User talk:MrOllie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:MrOllie)
Jump to: navigation, search
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!

Fractal Rainbow ebook[edit]

I understand that this Book is very interesting to understand better Scale Relativity.

It is a disclosure book that explain and show very easy why Scale Factor and Fractal Theory will be the future in Cosmology in a very easy way.

There are very few books about Scale Relativity (2 from Nottale) and no own easy to understand for General Readers.

Please, read it and after ward you can decide ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talkcontribs) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't externally link bookstores. Even if we did, we don't cite and/or link to self published books, generally. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, read first it and afterwards decide by yourself !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talkcontribs) 23:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: notability.[edit]

It is not at all obvious to me how the software under discussion is overall less notable than the software already there.

I have checked all of them, and none of them seem to be really obscure. Please also keep in mind that as a comparison article, we cannot just leave out items for no good reason, as that would violate our NPOV policy. For this reason also, for inclusion on comparison articles the bar tends to be lower than for article creation.

If you think one or two really are too obscure to mention, please don't be so vague about it and explicitly state their names and the reasons why they are less notable than the rest.

Also, in the future don't use such crappy edit summaries for big, potentially controversial edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

On Internet_Activism Page [Resolved][edit]

Hi Mr.Link Removal

External link i have added is compatible with the Wikipedia policy and relevant to the wiki page , the site is accessible since 7 + year check web archive , they are non-profit , not a blog sites , not a fansite even a not person dirt too .

Still you have removed ?

thank you for your consideration . 49.32.32.36 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but per our guidelines on external links a blog post such as that one (and yes, it is clearly a blog post) does not belong on that article, particularly a blog post on a specific case like Swartz on the general article about internet activism. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


HI there !

Thank you so much 49.32.32.36 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of items from deep learning frameworks table[edit]

Hi MrOllie, I saw that you removed five frameworks from the table in Comparison of deep learning software with the motivation that I should see WP:Write the article first. That article just states that you shouldn't link to articles that are not yet written, but three of the list items that you removed didn't have any red links, and for the cases where there are red links, it is enough to just convert the links into plain text; no content has to be removed. I have therefore restored the article to it's former state (except for the red links). If you feel the article needs a clean-up, please provide a more relevant motivation for why the text has to go. Thanks! —Kri (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External link - cross functional team[edit]

Hi MrOllie,

I have received a message from you about some external links. I think the links are relevant to the article. it is a very good resources for the readers as further reading, kindly have a cross check regarding the relevance of the links and the articles.

Thanks

/Zakaria  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzkhan (talkcontribs) 20:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 

Re: External link & References Removal[edit]

Hi MrOllie, I See that you have sent me a message of external link removal, Can you please give me a strong reason why you have removed that because Forkliftaction is well known for forklift industry news in Australia. I don't think it is inappropriate or irrelevant. You can even check this information in Google or on it's website. Development of the Forkliftaction began in September 1999. There are now more than 49,000 members and an estimated 190,000 newsletter recipients. So it is a very useful source, and about lencrow external link; I have place that link because a case study of Australian Vintage Ltd (with genuine images and statements) written on that page which is right, that's why I have also put Forkliftaction's link (Lencrow Supply AVL with New Fleet) for your trust about right news. So I would like to request you please recheck it & tell me where I am wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillismith1212 (talkcontribs) 07:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)