User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions 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!

Changes to Artists’ Books Page

Appreciate your alert on COI. I do have a softer COI — which is being friends with an artist. That said, as an objective observer, that specific page is hugely skewed toward specific flavors of art — and has an enthusiastic embrace of avante Garde which makes it an unreliable source when compare with, for example, Joanna Drucker’s superb book on the topic.

This makes a difficult situation — because it appears the editor/contributors grind their own axes in what they contribute leaving the page so it is not a balanced source of information about artists’ books.

My goal in contributing is merely to sort out the page to be balanced. The gentleman I added (Timothy Ely) and who I am friends with is a very serious omission from a page claiming to be about artists’ books — Yale Prof Joanna Drucker uses his work as the primary example of artists’ books which are what she calls “auratic objects”. He appears in her book several times — an unusual occurrence in that book.

Any thoughts you might offer for leading an effort to establish a higher quality page would be appreciated. Dsgarnett (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Phlebotomy Page

Hi Mr. Ollie. I am attempting to represent a Nationally Accredited Phlebotomy Certification company that through my research has been in business for 40 years. This is a significant omission from a page dedicated to Phlebotomy and referencing Phlebotomy Certification companies. I emailed the volunteer email address and they had said that referencing the site that way would be ok. Can you please provide some clarity as to how I should write these statements. I am not a spammer adding irrelevant content. I am actively working toward making sure an organization that I came across is represented here in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirrusitr (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, I'm the OTRS agent who explained that the problem was an inline citation, and suggested using a reference. While I haven't looked closely, it appears to be a link to the official relevant organization, and provides useful information rather than simply being a spam link. Can we discuss? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is really that there are quite a few companies offering these certifications, and there is really no reason that Wikipedia should be listing (and therefore promoting) this particular one instead of any of the others. - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: despite the official sounding name, they aren't any more official than their dozen or so competitors. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, My issue with that explanation is that the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists out a number of the organizations on that are already on this page. The citation to the https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/phlebotomists.htm#tab-4 clearly shows that these organizations play a major role in Phlebotomy Certification in the United States. I am strictly adding this organization to show wikipedia users what "other" organizations may look like as that statement is very ambiguous. There is no "promoting" being done with this citation. I do not agree with your assessment nor do I appreciate the SPAM tag that you placed on the latest citation. I am a new user to Wikipedia and it is very discouraging that my first post is being overly scrutinized. I can understand the missed citations early in my writing cause for post removal however after having a skilled wikipedia member from the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team provide direction, I do not understand the logic behind it's removal. I believe if the US Government makes a point to identify these organizations, they should all be represented on the page under the United States section. Cirrusitr (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Dongles

Today I added two simple sentences, both backed up by photographs of physical objects.

Can you please provide specific reasons for the removal of the text and the photos. Are you claiming that the text is untrue and the photos are faked?

There are multiple statements in the article backed up by no citations, photographs or anything else - why are they still there?

I apologise if I have done something to annoy you but I really don't understand your motive for all this.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

replying on Talk:Dongle. Please don't duplicate your messages on my user talk. - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Accepted - but do you get notified of changes to the talk page of an article you are monitoring? That's the only reason I put it in both places.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

COI

Hi, thank you for the alert. I'm confused on the COI policy. I am paid by A Place for Mom, but provided edits to an article to clarify the differences between home care and home health care as well as who pays for that care. I provided valid source articles (including Medicare directly) with very specific information on these topic areas. Please let me know if the sources are problematic, or if as an employee of A Place for Mom I am not able to edit material directly related to my expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBarnettAC (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking provider directory services such as AgingCare don't make good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why removing DataMelt

I'm a new user, and today I was discouraged by Mr. Ollie. You rejected my very first article called DataMelt. It had totally legitimate external review in Java spectrum journal (an older version of Datamelt) See https://www.sigs-datacom.de/uploads/tx_dmjournals/rohe_JS_05_13_ad4s.pdf My this was not very clear in my first submission.

Hello, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

This is a topic that has already been through Wikipedia's deletion process. You can see all the details on that at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataMelt. The review you mentioned here was brought up in that deletion discussion and not found to be sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. We're going to need new independent, reliable sources to reconsider that deletion decision. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also mention that you created three copies of your draft article: Draft:Datamelt, Draft:DataMelt and Draft:Dmelt. Two of these have since been deleted, but you have recreated one. Please work on only one copy of the draft - Draft:Datamelt is the oldest so you should be using that one. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this understood. But can you please say what Java spectrum review https://www.sigs-datacom.de/uploads/tx_dmjournals/rohe_JS_05_13_ad4s.pdf does not work in this case? Or article in Oracle.COM https://community.oracle.com/docs/DOC-982931 They are very well established sources.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

We need new sources, both of those have already been raised at the previous AFD. The Rohe source was discussed specifically. As to the oracle source, it's a blog on their community site. Blogs generally do not support arguments for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"New sources" is very subjective criteria in this case. It looks like that discussion in 2018 came from freelance editors (this was clear from the talk page). I've just read this blue box here https://jwork.org/wiki/DMelt:General/WikiForWiki . It is very sad this this had happen in wikipeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs)

Despite what the software author writes there, I don't see any indication that the old AFD process was tainted. But if you think it was, the place to raise that is at Deletion reviews. But you won't get anywhere without some evidence. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence is clear: Oracle.COM article is real article. It's in the section of article "archives" (see the top of this Oracle.COM page). And Java spectrum is a real article.