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!

Help

Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.

MrOllie - Let's discuss

You reverted my Edit without any explanation. Let's discuss it. What do you require in order to reach consensus? Question: why did you revert my edit in Invention? Zutam (talk)

Parodies

Thank you for changing the article back to the way I left it.[1] That the book is not yet released and added by an anon with two other Wiki edits is suggestive. What stuck in my craw (but which I don't have a source for) is an published observation I read that some universities cash in on their name, farming it to popular authors who want to boost their sales and prestige. However the farmed popular books (the source stated) do not meet the usual university press academic standards. Oxford was particularly named. Calling an unpublished book a "standard reference" as one editor did, reinserting it, seems to make that point, too. At any rate, cheers! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mytilus additions

Thanks for the clean up after User:Mytilus. I challenged his work and got some very weasely words back on my talk page and was intending to finish reverting today and found it already done. Thanks.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity based Links removed ... discussion please

Hi,

There seems to be an issue concerning the listing of the Continuity Forum which we do not understand. We do appreciate the problem any editor has, but here diligence and natural suspicion is resulting in undeserved cynicism.

Having read the guidelines a number of times on external links and advertising it appears as though the links provided are perfectly allowable. Having reviewed guidelines for external links & advertising and reviewed the other links seemingly allowed we are a little confused over the application of the rules being used.

Here is our logic

Under the guidelines for external links the Links that should be included point 3 says

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

We certainly meet that criteria at both a practical and strategic level. BCM is a complex process covering a lot of topics. We as an independent Non Government Organisation, governed by constitution meet this criteria completely. Further, unlike a numerous of the other links illustrated we are not a commercial organisation. Some of those listed are directly selling products and using the links from wikipedia to do so when the information and fundamentally better advice is freely available elsewhere. Others are training organisations using academic parlance to establish some credibility, but are not subject to academic scrutiny or rigour. In addition Certification Bodies should accepted by and conform to national governing bodies, all those listed bar one provide a certificate once someone has completely their own in-house course, call us cynical but we have seen far too much mis-use of this practice to justify a commercial training course.

The Continuity Forum is the public and community service organisation working in UK and European providing free to access support in the area of developing Regulation and Legislation, defining policy across most organisational sectors and the European Union the Continuity Forum is contributing.

Our second point relates the relevance Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which in the case of the Continuity Forum is considerable and further justifies inclusion in the Wikipedia sections.

Across the UK and European Union the Continuity Forum is working with government at national, regional and local level helping organisations understand and apply BCM. Indeed, the Continuity Forum is cited in Legislation as a trusted source by government. We regularly brief Media and work with TV, radio and other media including CNN, BBC MSNBC to name just a few. Our formal partnerships covers all of the UK and a number of the European Police forces and many of the other emergency services too. We work supporting the National Counter-Terrorism Security Office and many of the other specialist government group such as the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.

In terms of Standards we have been at the forefront of this area for 10 years and have been full committee members of the technical and full committees of all of the BSI Standards and more recently the ASIS group working to produce the ANSI standard due this Fall.

To reiterate ... We are not commercial, we are providing considerable additional information as an industry body to any one that wants/needs it, we are completely independent and we have demonstrated this over a decade.

It interesting to note that you also removed the BCI from the BS25999 page this we 'interesting' as with the click of a mouse you have removed the two most expert organisations in the world on the subject and yet kept others such as:

• BS 25999 News Portal dedicated to reporting events surrounding BS 25999.
• PAS56 and BS25999 The original portal dedicated to PAS56 and BS 25999.

Both are commercial portal sites created to sell to a common linked toolkit. They are not updated and yet feature. With ourselves and the BCI folks would have some independent current advice on the suitability of BS25999 to their needs without expense and a sales agenda.

BCM is complex and even a good summary on Wikipedia cannot provide the information needed to address the issues faced by organisations. We provide that information with credibility and independence through the site, research and briefings. Folks contact us directly and we help them ... that simple. This to me more than meets the requirements ofwhat should be included and the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

I trust this clarifies the situation and if you can either reestablish the links provided or advise on how suitability remains an issue I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see Links normally to be avoided point 4, the guideline on conflict of interest, and the guideline on link promotion. Please refrain from adding links to organizations you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that though I think there are a number of points of to make ...

I. Links normally to be avoided point 4 does state 'normally' and refers to a 'website' on this basis all websites would need to be removed. The intent behind the phrasing is to prevent exploitation/advertising. On this same page it CLEARLY states that the following:

This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. the link conforms in all ways to this principle.

What should be linked

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. As one of the principle European groups again we comply as official by any normal measure of the word Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Again we comply

On the Official links guidance for Wikipedia it states

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. COMPLY The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. COMPLY

This makes compliance self evident and when one includes the provisions of the notable organisation guidance again there appears to be no valid reason to exclude.

I also note that the commercial portals mentioned are still active.

We could provide links to specific pages if that is to be better demonstration of compliance with the rules

Your thoughts appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, an official site would be a link to CocaCola.com on Coca-Cola. Your organization's site is not an official site for any article but the (currently nonexistent) article about your organization. - MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What? NOT SO the site includes a very wide range of material solely on BCM matters that is both original and copyrighted such as Crown Copyright material. Using the point you appear to be making by referencing CocaCola you would not allow a link to Coca-Cola guidance you provide as it "promoting a Website" It also appears that you have not responded to the observations on the suitability as a notable organisation or the principles in a nutshell.

I am now totally confused as what appears to be an inconsistent application of Policy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs)

Let's take for an example BS 25999. That is a standard put out by BSI Group. BSI Group's website is the official site for that standard, because 'The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.' as you quoted above. BSI Group apparently does not control your web site, so your web site cannot be the official site. If you don't comprehend this I really don't believe I can help you further.

Your notability argument is not applicable because the guideline you cite is used for determining if an organization is a valid subject for a seperate Wikipedia article. It has no bearing on external linking. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think then that we are to a point where it seems that there are two ways forward.

First that a Continuity Forum page is set up that then can be challenged or accepted as a notable organisation (in the specific area of Business Continuity) this then could include references back to the Subject matter such as BS25999.

Secondly, provide links to specific pages on subject matter for example getting started, regulatory framework etc that again refer to the subject matter.

Correct? or are you telling me we cannot provide content, expert, free and detailed information likely to be be of value of the readers of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable secondary sources to start an article, and it does not have an overly promotional tone, you can of course feel free to start an article, but this will have no bearing on external links from other articles to your site.

I do not think you should be adding external links to sites you are affiliated with, regardless of the specificity of the content. - MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that who is the judge of what is valid and helpful you or the wealth of government bodies, regulators and standards bodies that we are partnered with. I really do appreciate the issue of needing independent, non commercial stuff to inform folks ... its enshrined in our constitution, the issue for me is simple folks need help and some of the sources Wikipedia is referring to are disingenuous or commercial. I have set up a page to illustrate what I think you would find acceptable can you confirm http://www.continuityforum.org/content/news/standards.

How does Wikipedia establish/verify the affiliate principle BTW? I know I am going to asked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is generally quite obvious when someone is affilated with a website based on the contributions their account makes. - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it the link shown above does accord with principles and this is the other I am intending to provide http://www.continuityforum.org/content/advice. Thanks for your help in all this —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, neither link should be added. - MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how do you suggest I proceed then. Wikipedia lacks necessary information and detail. It is starting to look like everything I suggest is being refused. I do not understand why when I compare and contrast the information currently listed in many of the sections. If it is a question of process then I need clarification as when I apply the references you cite, rejection occurs on another point without explanation. If I apply half of the rules you are applying then I could remove most of the references/content etc on a comparable basis. Please don't think I am being rude, but our knowledge on Business Continuity and the related disciplines is very extensive and our independence/status very well established yet it seems we have an still have an issue. Who else can we involve to arbitrate or clarify? BCM adviser (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have information that you believe Wikipedia requires, I would suggest that you add the information to the article itself, and provide a reference to wherever you got that information originally (trade magazine, scholarly paper, etc). - MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that, but could you also provide detail on the arbitration I am requestingBCM adviser (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a second opinion; please don't add non-official links to a site your are affiliated with, per WP:EL and WP:COI. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Crowdsourcing

You seemed to have removed links without a valid reason. Would you please explain the removal? (I have reverted your edits; please feel free to restore them, but explain in the edit summary.) —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the links were all mentions of a company called uTest, added by an SPA who promotes the company on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Your first reversion had a blank edit summary. Have you tried getting that SPA blocked? —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, I only just noticed him and give him his first warning. - MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Hello MrOllie, Recently, you undid the revisions that I made to the Book of Exodus, Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Midrash, Aggadah, and Jewish Ethics Wikipedia pages. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes.

I am confused by your actions because I was not trying to self promote with my additions to the Wiki page. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains a digital copy of its Bible translation. Additionally, you removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, yet other external sites like: Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikipedia pages concerning the Bible.

Can you please clarify why these organizations are permitted to post external links, and I am not? Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)