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!

Open source video game EL reversion

I added those links because the section in question explicitly deals with a lack of community cohesion and past duplication of effort due to a lack of content repositories, yet no examples of solutions are provided. FreeSound is the only one with an article at present, and at the very least I'll re-add the Wikilink to it.

OpenGameArt is likely notable in its own right (It's been covered by Free Software Magazine), so in time I may start an article for it.

Being potentially notable and contextually appropriate, I don't think OpenGameArt fails WP:EL, so I'll re-add it as well. Feel free to revert if you disagree, but if so I'd appreciate a justification.

I feel FreeGameDev is also appropriate as it's the only example of an active free software developer community that I know of, but I'll wait to hear back from you before re-adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singlemaltscotch (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If an article is forthcoming it should be a wikilink. As an EL it seems to fail WP:ELNO points 11, 13, and 19. - MrOllie (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On FreeGameDev in particular, I don't think it fails any of WP:ELNO's points. Of the three you mentioned, it's not a personal site, so it doesn't fail 11, and it's contextually-related to the subject matter discussed in the preceding paragraphs, so it doesn't fail 13. 19 is somewhat hard to apply in the first place, because the lack of such sites in the past is what's discussed and FreeGameDev is an example of one that now exists.

That said, while I don't think it fails WP:ELNO, it doesn't explicitly pass WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, so I'll leave it be. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

11, 13, and 19 were in regards to OpenGameArt. FreeGameDev is a discussion forum so it is WP:ELNO 10. - MrOllie (talk)

Prod

No problem. :) Steven Walling 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pond aeration

Just about to delete the commercial links but you beat me to the draw ! Would welcome your views on this one. There is a great deal which is just plain wrong and only makes sense if the reader assumes that this only applies to amenity ponds. Even then it is still wrong. Taken together with the plethora of references to one company makes it looks very much like a subtle form of commercial pushing or perhaps COI. If it sticks around in its current form its going to need a great deal of work.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, based on other edits it looks like this user was trying to promote a company. If the article is severely factually challenged we should just revert it back to the redirect it was - I would defer to you on that because this is not a subject I know much about. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

SPA?

I understand that most of my edits so far have been related to disabiility related research/content, however none of these edits are pushing for a non-neutral POV. Maybe you can help me with this, I am at McMaster University so I am aware of new findings in the area of childhood disability. However, since you've marked me as SPA and COI, how can I introduce new information without having such information removed, which for the most part will help build the pages. The content for the most part is from a scholarly body who has had publications in peer-reviewed journals. I hope you can help out with this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahtcan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just 'disabiility related research/content', but one specific research center that you appear to be affiliated with. I would suggest that you cite any information you want to add to the publications in the peer-reviewed journals, not to the non reviewed output of a group that sometimes publishes in peer reviewed journals.

It would also be a very good idea not to link to the website of that 'scholarly body' directly any more. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. One thing I've found irritating is by every definition within Wikipedia policies it is a 'scholarly body'. It's not only associated but operates with the University. So on what basis is it not a 'scholarly body'? Ahtcan (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No one said that it wasn't? - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, placing quotation marks around it implying it is not something you believe in.. Also, it is not a group that sometimes publishes in peer reviewd journals, its purpose is solely academic but time to time it has content for parents and others who for the most will not be able to follow a journal paper. Unfortunately, it seems that's been the issue here... Ahtcan (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I placed quotation marks around it because I was quoting you. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Thank you for your earlier linkspam cleanup. Re your edit comment, please try to comment on the spam instead of the spammer. We occasionally manage to get constructive collaboration from editors who start out by spamming, simply by educating them. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder for what? The edit summary here is accurate and correct. I see nothing wrong with it. That person may turn out to be a fine contributor, but I don't see this edit summary having any impact towards that (or not). Dawnseeker2000 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Accurate, correct, and counterproductive. As performed it caused Twinkle to create a permanent entry (barring oversight) in the article history labling that username as a linkspammer. Better to simply omit the username and depersonalize it, as with "undo WP:ELSPAM". As soldiers say, "no names, no pack drill". LeadSongDog come howl! 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. If you wish to be complete about what you're doing you may want to get the text of {{Uw-spam4}} and any others changed so as not to include the "spammer" label. Dawnseeker2000 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Proposed. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be consequent please

You undid various of my contribs because they contained links to a website that explains more about the foodpairing subject and offers the method for free. I can understand that it is against the rules of wikipedia. Yet meanwhile, in the same article molecular gastronomy for example, there is a sales pitch of the texturas of Mr. Adria, who I respect, there are even links to a commercial website where you can buy his products. What happened to that section? It just got flagged for being an advertisement... Where is the logic? Are you just picky?

Kind regards Drobbere (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid various of your contribs because they seemed to be promotional in nature, the links were merely one facet of that. I did not flag that section as an advert, someone else did. I couldn't tell you why they merely flagged it instead of removing it, but I have removed it now. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Its Cameron - hoping for your assistance

Good morning MrOllie

I trust all is well - my name is Cameron Watson.

I am the original author of the Integrated IT Methodology article. Prior to creating the article I took the time to read and interpret the Wikipedia "rules" and "protocols". The article was published in July and appeared to meet all of the necessary protocols.

I went into Wikipedia this morning in wanting to further enhance the article and linkages (to and within) of the article. I attempted to create links to other Wikpedia articles and I also wanted to link these additional references to provide them access to where they could further explore a sample of the Integrated IT Methodology (QAIassist). Upon wrapping up my session in Wikipedia I received a message from you stating the Integrated IT Methodology would be deleted.

It appears the reason you have suggested this article be removed is because there have been additional links added to it. I am hoping you will take a second to advise me on how I might best remove any of these linkages that breach the wikipedia rules and protocols.

Appreciate your patience with this and am looking forward to any advice/suggestion you could make.

Thanks. Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiassist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While reading those rules, you seem to have missed the guidelines on conflict of interest, external links, reliable sources and notability.

I did not propose the article should be removed because additional links were added, I proposed that it be removed because it has no sources which Wikipedia guidelines consider to be reliable that establish the notability of the concept. We need something like a print magazine or newspaper article or a peer reviewed academic paper on the subject to establish that we should have an article on the topic. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning again MrOllie.

I trust all is well and appreciate you taking the time to get back to me.

First, thanks for your patience - guess I am learning as I go.

Second, have read through the Wikipedia rules and protocols with regard to the "references" and was to the understanding that they would have to be from magazines or books or other articles. The references used for this article are all electronic in nature. They include a reference to (a) a news letter article published by the Project Management Institute(Houston) (b)white paper and blog articles from a number of leading Project Management tool Vendors (AceProject, Project Insight)(c) an article published in ProjectTimes (leading electronic Canadian PM magazine) (d)a leading Project Management Outlet (Project Smart) in England.

I guess I am getting a little confused with the protocol. On the one hand I am able to make a direct reference (see above) to where and how the subject matter was beneficial and applied by some of the leading and most reputed PM institutions in the world (although electronic), on the other hand I am being informed that these references do not yet allow me to satisfy the wikipedia rules.

My only intent is to try and provide knowledge to users of wikipedia - in the event you would like me to introduce you to the editors or sentior managers of those who have used these publications I would be happy to make such introductions.

Hoping you will get an opportunity to respond.

Thanks. Cameron.