User talk:MrOllie

Reversion of link changes from allempires.com to allempires.info

The problem here is that the content of the All Empires history community, its magazine and its forum, has been copied and transferred to an illegitimate site by a former administrator, who acquired ownership of one of the old domain names (allempires.com). The contributors, moderators and administrators of the original site are all responsible for the original community whisch is located now at www.allempires.net and www.allempires.net/forum, with the magazine articles at www.allempires.info.

Legal action is in hand over the situation but handicapped by the fact that the rogue administrator, who has been requested by many individuals to remove their articles from the magazine as well as some posts from the forum, refuses to do so but lives in Iran, which is not a signatory to any of the copyright conventions.

If you wish to remove references to either site in this situation then that would be understandable, but at the moment the references to allempires.com are linking to copyright infringements, which I am sure cannot be wikipedia policy. Gcle2003 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcle2003 (talk • contribs)

Request for clarification re: Archaeology

14:08, 10 July 2009 MrOllie (talk | contribs) (67,979 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Paleodigitalist. (TW)) (undo) It's not clear to me why this was removed. Paleodigitalist (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition of a link to a book

I agree with the removal of links which are referenced in the text that are used are unfounded evidende.

Unnotable with reference to the origin of a book is a bias, especially blocking a book purely because it is "on demand publishing" is unfounded, there is no reason this book should not be referenced, having read it it ties in with the discussion of theories of dyslexia, notably phonological deficit, and discusses the theory in depth,

I very much agree that articles cannot make statements and claims for unvalidated research, agreed, however this is the section on further reading, where it is very appropriate to do so, since it provides a wider perspective of the dyslexia issue

referencing of popular, important or well written books, the further reading section makes no claims about the content or validity of the works, that is not the purpose of a further reading section, a book about dyslexia whatever the perspective should and can be appropriately included for the purpose of expanding a perspective

Since books are sold as a general rule of thumb it is not inappropriate to list the site where they are available, this is not advertising, since in this context it is unavoidable Your comments that these are advertising, they are not referenced in the main body of the text and so are not sales pitch, since they are not being referenced to put forward a

specific viewpoint. The section should make reference to alternative therapies and perspectives, but highlighting what they are, especially since there is a lack of concrete evidence for cause of the disability and a lack of development in the area for the treatment of the condition.

Unproven or unotable is not a critera for removing a further reading reference, since it is appropriate to added to inform the reader of a perspective, the idea of a further reading section is to permit the reader to expand their view.

with respect to advertising books are sold, and references to a book will include a link to where the book is sold.

I would hope that we can discuss this issue, and failing that I agree a dispute should be filed, since there is the issue with referencing books is by its nature unavoidably advertising and is permitted in this context. Since the book is referenced it is biased to reject it on grounds that it is an on demand book, and unwikipedian. The inclusion of the article is valid since the book's author is a Phd. The technique it describes falls into line with the speech therapies used and so there is no valid reason not to list the book.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Third opinion

Hey, I need your opinion. If you check my contributions history you'll see quite a few "Earthsiege" and "Tribes"-related articles. I have cleaned them according to Wikipedia's guidelines on videogame articles, but forum community members have started a thread from which they revert any such changes. Basically, new IPs every day, reverting with no reason and making no attempt at dialogue on either the talk page or in edit summeries. Specific articles: Tribes 2 and Fallen_Empire:_Legions. I have sought protection, but this was denied, ironically on the grounds that there weren't enough editors involved. Eik Corell (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In topic Tribes 2 You had removed important information, like how the game can now be played free, games that were inspired by it, and what has happened to the game to this present day. But what you stated in the talk page that it was a bit too much on the mod information? Yes, there is a bit too much information about the mod section, and that can be removed. But gutting the whole article, i see no point in that. TheOniLink (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My previous edits

Sir, I had edited the page of ICSE and ISC Examinations and had added information that could help the viewers of the page. I am myself the student of the respective boards and had just made a simple contribution that according to me could be useful to people viewing the topic. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish14011992 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

links to ibexstudents are not useful, they are spam. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Cowan Edit

Hello,

   Not sure why my edits were reverted. They are just links to articles on the subject matter.  They already went through editorial review by editor "olifilth" who said they were in compliance.  Background on my talk page.  Can you provide in sight - thank you.  Mark Cowan (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)