User talk:MrOllie

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!

Audiblegate

Dear MrOllie, I only just saw your note about reliable sources on the edits I made to the Audible page. For clarification, would the news websites The Guardian, Publishing Perspectives, Publisher's Weekly and/or The Alliance of of Independent Authors Self-publishing Advice Center be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia content? Thank you in advance for your help. Eequay (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Eequay

Eequay, it all depends on the context of how they are used, but The Guardian is usually reliable. Publishing Perspectives and Publisher's Weekly are trade mags, so they might be if they're not used to support anything controversial. The Alliance of of Independent Authors almost certainly is not. If you stick to something neutrally written based only on what's in the Guardian, that would probably be fine. But it should be kept short - per WP:UNDUE 1/3 of the article is far too much to spend on this dispute. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Eequay (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Art & Object

Art & Object should be added to the list of art magazines. Why would a magazine with millions of annual readers not be suitable for the list when many publications listed are defunct and never attained that readership? The fact that it does not have an existing page is a problem too. Maybe you should actually look at the magazine before making such a hasty call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeditor1996 (talk • contribs)

We don't go by readership stats, we go by independently written, reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of public recursive name server

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_recursive_name_server&oldid=1016929173. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mimi89999, That's a list of things with an associated article. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Where is it noted that all items in the list have to have an associated article? There are many lists on Wikipedia with items without an associated article. Why would this list be special and require all items to have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

It isn't special, it is the most common inclusion critera for list articles, especially for lists on software topics. - MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Should all lists of software be cleaned the same way until an article is written then? I can volunteer to do that then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

It depends on the local consensus. See also WP:POINT. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Where could I find out if such a consensus was reached? Are there other places that I should check besides the talk page?

Also, how could we ensure that a service is visible in Wikipedia if a page of the company or organization can't be written? This will be especially bad for small companies or orgs for which we won't be able to find many reliable sources, if any? How should the fact that such an org/company/project exists or existed in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

Generally it will be on the talk page (or talk page archives), but some will be in HTML comments or in the article text itself.

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to ensure that all things are visible, so this isn't a problem. If reliable sources don't exist it should just be left out. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Should the Comodo and Yandex resolvers be removed then? The linked Wikipedia article does not mention anything about them running a resolver. How is that different than the situation with Freenom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs)

Freenom was considered at an AFD discussion and was deemed to not be notable. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to the discussion? Source of the data/stats/user count?

Association?

Are you associated with the University of South Florida in some way? Oro89 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Oro89, Nope! Why do you ask? MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

COI?

Do you, or have you, or expect you to receive compensation for any contribution you made/make on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhur (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhur, What is your basis for asking this question? I already told you I have no COI with regards to medical devices. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, the basis is the fact that you edited one of my contributions and since it looks like you prefer to keep an air of mystery about youself I would like, at least, to know your COI regarding compensation for your contributions on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhur (talk • contribs)

You got me, I'm being paid by big medical device to suppress your work. All my other edits over the last few years have been a smokescreen, leading to this moment. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is disparaging. Muhur (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I think you just broke their Sarcast-O-Meter. Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It is disparaging to answer and/or comment questions regarding COI with mockery. Muhur (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

open source model

dear ollie i added some information in the open source model page in the eyewear section under the fashion category. i checked that source again and realized that it was not proper for this section and came again to delete it. however the whole fashion category was gone in which info of some other open source eyewear info was there as well. you deleted that too, that info about botho was not my addition. so why did you delete that too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.121.226 (talk • contribs)

I removed several things that were either promotional or lacked independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing the Page Bhagavad Gita

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.