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!

A kitten for you!

)

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

Z1 Storage

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)

Iovate

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We are correcting outdated information from several years ago, all of which has been cited and take a neutral slant.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)

J. Hutton Pulitizer

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)

Document Classification

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)

Article "biological immortality"

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

Changing the of two horror films decades 1970s–1980s to 1970s and 1980s

It would sound more cooler if you change the line – on horror film 1970s–1980s and replace that with and make it sound like 1970s and 1980s sound better? Efufyfhehehcehwfhj (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)