White 720
Belated welcome
Welcome!
Hello, White 720, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jokestress 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for creating such a balanced and well-sourced article. If Microsoft Office 12 deserves an article, I see no reason why the next version doesn't, given that there is already talk about it in published, reliable sources. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
GBox
Good call. I'd read the Forbes article as well, but it was oddly worded. I suppose the Tiny Mix Tapes author and I made the same mistake. I emailed the author and he responded, saying that a correction would be posted, hopefully by tomorrow. Is there a word for when Wikipedia corrects a non user-generated source of information? Should we invent a word for it?
I wrote up a brief page, since one was obviously lacking, and then found your user page linked to it. Please feel free to add whatever additional information you can find, since it seems like Lynch's web presence is kind of small. There's a few good photos around (I think the one on IMDB might be best), but I don't know what the legality is on using them. Thanks, Torc2 07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
edit: As for TMT, they are usually pretty reliable, despite their jokey headlines.
Temptation (2007 US game show)
Thanks for the message. It was good exchangng ideas with you. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Woot
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Nice job with the major cleanup of woot. Ost (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) |
Deltron
It just seems a little hype-y and not necessarily substantive enough to be included in Wikipedia. I don't doubt the merit of the information contained in the article, nor its relevancy to a certain limited audience, but I don't think the material, in conjunction with the projected audience base, merits inclusion.
Thanks for the feedback on my talk page.
I've responded there. ATren (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo
Really? That is bizarre since Variety would usually be the first to report it or one of the first ones. TJ Spyke 00:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Toulouse
I've created a page for you at User:White 720/Stephen Toulouse that contains the latest deleted content and left a note at my own talk page that responds in a little more detail. Let me know if there's anything further I can do to help. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this page put back up, apparently my view that every page has to start somewhere isn't shared by everyone.....JonnybobT 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
re: "sandwich (sic)"
sandwich is spelled as such, please check a dictionary (or google) before correcting unesusarie spleng mstakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.100.115 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern. The [sic] was to humor User:TimSPC who is exceptionally concerned that the Double Down is being labeled a "sandwich." Mr. SPC is upset that an object lacking bread is being called a "sandwich," violating centuries of precedent. Again, thank you for your concern and for your efforts to improve America's leading resource of information. White 720 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Cherry Shares
I just read WP:OR, and I don't think that I'm violating it in the "Legality" section of Cherry Shares. For example, the Quatloos cite quite explicitly says that every HYIP is a scam. Is putting that in considered "synthesis"? HYIP Lies (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Uber thx
... for your heavy copyedits and improvements to the article.[1] Much obliged, highly impressed, standup job. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! White 720 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| Sure, it's very very old, but this diff, especially "the term applies even in the case when none of the metals is a bread" is the funniest thing I've read all day Achowat (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Prefunding Algorithm - Formal Precommitment Mechanism
This information comes from Dr. Shubik himself.
Please feel free to call his office to verify: http://economics.yale.edu/people/martin-shubik
Professor Emeritus of Management and of Economics 30 Hillhouse Ave., Room 7 +1 432-3694, 432-6054 Fax number: 203-432-6167 martin.shubik@yale.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- That paper came out 45 years ago and mentions Dollar auctions, not Bidding fee auctions. White 720 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, you may have a conflict of interest because your company, Social Shopping Network, is associating itself with Prof. Shubik's research and name. White 720 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Dollar auction game and the bidding-fee-auction are the same game. It was called dollar auction game before computers existed and with computers the name changed to bidding-fee-auctions. You guys seriously needs to confirm with Dr Martin Shubik that I did interview him, and everything I say is Dr Shubik real life quotes. Dr Shubik clearly states that Nothing happens with 0 or 1 precommitted bidder, aka. auction is not initiated until atleast 2 precommitted bidders is present. Stating a mathematical fact in a public encyclopedia cannot be considered a conflict of interest.
Martin Shubik Professor Emeritus of Management and of Economics 30 Hillhouse Ave., Room 7 +1 432-3694, 432-6054 Fax number: 203-432-6167 martin.shubik@yale.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source stating that dollar auctions (only the second-highest bidder pays) and bidding fee auctions (all bidders pay something) are the same thing? If so, cite it. Nothing Prof. Shubik said to you (that is, your original research, which is not allowed in articles) supports that statement. White 720 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking me to show proof of this? Something that is a already a public fact, I need to prove a fact to you, fact is a fact.
Here is a National Geographics documentary in Dollar Auction Game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-SNscNADk. Dollar auction game, is also bidding-fee-auction, aka all-pay auction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am seriously asking you to show proof that dollar auctions and bidding fee auctions are the same thing. A dollar auction is not an all-pay auction; only two bidders (the highest bidder and the second-highest bidder) pay. Your YouTube link makes no mention of bidding fee auctions. White 720 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Based on a quick Google search, here are a couple of papers that state that penny auctions (bidding fee auctions) are adapted from the dollar auction but differ in their implementation. "Selling a Dollar for More Than a Dollar? Evidence from Online Penny Auctions" and "The Sunk-Cost Fallacy in Penny Auctions" White 720 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just read it from Dr. Shubik words, First page 1 5th paragraph, "for the purposes of the discussion and analytics, we limit outselves to an auctioneer and two bidders, as the basic difficulties with this game can be illustrated at this level."
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mpugh/Teaching/Sci199_03/dollar_auction_1.pdf
- So they only explain how the game works with 2 paying bidders, because they want the little-slower poeple to understand it too. But in reality the commercial use is all-pay-auction since otherwise a global auction house would not be fair, if it would discriminate between people. Some people pay but others don't. The entire purpose of the game is that its equal opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still asking you to cite a reliable, verifiable source that dollar auctions (only the top 2 bidders pay their high bid amounts) and bidding fee auctions (all bidders pay a flat fee per bid, and the top bidder pays their high bid amount) are the same. Prof. Shubik's paper does not state that. You may draw your own conclusions from it and post them on other web sites, but on this site, your own conclusions are original research and as such are disallowed. White 720 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Journal Of Conflict Resolution, Volume 15, Issue 1, Page 110,"for the purposes of the discussion and analytics, we limit outselves to an auctioneer and two bidders, as the basic difficulties with this game can be illustrated at this level.", here it is again, since you had some trouble understanding the first time.
- Can you cite me your sources where do you get that they are not the same? who tell you this?
- Dollar auction was the game name before computers existed. Bidding-fee-auction became the name after the game became digitized, computers. Fact!
- "the basic difficulties with this game"' can be explained when highest and second highest bidder pays.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 07:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have 2014 updated the dollar auction game to work with Facebook and Google verified bidders, with the use of prefunding algorithm, and two or more precommitted bidders auction initiation criteria. The newest name for the game is prefunded-bidding-fee-auction, I updated it 2012.