Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 6 July 2009

Archives

/Archive 1

Complaint removal of all users prior contributions

I will ask you to restore the contributions I HAVE made to previous articles, this is malicious and highly inappropriate.

The issue is that you have disagreed with the contribution I made to the article in ADHD to go along and remove all revisions a WIKI contributor has made in the past, well over a year ago, is not appropriate.

Please restore the contributions and discuss things appropriately or I will make a formal complaint

--Cityzen451 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Solar power

Please refrain from deleting the links to the solar calculators from both the solar power article and the photovoltaics articles. These are essential external links which assist with the evaluation of the availability of solar power. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They're also vendor lists operated by for profit enterprises and are not to be linked per links to be avoided number 14. I'll remove them as I find appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When I went through GA for Solar power the question about those links came up, and the point is that they are there not for the vendor list, if it even exists, but for the solar calculator. You will note that the links that you deleted recently, are not vendor lists, but are links that have been refined to point only to the calculator, and to the map. Previously the link was to the site itself so that anyone who wanted the map or the calculator could click on it, but the EL was refined so that it points only to the calculator, and only to the map, and if we look at ELNO 14, we see none of it, "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." It is none of the those, but instead is a very useful addition to the article, as it both allows you to calculate how big a solar panel you would need, plus it allows you to locate your solar panel on the map, and see others in your area around the country. I would suggest that the purpose of editing is to develop an encyclopedia, not delete it. Apteva (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you use the calculator (either of them), it then attempts to link you with a solar installer. These are advertising sites, plain and simple. Surely you can find a site with the same information that does not advertise solar installation in this way. - MrOllie (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I happent to agree with your last statement, Apteva, but this is apparently not the philosophy of MrOllie.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For one thing I do not see that "it then attempts to link you with a solar installer". I have used both calculators and found them extremely useful. Never did I get linked to, or see any, names of any solar installers. If I was planning on building a solar panel that might be my next question, and having a link there might be useful, but advertising links on the web are ubiquitous, other than on a few cites, like WP, which, however does ask for donations now and then. Honestly most people never click on ads, and you can't not link to the New York Times, or the London Times just because it is trying to get you to click on an advertiser. That is just taking it too far. Link the content, don't worry about the ads. Don't link to a page that is just all ads and has little useful content that could be found on a page with less ads. Basically what I see is that you are taking policy where no one has gone before, and stretching it to the absurd. However, you also have to be specific about your complaint, and the link is to a calculator, not a "list of manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - but I would also make the point that if that was the only page that had that content, and it had the content that you were linking to, plus a forbidden list, it would still be a valid EL, because it was essential, as it was the only place the content you were actually linking to was available. In other words, we can not control how other pages are constructed. If they help the project, link to them, if they hurt the project, don't link to them. As I see it, the calculators are essential to the project and should be linked, until better links can be found to replace them. Apteva (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between an ad supported site such as the NY Times and a directory of solar installers with a calculator app in front of it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely out in left field here. It is a calculator ap that also has links to other things, the same as the NY Times is a newspaper that also has links to other things. No difference whatsoever. I can however, find an "ad site", which never has any original content, just a sham of an article, normally a copy of an article. This is not one of those. You are welcome to replace the calculator with any other that provides the same information. Until then, quit removing them, please. Apteva (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit

Thanks for deleting the religious crap on the Artificial Intelligence article, I didn't even notice it despite reading the whole article many times, lol.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for MrOllie

Mr Ollie I have a number of questions about your reasoning for continually removing information that I have added to the pages of authors Sharon Kay Penman, Wally Lamb, Mary Doria Russell and others. The information that I have included about these authors has been important information about their careers, upcoming books and information about their histories. I am not close to these subjects but have in some cases conducted interviews with the authors. I am confused because my website stands to make no money and sells no product. Often times the information I have added to their pages is much newer than any previously cited and often corrects miscommunicated information. I have read the rules of[REDACTED] and am trying to abide by them but am disheartened when I see that you have deleted every link and fact that I have added over several weeks without any information on the talk pages. I want to be able to share information from these interviews and would like very much to receive your help in doing so. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with the conflict of interest guideline, I would suggest that you mention the interview as a possible source on the talk page of the article, disclose your association with the site, and let some more neutral third party decide what if anything should go in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to inform Misplaced Pages users that I have conducted some of these interviews and that I still believe that the information I have included is pertinent and important information that should still be included in the author's pages. I wanted to point out to you, as well, in case you have not visited Loaded Questions that the site sells no products but provides literary news and author reviews. I am interested in contributing to the Misplaced Pages community and would greatly like the help of individuals such as your self in order to do so. I am hoping that you will be open and communicate with me in order to aid in this process. I have also noted that you have removed all of the Reference links to Loaded Questions - some of which were not added by myself. On many of the pages where Loaded Questions Interview links have been removed there are other links to interviews from sites that are very similar to Loaded Questions. Can you help explain to me why this is so?

KellyHewitt80 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of a link is not an endorsement of it. If you believe a link is inappropriate, feel free to remove it or start a discussion on it. It's possible that they haven't yet been reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The question I was trying to ask was why you have removed every External Link to Loaded Questions, including those not submitted by myself? I am trying to find reasoning and to find out how to have an External Link listed in an appropriate manner.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When links have been added in high volume by IP editors (or accounts who seem to be editing with a single purpose) it's common to just remove all of them. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per External Links: What Should Be Linked Item #3 I will be adding External Links to interview transcripts with Wally Lamb and Lauren Willig. I trust that if you disagree with this action you will find an appropriate manner to inquire to a change of Misplaced Pages policy.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding links to your own web site. - MrOllie (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I cited the External Links: What Should Be Added and have read the entire enter for External Links. Loaded Questions does not violate any of those rules. It is not a person website, does not sell anything related to the content featured and the links added have been links directly to interview transcript. When I have tried to add facts to the body of the page you have removed them and so, when trying to provide the interviews to the[REDACTED] user via External links External Links: What Should Be Linked Item #3 you have continued to remove these links despite that fact that I have not violated any stated rule. I am baffled by your continue insistence on singling Loaded Questions and myself out. There are no grounds for removing the External Links to interview transcripts with the author on whose page it is listed.KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that in your judgment these links seem very appropriate, but we have guidelines on things like conflict of interest and spamming external links for a reason. You're too close to the matter to make an unbiased judgment. Just have patience, if the links are as appropriate as you say some third party will come along and include them. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have faith that someone will add them, a few of them had been added in the past when you removed them. I have to wonder -- have you read any of the interviews or taken time to look at the content? Who is to say that when a third party does add these links back up you don't continue to remove them out of spite and the clear dedication you've shown towards removing anything associated with Loaded Questions?14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular dedication towards your site in particular as you can see by reviewing by contribs and/or my talk page, I just spend some of my spare time keeping Misplaced Pages's external links under control. However, once I notice bulk link additions such as the ones carried out by I do tend to keep an eye on that site in the future just to make sure there isn't a similar run of link additions, but that does not necessarily preclude measured usage. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to make this clear so that, for both of our sakes, we might not have to have any further conversation with each other. The only reason you have removed information and External links from the authors pages where I have added them is because I, as someone who works on the site and conducts many of the interviews, have added them. I recognize that you are loathe to give a straight on answer but, as I said, I am hoping to end this whole thing with a clear answer from you regarding your removal of both factual contribution (suspect or otherwise) and External Links. Is this so?KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons - they have been bulk added by IP editors in the past, added by your account with an obvious COI recently, and because it appears to be a self published site. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Ollie -- I am having a really difficult time communicating with you and am really starting to feel like you're going to do whatever it takes to stop any of my interviews (which you've never read) from being added to Misplaced Pages. What does "self published" site mean? Are you implying that Misplaced Pages does not accept information from self published sites? (I would really like to see where you find a rule or guideline that supports this.) Secondly what does a COI mean? And -- lastly -- since, in the past, I added a number of links and information to a number of pages which I believed was pertinent that all future information added by third parties will be removed? I would really like to encourage you to answer each of these questions and directly. I am trying, very hard, to meet your "criteria" but each and every time I think I understand why it is you are wholesale rejecting contributions by me or any of my interviews you come up with another excuse which you've failed to mention. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what COI means, I don't think that you should use the world "obvious" because to date you're the only person who has had a problem with this. Secondly, you continue to throw this IP information at me without any proof that it was me that did this! I have made all of my edits with an account and cannot be held responsible for items added by an IP that I don't recognize. Time for you to come up with some more reasons. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Self published is defined here. COI is an abbreviation for conflict of interest. I'm not the only person who has reverted additions of this site, here is one example. It really doesn't matter if the IP is yours or not, there has been a pattern of spamming behavior that is taken into account. I reserve the right to self determine the topics of conversation that I indulge in, including which questions I will or will not answer. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Loaded Questions is not a self published website according to the rules that you yourself just cited. The interviews that have been conducted at Loaded Questions are cited in a number of websites and articles and, in fact, as a book group reading guide in the paperback version of The Memoirs of a Beautiful Boy by Robert Leleux published by St. Martin's Griffin (ISBN:100312361696). Furthermore I would argue that the fact that Loaded Questions and myself work with a number of publishers and have published over sixty author interviews over more than two years. The site has an established URL and never reports about the work, writing or projects of individuals who contribute to the site. During this entire exchange you have chosen "indulge" in creating reason after reason for blacklisting Loaded Questions, providing answers and responses only when they fit your individual agenda. Your insistence on having the right to "self determine the topics and conversations" you participate it is ironic especially given that you also self determine what items, links and information you delete from pages. You cannot delete information, remove links and then "choose" whether or not you answer questions about why you did so. I think that you (and others reading this) ought to seriously consider the reasons you are involved with Misplaced Pages. I have witnessed nothing but malice and a unwillingness to work with me in finding a way to share *information* with the general public. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming too personalized to be productive, I think, so I'm going to exit it at this point, with a simple reiteration that if you use talk pages and wait for uninvolved parties, the system will work. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Online Backup

Hi MrOllie, I noticed one of your recent contributions removed an external link from the online backup article. Although I do not contribute to the encyclopaedia like your good self I do use it often as a resource and thought this recent edit of yours maybe a little harsh. I read through the wiki external links guidelines and noted that the link to the online backup application in action was a link to content that although was relevant to the article could not be hosted on the Misplaced Pages site as it was what looked like flash. The External Link guidelines suggest that if an external link is on topic and relevant to the article then these kind of links should be encouraged to enhance the encyclopaedia rather than be swiftly removed. I have been in the storage industry for some time and think that this flash provides the viewer an accurate representation of online backup so I think that the encyclopaedia will benefit from such rich media content and would like to revert the edit. I appreciate the time and effort editors like you put in to keep the encyclopaedia in order and hope that this decision is OK with you and other editors. Mike (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On topic and relevant isn't sufficient - if we stuck to that we'd be buried in advertising. We can't be advertising for redstor here. You say that you're in the storage industry - are you related to this company? If so, please read the conflict of interest guideline and try to take it to heart. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would suggest that "we" are not "buried" in advertising, because we do not allow any advertising. However, most external sites that we link to are supported by advertising, and advertising can almost always be expected. The fact that a link includes advertising is not a factor at all in determining if a link is useful to the purposes of the encyclopedia. The only question, is, is the information available from a better source, or not? The burden of proof, of course is on the editor who would like to remove the "offending" link because they think it can be replaced with a better link. If they can, do it. If they can not - then there is nothing they can do but leave the link - if it is in fact on topic, relevant, and I would add, useful. One of the principles of writing Misplaced Pages is to not delete poorly written good faith edits, but to clean them up and fix them. FYI, I looked at the above flash, and was not able to play it through, but the little I did see was not, to that point, at all useful. I will try to get on a faster computer and view the whole thing at some point, but for now I see no need for the link. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition of a link to a book

I agree with the removal of links which are referenced in the text that are used are unfounded evidende.

Unnotable with reference to the origin of a book is a bias, especially blocking a book purely because it is "on demand publishing" is unfounded, there is no reason this book should not be referenced, having read it it ties in with the discussion of theories of dyslexia, notably phonological deficit, and discusses the theory in depth,

I very much agree that articles cannot make statements and claims for unvalidated research, agreed, however this is the section on further reading, where it is very appropriate to do so, since it provides a wider perspective of the dyslexia issue

referencing of popular, important or well written books, the further reading section makes no claims about the content or validity of the works, that is not the purpose of a further reading section, a book about dyslexia whatever the perspective should and can be appropriately included for the purpose of expanding a perspective

Since books are sold as a general rule of thumb it is not inappropriate to list the site where they are available, this is not advertising, since in this context it is unavoidable Your comments that these are advertising, they are not referenced in the main body of the text and so are not sales pitch, since they are not being referenced to put forward a

specific viewpoint. The section should make reference to alternative therapies and perspectives, but highlighting what they are, especially since there is a lack of concrete evidence for cause of the disability and a lack of development in the area for the treatment of the condition.

Unproven or unotable is not a critera for removing a further reading reference, since it is appropriate to added to inform the reader of a perspective, the idea of a further reading section is to permit the reader to expand their view.

with respect to advertising books are sold, and references to a book will include a link to where the book is sold.

I would hope that we can discuss this issue, and failing that I agree a dispute should be filed, since there is the issue with referencing books is by its nature unavoidably advertising and is permitted in this context. Since the book is referenced it is biased to reject it on grounds that it is an on demand book, and unwikipedian. The inclusion of the article is valid since the book's author is a Phd. The technique it describes falls into line with the speech therapies used and so there is no valid reason not to list the book.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,