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 and topic subscriptions 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!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software

I have added notable and significant software to your list to improve it. To omit it, would be like omitting, Burger King from a list of fast food outlets, because you prefer to eat at McDonald.

Why did you remove my edits to these pages: Grilling and Barbecue in the United States

Hi there, wondering why your removed my edits. I was citing the most recent industry data on grilling, with a credible source to back it up. In fact, on the Barbecue in the United States page, I was merely updating data that was already included in the entry but was outdated. Please advise. Thanks! HPRSchles (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on conflict of interest, the Wikimedia Terms of use, and refrain from linking to your employer's websites in the future. Thanks in advance! - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pirate King Online : Tales of Pirates

The page already talks about other variations and Pirate King Online is no differ from those, if you remove PKO, then remove ALL the PKO context as well, otherwise you are just attacking with personal vendetta. 142.4.219.226 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? None of these 'variations' are listed on the page, nor should there be any. - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Newton Leibniz and the development of calculus

Hi Ollie,

Calculus is a very complex idea that took academics across Europe over a 100 years before it came to the point we know it today. Unfortunately, our education throughout the world is not making that clear: a lot of people think that Newton and Leibniz are responsible for modern calculus without knowing who Cavalieri was or who Wellis was.

This has tremendous consequences for the intellectual development of ppl throughout the world: they see the individual without being aware of the concerted effort, they see the man without understanding the team effort behind the triumph that calculus is.

The fact is that if Cavalieri has not invested his time in a rather shaky at the time, experimental research idea and if Wellis hasnt generalized on Cavalieri's findings, Newton wouldnt have been able to do what he did.

As I said in my comment under my edit:

It took at least three outstanding academics over 100 years to develop Calculus as we know it and readers should be able to get this from the introductory statement of Main|History of calculus.

So to say that Calculus was developed by Newton and Leibniz is in fact a misleading statement, one that lets children and young teens under the impression that Newton and Leibniz are in fact 100% responsible for something that is much bigger than these two people alone. It is erroneous, confusing and has nothing to do with neutrality.

I am glad that someone is looking after influential posts like this but if you need some reference I strongly recommend this:

http://math.bard.edu/bloch/history_calculus_slides.pdf

Just go to slide 9 and 10.

Or go to the wikipedia pages of Cavalieri and Wellis and check out who these people were.

Or go to the Britannica pages of the same ppl.

I ll let you a few hours to examine the resources yourself and I am waiting for a detailed reply on whether you still think this is breaching a policy of neutrality.

To say that Leibniz and Newton did all by themselves is a lie and a false statement that does not serve anyone.

here is my edit for reference:

Modern calculus was developed in 17th-century Europe by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, after the ingenious ideas and hard work of Bonaventura Cavalieri and John Wallis. Elements of it have appeared before, in ancient India, Greece, China, medieval Europe, and the Middle East.

Zaxos1111 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Zaxos1111

So find a source that meets our sourcing guidelines (powerpoint slides definitely do not, nor does a synthesis of multiple Britannica articles), and then summarize that source for the Wikipedia article, without throwing in your personal value judgments about who is 'ingenious' or a hard worker. - MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Cx Web Framework set for Speedy Deletion

Hi MrOllie,

I've received your message that Cx Web Framework page was set for Speedy Deletion under the section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. After reading the terms, I understood why it does not meet the criteria for having its separate Wikipedia page. If I got it correctly, it's mainly because - "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources...", while on this page all the resources point to the official Cx page. Can you please explain if there are other reasons for this? Also, I'd like to know if there is any way to improve this page so it won't get deleted.

Thank you,

Okremenovic (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Okremenovic

Someone else tagged another of your articles as A7, I tagged your latest article with G11 (and I see an admin has agreed and deleted it). G11 means that the article appeared to simply be an advertisement, which is never allowed on Wikipedia. That's the primary reason, but you are correct that the sourcing issue would also need to be addressed. I've looked around for sources and I haven't found any that meet Wikipedia's guidelines, so this may be a case where it is simply too soon for a Wikipedia article. I also notice that you seem to be associated with Codaxy in some fashion, so please read our conflict of interest policy and Wikipedia's terms of use, which require you to make certain disclosures. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Delft magazine

Dear MrOllie,

Thank you for your revisions to my edits.

My question: As you know, I recently tried to add new technology to "Reverse osmosis", "Solar desalination" (and even create seperate page for the technology and its company) but the references are not to your liking. Can you please explain how a research institute like Delft University of Technology (which is government in The Netherlands) can not be independent?

The source you used is a university's student/alumni magazine. Those kinds of puff pieces are common in such publications when students or alumni found a company (the founders of the company you are promoting are Delft University graduates) and are written with the input of those featured. We would need a true independent citation, for this kind of content probably from a major newspaper or news magazine. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This source pretends to be independent but you got a point, thanks. Where you see the "puffyness" in the article? Seems objective, informative and author seems to be knowledgeable, only few quotes of employer. Even includes negatives like high investment up front.

Either way, just trying to get this technology going :) With help of Google and even the company itself, two more options as citations: http://2016.omanobserver.om/making-waves-is-their-business/ Please keep in mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman_Daily_Observer ;) Or https://thewaternetwork.com/article-FfV/in-conversation-with-sid-vollebregt-from-elemental-water-makers-1-3koNm9txcY-fHzhfGex4ng Many articles seem to have some sort of quotes from company employers but I assume with a good interviewer/editor objectivity can still be maintained. Correct? And/or what are the possibilities for Dutch articles in major Dutch newspapers? Enjoy your day and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCJ80 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge of "decision-making software" into "decision support system"

Hi MrOllie, I don't suppose you feel like involving yourself in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Decision_support_system#Merge_from_decision-making_software? Best wishes Paulwizard (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

About removing external link from 'ellipse' article

Thank you for your effort to preserve the quality standards of wikipedia. In regard to the removal of the external link from the Ellipse article on January 17, please take into account that the linked page calculates, among others, the perimeter of the ellipse, for which no closed form solution exists, using the infinite series form, at user requested accuracy. While the Ramanujan formulas are excellent and they can easily be implemented in a spreadsheet, there are circumstances where the infinite series is needed (i.e. narrow ellipse) and it is very hard to make a hand (or spreadsheet) calculation with it. Also, online tools for such calculations, generally lack documentation and are based mostly on the ramanujan formulas. Therefore, it is my opinion that the removed [http://calcresource.com/geom-ellipse.html link] is valuable from the user perspective and demonstrates the implementation of topics described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centaur54 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of useful links. I suggest you submit it at a site that is intended to be such a directory - DMOZ.org is a good one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt answer. According to the article you referred me to, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article;". I don't want to force my link but i find it difficult to believe that a calculator is irrelevant for such an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centaur54 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation Removal: Search engine optimization

Mr. Ollie, The citation which you reinstated returns an error, rather than relevant information.

{{cite web|url=http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=2119&postcount=10|title=Who Invented the Term "Search Engine Optimization"?|author=Danny Sullivan|publisher=[[Search Engine Watch]]|date=June 14, 2004|accessdate=May 14, 2007}}

{{cite web|url=https://www.heroseo.pro/seo/seo-hero/seo-hero-the-one-who-coined-the-term-seo/|title=SEO Hero: The Hero Who Coined The Term SEO|author=Christian Shackleton|date=January 17, 2017|accessdate=January 18, 2017}}

The information of this new citation contains the reference to the T. I find that this link should be reinstated in order to help people who are interested within the topic at hand, rather than returning an error. Thank you for your time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piobuilleann (talk • contribs)

Yeah, but it's also a spammy seo blog. A broken link is better than a bad link. I'm not thrilled about using searchenginewatch either, but consensus in the past has been that that one site is OK. At any rate, you've now been reverted by a second editor. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

you say spammy, I say informative! There is a lot research which went into the preparation of this article which can be informative. All of it being factual! - Piobuilleann —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Providing such a link is not for ranking, rather to accurately account information which should be published. I'm familiar with the nofollow; I'm not expecting much. Just trying to fix dead links with content informative upon the subject. - Piobuilleann (talk)