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!

Undid revision by MrOllie (talk)

Can you justify the reason for deleting my edits? I am adding content regarding flow cytometry analysis - I listed available software... Please justify how you can classify this as promotion material since FlowJo has its own wiki page - isn't promotional as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugokocek (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is expressly not a place to list software programs, add external links, etc. As to the FlowJo article, it is sourced only to a press release. If somebody nominated it for deletion it would very likely be removed. If no better sourcing is forthcoming, I'm sure someone will get around to that sooner or later. - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake

Hi Ollie, You have removed all the appropriate links I have added, I'm trying to add value to this community by adding links to the most relevant and helpful citation sites.

Let me begin with my first link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_content" I have added this link "https://amitpurohit.com/duplicate-content-checker-tool/" as per guidelines Wikipedia always ask us to add "RELEVANT SITE LINKS" there was an outdated content published on 2011 by techmaish which as per you looks relevant rather than the new one? I think you should read the thread once again, it talks about duplicate content and software's and tools help us in detecting it, I wonder why its irrelevant? only you can say this. Secondly, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_Identity_Access_Management" I have added this "https://www.loginradius.com/cIAM-basics/" the topic speaks about customer identity access management, I believe you also checked the reference links added in this page most of them shares information about ciam, how on earth this link looks irrelevant to you? I have added this as a citation link, and ciam basics talks about the part ciam consists. Thirdly, In "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management" I have added "loginradius.com" as a identity management system, If someone is reading an article of Identity management he also need to know which are the service provider of Identity management, I think this link should also be added back again. Last but not least, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_density" you also delete a relevant citation link from this and also the part I have added in the reference link, I think I have added the correct link which was appropriate as per user point of view if the content mention thing about "seo" in the content. People should know "what is keyword density in seo" its all relevant and the most important thing updated and working links.

I have read the guidelines of wikipedia before adding links that's why I didn't add the link on a keyword. I believe you need to look at this matter on priority basis. If not, then its better for me that I should remove my account cause everytime I'll add a link you or someone else from your team will remove it. If wikipedia has given an user a authority to add links to relevant content, then people who are the reviewing the links should also need to learn in judging a link with proper analysis. Marina Elvis1 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Marina Elvis1

Please read the external links guideline again. If you've read them you haven't understood them. We do not add things merely because they are relevant. A local plumber would be relevant to the article on plumbing, but Wikipedia is not in the business of linking to businesses who are trying to sell related products or services. - MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

DeepCode removed from List of tools for static code analysis

Hello, wanted to ask why in this clean-up edit link DeepCode was removed? It is one of the best static analysis tools and is free for Open-Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskalev.boris (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a list of tools with Wikipedia articles. An external link isn't appropriate there. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it thank you! I guess I will have to create an article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskalev.boris (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Info about TatukGIS was groundlessly removed from List of geographic information systems software

Hello, Please explain me why you deleted my supplement of the article about TatukGIS? --Michal.kowalczuk (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. Or the comment on your talk page that was made last time you added it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Last time, my entry was deleted by Mwtoews because of dead red link. You can find his answer on my talk page.
Now I DID NOT create a dead "red" link . Your comment is 'nonnotable entry' means that you gave a subjective opinion that information about TatukGIS is irrelevant.
I also add an external link like others in this article, e.g. reference number 6, 8, 13 - arcgis.com; 7 - carto.com; 10 - developer.here.com. All are links to non-wiki pages, but commercial products.
Why they are allowed? Please give me real reason for deleting my entry? --Michal.kowalczuk (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To quote the edit comment you saw at the top of the page when you hit the edit button: 'Only add links to Wikipedia articles'. Also, notability is a specifically defined jargon term on Wikipedia, not a subjective opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

govivace.com

Hi I'm Sahic1512, Mr.Ollie I request you to provide the page details so that I can review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, all your edits to Wikipedia are to add references to one particular company, so take your pick. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, since we serve in a particular niche and is surely contributing in educating the industry with the essence of healthy competition with the help of this platform. This is not there to advertise, with all due respect if that so then there are various companies here and they all should be removed.

Thanks. Sahilc1512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That there is other inappropriate spam on Wikipedia is a reason to remove that spam, not a reason to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

'we serve' If you are associated with Govivace, you should review the guidelines on conflict of interest. In particular, certain disclosures would be required by Wikipedia's terms of service. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am related to GoVivace in a certain manner and would like to accept I know I was conflicting with Wikipedia's guidelines. But there are certain places where I can do mention a company's products/services/contributions such as Comparison of antivirus software orList of seafood companies.

Thank you. Sahilc1512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilc1512 (talk • contribs)

Not your own company, please. - MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

fine bubble diffuser

Hello,

You revered all of my changes to this page back to the original text. The miseducation of college engineering students worldwide with an article that contains numerous false statements about my field, written in poor English, is now on your conscience, not mine.

All that I did was try to fix some factual errors and bring the information up to date. There is such a thing as setting too high a bar for things, such that you discourage people acting in good faith from spending time on this.

When is a person's own field specific experience sufficient to make a factual statement that can be used? https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Thomas+E.+Frankel

As to the inaccuracies:

What is pumpage? Are there any manufacturers in the field today using PUR material? TPU yes, not PUR. Air is not used in the removal of Phosphorus from wastewater. In fact, it prevents its removal. Coarse bubble diffusers are less efficient than fine bubble diffusers, and they do not aide in bacterial growth. What is the activated sludge processing tank? Nobody says that. There are selectors, aeration basins, and clarifiers, not 'processing tanks'

The entire article is farcical, and you are defending it! Why don't you want Wikipedia to get better and help people actually learn things properly? Aside from correcting the gross inaccuracies, we could do so much more with this article, such as adding ORP and modern fine bubble aeration controls, blower types to feed the diffusers, etc...

Be a force for good.

- Tom Frankel — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomFrankel (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question buried in those personal attacks, a person's own field specific experience is never sufficient to put a factual statement in an article. Please read the policy on original research that I linked to on your talk page. Wikipedia summarizes sources so that readers can verify the sources of information. Wikipedia editors are simply not allowed to remove sourced material and substitute our own judgment, even if we think the sources are wrong. If you want to make corrections, you need to bring better, independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

COI

Hello, MrOllie!

The page Two Kings (book series) was flagged for a COI.

I'm not a Wikipedia experienced editor. I saw some issues on the page, added some sources.

Are you able to clean up or make right the issue that caused the flag?

That would be appreciated. (And, nice.)

Best.

Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but first can you disclose any connection you have with Rabbi Jacobs? Please note that per Wikipedia's terms of use, such disclosures might be required. See the guide to editing with a conflict of interest for details. - MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Private money page

Hello, MrOllie!

I've added relevant information about default on the loan, I've also cited a source and I just saw that you've sent me a message after removing my contribution.

I've basically explained what default on the loan means and the cited source is a Real Estate Investor's Glossary, so not a business page.

Plus, as you said in your message, Wikipedia provides nofollow links, most search engines ignore links with nofollow attributes.

So, could you please approve my contribution?

That would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I would suggest you find a better source. We generally do not source information about financial products to the companies that are marketing those same products. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!

MrOllie, unfortunately.. I saw on several wiki pages contributions (also on "Hard money loan" wiki page - California Hard Money Direct) that include sources about products and services to companies that are selling those same products and services. So why is that allowed and my contribution isn't?