User talk:MrOllie/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

deletion of recombination human collagen

Hello Mr. Ollie,

Can you please explain why the addition of ‎Recombinant human collagen to the collagen article was removed? I have made the necessary disclosures, and I didn't refer to any company in the article itself. I honestly think it is a necessary addition to collagen. Here are a few examples of similar additions to the one I have made: 1. Recombinant chymosin under the articles Chymosin and Recombinant DNA 2. Recombinant insulin under the articles Insulin and Recombinant DNA 3. Recombinant hGH (Growth hormone) under the articles Growth hormone and Recombinant DNA 4. Recombinant FVIIa (blood-clotting protein) under the articles FVIII and Recombinant DNA 5. Recombinant Hepatitis B vaccine under the articles Hepatitis B and Recombinant DNA vaccine

I understand there may be a problem with something specific in the edition I have made, so if there is anything specific, I will be more than happy to do any necessary adjustments. Kessemhacoll (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the necessary disclosures, but that does not give you Carte blanche to promote your company's products on Wikipedia. You must proceed by using talk pages and getting a consensus of independent editors that your conflicted contributions are appropriate - and in this case it is clear (to me) that they are not. Whether you refer to your company by name or not, it is clear what you're talking about in your edits. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, Recombinant human collagen is an actual thing, and it has no mentions on Wikipedia, that is why I decided to add it. I honestly believe it is necessary to add that kind of information, this is not a promotion of my companies products. I would apricate if you could please give it a second look, and as I said, if you think that there is something that needs to be changed – I’ll be more than happy to do so. I have also added it a while ago to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessemhacoll (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I have deleted anything that may seem like a promotion. If you think otherwise, I would appreciate it if you can let me know, so I can do the necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessemhacoll (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at all the sources and pretty much all the authors have conflicts of interest on this topic. As a conflicted editor yourself, the point of our guidelines is that you are not qualified to judge what is promotional and what isn't, which is why you should be (only) proposing these edits on article talk pages, not making them yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your time and kind response. I posted the edits on the talk page, but no one responded. Is there anything I can do in the meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessemhacoll (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers, there are no deadlines. Someone will respond eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User-generated content

Hi MrOllie,

I want to understand reason for the removal of edit made by Mrktng Experiments to the page User-generated content. Raising a query to understand submission rules a bit better !

Mrktng Experiemnts (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a set of unsourced statements of opinion. See our policies on neutrality, original research, and proper sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Optical head-mounted display

Hello MrOllie,

I have two issues regarding your deletion of the entire "Notable Manufacturers" section. I believe your claim is: a) most of the explanation was written to advertise the listed companies and b) many of the listed companies are not actually notable.

For claim a), I do understand where you're coming from. However, as someone who greatly benefited from the article, I would like to point out that the "Notable Manufacturers" section is actually very informative and does provide a good list of the players in the market. Although I partially agree with your perspective that advertisements should be banned from the article, I would like to suggest that you let users have access to the article, as long as it is cited well and obeys Wikipedia's policies regarding Neutral Point-of-View and Conflict-of-Interest - our goal is to sort out advertisements, not to delete the whole section.

Regarding claim b), it would be very nice if you could provide solid evidence to back up your claim that many of the listed companies "are not notable at all". I'm afraid that your claim is extremely vague - I would understand if you could provide a solid definition of the word "notable" and sort out the companies based on that definition; otherwise, it is very difficult to agree with you.

Thank you very much in advance. I hope you take my suggestions into consideration.

Gushichan (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This user has asked the same Q at my talk page, I have asked them to discuss article issues at the article talk page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of New Section from Existing "Proxy Server" Article

Hello, MrOllie, on July 29 I followed your suggestion and left a post on Talk:Proxy Server about adding standard definitions of rotating proxies and elite proxies without sourcing the information. I suggested the existing Proxy Server article already provided those definitions. Thus I would avoid citing a self-published blog source for the information. You suggested that other users may wish to weigh in on an article-specific content discussion, so I posted the question on [Proxy Server]. But no one has left a comment in the six days since I posted there. So I’m coming back to see what you’ll say now. Can I keep those definitions in my proposed new section on rotating proxies? I do think it would be a substantive contribution to the article. Omission of inline citations for terms that other contributors have already defined would prevent sourcing to a self-published blog. Unreliability of source was the sole reason you cited for removing the entire entry.

However, I would like to point out that a statement in the Residential Proxy section of the existing article is sourced in footnote 33 to a blog published by Oxylabs, a proxy service (as is my organization).

What would you say about my request to reinstate the Rotating Proxies addition? Doubtnot93 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had a conflict of interest. You should read WP:PAID and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, your previous edits may have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Asset Sharing in Geofence

Hi MrOllie, can you explain your specific reasoning for deleting the edit made? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geo-fence&diff=prev&oldid=971507159 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousaxolotl (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use vendor blogs or other such marketing materials as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_tracking_unit#cite_ref-12 Curiousaxolotl (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSPAMEXISTS. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance.Curiousaxolotl (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of External Link on List of Static Analysis Tools Wiki page

Hello Mr. Ollie

I believe that Kompar, should be added to the page List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis because the Wikipedia page is a list of static analysis tools and Kompar is a website that compares static analysis tools. In the future, Kompar will benchmark them in comparison to each other. Kompar is not a commercial company, but a government-funded research project that is being built on the contributions of the cyber security/application security community. Information about static analysis tools on Kompar are contributed by the community. A big issue that currently faces developers is that they are unaware of what static analysis tools they should use to write more secure code. While the Wikipedia page provides a list per language, it is missing a lot of information that can be found on Kompar. The Kompar website also aligns well with the current external link list, particularly https://samate.nist.gov/index.php/Source_Code_Security_Analyzers.html and https://samate.nist.gov/SATE.html. I believe that Kompar is a great resource that compliments the content of the Wikipedia page List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis. Jigouttrev (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a duplicitive link that is lower value because it takes sponsorship money from people who write the tools. The existing links are more than sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyvallahsiz (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Hello dear ‪MrOllie,

Firstly thank you for your feedback. As a female empowerment organization, we face challenges while getting a fund, building an organizational structure, so much that one can't anticipate from the West. This creates challenges for us to do the PR work that is necessary to fit your criteria.

If you are requiring a feminist organization to be extremely developed, with a PR team and communications team working to develop a Wikipedia page... Well, you are creating a bias, favoring Western, digital friendly organizations. Maybe that is why UK, Sweden, and mostly European countries have have the most number of female NGOs listed on this page. Because they have the advantage, tools and ecosystem to make that happen.

Best,

Eyvallahsiz (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of edit

Dear Mr Ollie,

I would like to know why my edit on the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms page and the State terrorism page were removed. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus Alvarez (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Rossano

kind sir, please accept constructive interventions, even from different people, to ensure that Wikipedia can be free and grow, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.97.53 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You must stop spamming mentions of Giovanni Bianco across Wikipedia, this website is not a venue for you to promote yourself. The blocks will continue if you don't - we can block your whole ISP if you make it necessary. - MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

kind sir, I think I have to include those who deserve, no one promotes himself, but we act with impartiality and common sense, take a constructive attitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.97.53 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a common wikipedia reader moved by constructive intentions, she has a prejudice and sees a conflict of interest where there is none, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.97.53 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

block the entire ISP for serious and quality interventions? come on, think and think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.97.53 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

About removal

Dear Mr Ollie,

I included: Espacio Byte, Digital Art Museum (www.espaciobyte.org) as an external link to Digital art article, because it is an online museum dedicated exclusively to digital arts.

Espacio Byte was founded in 2013 and since then, has been operating uninterruptedly. It is a non profit organization focused on education. If you google Espacio Byte, you will find a lot of references about it.

Here is an example of one of the latests articles: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ak9YdheGIbreuMcFY-jgjrmeKt3nSw?e=bTfayQ&fbclid=IwAR3xX7IUt4HVQSjRxK0TjG80gATvsf1Vlt22MGS8nGuw-31kViDLyfe55t8

Any other information required, please let me know. Warm bytes,

Kiqueghi (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)kiqueghi

Thanks, but Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. - MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of references leading to itcqf.org

Dear Mr Ollie, You have removed my minor edits (references) from Technical Communication and API pages. I've got a message about possible conflict of interests, while the links provided lead to non-profit, standarization organization page, which exist in the internet for at least 5 years. I strongly believe they provide valuable knowledge, for free, available for everyone and it is beneficial for Wikipedia community to be informed about such resource. Please note that similar, but commercial(!) organizations are quoted and referenced in the same articles. I see that ITCQF doesn't have its own wikipedia page yet, is that a factor? In my opinion they deserve that, but I do not feel competent to provide info about them as a whole. Thank you for taking care about the stuff! Best, Ósemka (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the main issue is that these sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines, and given your accounts singular focus on adding links to this organization is looks like you are connected to them somehow. Are you? - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand in which point I'm violating the sourcing guidelines? I'm one of many people who were trained using this materials and I benefited from them. So I thought it is worth to inform others too... especially as it is free and independent source of useful knowledge. I used to contribute also to Polish wikipedia, adding links to basketball (streetball) related pages, so cannot agree with the "singular focus" statement :)

Best, Ósemka (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ollie,

I would like to know why my edit on the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms page and the State terrorism page were removed. Thank you

Removal of cryptographic libraries without an article in Comparison_of_cryptography_libraries

Hi Mr.Ollie, I'd like to know why are you removing libraries without an article? These tables are very useful to inform readers with an overview of what is there in exsitence and having them removed by the single fact that there are no articles _yet_ discards this point. Having no article simply means: a) it's very new or not enough people know about it. But not having them in this list exacerbates this issue don't you think? Chibby0ne (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

'Has an existing Wikipedia article' is the inclusion criteria for most lists on Wikipedia, including that one (see WP:WTAF). Such lists (and comparisons) are generally meant to serve as navigation aids to Wikipedia articles and to summarize information available on those articles. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a place to get the word out about new stuff, so omitting such things is a feature, not a bug. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick and informative reply. I suspected as much after looking at all the links in that page and realizing they were all blue, but didn't know this was an official recommendation/convention agreed by the community. Can you point me to an index where I can read all these "best practices" like the one you linked, in order to be a more competent editor? Thanks in advance Chibby0ne (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines lists all the important stuff. There are also some newbie friendly explanations listed at Help:Getting started. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Origin Wikipedia

Hi MrOllie,

I understand now the required disclosures around COI - sorry for previous misunderstanding, but adding things like the current executives & information on the Origin Energy Foundation surely couldn't be considered promotional? The Talk section of Origin Energy is very inactive, and activists who are spreading misinformation (that can be proven) are editing the page (with regard to the Origin exploration in the Beetaloo Basin). What would you suggest as the best way to keep the page up to date (with regard to where the company is producing gas and executives up-to-date), and accurate and not spreading misinformation?

Thanks!WikimanNT (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You should not edit the article yourself, instead you should be making suggestions on the article talk page with the {{requestedit}} tag. But Wikipedia isn't a directory, most articles should not be listing employees like that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie.

Thanks for this. Happy to put the information into the talk page as a requested edit, but the Origin Energy talk page is very very inactive (last poast 2017!), and there are inaccuracies on the page (inaccuracies that can be demonstrated through credible links) that could be corrected - what do you suggest? If it isn't actioned in a reasonable amount of time would you be able to help for example? Appreciate that Wikipedia is community driven and should not be promotional, and simply accurate information - will strive to reflect this in suggested changes.

With regard to the listed employees, that was on the page previously, and was merely updated - if best practice for it not to be included thats no problem at all!

Thanks,

WikimanNT (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD sock strike

Facepalm I feel very silly now for missing the typo in the sig. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up, the original comment had a fake sig, too. - MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol that's totally what got me, I clicked on it and was like "this is his real userpage, checks out!" Need moar coffee clearly :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, You've probably noticed that you're not the only one, but you may want to see User_talk:Haukurth#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niloy_Rashid_Jaki. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Dear Sir. Sorry but I did not understand why my edit was reverted. Please, kindly explain what you mean by "broke formatting and seemed WP:UNDUE (TW))" Yours Peiris Dear (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret removal

@MrOllie:Why did you remove sources describing Victoria's Secrets stores in Canada? The company's distribution in Canada is similar to the US, whereas all other countries have lesser involvement. Where is the conflict of interest???

The 3-4 edits that preceed yours need to be undone as they either added unsourced details about an individual or removed sourced content. I was about to do this but then saw your edit and thought I would ask what you are up to first. Please advise as to the reason for your further removal of sourced content. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An employee of retail-insider had been adding lots of citations to their employer, mostly trivial stuff about store openings/closures or sources that were redundant with preexisting cites. I was just removing those. - MrOllie (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RNA

You removed my edit to "Circular RNAs" in which I inserted: Circular mRNA has been proposed for use as a therapeutic or vaccine due to its enhanced nuclease stability.[5] I realize this cites a patent application, which is not a reliable source for experimental data, however, I was only referring to the patent application as an original source for this idea. This idea has not been followed up with experimental data, and I can add those references. I am new to editing wikipages, but have worked with RNA for 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNA Therapist (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@RNA Therapist: We have very stringent rules about medical information, see WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove refences to companies that are pursuing treatments using mRNA editing (Therapeutic mRNA Editing) to the existing RNA Editing article.

I had added: "A number of companies have been founded to pursue Therapeutic mRNA Editing, including ProQR (2012), ETAGEN Therapeutics (2014), Locana (2016), BEAM Therapeutics (2017) and Korro Bio (2019)." I realize that companies should not be cited for promotional purposes, but when a scientific discovery such as natural RNA editing, is repurposed for therapeutics, and this leads a founding of major companies and translational research efforts, this is noteworthy and should be of interest to Wikipedia users. The citations where to the years these companies where founded, which I thought was interesting, as it is a recent trend. I might have added additional information about the amount invested in these companies (which is large, over $200M), but I thought that might have been too much. There is no bias in the list of companies, as I listed all the companies I know of in the space. Also, the user can go to the company pages to learn more, if they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNA Therapist (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't compile lists of companies related to a topic. This is akin to how we don't list plumbing companies on plumbing or commercial bakeries on Bread. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not remove long existing mention of companies from the first paragraph in the article. Using RNA for vaccines is a applied research, and research at companies was the first research to address the problem of immune stimulation by exogenous mRNA added to cells, animals or patientss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNA Therapist (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing those out, I have removed them as well. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of changes

The reason I have removed point number 3 is that the webpage it references no longer exists online. As a result, the point is rendered moot.

Furthermore, without context provided by the content of the deleted webpage it objected to being used as a source, it can be misunderstood to mean something completely unintended and unacceptable in my view. a.w (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androuwaheeb (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits and Citations Chris Piche

Deletion of proper cited Legal Public Database sources and legal cases which are in context of the original article where legal cases are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't cite articles (especially BLPs) to 'Legal Public Database sources'. You were also cutting and pasting from those sources, which is a copyright violation / plagiarism. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your response shows ignorance of...

1. BLP's and Wiki's BLP's terms allow Lawsuits to be added, cited and copied as a reference...

(i) Neutral point of view (NPOV) - You revert to a NON Neutral (Diannaa whose edits suggest a paid contributor) version which violates Wiki's terms on Non Neutral BLP's therefore you are in violation,

(ii) Verifiability (V) - You removed a properly cited and allowable source as per wiki's description the Official Law Publication "Canlii" - Canlii - a verifiable source used by courts - Public accessible therefore a PUBLIC RECORD - whose Terms EXPLICITLY ALLOW Copying and Linking as the Source! This in itself makes you a violator of wiki's terms of use.

(iii) Wiki's terms/publishing standards specifically for Law Suits and legal citations allow me to add this complying with Wiki's "Reporter" citation for Legal citations- "The abbreviated term for whatever reporter is being referenced; i.e., "U.S." for the U.S. Supreme Court's "United States Reports". Important: "reporter" in this context means an official law publication, not a journalist. This presently cannot be specified as work, which is inconsistent with other citation templates. Do not wikilink."

Your ignorance basic copyright law (you never verified the source just deleted it making you in violation of wiki terms) - it is not a "copyright violation" nor is it 'plagiarism" which is Defamatory. What was cited was Canlii in "reporter" context as described by wiki for legal citations (see above) - a Legal Public Database - whose terms explicitly ALLOW citation and copying. See this direct from Canlii - a Legal Public Database...

"...legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document."

Since you insist improperly on being the sole arbiter Judge, Jury and Executioner on this I may have to take this up the chain in wiki "MrOllie" LOL. DragonFireWar (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just about everything you just said is incorrect. I suggest you read all those policies you're quoting again. If you feel the need to 'take this up the chain', WP:ANI is where, but I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

False your statement that a properly cited Official Legal source is "Copyright Violation" is patently False. Furthermore CURRENT BLP's on WIKI especially of high profile individuals HAVE THE SAME LEGAL COPY IN THEIR BLP's across WIKI making your claims FALSE showing that you have zero clue about Legal Citations and Copyright law as is pertains to Legal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs)

1) Copy and pasting is plagarism either way. You must write in your own words. And 2) On Wikipedia we do not make negative statements about biography subjects based on primary sources. Direct any further discussion about this to the admin noticeboards or to the article's talk page where other users can weigh in, this doesn't belong on my user talk. It is impossible to evaluate your claims about other articles without specifics, but in general if you have found policy violations on other articles that is a reason to fix those articles, not to add more primary sourced junk. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

FALSE - Whose "We" do you own Wiki or are you Wiki's Official Spokesperson? LOL

Wiki specifically allows Primary Legal sources to be copied and/or cited and yes in a BLP there are multiple CURRENT High Profile BLP's on Wiki with these types of Legal citations and Copies of a Legal Summary! The President his ex-Lawyer and many many others.

It is not and has never been an "article" is was a direct legal citation allowed by both the Primary Legal Source and Wiki. You appear to be an uninformed wiki editor attempting to the sole arbiter and final decision maker as if you own wiki. I'll note Journalist asking you questions about why their contributions are being deleted by you as well on other wiki pages.

You failed to delete the other Law suit cited in the BLP but saw fit to delete the ones I added which shows your bias and/or ignorance.

Facts are facts (From Wiki's BLP Guidelines Page :) If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject.

If you think it's a valid BLP issue, raise the issue without threatening an edit war If the community, via local or global consensus, disagrees with the claim that your reversions were justified by the BLP policy's exception to the edit warring policy for the removal of deficiently sourced "contentious" material, you may be blocked for edit warring. In borderline cases, this is unlikely, as long as the community can assume good faith that you sincerely thought you were following BLP's guidance. Take special care that all prongs of the BLP policy, as currently written, are met before invoking its powers to ignore 3RR: if an objectionable statement has a reliable source, it cannot be removed repeatedly without regard to the edit warring policy.

Regarding reverting edits (External Links) of Mechanical Engineering page.

Hey MrOllie, Thank you so much for responding to my edits titled " Industry Oriented Mechanical Engineering Blog". I respect Wikipedia guidelines and will go by your suggestions. But the whole point of adding the link in the mechanical engineering page is to let users learn more about practical mechanical engineering rather than what we learned from college. Practical mechanical engineering is way different than the theoretical engineering and the link has many articles on that. My thought is that the blog would more value for Wikipedia readers to learn practical engineering.

But once again, I respect your decision and if you feel that the link should not be there, then I am fine with this. But I would appreciate if you reconsider the reason that I mentioned.

Thanks Bytegeeky (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO point 11. Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs, with very limited exceptions. - MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author) edits

This page currently refers to a source that has been discredited: Dittrich, Luke (August 2013). "The Prophet: An Investigation of Eben ALexander, Author of the Blockbuster "Proof of Heaven"". Esquire. All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. At a minimum, Wikipedia readers should be aware of the serious flaws in it elucidated by the Robert Mays article. Most importantly, this article includes links to primary source references, like the video of Alexander and the Dalai Lama, that readers can check for themselves, supporting the factual nature of its conclusions. Wikipedia users deserve this access to primary source material to make up their own minds. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause"-- these are the facts to be clarified by dismissing the Dittrich article.

The evidence discrediting Dittrich comes from this article: Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts. Available from: The article is detailed and worth reading to clarify this claim. Here is their conclusion: "To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures: failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama). And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused."

Dittrich was previously an award-winning journalist, yet this Esquire piece is one of the last major articles published by him. His curious disappearance is likely related to the publishing industry being aware of his inability to write factual articles without sensationalizing them through distortions of fact. Wikipedia users should be aware of these facts about Dittrich, if you insist on keeping the reference in the article.

Another example of Dittrich's unreliability concerns the criticism he received after posting an excerpt of his book Patient HM in the New York Times. Over 200 scientists related to MIT sent the following article concerning his distortion of facts: Please let me know if you have other questions about this request for a more factual accounting of the subject. Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case. Thanks for your editorial efforts to improve Wikipedia.Ealexander3 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The Esquire source has not been discredited, as has been explained to you a few times now (most recently in the two BLP Noticeboard discussions you opened). - MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Mays article makes excellent points criticizing Dittrich's sensationalist writing (for Esquire's experiment with a $1.99 paywall, no less, all in an attempt to profit from the distortions of such sensational writing in trying to debunk a book that was #2 for the year 2013 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, published in over 40 languages). Wikipedia users should not be fooled by Dittrich's fiction - they can make up their own minds, given that Mays includes primary source links, like the Alexander-Dalai Lama video, that completely rebuts Dittrich's erroneous interpretation of the events. In the interest of getting closer to truth, Wikipedia should provide the Mays information to them - let them make up their own minds based on all of the facts, not just a one-sided, corrupt version. Thanks for your attention and time.Ealexander3 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to have this debate again on my talk page, this has been explained at length in the noticeboard discussions. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian porcelain

The problem with this stuff is not that it has an unreliable source, in which case you should have just tagged it (it seems accurate enough in fact), but that it is a cut n'paste copyvio from the website reffed at the end. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the username it seems likely the user posting it did have the ability to license it to us. (But of course we might not want it either way) - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting contribution

Sir. We're still awaiting for your kind answer as to why Peiris Dear's contribution was deleted, apparently with no good reason. We would also appreciate if you enlighten us on how to improve that contribution, above all considering that it was fundamental for understanding the topic. Yours Peiris Dear (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edit broke the rendering of the page, and added a duplicitive definition with no real justification for why a second definition was needed, based on a primary source - which appeared to be undue weight. Is the author you are citing related to the 'collective' of researchers referenced on your user page? If so, see WP:COI. In any case, usernames must not be shared so all members of your group should register individual accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reverting edits (Citation Link) of Business process re-engineering page.

Thank You MrOllie, I respect Wikipedia guidelines and I updated only natural informative proper resources in the citation section. But its revert, can you please guide me, how can i add an informational and natural [citation needed] source. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartomeu bernat (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't add linkspam from multiple accounts, for starters. - MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...I have added more references than the previously deleted version and the article has more added material also. The mistakes have been improved from the previous article --YashPratap1912(CONT.) 12:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

New message from YashPratap1912

Hello, MrOllie. You have new messages at Talk:Shamsher Singh (Indian Journalist).
Message added 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my response YashPratap1912(CONT.) 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Chetniks

The historians that accept their crimes as genocide are just Croats and Bosniaks, or have some of their ancestry. They did war crimes of course, ethnic cleansing, massacres, but you can not call it as genocide, even the headline is not referring to genocide. Their crimes targeted Croats and Bosniaks that supported and that were during that time in the Ustase. Ustase crimes were 100% genocidal, even foreign historians are referring to them as genocidal. To put the word genocide with chetniks is not really accurate, they were killing muslims and Croats, that during that time did worse crimes than nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kradja333 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanban

Why did you revert my addition? Jadzia2341 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You added a list entry with no Wikipedia article to a list of notable tools. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Market Beta

The fact that I am also the author on an article about market-beta is insufficient evidence to revert its presence here. Self-citations of relevant academic articles is not a violation of wikipedia rules afaik. I also tread lightly in this repsect. Thus, either please point me to where you found this rule. If not, can you please explain why this estimator is not the best existing market-beta estimator?? My own expert qualification here is that I teach the subject and have written some of most influential papers in modern financial economics (based on many objective and citation-based measures). What is your own background expertise here? You do not need to be world-famous, but I need to understand where your knowledge is from. Feel free to send me an email to [REMOVED EMAIL] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivowelch (talk • contribs)

MrOllie's qualifications are simple: They have been editing on this site for over a decade, and are very familiar with how the site functions. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 22:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Great. As an expert on the subject of wikipedia (rather than beta), what is the policy on citing one's own academic paper among 5 others if it is relevant? I am new at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivowelch (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is sometimes acceptable, but relying on your own papers too often is seen as self-promotional by many Wikipedia editors, particularly if you write about your own work in subjective terms. As an expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of papers by many authors, you should cite others whenever possible, and consider if the only place that a given bit of information can be found is one of your papers, it may need to be omitted anyway on WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR grounds. Wikipedia is for widely accepted knowledge, we deliberately do not deal in cutting edge research. - MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to promote my own work too much. in fact, I tried to tread very lightly for unseemliness reasons, citing it together with 5 other ones. The problem is that a lot of what has been worked on has been outdated by decades, and it is I who has happened to have revisited the subject. Finance is not like Newtonian physics. The data changes. It's like wanting to avoid recent earth temperature measurements because it is cutting edge. Take a look: Vasicek 1973, Blume 1975, Dimson 1979. Scholes-Williams 1977. This is ancient stuff. A lot has happened in financial markets in the last 50 years. The market has been a lot more liquid since then, and we now have daily data. These guys did not have it. Suggestion---ask someone else who is a finance professor to take a quick look at the paper that I mentioned. Or try to do it yourself. It is not hard, and pretty obvious.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivowelch (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 

Re. List of academic databases and search engines

Hi there,

I just made an account today so I apologize if this message isn't following proper guidelines and all. I was just curious why my addition of The Lens to the wiki page "List of academic databases and search engines" was removed. Thanks in advance! Jack Dolgin (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a list that points to existing Wikipedia articles. See WP:WTAF. - MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! Jack Dolgin (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi MrOllie, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software please do message me at amirmarip@yahoo.com. Thank you!AmirPasc (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Digital Media

Hi,

I was just curious why my addition of GDC Technology Limited to the wiki page "Digital Media" in the Section "List of Companies" was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneseechong (talk • contribs)

See the section above this one. - MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Could you please explain more in detail the reasons for undoing my changes? I know there can be COI but I simply added a table row with objective verifiable information so what is the COI about? Federico Ferri (Coppelia Robotics) (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. See also three currently active sections on this talk page, above. - MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

?

May I ask that you please stop removing my content. If I am accidentally adding false Information tell me but otherwise it's getting annoying, Ok! BlackBear8473 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an unreliable source, which doesn't actually support the content you're trying to add anyway. Per WP:NOR, additions must have proper sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What the heck?! What do you mean it's an unreliable source! I thought Wikipedia was for everyone! Also, I cited my sources correctly.I'm pretty sure you have no idea how batteries work! The case is made of polypropylene or ABS! How hard is that to believe??? BlackBear8473 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use vendor sites or FAQs as sources. See WP:RS. And, again, what you're adding isn't fully supported by the cite anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

changes Nemetschek SE

why did you delete the section about the Nemetschek SE brands? Marketing language ("solutions", "leading" etc) was all taken out from original version. I am working for Nemtschek and we just want to make sure the facts about the company are straight (history, which brands belong to group, exec team, sales numbers, etc.) - we do not leverage Wikipedia as Marketing channel nor did we create the page in the first place. But the page was really false/outdated. We do not want to interfere with Wiki-Guidelines/rules, we just want to have the facts about our company straight... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASiegmund3311 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It was still promotional. If you want to suggest changes, make them at Talk:Nemetschek with a {{requestedit}} tag, and a neutral editor will come along and help you. Be patient, there is often a backlog for such requests. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerification

Tell me Brother what is meaning of RSJs? Precast concrete . and other thing where is promotion added into Cite added.

Please make clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpaghadar (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use vendor websites as sources, we consider them to be unreliable. When someone adds multiple links to the same vendor accross Wikipedia, we consider that to be linkspamming. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A favour for Santa?

Hi Mr. Ollie, I've been concerned for a while now that a particular individual will attempt to use Wikipedia to besmirch my website, emailSanta.com, again. To (hopefully) preclude this, I've decided to create a Wikipedia article about the website. I've very much respected your comments and your help on the Santa entry. I'd be honoured if you would review my draft before it is submitted for approval. I've identified myself as having a COI and believe the site is Notable (e.g. innumerable articles from reputable newspapers, such as New York Times [x3, although I didn't reference all 3 wrt emailSanta] etc.).

Despite my best efforts, the draft article likely contains bias or other errors; this is my first article submission. The article is intended strictly as a straight-forward, fact-based encyclopedic entry. I have no doubt you will correct me if I stray from my goal :-). Thank you & stay safe and healthy! The draft is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EmailSanta.com

P.S. Perhaps it is best if you remove the last paragraph from the Santa Claus entry now that the RfC is done? i.e.

In many Western homes, after the children have fallen asleep, parents play the role of Santa Claus and leave their gifts under the Christmas tree. Tags on gifts for children are sometimes signed by their parents "From Santa Claus" before the gifts are laid beneath the tree.[8][9][10]

There seemed to be considerable consensus about its removal. However, it's probably best if I'm not the one removing it. Kringle Claus (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, much more well sourced that I would have guessed! I may make one or two small edits later, but overall it looks quite good. As to the sentence mentioned in the RFC, I figured I'd give it a little time to give the other party the opportunity acknowledge how the RFC went. - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have to work on my footnoting skills in Wikipedia still though. All edits appreciated! I asked El Cid to give it a review the same time as you (just in case you're wondering why some things change/d). Several of the sources I wanted to use I could no longer find, so I omitted some information in the article (nothing critical). I figure the shorter it is the less there'll be for any other parties to fiddle with.

If I cannot find the reference for the postmaster directing people to use the EMS site instead of sending letters to his post office, do you think I should leave the comment in?

Certainly no issue in giving the other party time to acknowledge. Ideally, he would be the one to remove it. Kringle Claus (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark as read Your edit on ‪List of U.S. government and military acronyms‬ was reverted. Reverted to revision 964622122

You removed my reference to The Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence from the page entitled as follows- Your edit on ‪List of U.S. government and military acronyms‬ was reverted.

This book has a complete section on government and military acronyms. It is considered a definitive work on the topic by The Association of Former Intelligence Officers and other organizations that are also comprised of Military and Intelligence Officers with decades of experience in the field.

I am also curious to hear your thought process and who determines what people get to add and remove and who adjudicated this process.

Thank you Sincerely Echo1111 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You've added malformetted references to Kisak across several articles, even though the book was not used to write the article and is not supporting anything in particular. Why is that? Are you related to these books or Kisak in some way, personally or professionally? - MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The work supports the foundation of the article. The work is a definitive glossary and collection of Military and Intelligence acronyms. Formatting glitches are easy to fix. Echo1111 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Question?

Why you removed my edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heaven&oldid=969619164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmdmph (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edit added an illegible and unhelpful image that should not be in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dewesoft links

Why did you revert the article TEDS devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1451 and removed my added section of Classes of IEEE 1451.4 TEDS Devices? That is a completely valid edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primozrome (talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Because every one of your edits serves to add an external link to Dewesoft. Are you a Dewesoft employee? - MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We put months of research, work and our tech knowledge into the articles we publish... If I find some useful info missing in the Wikipedia articles I contribute that with the reference to our article. Is that so wrong? It's not that I am writing non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primozrome (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:COI, WP:PAID (your account is in violation of our terms of use) and avoid adding external links to or mentions of your employer in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dewesoft X

Hello. I am writting you regarding the Dewesoft X article which has been deleted from the wikipedia page. The article indeed had some problems with writting but it was improved and accepted. I have also made clear public declaration about writting the Dewesoft articles. I always keep in mind that the article should be written in academic (and not promotional) language and I try to fix the errors pointed out by the editors. I think that article Dewesoft X should be kept on the page, because it brings valuable information (which can be upgraded through time) about specific software. If not it's probably not logical that any software articles exists on wikipedia pages. I sincerely ask you to change your mind about this article. Best regards. --Flavijus (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It was an advertisement that never should have been approved in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Simulated annealing

I've warned the other user for edit warring, but be careful yourself. I think this has gone on long enough that WP:DR should be considered. Meters (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to discuss this and your compromise edit here [1] Meters (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we could have it worked out in short order if we could just engage on the talk page, but I feel like there's been a lot of talking past each other going on there. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

He or she was engaging for a while, but the recent restart of the back and forth in the article is not good. No opinion on the actual content other than that i agree with you that this should not all be dumped in the lead and that we need sources that state that the developments are based on the original work rather than just a ref to the original paper and the editor's opinion. Meters (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Time Series Databases

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. References were provided. Your continual vandalism is not helpful. You continue to undo the works of others, not only on this topic, but a review of your contributions consist of almost only undoing and reverting others efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.wehland (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia we don't put external links in such lists, and we don't use random blogs as sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources - MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

How are these "random" blogs? They refer precisely to the topic and the exact Time Series DB that you refuse to admit is a Time Series Database. You also refuse to accept references to to the vendors website. What is left? Reference #5 is accepted for all other TSDB's, but somehow you do not accept it for TimescaleDB. Why do you not accept ref #5 for TimescaleDB, but accept it for all others? Sources provided comply with WP:SOURCETYPES. Finally TimescaleDB has a wikipedia article stuck in review. If you could refocus your constant un-doing of others efforts to improve wikipedia, and instead focus your WP love towards reviewing this article to get it approved, it would add value instead of constantly taking value away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.wehland (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

What is left is everything that is enumerated in the policy I linked for you above. When the draft article is reviewed it will certainly be rejected, because it too does not cite any reliable, independent sources. As to ref #5, there is already discussion of how it is unsuitable on the associated article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

One of the external links you're removing from the article has been there for years. And you're removing a new added external link identical to the other 13 without explanation. Either justify why you want the content removed or stop. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how we do things here. You added a link, it has been reverted, now you must get consensus for it on the talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, why did you remove a second link (not added by me) that has been in the article for years? And you have absolutely no justification for differentiating the added link to the other 13. The onus is on you. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Many of the other links should be removed as well, that I didn't remove them all (yet) isn't a reason that I can't start with one. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to take action, don't be lazy and identify which are appropriate and which are not. I believe they're appropriate and meet Wikipedia's policy. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you should be making this point on the article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Solitaire edits

Please don't revert content edits on solitaire articles carelessly as you have been doing on multiple articles. I appreciate your concern about sources being software. But by reverting edits, you're also removing many other content changes which have been meticulously researched. If you really want to remove software references, don't revert a full edit, but strictly remove those references only (which will require more work on your part, to make sure those are the only parts you remove). All other changes should be justified, and you currently are needlessly removing important content without justification. Gregorytopov (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't fill up the solitaire articles carelessly with content about non-notable variants and links to software vendors. Feel free to restore your content with reliable sources in place of the software vendors. I understand that it is more work than using whatever the first link that comes up on google, but we do have sourcing guidelines we should all be following. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you aren't taking the time to consider the changes I've been making. Many of these articles are poorly organized and written. I've not just added in references, but fixed structure, wording, and details. By carelessly reverting my changes, you are removing all the other positives I've made to improving these articles significantly. I've studied solitaire card games extensively, and in multiple cases I also added references to hard copy books I consulted - you removed those as well. If you have an issue with the references, please just remove those very carefully (only the software ones) and specifically related details. And do not remove all the other positive changes I made at the same time. It's simply not reasonable to expect me to go back and now restore my content that I have spent hours carefully doing to improve all these articles, including improved formatting and more. You are the one who has an issue with the software references, and I'm not contesting that, but just respectfully asking you only to remove those, and not undo all the other hard work I've done. The onus is on you to remove just the parts you have an issue with, not to remove all the other positive changes I've made at the same time and say it's my job to fix those up again. Gregorytopov (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I took a pass through and removed all these inappropriate sources some time ago, and I took a look again today and saw you filling the pages up with them again, including these mentions of 'variants' that appear to be from one person's shareware games collection. Please do make your improvements going forward (when you can find reliable sources, but by putting these junk sources in you are making Wikipedia less reliable, not more. Do not leave it up to other editors to separate your good sourcing from your bad. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, but your supposition that the variants "appear to be from one person's shareware games collection" is entirely mistaken. I have 30 different software programs I am consulting as part of this project. I'm also consulting books. For example, see this change that you made, which clearly references two books, and you have removed thoughtlessly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower_Garden_(solitaire)&oldid=prev&diff=974519933 Gregorytopov (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That edit is 50% book sources and 50% software vendor junk. This is exactly what I'm talking about - you need to make only the appropriate edits. I can clean these up for you going forward -once- if you will commit to stop inserting new mentions of these software vendor sites. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My point is that you're removing an awful lot of good in your efforts to remove some bad. I hear your concern, but what's happening is that you're making the articles worse by reverting everything totally. Please see my edits carefully and take the time to see all the changes I've made. Also, I'm not simply citing software vendor sites. Particularly one of the sites referenced (Solitaire Forever) is the site of a solitaire researcher who ensures his information is carefully researched. His site states this: "Every solitaire game has been heavily researched from 41 resources and books dating back to the 1800s, with sources, trivia, and information cited for each game." His site is primarily intended as a reference resource, and as information pages. So we're not talking about some mere software vendor, and unfortunately you're mistaken in concluding that this is a junk source that is unreliable, and is simply some shareware vendor. The referenced pages are information pages about those solitaire games, and document the specific books very carefully for each game. I've discovered that many of the solitaire articles on Wikipedia had unreliable information, and this is what I'm working on improving.Gregorytopov (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the sourcing guidelines I linked for you. We don't use people's self published sites as sources. Again, by using unreliable sites (Wikipedia has a specific definition for reliable you should adhere to), you are making these articles less reliable, not more. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to read and consider the sourcing guidelines more carefully. My concern is with your total reverts that remove a lot of good in the process. I'd like to think that if you value all the other changes and improvements I've made, you'd take the trouble only to remove any questionable referencing, and not at the same time remove the many positive changes and improvements. This example is a clear case of carelessly removing good content with bad. I'd be really grateful if you could make some effort to examine what changes I've made before reverting them totally. Since you've done that in about 30 articles which I carefully edited in an effort to improve content and formatting, I'm concerned that you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. By all means remove the bathwater, but please keep the baby. Please do reconsider going back to some of those and rescuing the baby that you've tossed out. Gregorytopov (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I'm willing to do a second pass over all this stuff and put back the properly sourced bits, if you are willing to commit to avoid using these selfpublished software sites from now on. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's much appreciated, and I sincerely thank you.

Please also do bear in mind that many of these solitaire games only exist digitally. Microsoft revolutionized solitaire in the 1990s by including it in Microsoft Windows (source), and the digital revolution of the 1980s and 1990s led to a revival of interest in solitaire via software playable on the personal computer. Many of the solitaire games currently listed on Wikipedia were popularized with the help of software programs, and in some cases the only place they exist is in digital form. The incredibly popular Cruel Solitaire is a classic example - it originated with Microsoft's Entertainment Pack, and yet the significant re-dealing it involves makes it impractical to play with physical cards.

That digital revolution with solitaire is now over 25 years old, but it's also the reason that one of the main (and sometimes: only) sources for information about certain solitaire games is on sites that have implemented these games as part of their software packages - hence some of my references. That points to a larger question - how does one incorporate and source content in Wikipedia about material that is largely digital in nature? - a question very much relevant to many solitaire games in the articles we're discussing. Gregorytopov (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not every potential article topic is in scope for Wikipedia. If no reliable sources exist for a given topic, that means Wikipedia should not cover it. In the case of Cruel, it is notable because we do have reliable sources - TechRepublic is reliable, for example. This has nothing to do with whether something is 'digital' or not. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil dialogue. BTW, I'm not sure how much expertise you personally have in the area of solitaire card games. But if you'd like to get an opinion from someone who (like me) has expertise in this field, you may want to consider checking in with User:Bermicourt, who commented on my Talk Page here. NB: This isn't intended in any way to negate your previous point about sourcing. But it may give you some added confidence that the kind of polishing and content changes I've done to the Wikipedia pages about solitaire card games (outside of the digital sourcing issue) has credibility, and generally improved things significantly. Very few people with expertise in this area have probably ever cast their eyes over these articles, unfortunately, and the kind of polishing I've been doing has been sorely needed for a long time. Gregorytopov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My main concern is about good content being lost. Your main concern is about inappropriate links as referencing (which don't meet guidelines; but I wasn't aware of that when I placed them). Let's compromise: keep the content and other edits I'd previously made to improve those pages, but just remove the problematic links. The changes I made were accurate, in part based on on my own expertise in this area, and in hindsight I'd have been better off making the changes and not adding in any of those links. I'll make a start on that now already. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already restored content additions that had print sources. I have not restored things that were sourced only to software vendors, since I will not restore unsourced content. See WP:NOR - we should not rely on your personal expertise either. - MrOllie (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

History of heat pumps

Hello MrOllie The repetition of the reference to my History of Heat Pumps [1] after each text section is intended to ensure that my texts remain coherent even after expansions by further posts of other authors. My current Wiki post on the history of heat pumps is a brief introduction to the topic summarized from [1]. It should provide a coherent overview. [1] is based on 297 references. Therefore in my Wiki post I restricted to some main references. For further information in a relevant context readers have just to click on [1] and to do some Ctrl/f-SMartin Zogg (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)earches. If they want to know more or if they are in doubt about my interpretation, they can go to the 297 references listed in [1] on pages 102 to 118.

If required by Wikipedia rules, I could reduce to referencing on [1] twice: one reference at the end of my first text section and a second one at end of my last text section. The absolute minimum would be just one reference to [1] after my first section of text. If this is not accepted, I will withdraw my contribution.

With best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Zogg (talk • contribs)

It is not a settled matter that the citation is allowed at all, or that your text should be in the article at all. Reducing the number of citations will not help with that - and that matter is being discussed and would be decided on the article talk page, not here on my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Apology

Yes, "misclicked" is right. JBW (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Instagram Page edit

Recently I edited Instagram page and updated regarding the Unknown feature which is available on the application. After editing the page, it was seen that you undid the edit. I would like to know the reason behind it. Also, I would like to clarify my point-of-view. The feature I am talking about isn't covered up by any of the major news websites or sources, so this one was the best link I got. This is the clarification on the reference link. If you think the news the false, I would like you to trust me on the fact that it is true and is available on the app (only for few users). It would be nice if you would let me know the reason. Warm Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshu1817 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for guidelines on acceptable Wikipedia sourcing. We don't use blogs. If no reliable source covers this information, we should omit it, not compromise sourcing standards. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I can understand the point, but the fact is no one else has covered the content, and this was the only source available online. You can check the correctness of the source. I would request you to kindly give me a solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshu1817 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. The solution is that if no reliable source thinks it is important enough to cover this, we shouldn't cover it on Wikipedia either. - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact is no reliable source has actually came across the fact. Instagram is one of the most famous app, and this feature is unknown to them. I researched about this on every social media. If someone else isn't able to cover and a small blog does, then I guess you should include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshu1817 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't cover things that only small blogs write about. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

re: STEPBible

You removed the link to our online version of STEPBible, plus the fact that it is from the online version that one downloads the desktop versions. Objection your Honor. We want to provide as much useful information about STEPBible as possible (allowable), not as little. Thanks for your consideration. PilgrimKenH (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)PilgrimKenH

See WP:EL - Wikipedia isn't a link directory. We can write about software, but we do not provide links to download software. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Under External links, there are links to The SWORD Project and to JSword. May we add a link to STEPBible there? And add mention that the desktop versions are downloaded from the online version? ````PilgrimKenH

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimKenH (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 

August 2020

Hello, thanks for your message. I edited your undo because you deleted multiple older entries because of missing articles. But in my opinion thats not correct, first the entries are old and second maybe someone write an article for the products. "If you wish to create such an article" - Maybe if i have the time but i'm not the only author on wiki. Thank you. Monte5462 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

They're not old, they were added just after the last time I cleaned the list a few months ago. Even if they were that isn't a reason to retain content once someone notices it does not meet the inclusion criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok i see, regards Monte5462 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I need tips.

You have recently removed my edit for the HMS page. Can you please tell me specifically where do you think that my edit was my in point of view? What I have edited and added are all just information that I got directly from people in HMS. I just need tips so I can update the HMS page successfully. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian.cabs (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole thing. You cannot just cut and paste Huawei's marketing materials (or anything else) into Wikipedia, they're naturally going to be self promotional. You just write everything in your own words. - MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits

Hi there, I appreciate the edits to my contributions on the "Reputation" page. I noticed that you removed every one of my self-citations, and that confused me. I've added an explanation on the "talk" page for why I cited myself. Please note that of the 27 references I added, just 3 were to my own work. I don't blatantly self-cite, but I cite the work for which I have expertise, which is that of the reputation research stream I contribute to (just as I would in an academic journal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenParkerPhD (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The bar for self-citation is rather higher than that. If you find that you can't write without self-citation, that may be an indication that what you're adding isn't right for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Inexperienced wikipedia user wants to know what was wrong with, or how to fix his edit?

MrOllie, why did you remove my addition? I have little experience editing, but I read that we can cite youtube content, especially since I was not able to find the original AV media content of the "Soyalism" documentary from DW. Please guide me how to properly cite that +806 edit, or perhaps I'd just remove the reference number. Kikiboddula (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2020

You have implied incorrectly

The edits that I have previously made were not at all sponsored or paid. I am merely provided up to date factual information. The insinuation that I am being paid to update pages is incorrect. Urbanista32 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanista32 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to expand your horizons a little, and avoid adding things like book lists to summary articles like Social engineering (security). Single purpose editors tend to get more scrutiny than others. Also - your habit of embedding an external link to a mentioned company is not something we generally do on Wikipedia, and is commonly regarded as a redflag pointing to a promotional account. - MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Wondering why my links were removed?

Perhaps I'm a new editor and don't yet understand the rules, but I posted (and had removed) external links which link to extremely relevant information about the topic at hand. Is that not permissable? Naturalgas2020 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC) NGG

See WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your observation

MrOllie, Obviously, I still have much to learn about Wikipedia editing rules. I will remove citations that can be misinterpreted. Mi intention was to add to articles that were incomplete and had requests for editing and it was based upon the information I had collected in drafting the original article. Thank you for you note. ArvFolc

MrOllie I just found out that you remove the citations for me. Thank you. ArvFolc — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArvFolc (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, The reason I added the citations that you deleted was to comply with a previous request I received from Wikipedia that said that in order for the article not to be considered "orphan" links to other related articles needed to added. Now, after your deletions, the article does not comply with such a requirement. I would appreciate your direction about were I can have instructions to add incoming links without creating the wrong impression. Sincerely, ArvFolc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArvFolc (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's good for there to be incoming links to de-orphan a page, but it is not a requirement. Links should be added where they are justified by prose or lists - for a biography that is often from organizations that the subject is affiliated with. Citations should not be added systematically, and never just for the purpose of getting incoming links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You removed an external link stating WP:RS as the reason. I am sharing data on the reliability of that source

Context: A Wikipedia contributor added an external link to a page on AIMultiple domain. Due to a change in AIMultiple subdomain structure, that link no longer referred to a functioning page. I corrected the link. You removed that link on 15:14, 8 August 2020‎ explaining that you do not see it as a reliable source. I founded AIMultiple and research is an important part of our work. We also spend significant effort in assessing source reliability so I understand your concern.

I view AIMultiple to be reliable by Wikipedia standards since

1) As a sign of our reliability, we have been referred to as a source by numerous global companies including IBM and Deloitte

2) AIMultiple is an industry analyst. Wikipedia has quoted numerous industry analysts such as HFS Research, its blog, Information Services Group or Digital Clarity Group. An important metric in an industry analyst's influence is the size of its digital audience. According to similarWeb, AIMultiple has a larger digital audience than any of these companies.

3) AIMultiple follows Wikipedia standards for reliability: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I ensure our reliability, robustness of our fact checking and our accuracy as the founder by reviewing all our published material. I directly write most of our published material and I have been published by reputable publishers before. McKinsey has been used as a source by Wikipedia numerous times.

I touched upon some of the evidence on AIMultiple's reliability. However, this is a broad topic and I am happy to clarify if you have other questions on AIMultiple's reliability.

Thank you, Cemdilmegani (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It was recently added, self published material from a blog, and does not meet with the requirements in WP:RS. Your company hasn't existed long enough to have developed a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, even if we set aside that it is self published material. If you think your company blogs actually are reliable sources you are welcome to take that up at WP:RSN, but I would guess they will say the same things there that I have just told you. - MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation spam

Dear Mr Ollie, I am puzzled by the insinuation you make about citing spam. Quite frankly, your actions border the unethical because my edits are not what you suggest. For example, I deleted a tautological sentence, and there you are suggesting my edit was a spam. Feel free to remove or replace the references if you have a problem with that, but please check your undo actions and stop the unhelpful insinuations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher EU (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As previously mentioned on your talk page, your editing activity appears to be calculated to insert references to a small group of people rather than build the encyclopedia. Please try branching out rather than promoting a small group of academics. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Still, the more you explain yourself the worse you activity looks to me and I suspect to many others. First, the (new) argument is about citing a wider range of authors as opposed to accuracy. The argument is weak on its own right; I'd thought you'd be concern about citation accuracy. Second, please focus on the topic being discussed as opposed to divert into new excuses. You raised the concern about citation spam. I pointed out that you are most welcome to remove the cites, but please do your gatekeeper job properly by leaving other edits that are clearly sensible and add value. Third, your activity is misguided by insinuations forgetting the purpose of ensuring quality. Finally, looking at your actions, I would also conclude that your activity appears to be calculated to be a gatekeeper for the sake of being one. Of course, that is not your case, but I am trying to make the point that your speculative behavior is misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher EU (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just stop the systematic additions of the same author. If you'd like to make grammatical updates, make them without also inserting citation spam. - MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll do the edits without citations. No problem whatsoever. Might I also suggest you fresh up on your duties a curator: no insinuations; no encouragement of unethical practices (citing widely is not a credible explanation); and represent the facts accurately (I did not just add grammatical updates). Do what you preach as the saying goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher EU (talk • contribs) 19:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I want to Join Wekipedia Commuity

Abhinetaa (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Mr. MrOllie for Inviting me to join the Wikipedia community.

I want to join here and want to contribute to Wikipedia as much as possible.

One thing I let you know The link placed and suggesting information as correct and support the article. So I'm requesting you to please don't remove the link. I also request you to please share the information on how we can add more value in The Wikipedia

GEOMETRYFAN

Mmm, I see that a generalization of Pitot's theorem with a full referenced paper I added today was removed. Why? In addition, an External Link on the same page to an interactive webpage was also removed. Why?

Similarly, an external link to a relevant theorem related to Tangential Quadrilaterals (properly attributed) was removed. Why?

This makes a mockery of any sort of collaborative online work in mathematics when additions can just be removed with no reason at all. So there seems to be no point in me further contributing to the geometry here on Wikipedia. It seems this is becoming another little closed club for some people to promote themselves, and not knowledge for it's own sake.

- Geometryfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometryfan (talk • contribs)

We can't link to copyright violations, see WP:COPYLINK. That's a published paper, so copyright is owned by the journal's publisher and/or the author. We can't link to some website's copy of it. Did you write that paper? Is that your website? - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am author of the published paper and yes, it is my website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometryfan (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see our guidelines on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

GEOMETRYFAN responding I've read you COI guidelines & sorry, I fail to see what great contravention I've done by contributing a small, very modest addition of a generalization of a mathematical result (that apparently is not well-known; otherwise it would've been included). As mathematicians, we do not publish primarly for self-interest, but we publish our research to (hopefully) add a small bit to our growing mathematical knowledge & sharing such knowledge freely with others who are interested in mathematics is primarily for educational purposes, is NOT for self advancement or glorification, but to assist other mathematicians in providing (possibly useful) resources & some moments of limited insight that one has had. In fact, I find the COI insuation quite insulting. More-over, I have no financial stake in sharing my paper and being retired, neither do I have an employer who stands to gain anything.

It seems the original idea of Wikipedia Math, which could be a place were mathematicians FROM AROUND THE WORLD could freely share their work and collaborate TOGETHER to produce a valuable encyclopedia of mathematical results has sadly perished. Censoring certain individuals who feel driven to freely contribute where they can is not assisting this educational endeavour.

Any way, I'm old & tired, suffering from heart problems; so I'm not even going to try & argue with you. You've made your unilateral decision without even consulting one single geometer, whether a small addition like that proposed could be worthwhile making in the greater good of things.

- Geometryfan - Thank you, MrOllie! It appears that you've now accepted the proposed minor contribution. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometryfan (talk • contribs)

You've added dozens of links to your own website, that is clearly against the COI (and the external links) guideline. You should really stop doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Those links at Viviani were from long ago, perhaps more than 5 or 6 years ago (perhaps even earlier & perhaps even before those Guidelines you refer to were drawn up?). They were not recently added. But have noted your concern & will not repeat the same mistake again. Geometryfan (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We have had those guidelines much longer than that, you just didn't know about them. But now that you do it is time to stop adding links to your own site, which I see you did try to resume doing after agreeing above that you wouldn't repeat the mistake. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:MrOllie and Geometryfan, I came to read this dispute after the Van Aubel's theorem page. I would like to make a minor comment in case it might help. Of course this is only my opinion but I think that in Maths and Physics it is quite easy to solve these kind of disputes because it can be (quite easily) determined whether the added references are pertinent to the topic, reliable and, of course they contain CORRECT results (they should, when they are reliable). It's a good procedure, in case the author of those references is adding them directly on a wikipage, to declare the conflict of interest (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) (I did it here at the Van Aubel's page), and probably it is a good approach not to exaggerate in self citation activities. In this particular case, I think the external link is pertinent to the topic and mathematically valid. In addition, I thought it was a good idea to spend a few basic words on those theorem extensions, just to mention that they exists (and they are indeed interesting), and add those reliable references on the Mathematical Gazette (also shown in the link). Hope you all concur and maybe have a look at my modest English language exposition. Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing Sikhism pages

Your supportive way of discussing is greatly appreciated. In case of article on "Baba Sri Chand Ji" the citation added is the most authentic on the subject and also one of the oldest. The citation even includes a visually rendered version of the Poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for what makes for a reliable source. On topics like this we should really be using scholarly papers and biographies. - MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, You have been mentioning unreliable source when talking about the citations:

After looking at what WP:RS stands for. This is very much published The website quoted also belongs to the same author, as you can see from the about section and He has made everything available for free.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs)

A link to a self published book on Amazon does not make a self published web site reliable. We need major publishers: Elsevier, Routledge, people like that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

These are not self - published

Here is another publisher link (Partridge)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs)

Partridge is a vanity press. - MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie, sorry for the lack of knowledge, that above was just a google search. Searching specially in google books category, these publications are different

This is from The University of Michigan: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eternal_Glory_of_Baba_Nand_Singh_Ji_Maha/GnHkAAAAMAAJ

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eternal_Glory_of_Guru_Gobind_Singh_Ji_Kh/PnCd38PZMnEC?hl=en

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Samast_Illahi_Jot_Baba_Nand_Singhji_Maha/xNbUU_lGP7IC?hl=en

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Guru_Arjan_Partakh_Har/gMbJMgEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eternal_Glory_of_Sri_Guru_Tegh_Bahadur_S/JvL_ygAACAAJ?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs)

No, those are all from 'Reliance Publishing House'. There appear to be several publishers using that name, at least one of which is another small vanity press. It doesn't really matter, though, no amount of these books is going to make the self-published website reliable. If you think differently you may open a discussion on WP:RSN. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed my sentences which was taken from a reliable source

Hello MrOllie, I edited a few lines for a post that was accurate and related to the content. The contents which I had provided, were accurate and verified. So I request you, please look after this issue once again. Kindly Check out [link]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockskumar45 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC) --Rockskumar45 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No, 'megastarsbio.com' is not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir ..Then please tell me what are the reliable sources? And how could a person contribute to Wikipedia?--Rockskumar45 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You can read about what makes for a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have also left a standard welcome message on your user talk page with some getting started links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fractional Ownership

Hi Mr. Ollie, could you please help me understand how I can add sports memorabilia to fractional ownership page without breaking rules? Sports cars, aviation, and others are on there so I think people should know this now extends to sports memorabilia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.55.87 (talk • contribs)

You should base any addition on a reliable source (forbes.com/sites are selfpublished blogs), and you should avoid mentioning any particular companies involved in the trade. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated to remove unreliable sources as well as particular companies. It should be allowed to stand as updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.55.87 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

DPI engines

Hi, I added ixEngine to the list of DPI engines. It's one of the most widely used engines. Why did you remove it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilberterra (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

See your own talk page. Wikipedia is not for advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Book publishers

Came across this citation on Guru Nanak page, there are others like it. These seem self published.

• Prasoon, Shrikant (2007). Knowing Guru Nanak. Pustak Mahal. ISBN 978-81-223-0980-5.

This is self published looking at its listing in amazon

• Pruthi, R. K. (2004). Sikhism and Indian Civilization. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House. pp. 202–03. ISBN 978-81-7141-879-4.

These all seem lesser than what is cited above.

Finding it difficult to cite sources, how do you rank publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MrOllie for all the help, another question, for the wikipedia pages where we see a number of such citations, who do we write to for correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have general questions, they are better taken to Wikipedia:Teahouse than my user talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Self citations

I think you’re a little too concerned about 0% self citations in Wikipedia contributions. This is not what the guidelines state. I have added dozens of citations to others’ work on the Reputation page, and my own group‘s work is a minor part of this. You have twice now gone and removed ONLY the citations to my own group, which is confusing and a bit of a revisionist history.

Do not do this. OwenParkerPhD (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

How about instead of trying to order me around, you use the talk pages and the {{requestedit}} process, as you should have already been doing? - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been using the talk pages and if you had read the Reputation "talk" page, you would know this. I've been clear about the contributions, but I have simply added the phrase back to the article WITHOUT a citation to my own work, because it is the phrase that matters and not reference to my own work, and because you will likely remove any self-citations anyway, in controversion of Wikipedia guidelines. You have quietly removed self-citations without "talking" about it, yourself. Should you wish to apply a standard to others, you should apply it to yourself, as well. Having 100,000+ edits on Wikipedia does not make you better than anyone else. OwenParkerPhD (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

and the {{requestedit}} process - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me to this process. I admit that I am a bit angry. I have to say that when you remove citations to my own work, when I've added dozens of citations to others' work, it feels like an erasure of myself from the conversation entirely in a targeted fashion that makes no sense. I came on Wikipedia to bring all of the scholarship to this topic of Reputation, not to self-aggrandize. My own citations comprise a small single digit minority percentage of my contributions.OwenParkerPhD (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you -- Paracetamol

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I was wondering if you could help me make that new section get up to WP:MEDRS standards. I wrote it, knowing it would be deleted...but I did see on the talk page that one editor took the time to take a new user's entry and make it "standard". Do you suppose you could take the time and help me do that?

Thanks. 4Cancer (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Would this be an acceptable source for the few sentences I wrote?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32888031/ 4Cancer (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This was mentioned as well in the first article. They found similar effects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27217114/

Mischkowski, D., Crocker, J., & Way, B. M. (2016). From painkiller to empathy killer: acetaminophen (paracetamol) reduces empathy for pain. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 11(9), 1345–1353. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw057 4Cancer (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops...I guess neither of these were peer reviewed, as indicated by PubMed. One was indicated as a "comment" and the other was just a reference to a "journal".

Sorry to have bothered you. 4Cancer (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Medical sourcing guidelines on Wikipedia are quite stringent. Please do read WP:MEDRS when you get a chance. In addition to being peer reviewed, sources should be review articles or similar, aggregating the results of several other articles on studies - these papers that you have linked are reports on one (or two) studies. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have actually read the WP:MEDRS...that's how I realized that even those too were inadequate sources. Sigh. You are not kidding when you say requirements are stringent!

It is unfortunate that the research in this area has not progressed further, enough to allow inclusion of the information in the Paracetamol article.

I personally am allergic to paracetamol so I can really tell when someone is using, or abusing this particular OTC.

Well, one day there will be enough outcry to put it on a Schedule.

That day is not today however. ;-) 4Cancer (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

IFTTT Pricing Tier

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IFTTT&type=revision&diff=977723593&oldid=977722801

You noted that the pricing details were needless. Should the section before it also be removed as it too has pricing details:

Part of the revenue of IFTTT comes from "IFTTT Platform" partners, who pay to have their products connected to the service, among them GE, BMW, Microsoft and Google. Others are Dropbox, The New York Times, Twitter, Slack and Spotify. Partners can choose from various monthly plans, such as Lite, which is free to use, Basic for $ 199, and Enterprise for $ 499. [20] In April 2020 IFTTT announced a new $199 annual plan for developers to publish their service on IFTTT.[21]

I could see rewording it to be an extension of "the revenue of IFTTT comes from" thread of that paragraph...

Part of the revenue of IFTTT comes from "IFTTT Platform" partners, who pay to have their products connected to the service, among them GE, BMW, Microsoft and Google. Others are Dropbox, The New York Times, Twitter, Slack and Spotify. Partners can choose from various monthly plans, such as Lite, which is free to use, Basic for $ 199, and Enterprise for $ 499. [20] In April 2020 IFTTT announced a new $199 annual plan for developers to publish their service on IFTTT.[21]  In September of 2020, IFTTT announced an additional revenue source by adding a Pro tier for end users wishing to create more than three Applets as well as have access to enhanced functionality. The Pro tier will cost $120/year (paid monthly), but early subscribers can pay as little as $24/year for the first year. < applicable citations >

--Eichmat (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I just cut the sentence listing the specific pricing tiers. We're not a catalog, so that kind of stuff is off topic for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was SimPlas removed?

My addition was formally correct and it"s a real FE software. What's the problem? I am highly cited researcher 2018 and 2019 in the area. Simplas (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a list of software with preexisting Wikipedia articles. Also see WP:COI and WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

😍😍 Lovee Queen (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the example of forces caused by water hammer

Hello, Mr. Ollie:

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and am trying to learn the rules. You deleted an external reference I made to the Wikipedia article on water hammer that showed the forces behind this phenomena. I thought this was a useful addition to the section entitled "Cause and Effect". What did I do wrong? I cited an external blog article on the dangers of water hammer that I found on the web. Why is this source inappropriate? By way of background, I have more than 40 years experience in technical writing and editing in various high technology industries.

Hasbob10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasbob10 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not use blogs as sources on Wikipedia, especially not vendor blogs or other marketing materials. You can find details on what makes for a reliable source at WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent cleanup of external links

Hi There

This is with regards to your cleanup of external links to Publish–subscribe pattern. Since pub/sub is a high-level conceptual subject,and not a specific protocol, why cannot we limit the links to content which explains the concept rather then the vendor specific implementation? You have left the top vendors untouched. And more importantly, Amazon SNS in not even a full fledged pub/sub implementation. It is technically wrong.

I propose the replace all vendor specific links and replace with authoritative links that provide subject matter knowledge about pub/sub.

Shyampurk (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You should take that up on the article's talk page. Note that just because I partially cleaned up the links does not mean that I endorse the remaining links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of updates

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and am trying to learn the rules. This is with regards to your removal of updates at the page Gravity R&D. According to your message on July 22, 2020, I disclosed my employer. Regardless of my stake or interest in the above page/employer, I attempted to correct the outdated information published on Wikipedia on our company, without any hidden goal, or acting as a black-hat CEO. Please let me know what is the accepted way to do such edits/modifications, because I think it is also not the interest of Wikipedia to display outdated info.

DTD102 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, as well as the other guidelines that have already been linked on your user talk page. From now on you should not edit the Gravity R&D article directly, and instead use the talk pages to suggest changes as described in the linked guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IDx-DR

This could indeed have qualified for G11, but it may be important enough that it's worth checking further, so I moved it to draft. I recognize that I did this as an exception to our usual process. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries! - MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Home Staging

List of Components are created by Blogger Klaudia Leszczynska. It's not promoting, it is references to sources. Please restore source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawekl (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't use blogs as sources, see WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will change on a book as source - Home Staging. How To Effectively Create That Profitable Insta Worthy Interior by Klaudia Leszczynska. I think list of components it's helpful. It will be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawekl (talk • contribs)

No, Wikipedia doesn't use self published books either. Again, read WP:RS. If you want to contribute here you're going to need to understand the sourcing guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for clarification. I checked criteria about self-publishing and the book is ok with them. Independent association mentions in articles about book and author. Also author is expert in Home Staging. https://homestaging.org.uk/articles/education-in-home-staging-is-for-you.html, https://www.homestaging.org.uk/articles/the-hsa-uk-ireland-interview-klaudia-leszczynska.html

Are you ok with explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawekl (talk • contribs)

No, more blogs do not turn a self published book reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a blog - it's a Home Staging Association Uk & Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawekl (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter who is hosting the blog, the exception you're trying to reference is for people like Eugene Volokh - notable individuals who have a blog, but whose work is regularly cited in peer-reviewed journals and the like. That is not the case here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Hi, please stop "edit warring" on Smithfield Foods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs)

Same to you, friend. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mariolovr (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Animal slaughter, Artificial insemination, and Smithfield Foods) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Primefac (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ehh? I self reverted on Smithfield Foods? - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished .... :) Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was an aggregate of the three pages, to be honest; while they were in the wrong from a POV/FRINGE perspective, it wouldn't have hurt to wait until other editors made the same revert to show you had consensus on your side. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll try to slow my draw in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk regarding inappropriate links to Wikipedia Message

I have researched & added the link in Design brief's external links part. Additionally, in Content management system if you read my mentioned link it was related to the topic. So, why you deleted my cite reference link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanforce (talk • contribs)

We don't link to vendor blogs or other marketing materials, nor do we use them as references. See WP:ELNO and WP:RS - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the references but It wasn't marketing type blogs, fulfils the topic idea & its concept too. So, why we can't add it? For example, In Content Management System cite link fulfil over all concept & also provide some additional information to our users. Therefore, I'm requesting to revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanforce (talk • contribs)

Please read the policies thoroughly, we do not use blogs as sources or external links. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What if that blog fulfil all the concept & overall ideas? - Juanforce (talk)

External Links to Websites

I am not causing disruptive editing. I am linking legitimate sources to relevant topics on these pages, such as bulk material handling. I have several examples of my competitors doing the same thing and these links are still active as I have recently researched these back links.

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

For example.

These links are relevant to the topics at hand and you are over zealously erasing my work. Please cease and desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjonesy80 (talk • contribs)

You're linkspamming us. If your competitors have also spammed us, that is a reason to revert the spam, not to add more. If you keep this up your account may be blocked and the URL may be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not link spamming. I created 3 relevant link referring to source material on our site. Its not spam as you so wrongly suggest. Are you going to delete the competitors website or simply insist on giving them an advantage over us with selectively choosing who gets backlinks on wiki and who doesn't. The least you should do is erase our competitors links if you truly believe these site are self promotional or spam. Cjonesy80 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Dont worry your unjustly firm hand has succeeded in preventing my efforts to participate in the wiki community. Don't blacklist our fully legitimate business website! Are you going to do something about the other sites? Cjonesy80 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. You haven't been very specific about any particular link. I'll make a note to review the whole article when time permits. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

About Spam Links(!)

Hello, I am linking related topics. But you are saying it is spam and promotion. How it could be possible with nofollow links of Wikipedia? And How do you decide that if a source is relaible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecbrain (talk • contribs)

By consulting WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable. Blogs on vendor sites that are being added to multiple pages are spam. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of references from blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecbrain (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a big site and volunteer time is limited. If you have found inappropriate links, that is not a reason to make more work for us by adding more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You are saying they are inappropriate links (I don't know how you decided that). And I am saying they are not inappropriate links. Wikipedia should be stay free! If you are saying there is no blog referenced links on Wikipedia, I am okay with that. You can not decide as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecbrain (talk • contribs)

Two users have told you they're inappropriate, and pointed you to the relevant policies. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Greenroomoc

I will be creating how to's, safety videos, safety guidelines for all of our sports at our store. We already have How To videos in our fishing section. Please do not remove my links. They are genuine. Greenroomoc (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You should not be adding links to your own site, and Wikipedia does not use store web pages as sources. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your store. - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

im only doing what some one else is doing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakeboarding?rdfrom=http%3A%2F%2Fcanterburycommons.dreamhosters.com%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DWakeboarding%26redirect%3Dno find the word (evo) evo.com is a online store. our website happens to be a store, and a place for information such as TIPS, and HOW TO's. perfect for wikipedia when it comes to Deep Sea Fishing, Snowboarding, Wakeboarding. If I'mm not allowed. then EVo.com isn't allowed. or else let me add what I wanted to add. pleaseGreenroomoc (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big site and volunteer time is limited. If you have found inappropriate links, that is not a reason to make more work for us by adding more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If i complete the education part of the site. can you please leave the reference for snowboarding safety and tips? Greenroomoc (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

On hovercrafts

Hi! In case you missed it, I tagged the term you reverted with {{jargon-inline}}, since it uses a non-standard sense of the word (the standard sense is: A hovercraft, also known as an air-cushion vehicle or ACV, is an amphibious craft capable of travelling over land, water, mud, ice, and other surfaces.). Really ought to be more like {{in-universe inline}}, but no such template seems to exist. Because your rationale for reverting was based on the in-universe use of the word, which is fine as long as we explain the in-universe meaning, which here we do not. In contract, we call the Agents sentient “Agent” programs, and the Matrix itself appositionally as a shared simulated reality modeled after the world.

If you can describe what the movie calls “hovercrafts” in real-world terms in some other way than “airship,” I’d be all for using that instead. Otherwise, describing what it is (or appears to be) is preferable to using in-universe language. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

An airship is a blimp/dirigible, it's not that. It is almost as if it is a fictional technology and does not correspond with any real world vehicle. - MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Flying craft, then? Still open to suggestioins. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we just call it what the movie calls it. - MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, the movie uses a word that has a different real-world meaning. There are no hovercrafts anywhere to be seen in the Matrix trilogy, or in The Animatrix, if memory serves. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but science fiction sometimes redefines terms. I really doubt this is confusing anyone any more than the dialog in the movie did. - MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Our role is to not confuse. WP:Use plain English and all that. So, yes, fictional works may redefine terms—and then we explain them, or avoid using them. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A compromise: … Morpheus's flying craft, the hovercraft Nebuchadnezzar. It signals to the reader that “hovercraft” is being used differently here from how it’s used in reality, like “Doc’s flying DeLorean” or “the flying carpet.” Wouldn’t make any sense to bring them up without mentioning that defining characteristic. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Microwave oven edit

Hello. I undid your revert because the version you restored is illogical. Which is precisely why I redacted that part in the first place. Vealoshawa (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course if you feel like my English is lacking, you can try rephrasing that part yourself. But do not revert a correctly phrased version to an illogical one... Vealoshawa (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your edit introduced grammatical errors and was significantly less clear than the older wording. When I try to fix your wording I more or less arrive back at the original. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it not an established practice on Wikipedia to respond on my discussion page so that I receive notification? Explain the grammar errors, I do not see any. Original version taken verbatim means "microwave ovens destroy bacteria as good as any other cooking methods, but they cook food unevenly". This is bad style, illogical and should be changed. One cannot arrive at illogical sentence by fixing grammar errors in logical sentence therefore what I think is that you actually are not paying attention at all. If you don't have the time to actually pay attention, why do you insist on being right? Vealoshawa (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It is my practice to respond to comments wherever they are made, see the notice at the top of this talk page. Your version has tense agreement problems and redundant phrases. You're trying to fix a sentence here which is not illogical in the first place. Is English your first language? Perhaps you are just misreading the original wording. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I speak English for twenty years and if you feel like there were some grammar errors, you are free to explain them to me. I am not misreading the original wording. If you want to continue this discussion, please do so at Talk:Microwave_oven. I will insist on rephrasing that part, as I already said it does not necessarily has to be my wording, but it has to be correct wording. Vealoshawa (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think your effort is superior MrOllie, much more encyclopedic. But maybe that paragraph would better fit somewhere in the "Principles" section of the article. My two cents Moriori (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Effort? In pressing revert button twice? Vealoshawa (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Break-even

I noticed that you removed a chart from break-even. I completely agree with you that the description was product placement, and completely superfluous. However, I believe the chart was actually a pretty good illustration of the break-even point. If you have no objections, I'd like to restore the chart, but with no reference to SimulTrain. Best, Altamel (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think it added much, but if you feel differently have at it, I wouldn't fight you over it or anything. - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored it. I liked the diagram because it illustrates both fixed and variable costs over a product's fixed life cycle. Similar diagrams often show only one or the other. Altamel (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bikini Image

Why are you removing bikini body image? On 4 counts of pages. Body image History of the bikini ‎ Bikini Woman

Carolingian Knight (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Images are meant to be educational, not decorative. That image is either redundant or entirely off topic everywhere you're adding it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Or, since the image looks like a professional photo, there is a spam issue to be concerned with. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverse image search does suggest this is a copyright violation. Lets see if I can remember how that is reported over at commons. - MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide details of copyright violation, and any relevant Wikipedia page, So I will avoid any such thing in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolingian Knight (talk • contribs)

You copied the image we were just discussing and uploaded it to commons claiming it was your own work. - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that I've blocked Carolingian Knight as a  Confirmed spam sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Circular Buffer

Why are you reverting the changes that I applied for the Circular buffers. There is nothing wrong, that is technical. I am just further simplifying the article, it even says at the top that the following document might be too technical for non-experts. I was a non-expert a few days ago, and this article was absolutely useless cause it was too complicated. I had to do some research through other various sources to finally understand how it works. Then I finally understood how Circular Buffers work. Wikipedia is supposed to at least give you a general overview of the topic, if not a deep background, but people can't if you make it too complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactic Cake (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is supposed to be written in a formal tone, See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style for details. Your changes reduced the quality of the writing and do not conform to Wikipedia's style. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes much more sense, I am currently editing the document, but still conforming to Wikipedia's policies on formal tone.

Jazz (company) - Reverted Changes

Changes I made on Jazz (Company) were reverted, these are all updates to the company's correct current stats and figures. Even the CEO's name is written incorrectly on the current article. Please let me know why my changes were reverted. 39.40.58.61 (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC) User

You also added a bunch of promotional stuff. Are you an employee of this company? If sosee WP:PAID and WP:COI. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Floating License

Hi there, I'd like to better understand (since we are new to Wikipedia) how to augment the floating license which was Software Pricing Partners' innovation.

We also coined the phrase "software monetization" back in the 90's and it has been at the core of Software Pricing Partners' methodology for decades. This article incorrectly mentions that the "The exact origin of the term 'software monetization' is unknown" -- it has little to do with security and everything to do with the design of software licensing, packaging and pricing (collectively known as "software monetization") in our firm's methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeveChris (talk • contribs)

See WP:RS - everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. In this case, since it is a self promotional claim, the source will also need to be independently written and published. Something like a scientific journal, software history book, etc. Same for any claim to have a coined a term. Also, since you seem to be associated with this company, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI - it appears that your edits so far have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you pls. help me create new pages for other IIBA certifications?

Hello,

There is only currently a Wikipedia page for CBAP certification.

There are other 5 certifications from IIBA as well.

Warmly LN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnmishracbap (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. Even the one we had did not meet our inclusion criteria, so I redirected it to the issuing organization. - MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OMA LwM2M - reverted changes

Changes I made to OMA LwM2M were reverted. I don't understand why because I was just fixing links and making it easier to find additional information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Freddy (talk • contribs)

As explained on your talk page, Wikipedia is written in a neutral tone. Your additions contained numerous value judgements in Wikipedia's voice and read more like marketing materials that the protocol maintainers put together. You also included several external links in the body of the article - we don't do that on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Further Reading" on Gamification

I'm wondering about the reversion of my additions there. I added them following the suggestion of another editor, GermanJoe (see our discussion here). You didn't give a reason, so perhaps you could explain here? Hypatia's Quill (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop falsely reverting edits.

Continue and you will may be banned from Wikipedia. 2406:5A00:F80A:D400:3466:84B5:BC35:C19B (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You have violated the rules

MrOllie, why is it you believe adding factual information to Amazons Wikipedia page is cause for concern? Cognitivebro (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MOSLEAD. The opening paragraphs are treated specially, and are not a repository for random trivia. You're also edit warring with multiple other editors. If you continue that someone will block you sooner or later. You need to open a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus for your changes before making them again. - MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam

Is Nature publication SPAM? Then what could be a normal source? Hookenmann (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Citespamming is adding citations to articles for purpose of listing the citations rather than building out the article. Are you associated with the authors of these papers in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nature journal is not a spam!!! Hookenmann (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean that next citations:

11"SubWavelength Structure Coating". Canon-europe.com. February 2009. Retrieved 24 July 2019.

12^ "SubWavelength structure Coating". Canon Professional Network. 2017. Retrieved 24 July 2019. 13^ "Canon Subwavelength Coating (SWC)". www.eos-magazine.com. July–September 2009. Retrieved 24 July 2019 are not citespamming, and absolutely new information, describing the self-assembly mechanism of synthesis and nature of original natural textured surfaces is citespamming? Sorry, I cannot understand such a position. Hookenmann (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You should not assume that I endorse every other citation on Wikipedia just because it has not been removed yet. Also, it looks like you didn't notice my question, so I will repeat it: 'Are you associated with the authors of these papers in some way?' - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of video game console emulators page edit

Hello MrOllie, The change of the said page has been talked thoroughly here. Thanks. Islandking2000 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted, so these lists should not contain it. - MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The articles should satisfy notability test to exist, but many game emulators pages do not qualify the standard, so their pages should be deleted, and remove from the list. Islandking2000 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that, why are you doing the opposite? Xenia was discussed by the community and found not to be notable, but you were just adding it back to several pages. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Because if you are not enforcing the same rule to every emulator page, the rule will hold no value. And if you're reverting the Xenia & Ryujinx mention alone in wiki, not others, you're biased based on the above reason. Ryujinx was accepted by the community and notable enough to run games. Islandking2000 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I help maintain numerous lists of software on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that I am biased against these two programs is laughable. Ryujinx has not been accepted by the community. In fact you draft has been rejected more than once, and I expect it will be rejected again as you have not substantively improved the sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We are all humans and we make mistakes:

• On this matter you are biased, Yuzu, Citra, PPSSPP etc pages don't "substantive sourcing", but you don't "maintain" the list of them.
• The Ryujinx draft is not created by me, I edited after the two rejects, do the fact check.

Identify the community which doesn't accept Ryujinx, if you mean the rejections, then it's about sourcing rule, not the community because the "community" that rejected Ryujin has no opinions, it's just enforcing the same sourcing rule which should having been applying to all gaming emulator pages. Ryujinx has discord, Reddit communities.Islandking2000 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The community that writes and maintains Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

So now you are telling me the Draft:Ryujinx rejections are based on the discussions (where?) of the Wikipedia community, not by the notability rule stated as reasons in the page. You surely have a lot of exceptions on this matter, so I guess I am not wrong to call you bias after all. Islandking2000 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification about your message

Dear MrOllie, as an expert of PPE in sports and safety vests for jockeys, of course, I am also the author or one of the authors of publications, investigations, conferences. Thus, I thought it could be appreciated if I was offering my knowledge in terms of contributions to Wikipedia. I understand that there may be a conflict of interested but I can offer my contributions if I am not allowed in citing research or papers showing my name? Regards, Lisa Giusti Gestri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Lisa Giusti Gestri (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As an expert you are no doubt familiar with a range of work from other academics which you can cite freely. If you want to write about yourself and/or your work as you did at Human-centered design, you should make suggestions on the associated article talk pages rather than editing the article directly. - MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Link spammer guy

Heh, sorry, I stepped on your toes. I happened to notice that user pasting the same links into multiple places. Should probably be reported at ANI or ANI/V ... I'll leave that to you? MrAureliusR_Talk! 12:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Linkspammers go to WP:AIV. But we should see if the warnings got them to stop first. - MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)\

AIV is what I meant... been up too many hours. Haven't seen them do anything else yet, so good point. Cheers! MrAureliusR_Talk! 12:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that's the end of that account. I don't know if that admin found their spam on their own, or if someone reported it. Either way, I love meeting new wiki-users, so hey! Hope to see you around again. :) MrAureliusR_Talk! 14:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

National Hanger Company

Hi,

I'm sorry. I am a little confused as to how to create a Wikipedia Page for my company. I was looking for the "how-to" on Wikipedia to become an autoconfirmed user and following the steps to do this correctly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Mary HangersmadeinVT (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article on your own company is heavily discouraged. If you feel you must, see WP:AFC. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirecting illicit trade to black market

Hello MrOllie, you have converted the article on illicit trade to a redirect to black market. I disagree that illicit trade is a "duplicate topic", or synonym to black market. Black markets refer to economic activity that takes place outside of legitimate channels, with transactions that are generally not declared to the government. Illicit trade can occur in legitimate channels and transactions may be declared to the government. The two concepts are certainly related, but they are distinct. Illicit trade is a topic recognized by international organisations such as the OECD, UNCTAD, the WCO, the WHO, etc. These organisations do not use the concept interchangeably with the concept of black markets. Redirecting the reader to the article on black market will mislead and confuse them. Factfox (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Our article on Black market does not draw this artificial distinction (it includes such things as illegal logging and cigarette smuggling, which usually end up in legitimate channels at some point), so the pages were duplicative. - MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the article does not draw this distinction since black market is about illegal transactions. Anyway I don't expect that we will reach consensus so I will open up the discussion on the article talk page. Factfox (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie As you are the party requesting the merge and I contest it, I will actually ask you to start the merge discussion as described at WP:MERGE. Also, please revert the merge, so the other editors participating in the discussion do not get confused. Factfox (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you forgot to disclose your conflict of interest in the teahouse thread you started - this is required by Wikipedia's terms of use and policies since you extensively cited yourself and you are employed by a company in that space. You should go back and fix that. - MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I did declare my COI related to my employment, and on another article where I declared myself as a connected contributor. I acknowledge that I forgot to mention my COI when making an edit on the blockchain article and mentioning my company, which you noticed and reverted. But for the topic of "illicit trade", I disagree with your statement that I have a COI, I am not paid to write this article, I do not work on it during my employment, and it is not promoting my employer's interests. At most, I am a connected contributor as I did some academic work on the topic. I will go declare it on the Teahouse thread, now can you proceed with my request?  Factfox (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to be careful to disclose your COI when you start any related discussion. This is a topic that is related to your employer's business and you cited yourself either of which would be cause for COI concerns. I started a discussion on Talk:Black_market, but I do not plan to revert back - interested editors are perfectly capable of looking at article histories. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll be careful with potential COI issues. On my side I think you're not really respecting WP:MERGE, and that the merge should not have been done the way you did it. It should be decided based on a discussion and attempt to reach consensus, and I had to insist to get that from you. And I still fail to understand the reason for not reverting and wait for the result of the discussion, which also seem to be against the guidelines in WP:MERGE.. unless you initially thought and still think that the merge is uncontroversial? Factfox (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

1) Policies are not laws that must be followed robotically, technicalities and all. 2) So far it is uncontroversial, we'll see if anyone else complains. 3) It wasn't a merge, it was a blank and redirect. - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Great firewall - Exporting internet censorship

Hello hardworking user. I have countless references from various media to add the name of my country(Iran). So which site do you accept? Arash00011 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of software implementation references within software articles

Please stop removing references to notable software implementations within software articles. This is extremely valuable and key information that has been referenced throughout Wikipedia articles as well as externally for decades and is often impossible to find anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists of key implementations within software articles have nothing to do with directories. People come to Wikipedia to learn something on a specific topic. If the article describes software in general abstract terms without grounding it in specific implementation references - people don't know where to turn to validate their understanding and to learn more. If an article on operating systems never mentions Windows and Linux - anyone would tell you that it's a horrible article! Yes, ideally a simple list has to be expanded to outline features of each implementation and comparisons between them. If you are a subject matter expert on a specific type of software and can dedicate the time - feel free to flesh it out or create a separate comparison article if you think it is warranted. If you feel that the list should be changed from bullet points to a comma separated sentence - sure do that (though that is not as easy to find, navigate and digest by readers). Please try to improve articles, but don't just go removing important information! That is borderline vandalism and looks like you've been doing it for a while. Please stop. Delicates (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No, examplefarms are cruft, particularly (as is the case I assume this is in reference to) when they contain entries with no established notability. We don't provide a list of local plumbers on Plumber, nor do we provide lists of brands on the vast majority of our articles about physical objects, nor should we routinely list software implementations. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would expect someone referencing example cruft after using their expertise to trim the list, not after removing all of the references. If you really want to go there - I'd like to hear your opinion on notability of each of the 5 implementation references which you removed from TLS termination proxy article. Also you are talking about directories and brands again - which has no relevance in the world of computer science, which I get a feeling you are not really familiar with. The best simile I can think of to describe what you're doing is, if you were going to all articles about literary works and removing entire "Adaptations" sections from them. Delicates (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar, thanks. It is possible for competent people to disagree with your position. - MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Samsung

Hello, how are you? I would like to leave my edition as I left it a moment ago because the edition of now is very bad Valenlevaggi322 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the changes

Please remove the recent changes I made. If the added link was considered "inappropriate", so inappropriate should be also the content of the changes. It will be much better for Wikipedia to have outdated information, than updated one with the reference to the author of the text. Thank you! Latvia tax (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

External Link suggestion Removed

Hi, I saw one article on keywordtool, and i mention one other content link over there and that content describe the tool. so If any one need more information about tools. so they can check the article. That the reason i put link. It's not promotional linking.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiaanbish (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about External Link removal

So... Why Rosettacode's link couldn't be added? --$F(\omega )$ =$\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }$ $f(t)e^{-j\omega t}dt$ 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Financial economics edit

Hi Mr Ollie. Just wanting to understand why you regard the Ivo Welch refs as self-promotional? (It was probably me who made them in the first place.) In my view, all of the corporate finance texts referenced there are similarly "commercial"... Thanks. Fintor (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See Ivowelch's contribs for starters. The refs on Financial economics where added by an IP (a lot of these were added by single purpose IPs before the ivowelch account was registered) so I assumed that was him as well. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. If ok, I'd like to reintroduce these... let me know. Fintor (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is a self published book, so it isn't an ideal source. But since you have no COI if you feel it is workable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources I wouldn't revert you or anything. - MrOllie (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted - thanks again. Fintor (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Please re-add the links. This discourages local journalism.

First. I understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of links and in terms of SEO, the links here don't hold much value.

Coimbatore city is one of the major cities in India but if you notice there are not many articles or information (and most of them are outdated) about or around the city in Wikipedia and across the internet.

The reason is major media houses are print media and are mainly focussed on Chennai, Mumbai, Bangalore like cities. These major news outlets publish only crime-related articles for the rest of the cities which makes to believe that nothing good happens in smaller towns and cities.

KOVAI DAILY is a local online newspaper dedicated to covering the issues that impact everyday lives in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, and across India. This portal publishes articles based on official data and information featuring the latest developments in Coimbatore and Western Tamilnadu. It is an acceptable news publisher on Google News.

Despite the text and source being accurate, you have blocked this portal.

Earlier, I tried to add a page for Coimbatore Marathon, which is conducted for the past few years, is still not published on Wikipedia.

Finally. The removal of links and blocking of the portal discourages local journalism.

Please re-add the links.

I don't want to Spam Wikipedia. I just want to keep Wikipedia update to date.

Jmathewb (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place - I removed some links to Kovai daily, but I had nothing to do with its addition to the spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

user:Maryphilip19

I have blocked the socks you listed at WT:SBL. Please ping me or drop a note at WP:AN if you see any more. Thanks, good catch. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of continuous integration software removals

Hi, I noticed several edits by you with "clean list" as the revision note... they all seemed to be removing things. For example this one ... Didn't see discussion on the talk page (seems not very used with the latest comment from 2016, I think?) COuld you fill me in a bit about these removals? How are you deciding to remove something? Some of them might be worth reverting ... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of things that have existing Wikipedia articles. I've been removing things with no article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a general policy supporting that, rather than going with redlinks if the item passes a basic notability test? That seems a far better approach to me, TBH. We have the space, after all. If we do have a policy will you share a link? Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear back from you, please let me know your thoughts... ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SAL. See also the essay WP:WTAF. While there are other possible inclusion criteria 'already has an article' is the most common one for software comparisons/lists, as they tend to attract a lot of selfpromotional editing. - MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Accenture discussion

Hello! Do you have a moment to take a look at this discussion? Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Entrepeneur vs innovator

Hello! I dind´t understand you. I read the book I mention and it made me feel interesting. Thank you. User:jaroib95 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book. - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

List_of_the_most_common_passwords

− Thank you for the message re: List_of_the_most_common_passwords. Fully agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of links and understand the no_follow attribution. This entire wikipedia site is a collection of reporting of our Intellectual Property (namely our annual worst password lists); 13 of the 14 footnotes reference the annual SplashData password list. The original 2017 entry had the source link for all 13 footnotes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_most_common_passwords&oldid=777569815) which was the SplashData page that held the 2012-2016 worst password lists from which the primary table is derived. As the company was acquired, the site was redirected and would soon be taken down resulting in a broken link on WikiPedia. As such we are working through sites where it was referenced and updating webmasters to ensure their pages do not end up with broken links. Thank you for the message; we are new to the WikiPedia process and were simply trying to ensure the existing page had the original information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1D00:3050:D932:B4BE:F080:2841 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we greatly prefer to use secondary sources rather than primary ones - that is why the citations have been converted to journalistic sources. Also, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID - persons in your situation are required by Wikipedia's terms of use to make certain standard disclosures. - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Will read through the COI material and create an account for future edits. Should we revert to the original listing prior to my edit then? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_most_common_passwords&oldid=982802958 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1D00:3050:257D:2F4C:FDE2:5F29 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

About adding the Hindi translation of technological singularity

Seems like you're removing it, if im doing it wrong then can you tell me how to link it to the english translation the correct way. विदुर (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already replied on the article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

MLM edit-warring

Should I open a new AN3 report? I've just tacked on to the existing one for the time being, while thinking of going straight to ANI given the other problems from the editor. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, yes. I think a new report will be far more likely to get attention. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/self-promotion

I understand that one cannot add self-promotion, however, there is already someone self-promoting on the same article. It wouldn't be fair to exclude other companies from doing this since one has already been accepted, Infinium Robotics — screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/zDzmxql

Please remove the self-promotion of Infinium Robotics from that article. Or is it better if I edit it out myself? (genuinely asking)

This is the Wikipedia article in question, the "Automation" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_count — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papalaptic (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and volunteer time is limited. Sometimes bad content gets in and no one notices for a while. If some advertising has crept in, yes, that is a reason to remove advertising, not to add more. However, if you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing content about your competitors, just as you should not be added content about your own company. See also WP:PAID - certain disclosures are required by Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Hello - please could you clarify how to avoid my edit being removed due to 'disruptive editing'? I cannot see how my edit is different to inclusions made by companies on the same page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STREAMR Network AG (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

MedCalc article revision

I revised the references for MedCalc. The use in several textbooks should also show notability. Can you have a look at it? Frank1848 (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Snowshoe

You have removed UK history content that has been on the page for years. Please explain why or how it can be reinstated? Justicepreviails2020 (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mollie Southall did a lot for the breed in the UK. She has since passed away. By deleting the text. You are deleting history. Justicepreviails2020 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it has been badly sourced for years and is long overdue for removal. Please see wikipedia's sourcing requirements. We must have independently published sources with a reputation for fact checking - newspapers, published books from well known publishers, etc. We cannot rely people's personal websites or the self published websites of clubs. Wikipedia is not a place for everything that happened, we only summarize what we find in sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Refspam

MrOllie Tell me one reason why you have reverted my edits on the Proving ground article? I have added informative information to that article, information that was missing!!! If is because a cited our article then go ahead and revert 10030230430 other Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primozrome (talk • contribs) 10:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

We've been over this before. You must stop adding links to your employer. If you do not you can expect that your account will be blocked and/or the domain will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard Sears's Chinese Etymology

Hi MrOllie. Regarding this removal, the site does appeal for donations, but as far as I can see is not selling anything, and all of its content is freely available, and a useful supplement to the Chinese characters article. Kanguole 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bralettes Became the New Normal

Please advise changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The only sources are a couple of headlines in fashion sections. It's not a notable example, it should be omitted entirely. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Polyvagal Theory

Dear MrOllie,

I can appreciate your stated goal for balanced presentation of all Wikipedia topics. This was my aim when I made edits to that page yesterday. The previous, and now again current, definition did not define in any way, shape or form the actual meaning of the theory. Rather, it used the most widely read part of the page to describe it as a set of fringe claims that are not accepted by the professional community of neuroscience experts without telling the reader what it actually claims.

The complaints I have are as follows:

- 'fringe': polyvagal theory is indeed relatively new and unknown to many in the medical world, but it also supported by some of the most influential and respected clinicians and thinkers in medicine. Examples include Dr. Norman Doidge, author of the best selling book in modern neuroscience 'The Brain that Heals Itelf', Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, arguably the most well-known and respected voice in the field of trauma, Dr. Peter Levine, Dr. Gabor Matte, etc.

At the current time, MD's are developing programs at Kaiser Permanente and United Health Care which include training in Dr. Porges' Polyvagal Theory. Given this level of mainstream acceptance, is it fair to label it 'fringe'?

- 'unproven and lacking citations': Please see Dr. Porges' scientific papers

- general understanding of what polyvagal theory purports to say: as it is, no one can read the two sentence definition on Wikipedia and have any idea of what polyvagal theory purports to say. Can we not explain what PVT is for both professionals and lay readers alike?

I can understand the need for an objective presentation. I would, however, argue that this means the page should include: 1) a clear definition of what Dr. Porges' theory says (without opinion one way or the other), 2) a clear presentation of contrary opinion, and 3) a balanced presentation of the theory's validity in the scientific community (to my knowledge there is one scientist who disagrees with Dr. Porges and that person has so far not been willing to address Dr. Porges' rebuttal of his criticism).

Thank you for your consideration. I hope we can arrive at a presentation of PVT which enables readers understand what it says and what the actual criticism of it is.

Ian Oelsner (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You can take this up at the article talk page for wider input, but phrases like 'the world’s top writers and thinkers applaud it as a revolutionary theory' are not going ever going to be acceptable. - MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Vocabulary Article

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I am trying to make edits on the Vocabulary Wikipedia page, specifically the introduction statement. I see that you have reverted my additions for being over-detailed. I agree with you, the introduction that I added is possibly too long and could be shortened, but I still feel as though it is an improvement to the overall lackluster introduction that is in place currently. I am also a student in college and my assignment is to edit and improve an article on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for my intro to make sure that it stays up for at least a little while(after I get my grade on the assignment)?

Thanks, Harrison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillhs20 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not an improvement. The primary function of the lead section is to be a concise introduction to the rest of the article, it cannot bog the reader down in details, that is the article body's job. If you want to demonstrate text somewhere, use your sandbox. Your instructor should not be requiring that edits remain in an article for you to receive your grade. If that is the case for some reason, you should bring that up with the Wiki Ed person associated with your course. - MrOllie (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Shari O' Donnell's article

Hi Mr Ollie,

My edits on Shari O' Donnell's wikipedia article were reverted as they gave you the impression that I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting her page. With all due respect, I have no conflicts of interests and no disclosures to declare. I am not being provided paid or unpaid compensation for any of my activities. I request you to publish the edits I had made yesterday. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashahere (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Natashahere (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if you made the edits for free, they were still obviously promotional and inappropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. - MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

This is regarding this Let me tell you the source I added is a better one than the previous one and also it is a bonafide website of Hare Krishnas. The previous source is something which has given a lot of allegations on other sects etc. So please accept this edit. Student-iitkgp (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

bed bugs

Why did you revert the bed bug page? The nys bed bug Journal is a great resource run by the nys bed bug Association and is the only site that provides real time chat resources for people who need information about bed bugs. It is not a business and does not charge anything or allow advertisers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.172.172 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to promote your website. Judging by WHOIS records, you registered it earlier today and we were one of your first stops looking for links. We're not a web directory, and we nofollow all links so trying to get linked here will not help your SEO efforts. - MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Motorola Mobility

I saw you removed the Motorola's American nationality. I would like to tell You Motorola Mobility is still an American company. If it was not American then the Company would be a Limited Liable Company (LLC) and the Company still mention LLC in all event. If it was Chinese then it would have been LTD/Limited. Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It was once an American company, but no longer. Now it is a subsidiary. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

LLC are for "American" Subsidiary Company Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just go to current official website of Motorola and see the company Still uses LLC Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.motorola.com/us/ just see in the official website Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If the company would have changed it's Incorporation to China then the Company would have used Motorola Mobility LTD not LLC Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Sony Corporation of America an American company? They are also incorporated in the US. Is Google Information Technology Co., Ltd. a Chinese company? - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sony Corporation of America is also a Legally an "American" Subsidiary Company. Here the main Japanese company Sony acts as a Parent company/Stake Holder that's why in any official statement made by Sony Corporation of America they always mention as American business not as a Japanese business. Only if the subsidiary doesn't have any Incorporation and completely exist under the Incorporation of the parent company then only that Subsidiary Company would have the same nationality of it's Parent company. Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Swastik Mridha, Your addition of 'legally' is splitting hairs. Most people would call SCOA a Japanese company and I think you know that. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I know, but as said Nationality of Company is completely based on Incorporation. And most of the people isn't aware about the Incorporated factor that's why people usually term any companies Nationality on the basis of where the Companies headquarter is located or the parent Companies headquarter is located. Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Apple Airpods 1st Generation Defect

Hello,

I made an edit to the "1st Generation" section of the Airpods article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPods.

I referenced a moderated Apple support thread that has hundreds of votes and comments which constitutes a significant issue in the realm of technology products and support. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250494933

I would appreciate learning what was "unreliable" or unsubstantiated about this situation. I believe this edit was warranted since another Wiki article is dedicated to "Batterygate" which was a similar situation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.65.206 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Support threads / forum posts and other forms of user generated content are not usable sources for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. The Apple support forum is moderated by the company Apple and is not a user-generated sire. Additionally, the RS guidelines recommend that user-generated sites are generally not acceptable, but not as a rule. You can see that there are multiple hundreds of votes and replies to Apple in this specific forum. Again, while I disagree, I will understand if you would like to settle on a reversion of my edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.65.206 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The exceptions for user generated content are very narrow and don't come even close to applying here. You'll have to wait for a reputable source to publish something on it. Batterygate, which you mentioned, has sources from the likes of CNN and USA Today. Apple is highly scrutinized, if this is a big problem that shouldn't take long. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Medical Billing Page

Hello, i took time to find sources for this page which lacks sourcing for much of its content, but you reverted all!!! I know some are not news sources, but there is really nothing out there, so is it better to have no source at all, rather than what I provided? Some of them are from notable universities like Devry, yet you are claiming they are all from blogs. Webmaster862 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC) BTW I had some content changes that was necessary to do and you reverted that too. Please explain why??? These were not spelled out or linked, which I fixed: Electronic Medical Record (EMR), Electronic Health Record (EHR) and Revenue Cycle Management Webmaster862 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. No, it is not better to have an unreliable source than no source at all. If there is really no reliable source for this information, it should just be removed. Also, Devry is a bottom tier for-profit vocational school, not a reputable university. - MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about revert at Natural Language Toolkit

I saw that you reverted an entry by Dia.trambitas at [2]

While the Spark NLP page could do with quite a bit of work, and there is obviously some COI happening with Dia.trambitas, it still seems like a relevant "See also" link to me. Considering the Natural Language Toolkit has a "see also" to spaCy, which seems to be a similar tool. What's you reasoning behind removing it?

Or maybe it's the Spark NLP page that should possibly be deleted first?

Thanks

peterl (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed that link when a second editor (with all the hallmarks of a paid freelancer) started adding more links, in the interests of hopefully nipping such spamming in the bud. I'm considering taking the Spark NLP article to AFD, but I haven't taken the time to do the WP:BEFORE searches yet. - MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, I see that. It actually looks like it might be the original author. Certainly I now see them adding it in in lots of places. Agree about nipping in the bud, but those pages do look relevant. My first peruse of Spark NLP is that it looks notable enough, but haven't dug in. If it turns out to be notable, then those "See also" links may be relevant. peterl (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of continuous integration software removals

Although I seriously precede you here chronologically, I only edit sporadically these days. This thread got moved to your archive, since I hadn't responded for a month, so that's on me. That said, I've reviewed WP:SAL and I think you're misapplying the guidance there, using WP:WTAF to support you. I've disagreed with that latter essay (not guideline, not policy) since it was first written, and I would note that the essay's talk page raises several substantial objections to it. For one thing, this project will never be "done". Red links are not inherently bad. I think you err in citing it as if it were policy.

Further, in looking over your talk page archives I note that you get considerable traffic challenging your removals. Can you give me some examples of where you reversed yourself? I didn't see any in my quick search. Never reversing yourself might be worrisome. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start an RFC or something on the Comparison's talk page if you'd like to set some other inclusion criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Updates to Student Information System

I am not done editing this page but the previous information is incorrect.

I am not done editing this page but the previous information is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to remove negative information that is properly sourced based on your personal claim that it is 'not correct', especially not when you are simultaneously adding spam content to other articles. If you keep this up you can expect that your account will be blocked as soon as an admin notices your behavior here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The information that was on this article was not factually correct.

First, I traced down the management team of OSTN by checking: https://web.archive.org/web/20101004195545/http://www.ostn.tv:80/OSTNWebsite/OSTNhome/ManagementTeam.html

It is incorrect that Shane Walker is the only "Key People".

After talking with Paul, Anthony and Rick I confirmed that Shane Walker was not offered a merger with OSTN. This is hearsay. I was told the reality was that Shane Walker's The University Network (TUN) ran out of money. He relocated to Ohio and joined OSTN as an employee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If that is truly your main issue, you should probably try correcting it without also removing the fact that one of the other principals is a convicted sex offender. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please check out my edit now. I did not remove the fact that one of the other principals is a convicted sex offender.

I did research into the legal docket and found this statement to be wrong: "later pleaded guilty to importuning and attempted kidnapping of a 12 year old girl". It should read "later pleaded guilty to importuning and attempted kidnapping." Since it was a sting and there was no 12 year old he did not actually plead guilty to "attempted kidnapping of a 12 year old". As part of a plea deal, he plead guilty in exchange for lesser charges of importuning and attempting kidnapping, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found out that OSTN was actually founded by student-run TV stations from Indiana University, Case Western Reserve University, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Southern California, Ohio State University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Texas, Emerson College and Carnegie Mellon University. Case Western Reserve University hosted the first meeting of the OSTN. I checked with Paul Forsgren who at the time was running the student television station at Ohio State University and he mentioned that the first meeting of OSTN was hosted at Case Western Reserve University and included other student run television stations such as Ohio State University and Indiana University. https://web.archive.org/web/20041010093143/http://www.ostn.tv/governance.html https://web.archive.org/web/20051223050959/http://ostn.tv/07022004b.pdf

I will make this small edit as well if it makes sense to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my edit on Reverse Image Search engines

Dear MrOllie, thank you for your messages against spam links, this was not my intention. Regarding this page, the goal was to add Imatag as a reverse image search solution provider as well as Tineye and Pixsy, which are already in the list although ALL their external links point to their own content of self promotion articles. However their contribution was not reverted. What do you suggest? DeschaseauxChristine (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you associated with or employed by Imatag in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey MrOllie

I am New on Wikipedia, if I made some mistakes than so sorry.

I want share my information about how to create podcast.

Can you tell me how I add my link on this page.

Thanks

Bloggermehta (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Beam Tilt Page

Hello MrOllie,

I have seen that you deleted the "Beam tilt optimization" paragraph I wrote at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beam_tilt&oldid=984658142.

Could you please explain why and suggest improvement?

Best Vannella.Filippo (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because of concerns about synthesis and proper weighting and conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Difficult to conduct a conversation

I'm finding it difficult to conduct a conversation with you on your talk page as my comment didn't even last 3 days this time. I don't think starting an RFC for one article is quite the right approach. I think the issue is larger, and I just happened to stumble over it with this one article... I think you're misapplying essays as if they were policy. When was the last time you changed your mind about a deletion? I think my talk page is a better place for this discussion as it's not archived quite as aggressively. ++Lar: t/c 07:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Campus Consortium

would this be fair as an independent source given that it is written/published by an editorial team of a digital publication: https://edtechreview.in/news/2319-campus-consortium-announces-sponsorship-of-annual-edtech-conferences-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs)

No, according to their about page they don't mark native advertising, so we have no way of knowing if that was a paid placement. See also WP:CHURNALISM, that looks like a close paraphrase of a press release anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dewesoft

Hello. I've noticed you put a tag on Draft:Dewesoft page that the article was written as Undisclosed paid contribution. I just wanted to make clear I was not paid to write the article, I am a student at University of Ljubljana and we got a project in class to write about a company and its work and put the articles on Wikipedia. I understand that the article has been written somehow in advertising ways - which is my mistake since I wanted to cite the resources which can often be written in marketing way. I tried to make the corrections and get rid of advertisment words, and I saw other editors have done that as well. Is it posible to move the page Dewesoft from the Draft section back to the normal page? I am willing to make adjustments to the article if needed, to make it more suitable for Wikipedia page. Best regards. --Flavijus (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Flavijus, That is not what you wrote about yourself when you started working on that article. MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I was doing UNPAID internship (as it is normally in our country) in the company - which made it easier to write about in my class project - again I did not receive any payment for this. I am close to the subject (as I declared on my talk page) because I know the president and co-founder of the company personally and we talked a lot about the beginnings of the company. I was trying to get as many sources to cite and write a Wikipedia article but for now, I am very limited but still think I provided with generally trusted sources. It is an important company in the field of measurement technology worldwide and I can not understand why it cannot be published as National Instruments for example which is put in a similar category. --Flavijus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You received remuneration, though it may have been in the form of educational credit rather than money. The conflict of interest is obvious. You should not have written the article, nor should you have added linkspam from this company to more than a dozen articles. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The conflict of interest which I declared on my page and which can be added as a tag to the Dewesoft page for others to see it. I don't believe there is need to remove the article or put it in to the drafts. Article has been updated and corrected. Links were also reverted and will not happen again. I was trying to put some more info on other pages by it since the page has some valuble articles written. Since I didn't unerstand the politics with the links that was my rookie mistake for which I apologize. I don't understand why the articles about other companies are available on Wikipedia since that is not alowed?--Flavijus (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

People with conflicts of interest often don't understand why their writing is problematic, that is why we have the draft and editrequest system in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why the National Instruments page (from similar category) is also put in drafts right? They only have a tag on the page which indicates that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." - and that since the year 2013! Why are the rules for that page different from the one I wrote?--Flavijus (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

EZTV discussion

Re: Revision as of 13:01, 10 November 2020 (edit) (undo) (thank) MrOllie (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 987816391 by MrOllie (talk): Read the article, this is about the defunct group, not the current group that took over the domain) Tags: Undo Twinkle

I don't understand, what's the issue here? The page is about EZTV, the famous torrenting group. It doesn't matter if its about the ORIGINAL creators or the people wo took over. The thing is, their website is still very famous and in top 10 torrenting sites (source: https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-popular-torrent-sites-of-2020-200105/) so MANY people still benefit from information regarding the (new) group and site. Why can't a news or reference be included about the current site, (which btw, is of Global Rank: 3,876 on Alexa..) Much lower and less visited and interesting sites have Wiki articles. Unless you have a better reason (pls do tell), or if its against the rules (also, if it is, please tell me), otherwise removing them doesn't make sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdaackda (talk • contribs)

The famous torrenting group had their domain stolen in 2015, and to this day warn that the new site is run by scammers. It is a different site, run by different people, who just happen to have copied the old site's branding. If you can come up with the proper sources you perhaps write a new article about the new group (that would be EZCLOUD LIMITED), and link their official site there. But we cannot link someone else's site on EZTV, it is manifestly not their official site, nor is it their 'current site' as you put it. What you're doing is rather like linking something like einstein.com as Albert Einstein's official site. Einstein never had a website, that someone else has come along and used his name does not make their site official or an allowable link per WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think your example is wrong. If a singing group, let's say Beatles is taken over by someone else, and they keep pumping out 'best-selling' songs that make top charts, they will still be called Beatles. the EZTV new site are not scammers (but new ppl who took over, yes). they are just different people who keep publishing torrents (just like old group). If someone new group (lets say Tesla) takes over CNN (instead of Time Warner) but keeps publishing news and remains a most watched news channel, it'll still remain CNN, right? You can check the EZTV site, it was even featured in BBC in 2018, AFTER the "takeover of 2015" as one of the most popular torrent sites.

Even on the current wiki page, see the last heading: "ISP Blockade" - EZTV and its RSS website ezRSS are currently blocked by multiple ISPs in Italy and in the UK at request from MPA and FACT.[25][26][27] As of August 2017, Australian ISP's have also blocked EZTV, amongst others.[28]

Check our resources 25,26,26 and 28. New EZTV ppl are also pirates, not scammers.

Anyways, don't want to argue on such childish issue. You can keep it as you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdaackda (talk • contribs)

If someone exploited a loophole in a domain registration system to acquire the official domains of the beatles or CNN, they would not magically become that organization, no. If you don't believe me, try buying a car at nissan.com - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bill of Lading

Hi, Noticed that you removed the updated link I corrected on the Bill of Lading page (electronic bills of lading section) for Bolero. I had clicked on the original link and got the 404 error, so thought it would be useful to fix that error in the existing link on the page. I understand that they are a commercial organisation, which may be why you've removed the reference completely, but looking into them, they actually introduced the very first electronic bill of lading in 1999 when they were set up by the TT (Through Transport) Club and S.W.I.F.T (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), so I think they are still a relevant reference, especially on the Electronic Bill of Lading section? OldBaldie (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Anjli Jain

MrOllie, I totally get where you are coming from. How about we do this, I give you what I am trying to achieve and you see what is best to get it done without being promotional?

1) On January 10, 2004, Anjli Jain became the Executive Director of the CampusEAI Consortium.[1][2] The way this is worded implies that she is currently the Executive Director of CampusEAI Consortium currently. This article has not been updated in years and she ended her ED role in approximately 2010.

What is the best way to address this misleading information problem?

Also, there is another sentence in this article that essentially restates the same information. I find these two sentences to be redundant.

This is purely a consolidation effort. How do you suggest this be fixed?

2) Since the article was frozen it seems to end in 2010. I have been tring to update it to make it current. For example, I found news sources that show the establishment of EVC Ventures $50-million fund in 2016.

Please advise how best to update this article to reflect upates after 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Saving" Santa

It appears our friend is at it again. Thank you for the undo in the Santa Claus article. However, he's made the identical change to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus&diff=987693837&oldid=987279039 that you may wish to see/revert. I would revert it, but, I'm afraid my involvement would send him over the top again.

He's also been active at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Santa_Tracker&diff=prev&oldid=987693179 but it's fairly minor.

Another change is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Claus&diff=prev&oldid=976635721 While perhaps correct, the revision IMHO adds little value to the article.

Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That last one was already reverted by someone else. I'm not personally as concerned about the others, they strike me as shuffling the words around in minor ways. The important thing is that the RFC consensus be respected and not endlessly chipped away at. - MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, now he's phoning me repeatedly. I reverted the Yes, Virginia edit as it was identical to the one you reverted as per the Santa RfC. He's also revising the emailSanta draft article. I asked him to wait and see if it actually gets approved first before he goes to town on it but he's ignored that request.

Kringle Claus, The phone number was posted on your website. May you please call me back at the same number any day of the week? I would like to discuss over the phone. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Félix An, Harassment via telephone is something that will get you permanently blocked from Wikipedia, see for example this case. If I were you I would never, ever do that again. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I did not intend to harass him. I used his phone number which was posted publicly on his website's contact information and also looked at canada411.ca, which is public. I stopped calling after he didn't answer. Félix An (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware that harassment via telephone is illegal in Canada, but I was not making the calls with a harassing intent. I only wanted to speak to him politely. Félix An (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes an extremely dim view of any sort of unsolicited off-wikipedia contact, social media postings, etc. As in the case I linked above, good intentions do not always matter. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand. My apologies. Félix An (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain yourself about this

Why did you nullified my edit to Mikraot Gedolot?, I don't want an edit war, but we have to sort this out, I'm waiting for your reply sir. 190.219.183.161 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You added a bookstore link to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but it's that forbidden by Wikipedia? Alternatively, you can add that version without the link. 190.219.183.161 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. We don't add hotlinks to stores. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand... Can I add the name of the edition without the webstore link? 190.219.183.161 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis

MrOllie, I'm reasonably new at making Wikipedia edits and saw you reverted my Semgrep entry with the message "Not notable". What would be the proper method for integrating Semgrep to this page? I am currently working to get the Semgrep Wikipedia page built, if the lack of an independent page was the reason for removal. Thanks in advance! - AzureUmbra (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of software that already has a Wikipedia page and/or has established notability. It would need the same set of independent, reliable sources that an article would need. - MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Eelume

You deleted my friend's entire wikipedia edit about the eelume and I was wondering why? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2020c (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Because he turned it into an advertisement. See WP:NPOV. - MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed draft for your consideration

Hi. My name is Sang Ngo and I work for Foundation Capital. I proposed a draft replacement for the current article on the Talk page that addresses the citations needed tag, removes promotion, and improves the quality of the page. That was a month ago and so far there has been no response. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look? Sangatfoundationcap (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)\

It is in the queue for such changes, which is backlogged. Have patience. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sophistical citizen

I'm just trying to understand from what time relevant links started to mark as "inappropriate external links." Maybe you've been confused because I added a private company next to educational and free organizations? If so, feel free to delete; if not, please explain why it's inappropriate. Thanks --Sophistical citizen (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Local plumbers are 'relevant' to Plumbing, but you'll notice that article is not full of external links to plumbing companies. We do not add links to companies like that, nor do we use their marketing blogs as references. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That's weird as I don't understand what means 'companies like that', and also, I saw tons of links to commercial companies in Wikipedia. Plumbers example are pretty straight but plumbing and the whole internet scanning is a bit different things. It's not many companies that do something like that and work with IETF instead of earning money. I believe that it worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophistical citizen (talk • contribs) 08:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have found other inappropriate links, that is a reason to fix those links, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Validate it for the last time. I can put links only for non-profit organizations/companies and all links to commercial companies will be regarded as inappropriate; if it's not in the companie's Wikipedia page. Right? Sophistical citizen (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting milw0rm vandalism

Thanks for undoing the edits by Whhacc. Keystroke (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed my edit AND reinstated bullshit that should not be there.

I noticed that you removed my edit of the page "Hubris", stating that it does not have "reliable source". That, however, does not mean it is wrong. And if there is no indication of it being wrong, it is too much to remove it.

Also, in my two edits of this page, i removed some statement ("is like a zero-sum game") that is not true and not relevant, and your edit put that back. That is completely wrong.

So you seem to be behaving as someone who has more right to determine what should be on wikipedia than others. Do you have any special affiliation with wikipedia or have you appointed yourself as arbiter of whether users can add useful content ?

In the meantime, i'm restoring that article to my latest version, because the result of your action is re-adding bullshit and the reasons provided for deleting my contribution are insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiwardDeGroot (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing is required on Wikipedia. It is not a place for you to write whatever you think is correct. See Wikipedia:No original research. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed my additions to the page on Patents

I have added a statistics section on the page for patents, and also attempted to add a graph which I was unable to do (for technical reasons due to me being a new contributor). Anyway I believe the new section has merit and the link is relevant since its the source of the statements I added to the page. I blv. you have made a mistake in removing this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding Black (talk • contribs)

Blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I was updating a reference

In "brown diamonds" I was simply updating the reference as the link to download the scholarly article had change. The link was down so I updated it to make sure it was up to date. Not spam. Real well regarded journal. Please stop deleting the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfink523 (talk • contribs)

Please see our guidelines on conflict of interest and improper use of citations. This cite (and the other links to this site) shouldn't have been added in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I will fix teh citation, but i have no relationship to anyone discussed in teh article. It is journal of brand strategy. A academic journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfink523 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This was not fixing a citation. You should stop adding links to this website. You may not have a relationship to anyone discussed in the article, but it is your website you are linking, correct? - MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation is updated. Hopefully this works for you now. It is linked directly to the article. Not to a site. ALl the information in brown diamond comes from that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfink523 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

An article you wrote, linked to a copy on a website you own, and a website you have also linked on other pages. The conflict of interest is obvious. You must stop linking your own site. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

OK I will update it to a third party site vs. the article on my site. I was just fixing a link that was bad that was posted four years ago on wikipedia. I was just correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfink523 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, do not use a third party site, do not 'fix this link'. It never should have been added in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john

I feel justified in my removals on his talk page because they were purely clear and vitriolic personal attacks. I thank you for your calm contributions to the conversation. There has been a good deal of disruption in his topic area, with sockpuppet and AIV cases active and ongoing. Your attention is appreciated and valued, thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Cereal from List of Soups

I was positively impressed when I saw that someone (not I) had added cereal to the list of soups. I've often heard people refer to cold cereal in milk as soup; it's a common usage among people I know.

Presumably even a Wikipedant would agree that the New Oxford American Dictionary is a valid source for Wikipedia.

Allow me to quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary (© 2010, 2019 by Oxford University Press, Inc.). Soup is "a liquid dish, typically made by boiling meat, fish, or vegetables, etc., in stock or water." Note the use of the word typical is a qualifier to indicate that soup isn't necessarily made this way.

In any event, cereal most definitely qualifies under the 2nd noun definition given by Oxford: "a substance or mixture perceived to resemble soup in appearance or consistency."

Certainly a bowl of Cheerios in milk resembles soup in both appearance and consistency. I would question the veracity of anyone who claimed they couldn't see the resemblance.

I realize there is some disagreement about whether or not dictionaries should be prescriptive or descriptive, but that argument has no bearing on this issue; the definition of soup clearly includes cold cereal in milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveklein (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. We don't extrapolate here. The dictionary is not on point unless it says something like 'cereal is a soup'. - MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek: Voyager

I'm doing my best to deal with the user messing at Star Trek: Voyager. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You don't seem to understand the logic of your arguments. The reliability of this source has been implicitly validated by the published work it is cited in. I placed a warning here and will report you for vandalism. I have checked the source that you cited. And I am sorry but cannot find any reliable reason for why this should be considered unreliable. By the same logic and reasoning proposed, bitcoin whitepaper would be an unreliable. MrOliveria (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your review. Camelcaseguy (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please

Make a page for 13tabs. 13tabs is a search engine. I can't make page on Wikipedia help Indian G85 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indian G85, It doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, so I'm afraid no one could make such a page. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fashion design

Hello! :)

Please why did you remove my adding on the Page fashio design? I added several sources proving what I added so I don't know why you removed it^^

Have a good day! :)

--JulienSorel1965 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what the word 'ultimate' means. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Polyvagal Theory

Hello Mr. Ollie,

I am contacting you to seek your advice on proposing a revised definition for Polyvagal Theory. In October, I had posted a revision to the current definition which you rejected and then sent the message below:

Information icon Hello, I'm MrOllie. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The current definition does not really say what polyvagal theory is, and it appears to be outdated. May I craft something more objective and run it by you for your opinion?

Thanks, Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Oelsner (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said last time you brought this up here: 'You can take this up at the article talk page for wider input, but phrases like 'the world’s top writers and thinkers applaud it as a revolutionary theory' are not going ever going to be acceptable.' - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

External About

Hi,(talk) Hi, I want to wikipedia of cource, 1- Digital Furniture fair is a online exhbition category, why not? Not selling anything? 2- Nesto about making machine not sell anything about techinal details 3- Anil orman is plywood blog why not? 4- Azim, appletrailer is my young of cource adv. since 2000 I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muratback (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Muratback, All of your contributions thus far have been to add spam links to Wikipedia. If you keep this up your account will be blocked and the URLs will be added to Wikipedia's blacklist for spam. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I just spam all to world in wikipedia sorry for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muratback (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

DEA

You keep deleting materials which are very related to this page. For example the link I added was most useful to my PhD and I know many other students using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SChatardary (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote one person's work or to add links to their website. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles addedd are some of most cited articles on this topic, including Malmquist index of Färe; Grosskopf; Norris, Mary; and Zhongyang (1994), Productivity Measurement of Ray and Desli (1997) and a survey on DEA.

Why MrOllie keep deleting the contents? For example 2(M+N) is incorrect it should be 3(N+M). Also some of the main citations on this article for example Färet al.(1994) with over 9000 citations on google scholar has been deleted by MrOllie!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SChatardary (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow! signal page and Talk page

Hello MrOllie, You may like to know that the offending person has again placed (for a second time) a notice in Dispute resolution noticeboard, despite being rejected in this line some days ago! Would be grateful if you could comment there. This person seems intent on edit warring. Apologies for accidently deleting your latest post, I have restored it - too much to do at the moment. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

David J Johnson, I may comment there if a volunteer opens it this time, but I would expect that it will just be rejected again. No worries about the talk page accident - misclicks happen to all of us. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nurse practitioners

I don't see why my comment was deleted. Nurse practitioners are not 28 times more likely to prescribe opioids. The claim made is not supported in any way by the same paper it supposedly cites. Nurse practitioners are more likely to prescribe opioids by a statistically significant margin, just not 28 times more. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.154 (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You should not write your comments above someone else's signature. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing the formatting, but can we at least fix this blatantly wrong claim of the article? I care more about this article being factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.154 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

For Building Information Modeling

Hi MrOllie, you have deleted my edit on this page many times. I just want to clarify that I am not for advertising the stuff I posted. It's perfect to put gbXML section in the green building in BIM, as gbXML actually represents green building XML, which is a BIM model specifically designed for green building data. I really want to improve this page and help spread the knowledge. But could you just double check and explain what's wrong with my gbXML editing. Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruijis (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, we should not be overemphasizing minor aspects of the topic. - MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not overemphasizing it. It was in the future potential section in BIM, but it is more suitable to move this part into green building. Same paragraph, but different locations. Ruijis (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The place to raise that would be Talk:Building_information_modeling, (see also WP:BRD) perhaps other editors will agree with you, but my talk page really is not the place for a back and forth discussion on this. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

deletion of handshake

Can you explain why my addition to this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root#Handshake

got removed? I don't think I did anything wrong, as all information was clear and was relevant to the topic of Alternative DNS Roots, as I've been reading into Handshake for a few weeks now and it IS an alternative dns root. Moreso than that other one there, Namecoin even. What makes Handshake not okay here but Namecoin is? I feel if handshake for removed, Namecoin should too as it isn't even an alternative dns root like handshake is Handshakeuser420 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Handshakeuser420, The other entries (including Namecoin) all have independently written sources that meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, most of which can be found in the corresponding Wikipedia article that each section links to. Your addition was unsourced with the exception of a self published external link. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Namecoins citation doesnt even work, I was trying to figure out how they were able to claim it as an alternative dns root when it wasnt one.. Look into namecoin and youll see what I mean. Its not an alternative dns root.

Whereas, I can and will dig up many articles that go into handshake and how its a dns root.

<links redacted>

To name a few. I'm sure I can dig up more. If I readd my entry about handshake on this page and add these citations, will my entry be removed again even though Im providing tonnes of sources? Handshakeuser420 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, most of namecoin's references are on the Namecoin page. If you have sufficient sourcing for handshake, you should write a new article (see WP:AFC for how to do that), as all the other entries there have. I checked your encirca link - it is an advertisement page from a company that wants to sell people domains. If that is the quality of the sourcing, I doubt your new article will be approved. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You clearly didnt even read them all then, as that was the only one and I linked 3. 2 of which are actual articles detailing what Handshake is. That link you mentioned actually has a lot of good information regarding it too, which is truthful and can be validated via the OTHER sources I linked.. but you deleted them all.. like you delete so much other stuff..

Also no where on Namecoins page does it say its an alternative DNS root nor does any of its references. So thats nice. also New Nations mentioned on this page does not even have its own page, or even citations.

I dont think Handshake requires a whole new page yet so can I just do it like New Nations did Handshakeuser420 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Handshakeuser420, Thanks for noting the unsourced section on New Nations, I removed that as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie Yeti DNS project also does not have its own page it links to, although it does have 2 citations. Can I do this for handshake?

Handshakeuser420 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

covid and elections

Thank you for carefully editing the page age Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics. I appreciate that you need to be vigilant against Conflicts of Interest and misinformation. At the same time, as an academic, I'm keen to make the findings of research, that has gone through scientific blind peer review, available accessible to the public. As the author of the research, I know it best. Wikipedia is an essential place to share this, so would ask whether the extract could be reinstated please. Alternatively, please advise on the necessary changes. As per your instructions, I made 'a statement in the edit summary of..[the...]COI contribution' making clear my role. As ever, I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic2018N (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Academic2018N, A set of links and tips for editors with a conflict of interest has already been left on your talk page. In particular you should pay attention to the second bullet point. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

An old friend of yours

Still mad, apparently. Much salting and range-blocking followed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, As they say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of all my edits.

Hello MrOllie, I've added several information in regards to the tempo and music key of some of the latest songs, with the source cited and sourced an article about another VPN detection method, however all of my edits were deleted. In my opinion, I believe that both of these edits were beneficial to the page. For some of the edits I made on several songs, the music key and tempo of the song can give the reader some more information about the composition of the song. For the VPN blocking wiki, I provided an alternate method that could block VPNs from specific firewalls and networks. Although these edits might seem totally unnecessary to some readers, I believe the information can be helpful to those who want to further understand the composition of the track or an alternate solution in blocking a VPN. These edits might seem like two different topics where a user like me might not be an expert in both topics. Though, I do have some knowledge in both fields. I produce music during my free time and the music composition is helpful when I am remixing tracks and I work for a small email and hosting service which actually incorporates some of the VPN blocking methods in the article provided.

I've learned so much through Wikipedia and it helped me in certain parts of my career and I think it's time to give back to the community. If you still don't approve my edits, please let me know if I need to make any changes to it. I'll be more than happy to comply. Iomail (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Iomail, Wikipedia has sourcing requirements which you can find at WP:RS. The cites you were (repetitively) citing do not qualify, and appeared to be added for the purpose of promoting those sites. - MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not in anyway affiliated with any of the sources. Besides, how will I be promoting those sites if they have nothing to offer other than information on the page? What should qualify as a valid citation? If you want, you can feel free to fact-check those information with other sources. I will be more than happy to change those citations to different sources, if that will please you. Or if you feel that the information is unreliable, you can feel free to authenticate the information through other sources as well. I'll be more than happy to cooperate with you. My main goal is to add more useful information to the site. If you would like, I could also add multiple sources which can validate the information even further. Please let me know which rules I have violated in the questionable sources requirements so that I can act accordingly. Iomail (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Time-based One-time Password algorithm

Now the argument is non notable? If so we should delete the pages about FreeOTP, LastPass Authenticator, 1Password and the really non notable by an unknown company Google Authenticator , these were wikilinks it that table, I didn't checked if the others have a wiki page. And by the way, we should delete also the section Time-based_One-time_Password_algorithm#See_also? It's a simplified list of the same information. Naluna (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)