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!

AMOS (programming language)

I noticed you removed the link to the emulation package for AMOS Professional. This consists of original freeware Amiga files, the Amiga emulator UAE (preconfigured by myself), and AROS/68k as a free AmigaOS replacement ROM (which had very recently been patched by Toni Wilen to work with AMOSPro), with a Windows installer created with the free Clickteam Install Creator. My only role was to package these pieces together into an out-of-the-box emulation package which many reported to be a very convenient solution, freely and legally getting the original AMOSPro up and running in under 30 seconds on a Windows PC.

I gave credit to Toni Wilen for his work on the free AROS ROM to make this possible (AMOS has been usable under UAE since 1998, but not packagable legally), so there is no question of COI here. I have also included all files which are required to repackage it with free software and create a new installer, and gave instructions to do so. Thus, the process I used to package this is in the public domain and not my intellectual property.

Therefore, I think the availability of the original software for Windows and Linux PCs (in the form of an emulation package) is relevant to the AMOS article, and a non-biased Wikipedian would consider this due weight for re-inclusion as a link below the article, so there are no grounds for using an ad hominem argument of COI against including a link to the emulation package, simply because I packaged it (it is not otherwise my work). This emulation package was also tried by Francois Lionet (the creator of AMOS) who was happy with it (and for it to be linked on Clickteam's forums).

The article links to Back To The Roots which contains ADF floppy images of the original AMOS and AMOSPro, however this takes considerable time to set up, swap floppy images, install to a virtual hard drive, update and install the compiler and all extensions, as well as configure the emulator and ROMs. The emulation package is a far more convenient solution as it installs everything in seconds like a native application (simply launching an emulator). I think on researching legacy software on Wikipedia, ways to run the software on modern PCs (including easy bundles) are relevant to the article(s) in question. Mequa (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WiseMapping removed from List of concept- and mind-mapping software

Dear Mr Olly, I noticed you removed the link to WiseMapping.org Open Source project from list of Free Projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software WiseMapping is a free project that can be installed by the users locally and even download the source code for collaboration. There is a side project that is WiseMapping.com that it's also a free online instance of the project sustained only based on adds Dont you feel that WiseMapping.org could part of this list ?.

Regards Paulo

Pveiga (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)pveiga

No, that is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. You should not add external links to that list. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realised of that. I've added the proper WiseMapping article. Thanks for all the help. Pveiga (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)pveiga

Mail art – References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf

Hello again, those inappropriate references on the Mail art page to 'marketing Hairmail and Astroturf' (see your Talk page 13 November) have been restored by two moderators recently, I'd appreciate your help in removing them. Keithbates51 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mobile device management

Thanks for your edit. You should keep an eye out because there is some serious COI and sockpuppetry going on by someone who either hates Gartner, or is seriously pissed at not being included in the big 5 list. An extra pair of eyes means it doesn't become a one-on-one edit war. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don´t work for any MDM company! MrOllie please read my comments and why i delete edits of Biker Biker --Sgates05 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

By now you should realise, after three separate editors have removed your contributions, that it simply isn't going to work. Give it up. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Urban Planning: Planning Theories

I'm sure you have your reasons, but how come you deleted the paragraph on "power theories of planning"? This paragraph seems both relevant and useful, using Wikipedia's own criteria, because it covers a strand of planning theory that is actually out there and is important, but is now not covered by Wikipedia. Sonderbro (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

PMML Tools

MrOllie, I am still wondering why you believe the section PMML Tools is not appropriate for a PMML page. I would love to hear your feedback instead of considering the section spam. I believe it was OK for you to delete company listings (supporters of the standard), but I really do not understand why you keep deleting tools that promote the adoption and understanding of PMML. Will really appreciate your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetsky (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"conflicts of interest"

Mr. Ollie: I have no idea about the software changes you refer to: I am not the person (or the Paul Oppenheimer: there are more than one) involved here. I have sent you and the management a calibrated defense of my attempt to have my books listed in at least the bibliographical sections of your articles on (a) the sonnet, (b) Peter Paul Rubens, (c) Machiavelli, and (d) guilt, in each of which I have published widely and well received books, to wit: The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Consciousness and the Invention of the Sonnet (Oxford University Press); Rubens: A Portrait (Cooper Square Press in the U.S., Duckworth in the U.K.); Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology (Continuum); and Infinite Desire: A Guide to Modern Guilt (Duckworth in the U.K. and Madison Books in the U.S.) My long recognized well respected translation of the tales of Till Eulenspiegel, Till Eulenspiegel: His Adventures (Routledge, 2001), now in its fourth edition and extremely well reviewed in many places (including initially in The New Yorker), is likewise nowhere cited in your article on Till Eulenspiegel. To argue, indeed plead, that these contributions ought to be listed in any balanced treatment of these subjects hardly represents a "conflict of interest." What it in fact represents, and this especially as your articles on all these subjects now offer unbalanced and obsolete points of view, is an unwillingness to supply readers with respectable and fair as well as standard opportunities (all these books are widely cited in other scholarly reference sources). I urge you to reconsider your stance here and at least to allow the listing of these books. Their absence in your listings will surely be regarded by many in the know as itself revelatory of bias.--With many thanks, Paul Oppenheimer Poppenheimer (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of VirtualGeo information in several articles

Dear Mr Olly,

I was about to write an article about VirtualGeo virtual globe when I noticed you removed the mentions to the software in the articles Géoportail and VirtualGlobe. As a result, the Géoportail article no longer informs about the recently 3D visualisation services offered by the portal and ambiguously refers (in See also and External links sections) to other virtual globes softwares than the one streaming the Géoportail data ...

VirtualGeo is a virtual globe significantly used in Europe. With more than 30.000 users per day (even just considering IGN services and Geoconcept solutions), don't you think that we can reasonably consider that it is at least as worthy of notice as many of the virtual globe software listed in the VirtualGlobe article ?

I understand that Wikipedia is neither a place for advertising nor a collection of external links. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I may have submitted my contribution in an unappropriate form for the encyclopedia. Could you kindly advice me in an acceptable way to proceed ? F Rouas (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)