User talk:MrOllie
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "ETools". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
List of Optimization Software
Just wondering why you pulled a bunch of the available software off of there.
Cnkavanaugh (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)cnkavanaugh
- It's standard for lists on Wikipedia to consist of entries that either link to an existing Wikipedia article or that have a independently written third party reference such as a newspaper or trade journal. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
WPEL
(Moved from User talk:MrOllie to User talk:Bhanks. See my comment below.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(Uninvolved editor) normally, a conversation about external links placed by Bhanks belongs on Bhanks' user talk page, so I am WP:BOLDly moving this from User talk:MrOllie to User talk:Bhanks. If anyone objects to this, WP:BRD explains what to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop removing entries from Comparison of file hosting services
Hi,
Please stop removing entries from Comparison of file hosting services. I don't know who's reverting the changes you try to make, but that person is right about reverting the change. Non of the guidelines you supply (WP:ELNO, WP:SAL, WP:SPAM, WP:WTAF) as a reason even apply in this case. I'd like to ask you to join the discussion about this matter instead. Simply reverting the changes constantly is nonsense.--Forage (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I entirely disagree with your request, and I had already used the article talk page before you reverted me. Let's keep the conversation there, where it should be. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are both edit warring, and will end up blocked if you don't stop. Please -- both of you -- follow the advice given in WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Article considered for deletion
Hello MrOllie, I haven't created articles on Wikipedia before and it seems that my current page YTD Video Downloader doesn't meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia. I would like to edit the page in order for it to meet all the required criteria. Would it be possible to provide some guidance in this matter? Please note that I am not interested in any way to advertise this software. I have just been using it for a few years and I am very satisfied with it. I would also like to add that I have used a similar structure with other Wikipedia pages in creating the article (content structure, sources, external links) and if necessary, I can provide examples. Furthermore the sources I have referenced are IT websites acknowledged for software reviews and have their own pages on Wikipedia. I am not sure why they can't be considered reliable third party sources.
Thank you for your time and assistance Adrian309 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's sources that is the biggest problem. The websites you have listed (Softpedia, Software.informer, etc) are indiscriminate - they list and review pretty much every piece of software that exists. We need multiple sources that are selective in what they publish - the New York Times, Wired, something like that. If you can find sources, we can then use those to fill out the details of the article instead of what we have now - what you have written so far 'practical tool' 'useful solution' etc, all sounds like advertising copy. But first priority is the sources, the article will not survive without them. - 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the link that I posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_schematic The one that is already there is much interesting http://www.circuitstune.com/ , probably yours. BTW: this is irony because if you would have looked better circuitstune.com is not a good resource for readers, it has only a dozens of articles filled with ads compared to electroschematics.com which has over 1000 and is updated almost everyday with unique and great content provided by 3 active authors.
Thank you again!
Yours, Popescu Marian.
Electroschematics (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Electroschematics
- If you have found inappropriate links on a Wikiepdia article, please remove them. But do not take their presence as a reason to add more inappropriate links. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Literary links
You have whacked my links for various author sites claiming that they were inappropriate. Did you look at them? No, I am guessing not. The Wikipedia entry for Antoine Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Abel) contains an incomplete bibliography, his date of birth and death and one link, where the URL is given but not the title of the article. My link gave the title of the link, and the article had a complete bibliography, more biographical info, a link to six other relevant sites (with titles as well as URL) and a review of one of his books. In other words, it was far superior to the Wikipedia entry. Why is that inappropriate?
Theraven (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Theraven