User talk:MrOllie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:MrOllie)
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Comparison of webmail providers[edit]

I am in no way affiliated with those services (nor posteo nor polarismail), but since i've been doing a lot of research on mail providers, i added them, as i feel they should be on the list. And why are other providers listed, if they're not supposed to be advertised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.76.97.16 (talkcontribs)

You added external links. That comparison is an index of Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

copyright of text on article about OpenHAB[edit]

Hi and thanks for reviewing the new article about OpenHAB. You are right that text parts are identical to texts on www.openHAB.org - the reason is that I wrote both myself, i.e. I am the only author and thus own the copyright. I expected in this situation, this would not mean a problem? If it does, I can try to reformulate things on Wikipedia, please tell me if I should do so.

Thanks, Kai (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, see the guideline on conflict of interest. It would probably be best if people connected with your organization would not write about OpenHAB - leave it to neutral parties, please. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Raybarber (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr Ollie, on this and many other subjects, I see time and time again your name appear as removing information on the basis of conflict of interest. I note that in minority of places that has actually had some use, so thank you, but in many other cases it does not, for which i take umbrage.

Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organisation? Shortcut: WP:BFAQ#EDIT An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organizations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page. Likewise, if you have content which you think should be added, please discuss this on the talk page. Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must follow our policies. Note that the guideline very strongly discourages direct article editing if you have a financial conflict of interest; see WP:NOPAY. You are expected to allow other editors to revise your contributions as they see fit. If you follow our basic rules, your edits may be accepted by the community; if you don't, they may be reverted. You may end up being blocked if you attempt to insist on your version or otherwise hinder the collaborative efforts of your peers to reach a version of the article based on the consensus of the community. For more suggestions see the essays: Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, Suggestions for COI compliance, and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

The above guidelines for articles in Wikipedia does not say you CANNOT write articles about yourself or your organisation, it just says 'You are discouraged'. I note in the instances where you remove information it is often where industry experts are writing about a subject matter. Wikipedia is improved by having experts writing about topics that are new and likely unknown to other people so that individuals may find answers to their questions. To believe that it is completely unbiased and never from sources that are related to the subject is not possible. Saying that an expert on snails shouldn't write about snails is obviously nonsense, as is asking someone who is an expert on some piece of technology not to write about it; they may be one of the few who can.

I do aree it is heavily incumbent on them to show neutrality in this and of course the best judge of that is not someone who does not know the topic, but actually for others who are experts in the field to come along and edit and update the content to gain neutrality. How can that ever happen where topics just get removed? I do not believe that the majority of your efforts are helping to build a better Wikipedia.

I have no idea of your motivations or why you spend your time effort and energy in Wikipedia doing such things, as you provide no information about yourself, so its very difficult to verify your reasons or motivations for removing information because you personally don't feel that it meets with Wikipedia requirements. Wikipedia also suggests that you always state for the record, your affiliations, background, employer etc to assertion such matters.

I would ask that you spend a little more time adding and writing and a lot less time deleting…


I will continue to monitor and assess. Raybarber (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Raybarber

I would ask that you spend a little more time adding neutral sources to your own articles (Kaseya Network Monitor has zero independent citations) and a little less 'monitor and assess'ing (whatever that means) my talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixamo[edit]

Dear MrOllie,

I'm writing you this as it seems like you have some specific reason to take down anything that involves Mixamo.

I take as an example the 3D modeling page.

There are several commercial products there: TurboSquid, The3DStudio, CreativeCrash, CGTrader, FlatPyramid, NoneCG, CGPeopleNetwork and DAZ 3D, Cinema 4D, form•Z, Maya, 3DS Max, Blender, Lightwave, Modo, solidThinking just to name a few. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS REMOVE ANYTHING ABOUT MIXAMO? Specifically the technology that we developed is unique in the world. The demonstration of it is that in many cases it originates from Stanford University. For 3D modeling for example, Fuse (developed at Stanford) is the ONLY character creator that allows users to integrate their own content. This is a revolution. Mixamo is the fiorefront of the technology. Mixamo is the first company IN THE WORLD to integrate machine learning into ANIMATION. This is a historical change in the animation world.

We have an endless list of talks and many patents granted that prove the novelty and validity of our approaches, which mean WE ARE RELEVANT to Wikipedia users as we represent the PRESENT and FUTURE of animation, with over 200,000 developers/artists.

We tried to make the contribution very non-marketing. If you think it should be changed I'm ok improving but please stop removing ALL our contributions even when they are approrpiate or i will report you.

Thank you for your understanding. I'm just trying to be treated in a FAIR way.

Stefano

Stefano001 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)stefano001

I appreciate that you have tried to be very non-marketing, but you are failing at this. Please stop inserting references to your own company and technologies to Wikipedia and leave it to established, neutral editors. Per WP:UNDUE, your products simply do not merit mention in general 3D articles. If you feel the need to report me, please do so. I suggest the administrator's notice board. - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefano001 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)stefano001

You have not answered my question about why other commercial products can be mentioned there. Your judgement of "our products not meriting mention" is completely flaw. For some personal reason you hate Mixamo. If you did some research you would understand you are wrong. Want to do a 5 seconds test? Try searching on GOOGLE for "3d character creator". Who is the #1 entry? Fuse. Surprised? If you want a Fuse page to be written by an independent writer we can do that but I would recommend you reconsider removing one more time an appropriate reference. This is stellar research work that came out of Stanford University you are deleting. The first and only character creator that allows integration of user generated assets. I hope you are technical enough to understand its importance. I have 20 years in academia (including Stanford University) writing articles and peer-reviewing work of my colleagues, so I have the integrity and the knowledge base to write about this. Please revert your edits.

Thanks

Stefano

You have personalized this dispute to such a degree that I do not believe you would listen to any further answers I give you. I suggest you visit the noticeboard to get input from additional editors. - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nagios XI removed from Comparison of network monitoring systems[edit]

Hello,

Not too long ago, I added Nagios XI as a monitoring solution to Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems

Yesterday I noticed, my edit as gone and it seems you have deleted it. Can I ask why?


Grtz

Willem

F1regiver (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nagios already has a listing on that comparison. We shouldn't have a second listing for the XI variant. - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie,

I can assure you that there is a big difference between Nagios and Nagios XI. This should definitely not be considered as the same monitoring solution. Could you please reconsider this?

Willem

F1regiver (talk)

Crowdunding[edit]

MrOllie - I apologize for the mistaken undo. It was ARubin who undid the citation and restored material with no citation. It was claimed that it was an "odd defintion" however the definition seemed to be POV and not verified. The replaced definition is directly from a cited/verified source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.189.179 (talkcontribs)

Sounds like you should take that up with him. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)