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!

Why was an entire section deleted with no notification?

Yesterday, you removed an entire paragraph from the Financial Planner article (the paragraph accurately describing FP Canada). If I hadn't returned to the article today to update it, I would never have known. Did you leave a note somewhere on a Talk page? (I can't see one.) And there's no record on my Watchlist, which includes this page. What am I missing here?

Is it not reasonable for an original author to be notified, preferably with some explanation of why factual material was removed? If you have a good reason for the deletion, I'm open to hearing it. Tom Bene (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The text struck me as promotional, which was my concern with your COI edits in the first place. I'm sure it was on your watchlist. There is no requirement to notify editors on talk pages. Most edits are not discussed anywhere. You have no special rights as the 'original author', see WP:OWN. - MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right - the article was on my Watchlist, which I didn't have properly configured for notifications. That explains why there's no need to notify the original author! So thanks for your patience with a new user. I am curious as to whether you found the section on the CFP designation derogatory or too complementary, as it mentioned both the advantages and disadvantages of the CFP for consumers. Tom Bene (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Corfe Castle External Links

Hi MrOllie, hope you are well.

Ref external links on the Corfe Castle page - there is no "Official" website and the existing link is actually the Corfe Castle Chamber of Trade website. Also, the website has not been updated since 2017 so felt it better to rename the link.

The other website corfe-castle.info was setup in 2019 to help promote Events in the village, but has also been used to update visitors about current Covid situation and what shops and services were open or offering home delivery during lockdown. I thought it contain some useful (up to date) information that could not be found on the Chamber website.

I am happy to leave the links as they stand, but would welcome your thoughts on changing them back to my suggestions.

Kind regards - Davinian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinian (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not link to sites whose purpose is to promote anything, see WP:EL. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to act as a travel guide or to assist people planning vacations. If you're interested in contributing to that sort of thing there is en.wikivoyage.org - MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest all links be removed as the Chamber of Trade website may be out of date but was only used for promoting the businesses in the village. The YouTube and National Trust link would perhaps be better in the Reference section? Davinian (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd already removed the chamber of commerce link. We only put things in references if they are being used to cite specific content in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you have already removed the Chamber link - the National Trust link could be a reference to them taking over the Castle and Purbeck estate when it was left to them after Henry Bankes died in 1981? Davinian (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

CAD programs

You just reverted the 'Computer-aided_design' page after I added three entries to the list. I'm in the process of evaluating these programs. Is there some reason they should be kept secret? nanoCAD progeCAD the free verson of nanoCAD Pnadams (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of programs that already have Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Grease duct insulation

The grease duct insulation is mandated by NFPA 96 standard. However the generic product mentioned are misintrepating the concept of testing. Can you undo the edit removing the brand specific details as the details mentioned herein are not appropriate as per testing standard Rajesh Mukundan (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to restore your advertising for a particular vendor. - MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional info deleted / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalized_difference_vegetation_index /

JimmyFarmer (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie,

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Just want to know something. Why did you delete the additional information regarding NDVI? I have added unique information about NDVI limitations at different growth stages and have linked it to the source website I referred to. The info is precise and non-repeating. Can you explain to me why you did it?

Best,

Jim

JimmyFarmer (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Per our sourcing guidelines we do not use vendor blogs as sources. Because a series of brand new accounts have been adding references to EOS's blog wherever they can, I expect if this keeps up the site will end up on the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted links

Raidillon (talk)

Hello MrOllie,

You deleted the links I added to the pages "1936 Hungarian Grand Prix", Autodromo de Sitges-Terramar" and "Race Track" because you tought these links were inappropriate. Well, it were all links to relevant articles about the same subjects, so what's inappropriate about that? You better check the other links, there are links that are reconected to irrelevant websites that are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs)

The presence of other inappropriate links is a reason to remove those links, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It were NOT inappropriate links! You not even read my message properly... These links were on Wikipadia for a long time and nobody thought they are inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:EL, which I just linked for you. Linking to someone's self published website isn't appropriate per our guidelines on linking. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles I linked comply with point 3 of allowed links:

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,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Moreover: Except the website I linked on the "Race Track" page today it were articles I linked for a long time ago. Nobody thought they are inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidillon (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you stopped there and did not continue to 'Links normally to be avoided' point 11, which bars this sort of site. As to your claim of longevity, Wikipedia is a big site and volunteer time is limited, sometimes it takes a long time to notice that inappropriate additions have been made, but someone gets to it eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of citation on Data Management page

Hi MrOllie

On the Data Management page you removed a citation. The citation has been outstanding since 2016. The reason given, which I understand, is that the citation could be viewed as unreliable since it is from a company website. The reason I'm appealing that decision is 2-fold:

1. The remaining citations on that page are from IBM. Which is effectively a consultant blog.
2. Other wikipedia pages on more modern topics, and I would include Data Management within that category, do allow citation from corporate blogs. I will use the Digital Marketing page as an example. There is a shortage of academic literature on these subjects hence it makes sense to use company literature instead. It would be commercially damaging for companies to publish unreliable literature.

Thanks! Poolydata (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Poolydata

If you have found other sources that do not meet our sourcing requirements, that is a reason to replace or remove those sources, not to add more stuff that doesn't meet the sourcing guidelines. It would be commercially damaging for companies to admit that customers don't need their products, so there is an obvious conflict of interest in such sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, there isn't anything I saw in the guidance stating company articles aren't allowed as a source. On further reading of the guidance, it's not clear why the citation was removed.

p.s. I appreciate the editing of the site to prevent it from becoming a spam factory. Poolydata (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Poolydata

Removal of Section Added to Existing Article

Hello, I read your comment about removal of the "Rotating Proxies" section I added on the "Proxy Server" article. Okay, I won't re-add content again; I'm still learning. Your reason for removal was "unreliable sources," which I gather is related to the two footnotes leading to proxyserver.com. I need to learn more about what constitutes reliable sources. I would consider the blog's owner, ProxyMesh, to be reliable in this field, and the definitions of rotating proxies and levels of anonymity don't seem controversial to me. Would it be acceptable if I cited two or more sources for each of those references, one being ProxyMesh and the others being different proxy service firms that can corroborate the terms in the article? Thanks and regards, Doubtnot93 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't use blogs as sources, particularly not self published ones, and definitely not ones set up by a company that is trying to sell users the thing being written about. See WP:RS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Link question

When you said we don't add external links like I did, should I add it as a footnote? I want to have clarity on what I did that was not correct. Thank you. Ihaveadreamagain 17:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't add external links just because the organization in question was mentioned in the article. Interested readers should click on the Wikilink for OSCR and follow the official site link from there. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Image from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_loan

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I would like to state my case for why the image should be reinstated.

The image is a clear visual of the distribution of mortgage terms across all outstanding residential mortgages in Canada. It helps readers understand the popularity of the 5-year fixed-rate closed mortgage term. It has no logo, watermark, or any other visible affiliation or endorsement of its source. Indeed, it clearly states that the data is from Statistics Canada.

In addition, this information is not available in a visual or easily understood form for consumers. Other sources on the internet use outdated information from before 2015. Statistics from Statistics Canada (and the Bank of Canada) are often less accessible to regular users and no recently updated chart directly comparing mortgage term popularity is available.

If you have an issue with the relevancy of the content to the article, that's fine. But the content that I added, in my opinion, contributes to the reader's understanding of mortgage loans in Canada.

Bsl4canadian (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you related to wowa.ca in some way? Are you employed by them? Why cite them instead of citing Statistics Canada directly? - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am an employee of wowa.ca. I make research, aggregate data, and make content for wowa.ca. The content that I have sourced from wowa.ca and added to Wikipedia is content that our team spends hours if not days curating and I personally feel is worth contributing. For example, the chart was the result of a recent research project. None of the content I added explicitly endorses or references our company. We are also sometimes one of the only easily accessible sources for information like the property taxes of small municipalities in Canada. Due to copyright reasons, however, I can't add content sourced from wowa.ca without attributing the company as the source. You can disagree with my usage of citations (which I admit is likely not the most rigorous) as well as whether or not my contributions are relevant or add value to their articles, but the site and the content that I sourced from it is good. Bsl4canadian (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, linking your employer is not good. See also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - you have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not paid to put the content up, but I can see how blurry that line can be. My point is that the website is not spam, the content has value to Wikipedia users, and neither I nor my colleagues are attempting to subvert Wikipedia's guidelines through excessive link-spam. We research Canadian mortgages, property taxes, and government programs (amongst other things), and we create high-quality content. If we feel that the content is valuable to Wikipedia readers, then we add it to relevant Wikipedia articles. Most of the content we add is related to the company because that's what we specialize and spend most of our time on.

You can contest my citations and my content, but you shouldn't outright claim any and all content from wowa.ca is spam. I would be open to discussing the merit of each of my contributions, but they should stand otherwise.Bsl4canadian (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Spamming is about behavior, not content. When multiple accounts show up to add citations to the same company in every one of their edits, that is spamming as we define it here. We also do not split hairs about paid editing - you are paid by wow.ca, and you are adding links to wow.ca, therefore you are a paid editor. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you guide me as to how I can contest this designation?