User talk:MrOllie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User: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 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!

On Supply on Demand Content Restoration[edit]

I've found several standard references on the content you've removed few minutes ago. I was about to add those. Aren't those enough?

Examples of positive feedback is that popular products tend to become even more popular:  

Altszyler, E; Berbeglia, F.; Berbeglia, G.; Van Hentenryck, P. (2017). "Transient dynamics in trial-offer markets with social influence: Trade-offs between appeal and quality". PLOS ONE. 12 (7): doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180040

Cheng, Po-Keng ; Kim, Young Shin, Speculative bubbles and crashes: Fundamentalists and positive-feedback trading,” Cogent economics & finance, 2017-01, Vol.5 (1), p.1-28, Article 1381370

Lu, Zhou ; Bao, Te ; Yu, Xiaohua, Gender and Bubbles in Experimental Markets with Positive and Negative Expectation Feedback Computational economics, 2021-04, Vol.57 (4), p.1307-1326.

Liu, Xufeng ; Wan, Die, Asymmetric positive feedback trading and stock pricing in China The North American journal of economics and finance, 2022-04, Vol.60, p.101658, Article 101658

Bao, Te ; Hommes, Cars When speculators meet suppliers: Positive versus negative feedback in experimental housing markets Journal of economic dynamics & control, 2019-10, Vol.107, p.103730, Article 103730

Journal of Economic Dynamics & control, 2019-10, Vol.107, p.103730, Article 103730 Bradelykooper (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person who removed this. Once you have made an edit and others have disagreed, you must go to the article's associated talk pages and get agreement from others before proceeding. See WP:BRD and WP:CON for details. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, will you review it or I need to post this message to the page's talk page again? Bradelykooper (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not the only person involved. You must go to the article talk pages (not this, my user talk page) so others will see the discussion and weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are the only one that has reverted my added content. Did someone else try to add the same content before me? Bradelykooper (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. You should be aware of this, the article history clearly shows you reverting another user. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are right. I did a few similar edits so I could not recall that it was a revert. When I checked the history I checked the wrong page here Economic model, which you also reverted. Then why did you revert this one? Bradelykooper (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added redundant references and changed the section titles in a way that does not agree with Wikipedia's style guide. MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly that's kind of funny[edit]

I finally saw the deleted comments and, compared to the nonsense I've already dealt with in the last week, it's honestly kind of amusing. They want to "report" me... somewhere... for saying WP:DUCK. LOL I wish them luck. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite ones are the ones who follow up with asking the person they want to report where they should make the report. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this all the more funny is that I just had a (quite civil) discussion with another long-term Wikipedian earlier today on differing perspectives on what constituted "neutrality" as they were very much in the school of dispassionate reason and stoicism being a path to neutrality compared to my materialist perspective that embeds neutrality in material conditions. So, like, I have been thinking about personal bias and neutrality quite a bit. Then this person comes in with "you have a bias" and I'm like, "OK time to back up to the 101 version." Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often think that one of the ways Wikipedia misleads newbies is with the title of WP:NPOV, which really does not match up with 'neutral' as many would define it. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly the concept of neutrality is one of the ones that is probably hardest to define; certainly everybody on Wikipedia is aware that Wikipedia has implicit biases. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias towards whom? Trade (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream science, WP:CHOPSY opinions, and generally anything that English speaking computer literate people know about, at the expense of topics relating to the developing world. Oh, and our stats on biographies about Men vs biographies about Women are way out of proportion. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the anglosphere for one. Generally Wikipedia is pants-on-head bad at anything to do with contemporary politics outside of "the West". Wikipedia also has an implicit bias derived from its philosophical underpinnings regarding the nature of knowledge and verifiability. This certainly creates a *skew* to Wikipedia such as how little attention is paid to power relations in ascertainment of neutrality. We can see the impact of that such as in the discussion of Howard Zinn right now at WP:RS/N and the way it discusses Marxist historicism. Many of these biases don't arise out of any bad-faith attempt to put a finger on the scale so much as a value mis-match regarding the nature of neutrality in itself.
Also everything MrOllie just said. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage have similar issues when it comes to the "Safety" section Trade (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page:Sweet Baby Inc.[edit]

Do you feel the current semi-protection is sufficient? Trade (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's manageable at the moment. Maybe another ANI thread or two will be needed if autoconfirmed accounts insist on disrupting the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr.Ollie![edit]

Ahh, I'm new to editing! Thanks! Could you add the link to an external links section, please? I do not know how and I'm slightly busy right now. Thank you. Manik Sharma 2012 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be added there, either. Wikipedia is not a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ahh, so even then, can you add it anywhere else? if you can, please do. If you can't, thank you anyways! Goodbye! Manik Sharma 2012 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

@MrOllie, Hello, a question according to the article Queen of Psalm 45 in which places does it need to be supported because as far as I know, is the sources supported or is there some place that is not? I wait your answer. Thank you. English Mary (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk page, please do not start duplicate discussions. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Coolmath Games mention from Ruffle article[edit]

Hello, could you explain your rationale for removing the mention of Coolmath Games from the Ruffle (software) article while leaving similar mentions of Armor Games and Neopets? I don't see how one is more promotional than the others. Iltjp (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]