User talk:OlYeller21/archives 3

The Head and the Heart

Can you expand on why you reverted the expansion of The Head and the Heart? You mention copyvios, but Googling sentences from the added text is not returning anything. I'm working with browneheather on IRC, and we're a bit confused. Thank you! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure can (did)! I wrote up my reasoning on the talk page. The copyvio is from the picture. Everything else is explain there. If you're working with her, feel free to disregard my line of thinking. My only real concern is that she may have added a great deal of copyrighted material but as I'm heading out, I didn't have time to check. I planned on working on it tonight or tomorrow morning but again, I certainly won't object if you're helping with the process. OlYeller^Talktome 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi OlYeller 21, I took that picture at a house show they did for me. I also penned all of that content myself last night. It is all original, none of it is copyrighted elsewhere. Please let me know your specific concerns and I will answer each. Thanks. This is my first wiki page and I worked really hard on getting it right and making it exhaustive. Browneheather (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, Heather. I'm glad we have someone with your knowledge of the band to add more information and your dedication to making sure it's a great article. If you plan on sticking around to create more article, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. Thank you! OlYeller^Talktome 20:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Ohio State University people

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ohio_State_University_people&curid=7010504&diff=426272410&oldid=426267617

I don't understand what criteria were used to delete so many alumni from the list, in particular the Pulitzer Prize winners. Why were some left and others deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioreader (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My criteria was discussed in my edit summary. If I removed a Pulitzer Prize winner, it's because that wasn't mentioned AND there's no article for that person. If you want to include this person, find a reference that proves they won a Pulitzer then add them back to the list with that reference. OlYeller^Talktome 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, that's why I was confused. The one that jumped out at me, and the reason I left a comment here, is "Nick Anderson (cartoonist)". He was listed under the Pulitzer Prize winners, and he has a wikipedia article which describes his Pulitzer and other awards - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Anderson_(cartoonist) I didn't look at any of the other deletions besides that one, but I knew that it didn't meet the criteria you described. Before I undid that particular edit, I wanted to make sure I understood your reason for the change. Thanks for your work on wikipedia and for taking the time to reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioreader (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC) '

My mistake. I just saw "Cartoonist" and thought it was like some of the other entries like "Engineer". Obviously, this one should be put back on the list. Do you want to put it back or would you like me to? OlYeller^Talktome 16:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind putting it back, that would be great. The last thing I wanted to do was start an editing war. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioreader (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added back Pulitzer Prize winners. Did I miss anything else? I'm battling a nasty cold today so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. OlYeller^Talktome 17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

None that I know of. Thanks for doing that. I hope you feel better soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioreader (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV report

Thanks for pointing out that series of edits. There's nothing worse than having to clean up after a vandal who has made a long series of bad yet minor fact changes. In this case, I was able to spot check a few of the edits, and they do seem to line up exactly with the new 2010 census data. The census site was apparently designed by analysts who hate people, so jumping through the hoops to get to the right query is a bit of an adventure. You can start at census.gov and click through the most probable trail; if you hit a roadblock I can do the query again and give you a ste-by-step if you're interested. I cannot provide a direct link to results, however. :( Kuru (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Census Data

Hi I updated some central ohio population numbers directly from the US census 2010 numbers. If you would like I can give you links to the us goverments census website or there are many newspaper publications that also provide this information. All my information has been accurate but I can stop updating if that is what you would like me to do.Just trying to help keep things current! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.76.233 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! No, you're fine. When I saw the edit, I did my own search and wasn't able to find the data you had referenced. Another user I was working with found it so it's OK. Some people might revert your edits because a reference hasn't been presented but that shouldn't be a big problem. Thanks for your help with the updates! OlYeller^Talktome 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

May 20

Do you think the May 20 article should include anything about the Draw Muhammad event? Voice your opinion here please, so we can reach consensus. Pass a Method talk 06:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Pretty strong talk! And I call what you are involved in "cronyism," and publically call you out on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoodbadhabit (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm sure everyone's impressed with you now. As you're new, you may want to check out WP:N and WP:OR. The info you added isn't notable and is your own opinion on the state of banning on a forum. As you've added the information before and been reverted for doing it, I marked it as vandalism so that you would get the point and read the pertinent WP policies and guidelines (the ones I linked). Also, your revert of my edit says that I must have some axe to grind. I have no idea what you're talking about and don't really care to but have fun with the finger pointing. I'll be here and I'm happy to answer any questions you have. OlYeller^Talktome 05:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, original research is summed up by this sentence: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." The information you added is to a primary source, not an analysis of the primary source. You aren't a reliable source and you're not published meaning that your opinion basically doesn't matter when it comes to opinions on the subject of an article. Your opinions matter when it comes to sources and such but not much else. OlYeller^Talktome 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I handed him a w4 for this repeated problematic behavior (he's been blocked before for it) in addition to the personal attacks on various editors in his comments and edit-summaries. One way or another, he'll be stopping. DMacks (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks. I appreciate it. OlYeller^Talktome 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seider's Springs

Hello OlYeller21. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seider's Springs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: original author claims to be the author of the source. Please use Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead. Thank you. SoWhy 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you not see the issue with this claim? Example: I'm Beyonce and I hearby claim that I created all of my music and allow Wikipedia to use it as they please. I'm sorry if this seems facetious but it's a copyvio and its seems that you think it's OK to leave the copyrighted material on WP without an OTRS ticket. Am I missing something or do I need to go ask other admins to take care of an issue that puts WP at risk? All other articles created by this user have been deleted and the user has been blocked because of my reports. OlYeller^Talktome 20:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, you may want to bone up on Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations: "If the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC-BY-SA and GFDL – the text may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for another reason, but it is not a copyright violation. They may donate the material through the procedures described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, although until the donation process is complete the article should be replaced with the {{Copyviocore}} tag."

I'm not willing to see this through OTRS (it's not my responsibility to) and if you want to do that, by all means. If not, you need to delete it. OlYeller^Talktome 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with copyvio in general does not always mean speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for cases where there is no credible indication or claim at all by the creator that the material is in fact theirs to give away. As such, the example with Beyonce is incorrect, since such a claim would not be credible. If you can say with a high degree of certainty that those are in fact copyright violations, for example because the user was blocked because of it, then that's another matter. But in this case even the block reviewing admin conceded that those are probably not copyright violations and that the block was for promotional purposes. The point of declining the speedy was that cases such as this one are about good-faith contributors who simply do not understand the licensing problems with adding such material they published elsewhere first and thus we should allow them some time to rectify those problems first. {{subst:copyvio}} was created to address such situations (amongst others) and it solves the problem just as well in this case. Regards SoWhy 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Brykerwoods wiki articles

Sorry for all the confusion with the contributions I that have made. I am the author of the source content with which there are alleged copyright violations. I am working to make my Wikipedia entries fully compliant. Many thanks for your time and helpful advice. Brykerwoods (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RPG.net Politics

Please do not delete the entries under the politics discussion of RPGnet. You deleted one entry saying "this is not a forum" but let all the others (which were basically similar kinds of statements), remain. The topic of RPG.nets political leanings is a source of heated debate on gaming boards, and at least worthy of inclusion on the discussion page. If I added objectionable material to the actual article, I could understand. But this is a debate on whether to include details on the RPG.net tangency-mods controversies and I was just adding my opinion on it. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're attempting to add information about the website to the talk page with no references or information to back up your claim. You make no reference to how the article can be improved, only comments about the subject itself. Please do not comment again until you've read WP:SOAPBOX. If you add the comments on the talk page again, I'll be reverting it as vandalism. OlYeller^Talktome 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, my comment was supporting including material on bias in the article. I wasn't just commenting to say I think its liberal. I was commenting to show the previous statements about including this detail had merit. What is your problem? 107.3.67.184 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeller, that is the discussion page, not the article itself. There is an ongoing debate over whether the article should contain references to politics. That post is simply part of that discussion. If someone changes the article without a source, you can change it. But you can't alter the discussion page. If you change that once more, I am reporting you for vandalism.The person's post is no different than the seven or so that procede it. Why are you interfering with a discussion page in this way? 98.110.177.20 (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll discuss it more on the talk page of the article but to put it bluntly and simply, your opinion doesn't belong in the article per WP:OR (a Wikipedia policy about "original research"). WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM are parts of a policy that say that articles and their talk pages are not a place to discuss your own opinions on the article. Again, I'll expand on both points on the talk page of the article so go read more about it there. OlYeller^Talktome 18:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misapplying the policy. And if you continue to remove things like this from the talk page I will report it as vandalism. FOX News is known for being a conservative news station, and there is nothing wrong with including an objective description of this widely held belief on the FOX news wikipedia entry. In the same way, RPG.net is deemed by many, many gamers to have a strong left-wing bias. Including an objecting description of this widely held belief would certainly belong in the article if reliable sources can be cited to show the belief exists. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to wait to pass judgement until you read my post on the talk page of the article. Please don't be offended when I say you opinion doesn't belong in the article. Also, simply saying that I'm misapplying the policy doesn't really help your argument. How am I misapplying it and how are you applying it correctly? OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are misapplying the policy because that is meant from eliminating opinions from articles. I am not advocating the article describe rpg.net as liberal (that would be an opinion), I am advocating that the article include a description of the controversy itself (some gamers think rpg.net is liberal or politically biased). That is different from using the article as a platform to express the opinion that it is biased. But on the discussion page, people are simply voicing their belief that it is liberal to demonstrate the belief is out there.

So long as you don't delete a legitimate debate on the on this topic from the discussion page I won't pass judgement. But bear in mind, what people are really trying to say here, and what I am suggesting, is we simply include something like "some readers have accused rpg.net of having a liberal bias". There are plenty of sources out there making that accusation (the rpg pundit for one) and those rise to the same level of most of the sources on the article. I agree, the article shouldn't come down on either side of this debate. But it should at least acknowledge the debate exists. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You said, "You are misapplying the policy because that is meant from eliminating opinions from articles." I'm guessing you didn't read the policies I linked because WP:SOAPBOX says, "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." As per WP:OR and your statement that, "some gamers think rpg.net is liberal or politically biased" just proves my point that you think the opinions of these games belongs anywhere on WP. It's doesn't per the policies I've linked.

Most importantly, you say that, "There are plenty of sources out there making that accusation". This is a great point. All you need to do is present those sources as long as they are reliable (read this). I'll gladly help you include the opinion of reliable sources that feel that the subject of the article is has a bias in the article.

In the end, we can forgo any of the policies I've mentioned if you have some reliable sources that back up the opinion of the users involved in a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, it's just turning into a forum to voice opinions that don't matter to WP (again, please don't be offended by that). OlYeller^Talktome 19:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I presented the first sourse that comes up on a google search on the issue. It is an online essay by rpgpundit. If you think that isn't a valid source, then fine, but keep in mind most of the sources on the actual article are of that nature as well (so those will need to be removed). Also the rest of the article is unsourced and appears to be a product of individual research, so the entire article probably needs to be hacked down to a much smaller entry if we are going to go on a wikipedia policy enforcement tagent here.

Bottom line, you appear to be using wikipolicy to stifle a legitimate debate on the discussion page. People aren't just simply using the dicsussion page as a forum, they are trying to make the case that a lot of people perceive a liberal bias at rpgnet, and this probbaly should be mentioned in the article. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable sources. I'm not discussing this here anymore. Take it to the talk page of the article and again, please go read WP:OR. I'm taking a great deal of time explaining to you and the other users what these policies mean. I'll I'm asking is that you go read a policy of WP before telling me I'm wrong. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I amn not suggesting we do original research. There are plenty of online secondary sources (though you may object to them) that describe this ongoing controversy. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

After you noted that several of the references aren't reliable, I checked out the rest. I don't believe that article satisfies WP:GNG or any part of WP:N and should not be included in the project. I have nominated the article for deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 19:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullyediting_by_Olyeller 98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the notice. It looks like it's basically taking care of itself so I'll stay away. If you want to talk more about the deletion of the article, I'll be glad to discuss it at the AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

School notability

Sorry if you believed that I was attacking you in my answer on the project page. I did go on a bit too long in my response. I apologize. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Linden89

My apologies for this. I shouldn't have removed your comment, but you might do well remembering WP:BITE - the primary content of your warning wasn't particularly applicable, as the category was both appropriate for the articles in question, and supported by verifiable content. That's certainly one way to confuse a newbie. Mato (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I used a template and added a comment at the end to better explain what was going wrong. If you have a problem with the template, that's not really something you're going to solve on my talk page. OlYeller^Talktome 18:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the template being applicable, the template says, "make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified" and as the category doesn't exist, the article can't belong in it. Again, any other confusion is cleared up by my comments following the template. OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

M2M links

I understand your point, but then we should just remove the whole "Open M2M initiatives" section, I guess... There is IMO no reason to have a link towards an old initiative (see BiTXml, for example), and none for a new open source (again) initative ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartben (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Feel free to remove that section. I will support the removal unless those initiatives have be proven notable. OlYeller^Talktome 12:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent help

On Kenya institute of media and technology. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Saimir Pirgu

Hi OlYeller21. I recently deleted Saimir Pirgu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion under G12 with the edit summary "Nominating for G12. To patrolling admin, please check carefully. The Duplication Detector report is thrown off a bit but the similarities are very clear." A user has contested that deletion on my talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

David Roze

Does this article warrant deletion on grounds of lack of independent verification? --Greenmaven (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why me? OlYeller^Talktome 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a claim of notability. The official website of the subject seems to be of a high quality. If it were me, based on the official website, I'd look for more references before I delete it or nominate it for AfD but I generally follow WP:BEFORE anyway. If it's to be kept, I think it should be stubbed to one sentence and two independent sources should be found. OlYeller^Talktome 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why you? Because you take a special interest in deletions, and I though I would get your advice. Surely his own website does not count for anything in terms of verification, no matter how high its quality? Thanks for responding --Greenmaven (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested it counted for anything but when dealing with new pages, I notice several patterns. People who are completely non-notable generally don't have well made, expensive looking websites. This isn't a binary feature so it doesn't inversely imply notability but, to me, implies that a little bit of searching (a Google News and Google News Archive search) should be done.

I didn't mean to sound rude by asking why you asked me. Honestly, I'm flattered. Thanks for asking. OlYeller^Talktome 14:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the Google News and News Archives. I have never used them and will now look into them. That's a very helpful suggestion. I am finding the question of Notability a bit problematic. It seems to be essentially a subjective judgement, and not easy to define satisfactorily for WP purposes. The case of Chris Darwin has been intriguing for me. Best wishes --Greenmaven (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising links on TOMS

I was curious why a fan site dedicated to TOMS with thousands of visitors and hundreds of fans would not be a relevant link to include on this page. Also, is there any reason why the last external link on this page would meet your editorial approval? http://www.fashioncatalog.co.uk/shoes/toms-classic-slip-shoes-for-summer/

To me this site is much less relevant to the editorial integrity of Wikipedia, but yet it is not removed. Just trying to understand the logic of what would be considered a credible link to add. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.121.252 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I also just noticed that you flagged this addition as vandalism. How in the world would this be considered vandalism? I think that is a bit extreme don't you thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.121.252 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the other website doesn't belong there either so I'm removing it as well. The guideline regarding the addition you made can be found at WP:PROMO. As with a lot of connotations of words found on WP, WP's definition of "vandalism" may be a little different from yours. Basically, doing something that may be against WP policies or guidelines can be considered vandalism the same way taking a penny from your mother can be considered theft. It's just not that big of a deal until you do it 3 or 4 times then blocks start coming in.

To more clearly address the addition of the fan website to the article, if every article included links to all the fansites wouldn't be prudent. WP:EL states that, "on articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate" but that was written for very popular bands, shows, or people where the fansite itself may be notable and not a page with a few hundred fans. OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hereby, I award You the Barnstar of Good Humor for Your recent contributions to Wikipedia talk:Notability. Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dew tags

I see you've started tagging, but I'm not seeing notices on the first editors talk page. I'll delete them, and take the heat, but I rarely delete without seeing a notice on the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)--SPhilbrickT 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not fast enough, they've all been deleted. I still urge you to notify on subsequent ones, it will help if there is a backlash.--SPhilbrickT 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I placed a tag on the only editor that's still editing but they were blocked by Atama this morning. As of right now, I think all of the associated accounts are now blocked or not editing (I intentionally went to COI first). I'll write my own message and leave it on their talk pages to make sure this isn't out of nowhere in case they come back. OlYeller^Talktome 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Oh, and after urging you to pot comment son them all, I remembered I am not a fan of providing a separate template for each one, looks like piling on, so I try to post one template message, then add a bullet list of others that are in the same category. Sounds like you are going to do something custom anyway. Now we just wait and see if there's blowback. Don't hesitate to drag me in if they contact you and not me.--SPhilbrickT 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left messages on the talk pages of all the associated users. I hope that it's adequate. I did my best to be thorough and not jump the gun on this issue but still had a few hiccups. Let me know if you see any other issues and I'll do my best to take care of them.

As for blowback, I don't don't anticipate anything too nasty. Besides the articles they have posted, they seem very disconnected from WP itself. There's not a single talk page edit across any of the accounts. Hopefully they were just trying to help their company and weren't aware of our policies/guidelines and we can settle this civily and cleanly. I'll let you know if they come to me. OlYeller^Talktome 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom's Shoe's

What is your relationship with Tom's Shoes? You seem to be engaged in PR/damage control with them and I honestly doubt your good faith on this subject. Perhaps you could find another contributor who is more neutral to make changes on this subject you feel is needed or at least restrict you outright deletions/reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litch (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Litch. First of all, I'd like to point you to WP:GOODFAITH. You apparently haven't seen all of my edits on the article and immediately assumed that I have some sort of agenda on Wikipedia besides my only actual agenda of improving the project (Wikipedia) that I care a great deal about. Secondly, you have been blocked twice in the past for personal attacks and I would like to ask that you apologize here.

For what? Asking if you are a marketing sock-puppet based on your actions? Not a chance. If the perception of you offends your sensibilities then change your behavior.

I'm not threatening to go tell or anything like that but I'd certainly appreciate it. If your attacks continue, I will be forced to take action, though.

Bite me. You haven't been attacked, your integrity has been questioned. If you can't cope with that stay away from public fora.

Thirdly, if anyone has an agenda here, it seems to be you. Your edit history shows that you are here to edit pages related to the LBGT community (which I sincerely sympathize with) but to then go and suggest that someone else is doing something wrong because you perceive that they disagree with you is just hurtful. Fourth, at to answer your question, no, I have no more connection with TOMS than I do with Duck Dodgers (which is to say none at all). When it comes down to it, outside of their recent campaign (which I strongly disagree with), they raise some interesting ethical issues with for-profit companies working with non-profit companies but that's an entirely different discussion.

Lastly, I've reverted your edit on TOMS Shoes. The section that you re-added to the article is highly contentious. I'm not saying that I disagree with its addition but when you say something like, "wide spread criticism" that's not something that you can back up with a few articles from blogs. It's going to have to be backed up with several very reliable sources and worded in a way that's encyclopedic. I'm not saying Jezebel or any of the others specifically aren't reliable but that's a very heavy claim and we (Wikipedia) can't go defaming a company without covering our bases. Can we work on the passage on the talk page of the article? The TOMS article isn't the greatest article but I've spent a good amount of time making it encyclopedic and want to make sure it complies with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I hope we can work together on this. OlYeller^Talktome 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

you could have modified the content rather than delete it, quit being such a coward

Litch (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did modify the content instead of removing it...

I've reported the situation at ANI. Please do not edit my talk page or talk page archives any more. OlYeller^Talktome 18:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Never forget...

..."that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's access to use Twinkle revoked or one's account being blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

You can't call "Vandalism! Vandalism" just because you don't like the edit!  :)

[Or perhaps you can, if you want to show wiki supporters/subscribers that wiki lets just anyone moderate, regardless of personal agenda...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoodbadhabit (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. You are violating Wikipedia policy by defaming the subject of a Wikipedia article and refusing to add references. This isn't the first time you've done this but you continue to ignore my help and the help of others (your edit was reverted again after you made it a third time). I've been patient with you and attempted to explain why you must include references several times. How would you like it if someone made an article about you and included lots of false and defamatory information based on their own opinion? OlYeller^Talktome 11:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg

Hi OlYeller21, You may remember me from our conversation on here on the WP:COIN talk page. I have completed a draft of the article about Bloomberg L.P. head of communications, Kevin Sheekey, and would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and see if you think it's ready to replace the current article. I'm still working on drafting the Daniel Doctoroff article to address the copyright violations, but I thought I'd start with Sheekey since the changes are more minor.Ordwayen (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For the "heads up" as they say. I don't have that page on my watchlist any more.--andreasegde (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Andreasegde

Re. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Swarcliffe,

Please see my addition, [1]. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts; I don't know how to proceed; I hate this stuff.

Related, explanation-why-I-am-here, disclaimer: I've been trying to help the editor, and been trying to calm his antagonistic attitude to prevent a block - see [2] [3].

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I read through a little bit of the talk page archives and it looks like he's been less than friendly. At the very least, it sounds like he's stirring things up a lot if not being uncivil and pushing a COI. You've certainly been more patient than I would have been. I'll try to get a better understanding of the situation a little later when I have more time. OlYeller^Talktome 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, Is there any particular reason for making your date and time stand out in bold (and, I think, large font)? It's a bit distracting when reading talk pages or WP:COIN - seems to suggest some significance that probably isn't intended. PamD (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I copied and altered another person's signature when I started editing years ago. I've tried in vein to fix it but I'm not great at the code. I only want the name to be bold and colored the way it is now. You're welcome to try and fix it if you're any good at the code.

[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''^{[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]} OlYeller^Talktome 14:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hello,

I recently noticed that the page on GameSoundCon was deleted, based in part on your analysis of the content. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GameSoundCon)

I would like to respectfully ask you to reconsider, based on a couple of points

I would ask you to please reconsider the use of "MIX Magazine" (online or off) to be a dubious reference. MIX has been one of music industry's leading trade magazines for at least 30 years. Although they were owned for a time by Penton Media, the magazine was separate from the PR organization. Recording schools often make sure to note if one of their grads or faculty makes it into MIX; they consider it a "big deal." For example (http://www.audiorecordingschoolblog.com/2011/07/13/grads-featured-in-mix-magazine/ or http://www.audiorecordingschoolblog.com/category/game-audio/), http://www.berklee.edu/bt/193/alumnotes.html, http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CAM/faculty/meis/jermance/Pages/index.aspx. The "TEC" award, founded by MIX, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC_Awards) is also very highly regarded in the industry.

GameSoundCon was the very first public showing of the previously private tools used to develop content for the video game, Rock Band (published by MTV/Viacom). This became part of the launch of "The Rock Band Network" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Band_Network) and a highly notable event. This is covered in a "gamasutra" article here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/25015/GameSoundCon_Adds_Rock_Band_Network_Classes.php Gamasutra is the leading online resource for the entire game development community.

Your largest concern seemed (justifiably) to be about the "GamesOpt.com" reference. That was poor judgement to use a non-vetted source (especially one obviously trying to capitalize on users who make a typo when trying to find GameSpot.com). Since I knew the information to be accurate, I didn't vet rest of the site properly. There were many sites which had referenced Marty O'Donnell (Halo Composer) keynoting the kickoff conference -- I picked a bad one (at one point, Marty had it listed on his own page).

I hope you will take the above into consideration and reconsider the deletion of the page; I will update the references to include the Gamasutra article as well as a non-dubious reference on O'Donnell's keynote.

Thank you for your time Bschmidt1962 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC) bschmidt1962

Children's Museum backstage pass

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. I haven't been there for quite a while. Also, it's a great idea for getting experience Wikipedians to help you out. I love the idea but live to far to take make the trip. I'll check out the virtual edit-a-thon at some point. OlYeller^Talktome 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ASSort

Hey there,

I recently wrote an article on an algorithm i invented to the sorting problem, the algorithm i described works better then all comparison algorithms exists on the market. i dont see why would it be non important. if you still do think so you may as well delete it, but others who would love to use it or just love to see a brand new exit on this particular computer science issue, are the ones to suffer.

i am asking you to reconsider,as i would love let others use my contribution.

Thank you for your time OfekRon —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Hi Ofek. That's cool that you want to let others use what you have created for free. I don't know much about coding but if that's the most efficient sorting algorithm, that's even cooler.

As for keeping the article, to be included it has to satisfy one of the inclusion guidelines found at WP:N. No matter how cool I think it is, the article can't stay unless an inclusion guideline is satisfied. Has there been any significant coverage of the algorithm from independent and reliable sources? That's usually the easiest way to establish notability. OlYeller^Talktome 18:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey again, well i'm a senior year student of Ort Braude college of Israel, im just an annonymous private who would want to share his creation with the world, i got my Proffesor to agree with me that that is definitely the best comparison algorithm there is on the market, but other then that, a little man like me cant do. I got a C code with the algorithm implementation that works and aprove its efficiency, but other than that i got nothing but what I and my proffesor knows. if you guys, or other members or users can approve the aritcle, they are more then welcome to use and test it. would it be helpfull if i added a specific implementation of the program in C code? I thought thats a little unapropriate and that is why i didnt do so in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfekRon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

There is a serious problem on the Swarcliffe page, as some editors are ignoring advice about the edits they are making. I have made a list of mistakes on the talk page, to which one editor replied, "I have no intention of going through the list of "errors" ". Help is very definitely needed here.--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anne Lorraine Gales

Hello OlYeller21. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Anne Lorraine Gales, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awards and medals won indicate notability sufficient for A7. Take to AfD if required, but will add BLPPROD notice now. Thank you. GedUK  07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for my "move on" comment at User talk:Graeme Bartlett. I felt that GB had taken enough over one decision; it was not my intent to characterise you as a problematic editor (I don't actually know you at all as an editor, so should have been more careful in my response). Sorry.

Regards, 88.104.46.22 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret Key Generation Via Wireless Channel Characterization revert

I realize he had removed the AFd tag, but did you really mean to characterize all sixteen of the previous edits as vandalism? [4] I can't say I can tell what he thought a lot of them were accomplishing, and he has proven to be very difficult to communicate with, but I don't think those edits were done with he specific intent to harm Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm stupid, I see you rectified that with your next edit. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I should have been more careful. OlYeller^Talktome 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Altered Comments of others

I did not understand the reason why you deleted my posting. I didn't feel that I had done wrong.PKdundee (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really feel that you needed to alter the color of his signature? He designed his signature in a very specific nature meaning that, unless you can prove otherwise, he wants it the way it is. OlYeller^Talktome 22:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature issue

Hi, I was correcting a report at SPI when I noticed that your signature does not accurately say who you are. You are not User:OlYeller, but User:OlYeller21. Would you consider changing your signature by adding the '21' part, so that there is no confusion in the future? Phearson (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edison Glass

Do we have to take this to the talk page? This was your original accusation of User:Bluestarblackcar. The user only made three, inconsequential edits. What proof do you have against User:EdGl other than a similarity to the subject's name? Look at the edit history of the user you're accusing and you'll see that the user was a general editor. Are you suggesting that Bluestarblackcar was a SockPuppet of EdGl? Please clarify your position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care about the original accusation and I'm not sure why it matters at this point. I'm using WP:DUCK and my extensive experience at WP:COIN to declare the possibility of a COI until it could be determined if the article was affected by a COI (which is all that matters to me, I don't care unless the article is affected). The user wasn't a "general editor" when they created the page. Regarding their edits on Edison Glass, they were an WP:SPA-WP:COI-WP:DUCK until they went elsewhere and stopped editing Edison Glass. If you didn't notice, instead of edit warring with you, I read through the whole article and cleaned it of any possibility of a COI and removed the tag. I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation much further so if you're still in disagreement about someone creating an account called EdGl to create an article about Edison Glass possibly having a COI even though I already cleared the article of any possible COI, I'll create a report at WP:COIN and let others deal with it.

EdGl seems to have gone on to be a healthy contributor to WP but that doesn't mean they didn't start off the intent of advertising for a band they like or have a close connection with (definition of a COI). Lots of editors join WP with the intent of editing a subject they care about which, in itself, it borderline POV pushing if not a COI (if they have a close connection). OlYeller^Talktome 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can use whatever you like, but you need evidence in this particular article to label it with a COI and this article doesn't have any COI as far as I can see. Feel free to discuss the COI on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You realize I've removed the COI tag right? What are we still arguing about? Got an axe to grind? OlYeller^Talktome 16:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Remove - Thanks so much for your help

Hi there OIYeller21. The images that were in question on the wikipedia site for Selena Cuffe have since been removed. So everything on there now has been submitted by other users. So I'd love for you to review and see what can be done to remove the COI, which no longer applies. Thanks in advance - I really appreciate it (Selenacuffe (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)).

Hey Selena. I'd be happy to. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So grateful and thankful! Thank you! (75.186.1.187 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)).

COI???

This is a response to your comment on my article about Jon Hinck. I put the response on my talk page, but it is not clear that you ever saw it, so I'm copying it here.

Jon Hinck

If you have a connection with Jon Hinck, please disclose your connection with him on your talk page. Also, please review our policy regarding editing with a conflict of interest. The page is being closely monitored and I assure you, if there is a connection, it will eventually be found. OlYeller^Talktome 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO OLYELLER21

Before addressing your suspicions, let me say that I did review carefully the page on Wiki's COI policy. The statement itself is rather porous. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't know or care much about Wikipedia per se. All of my outside interests are therefore more important to me than the aims of Wikipedia. I think it is convenient to have an information source like W, and I would like to contribute my expertise to anyone who might need it, but my outside interests are obviously more important in themselves (to me) than my inclination to share information about them.

What Wikipedia ought to be concerned about is not which interest is more important to the author, but whether the author has an interest that actually leads to the distortion or falsification of a story.

Having noted (to myself, in the first instance) that the Wiki definition of COI is defective, I noted also the temporizing effect of the subsequent paragraph ("Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..."). Before undertaking the Hinck article, I also reviewed all the other articles on Maine legislators. Quite a few are transparently written by the subjects themselves. For instance, Jeffery Gifford's stub notes that he coached Pop Warner football for twenty-five years. No documentation whatsoever on that. Where would the information have come from? Seth Berry's relatively extensive article has information about his hobbies, highlights of his career as a school teacher, and a lot of other information no disinterested Wiki writer would likely have. The two newspaper articles cited for that article have virtually no corroboratory function. I could go on, but you know what I'm talking about.

So please let's not pretend that Wiki authors have no interest other than serving the aims of Wikipedia.

As for my alleged COI in compiling the Hinck article, here is my response:

I was a colleague of the subject (Jon Hinck) when we both taught ESL for Iran America Society in Isfahan. That was in the spring of 1975. It happened that Jon was from a town a few minutes from my parents' place, and when I visited them in the late summer, I also stopped by to see the Hincks. After that I lost contact with him until around 2003, when I ran across a reference to his work, which I found pretty inspiring. I dug up his address, sent him some photos from Iran, and we had a brief snail-mail exchange. Later I set up a Google alert on Hinck, so that I could follow his career. Recently I opened a wiki account, intending to do some articles on Nepal, especially Rolwaling, on which I have some expertise. (See rolwaling.com/,, mountainlegacy.org, wanderingeducators.com). As I was organizing my material on Rolwaling, I noticed that Hinck was edging toward a run against Olympia Snowe, which I think would be extremely significant politically. I researched his career online to the extent I could, and emailed him for clarifications and documentation, which he was kind enough to assist with. One area where he was especially helpful was his role in Greenpeace USA. Although I gave money ($10-25/year) to Greenpeace back in the 90s, I was not directly involved in campaigns, and had no idea of Hinck's role.

Clearly, my article on Hinck is more extensive than the write-ups of other Maine legislators. (On the other hand, the article on John Eder, whom Hinck defeated, is of comparable length, but with negligible documentation; there is no indication how the author would have known anything about Eder's bumming around and living in a solar powered shack.) I think we would be better off if authoritative and reasonably comprehensive articles were available on all office-holders. Hinck is particularly deserving of attention because of his effective environmental activism. This is not a minor figure like some candidates for national office, whose accomplishments have been largely in the area of self-promotion. Hinck's work for Greenpeace USA, as well as his service for the emerging nation of Palau, are more than just "notable": they are remarkable.

All that being said, I understand that Wiki may feel that now is the time to burnish its credibility. Perhaps you are in the process of reviewing all articles on officeholders or environmental activists. Or whatever. I would be perfectly happy if someone else wanted to take over the Hinck article. I have no personal stake at all in it, other than my hope that he will run for the Senate sooner rather than later, simply because our country needs his service.

I am concerned that Wiki's COI policy may mean that you would also have issues with my working on Nepal articles, since I have a record of promoting backpacker tourism. I hasten to add that all my efforts in that respect have been non-lucrative. On the other hand, I don't want to waste my time or yours on more articles that are going to be problematic simply because I have a prior interest not just in the subject but also in its success. I assure you that I have no fear of being publicly shamed as having what Wiki deems a Conflict of Interest. Anybody whose main interest in life is Wikipedia -- and who is not making somehow making money from it -- probably needs to get a life, or at least some real-world interests.

I thank you for your time and guidance on this matter.

Sicroff (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, I just wanted to say thanks for disclosing any sort of connection. It's refreshing and very helpful. I greatly respect your disclosure.

As for our COI policy, it's basically porous for a reason. A very important aspect of WP is assuming good faith. It's one of my favorite parts of WP. The idea is very basic but creates an excellent environment for collaboration and interaction. I like the idea so much that it's now a value I live my life by but I digress. As you've pointed out, there's a grey area between having a close connection with a subject and just enjoying or valuing a subject in some way. That's one reason the policy pairs a close connection with the statement about aims of the editor and aims of WP. When it comes down to it, we're all here to improve the encyclopedia so even if President Obama's press secretary started editing his article, it's not a problem until they start showing some drastic point of view or bias. The reason I love WP is because its governing beliefs are so pure. Make an encyclopedia that tells the truth and it seems that your goal is to improve articles so that they tell the truth. Perfect match. It sometimes gets hairy is in regards to "truth" versus what's verifiable. I don't see it come up often but here's an essay that talks about it. A real barn burner.

In your case, you are what most Wikipedians would call an expert. You have a close connection (or moderately close connection) to the subject but don't intend on using the articles as some sort of soap box to get a message out that carries some sort of strong opinion that's presented as a fact. Experts are not only allowed to edit articles, they're invited to edit articles.

I hope my inquiry didn't offend you. I had previously helped with a COI on that page and was watching for continued editing which is very common for editors with a COI. I often have to walk a line between acting on strong patterns that I see and assuming good faith. I never "act" until I know for sure but finding out for sure can sometimes seem offensive in itself.

I hope you continue to edit WP. You seem like the kind of person who really helps WP (for whatever my opinion is worth). If you want to learn more about WP's goals/aims, check out the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. It's a short read as the pillars are intended to be interpretable.

If you ever have any questions, I'd be more than happy to help. Have a great day, Sicroff. OlYeller^Talktome 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do try

not to get sucked in yourself! The case study needs someone who hasn't had their own tussles with her. (Thanks again BTW for all the hard work, even just this far.) JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do! OlYeller^Talktome 14:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for filing that report. I would however, change "exuberant" to perhaps "excessive"! JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry it took me so long. Last week got pretty crazy and when I did have enough time to edit, I didn't feel like it was enough to wrap my head around that report.

Also, I fixed the word. Apparently I thought people were spending a lively amount of time on the issue, lol. OlYeller^Talktome 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, also "propose" for "purpose"! JohnInDC (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

NOO! How emberezing! OlYeller^Talktome 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Ursini

Hi. Just want to give you a heads up that the AfD you started in August is still open, and not listed at WP:AfD for some reason. Cheers Tooga - BØRK! 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! I guess I'll have to watch Twinkle more closely from now on. I'll get it worked out later today. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 14:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone else just fixed it for me. Everything should be in working order now. OlYeller^Talktome 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Talk:Tata_Swach.
Message added 09:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edition of article Robot Economics.

Recently you edited the article Robot economics using Twinkle. I'm a new user and have no much idea about the whole process. I have provided needed links to the article as it notified. Please contact me at resourcesecon@yahoo.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.184.14 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Ramshankaryadav's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	This is for you contribution for checking copyvios for India Education Program. Thanks a ton, keep the good work going! Cheers, Ram (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ram! OlYeller^Talktome 19:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:ITunes LP

I'm here to chime in with your comment from a year and a half ago. Please see the associated article and its recent history also. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for weighing in. I've undone a lot of hard work by a good-faith editor who is somewhat new to Wikipedia, and I'm not real familiar with the subject matter. With a little bit of help from others (maybe you) who know categories and music and stuff we can help them contribute to the project. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. They'll know what to do and may even have some sort of precedent for the situation. OlYeller^Talktome 19:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated

It's okay. Thanks for your input at the COI noticeboard. Keep up the good work, 99.168.81.210 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. 'You're welcome' wouldn't really cut it. I clicked on the wrong link to check for warnings of the user and obviously wasn't paying enough attention. I'm glad I was able to reverse the damage. OlYeller^Talktome 01:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I need your help with Patricia Elliott Seitz article!

Hello, I am a newbie, as you probably are aware. I have been trying to site information correctly about the artist Patricia Elliott Seitz. I am sorry for the unintentional deletion of your earlier warnings. Since you are well versed in the Wikipedia protocol, possibly you might help me, so that I might not receive any more deletion notices/warnings?

Thank you kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaSeitz (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Patricia. I'm more than happy to help. I've left a message on your talk page discussing what, in my opinion, are the most important issues to address. Feel free to ask questions here, your talk page, or the article's talk page and I'll do my best to help. OlYeller^Talktome 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)