User talk:MrOllie

Deleting Links

Thank you for alerting me to the guidelines that state I should not be linking to anything I am affiliated with. I did not realise it was a problem since the links are clearly relevant and the magazine is totally non-profit and often the interviews are the most recent one by a long way. But I will cease to add links myself from now on. However please could you stop deleting every link to the magazine. We have many readers and supporters and they were not all put up by me. My username is YoungPossum. I have no idea who did the Will Self one or the second Mark Ford one, for example. Thanks.

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Christopher Krovatin

Hello MrOllie. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Christopher Krovatin to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Video removal

Not quite sure whey you took the videos down: I certainly don't t have a conflict of interest as defined on my talk page. I have no interests (e.g., financial) in any of the items I posted for the videos: I don't sell tantalum or thermostats or anything. One might well argue they are not appropriate for wikipedia because of their style, which is the discussion I expected to have - wiki is working to define what an "encyclopedic video" is, and I would like to contribute to this. Perhaps with different style videos. I will see what responses appear here. Note, that these are videos produced at an academic institution (see iFoundry at the University of Illinois) for instruction. They are clearly irreverent ... but they are not commercial nor, do they promote or sell products. If you could be precise about the conflict of interest that would help. Hammack —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

Yes, apparently they were produced by you. It would be best if you didn't add videos of yourself in this manner. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a conflict of interest ... this is a stylistic call, which is a very different thing. If I were promoting something to, say, sell, I could see this. There isn't anything to sell: These are funded and produced by an academic institution. I'm going to undo the henry drefyuss one that has clear utility in showing his designs and methods. I would the like to see a discussion to get a sense of what Wikipedian's feel is appropriate. Would you participate in such a discussion? hammack —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

Bold revert discuss. You added it, it was removed, and now you should start a discussion to gain consensus for inclusion _before_ restoring it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion ... I'm going to reversion the video before this discussion - to remove any institution or personal mentions .... didn't want to be perceived as pulling a fast one so will note it is a modified video.HammackHammack (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Risk management tools

MrOllie, Why did you remove some but not all tools from this page? What was your criteria? What are your objections to RiskAoA, RiskMatrix & RiskNav?

GESICC (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Living lab

Dear MrOllie, I noticed your edit in the Living lab page. I have moved the reference to the right place. I'm currently editing this long (and quite insatisfactory) article. Please be patient, I will finish this by the end of next week. Thanks for your understanding. Of course, I'm open to discussion. Best regards. DavidBourguignon (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look in detail, don't bother, it needs a rewrite from scratch. Somebody stitched it together by cutting and pasting online sources, so the whole thing is a copyright violation. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bother people who try to kindly contribute in editing new entry pages into wikipedia that cannot be perfect right from the beginning as it is also supposed to be a place for co-authoring articles. Furthermore, it is not a copyright violation as I'm the main author of the previous article published into an online newsletter which was used into this Living Lab entry page. Even I thought to have included a reference to it before I find time to refine properly this wikipedia Living Lab page and find other people to contribute to it. In conclusion, I don't appreciate the way you operate in removing this page (except if it is a 1st of April joke) without even contacting people editing this page by email or other means...... Marc Pallot (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (CET)

External link on BlackBerry Bold

Why did you delete the link? I've just gathered some reviews of the phone. There are tons of external links to single reviews, which makes far less sense than the link I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiasK (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO points 1, 4, and 11. Please refrain from adding links to websites with which you are affiliated, as it may be considered a conflict of interest or even spam. thanks - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Log Management and Intelligence

Dear MrOllie, why remove the references if the article says 'references needed'? The links I added certainly added value to the content —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonChuvakin (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because citing yourself or otherwise linking your own material is against various guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)