP and I am disclosing this info on my profile now. Can I go back and add the reverted information back? What is the best way to make sure new information is being considered? I looked at other company pages and they show pictures of their buildings, updated company logos etc. Please advise. Thanks Tnoack1 ( talk) 21:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tnoack1, No, you should read WP:COI thoroughly and make edit requests on the article talk page for other users to review from now on. MrOllie ( talk) 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ok, thanks, will do. Does this only apply to edits on ETAP or all of my edits on Wikipedia Tnoack1 ( talk) 21:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tnoack1, Any edit that relates to your employer or that you otherwise have a conflict of interest about. MrOllie ( talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I restored previous articles that were removed on the claim that they were "unproductive". You removed them again. It does not matter whether they were removed by archiving: mine was removed without my permission. Once I improve the main article ("Software Engineer") the way I promised in the "Talk" section of it, then it may be archived. However, until then I would like to restore my talk. Would you allow me to restore my discussion (i.e. "talk" section)? Else I will rewrite it anew.

Nevertheless, there was a personal attack posted in my section. This does not deserve to be archived. How may I remove it?

Thanks, Impediguy ( talk) 17:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Impediguy, Inactive, old discussions (that one was months old) are routinely moved into the archives. If you have something new to say just start a new discussion, but don't simply cut and paste old comments back onto the talk page. I see no personal attacks in the archive. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As usual, thanks for responding. The offending comments constituting a "personal attack" by the unidentified person were: 1) "Implicating [insert false narrative here] is foolish.", 2) "This whole thread feels like you are bent out of shape because you are either scared your defense-contracting company is going to lay you off, or you recently got laid off." (these accusation and this conjecture are offensive and correspondingly false), and 3) "The pretentiousness of the title "Engineering is a higher-level skill that software developers do not have" is incredible." (there is nothing pretentious about the title; it was substantiated in the text: E.G. "there is no amount of software that can make an airplane safe", for example, and my entry was meant to prompt the need to improve the "Controversy" section of the main article). Conversely, nothing in the offender's talk entry contributed anything to the improvement of the main article. Impediguy ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Impediguy, They're months old comments from an IP editor and in the archive, and whether they are personal attacks as Wikipedia would define them or vigorous disagreement is debatable - Wikipedia editors tend to define 'personal attack' rather narrowly. I would suggest you just ignore them and move on rather than draw additional attention to them. MrOllie ( talk) 19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to contribute to the "Controversy" section some day, but am swamped at work. I may or may not post something on the talk page so that readers can re-review it before I do, but nevertheless, it has already been reviewed. BTW, I am writing a book on "Real Engineering" that was ironically inspired by "fake" (i.e. ineffective) engineering. Impediguy ( talk) 20:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, obviously I am new to Wiki and esp. to how to contribute. I noticed that the Monty Hall problem does not provide a clear solution, which is does have! And that is why I wanted to help with my own one. How can we include these personal contributions? The problem exactly is, that I do not know any sources that just know how to explain this problem for a layman and my own explanation, well it has not appeared in Nature yet, sorry. I thought Wiki was an open source page so why reject any additions that I am sure could be useful? Do let me know, my email is mvheeringen@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvheeringen ( talk • contribs)

The simple solution is located in the subsection titled Simple solutions. Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit, but it does have minimal content and sourcing standards, which you can find at WP:V and WP:NOR. If you want your edits to remain you must cite a source. It sounds like you're working backward - you should generally start with a source and summarize what it says, rather than simply writing from personal knowledge, which our readers will not be able to verify themselves. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)