Misplaced Pages

User talk:WAS 4.250: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:08, 11 December 2007 editWilyD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,255 edits Respect where due← Previous edit Revision as of 00:09, 13 December 2007 edit undoCOGDEN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,050 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 27: Line 27:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, ]<font color="FF8800">]</font>, hereby award this O Star to WAS 4.250 for illuminating all manner of problem about the wiki with unusual insight. |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, ]<font color="FF8800">]</font>, hereby award this O Star to WAS 4.250 for illuminating all manner of problem about the wiki with unusual insight.
|} |}

== NOR Request for arbitration ==

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the ] article, I am notifying you that a ] has been opened . I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. ] 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:09, 13 December 2007

Template:Edit-top-section New stuff at the bottom, please. Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

On a break

Time to take a break. Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia and the community, every year are better than the year before. We are now going to get fresh blood in a new revitalized arbcom, gonna hire people to raise funds in a professional manner in our new home San Francisco, gonna join with Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation so that the next GFDL version is nothing other than the next version of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licence so that we are finally compatible and have an appropriate licence for wiki created work. This is a good time to take a break. WAS 4.250 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Were I the type to think that barnstars were anything other than childish, I'd post one up here to suck up. But I don't so I'll just say take it easy mate, I'm sure you'll be back when needed. It's been good seeing there are decent editors (like you) around wikipedia in amongst all the political/POV crap that sometimes drowns out the good. A consistent voice of reason and common sense. :) NathanLee (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

reply

You are on a break - but you left me a message telling me where COI information is. That wasn't the point.

Telling me where the COI rules are located does not help people who can get in trouble, and aren't informed of how they can get in trouble. Its sort of as if there was a rule that you had to "stop" at corner of 5th and Park, but there was no sign on the corner, but there was a cop at the corner, ready to give you a ticket (and post that you got a ticket online) and maybe that ticket could cause you to lose your job. You are saying "they just should know" and I'm saying "they often don't". I pointed out that someone had had this happen (no sign, didn't stop, was caught and it was publicized) and then you told me that in rulebook 8430, page 43, appendix 4, there was a note that people at the corner of 5th and Park had to stop. I'm saying, "put up a sign, on every page", so that IP editors, and newbies and the very-dense can be reminded. And ps: this is a great liability shield. It can be a cheery sign, with a hand, or something that says, "hey, if you are editing about your workplace, yourself, your area of expertise, then STOP, please go read our COI page".

If you are ok with this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit ... with rules that might cause you embarassment, job loss, etc that are tucked inside where you can't see them without rummaging", then great. Because that's how it stands. 85.5.180.9 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis?

did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis? Yes. I began the article on 21 May 2005 and Frothy has made it what it is today. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We repeated warnings to people as early as 21 May 2005 : ""Let's assume for a moment that enough people get fooled, and the refinancing boom gets extended for another year. Then what? The real problem hits. Because if you think Greenspan's being cagey on refinancing, the truth he's really avoiding talking about is that we're in the midst of a huge housing bubble, on a scale only seen once before since the Depression. Worse, the inflated housing market is now in an historically unique position, as the motor of the rest of the economy. Within the next year or two, that bubble is likely to burst, and when it does, it very well may take the American economy down with it." Washington Monthly 2004 April" WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I've been busy, I was aware of the problem but not closely following the article. I hope to do much better now that I'm not going to be an arbitrator. It looks like you did good. I did what I could locally, when I had a chance to talk to people buying property. Formulaic appraising based on comparables seems to have been involved, plus some outright fraud see . Fred Bauder (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A little note

The O Star of Brilliance
I, WilyD, hereby award this O Star to WAS 4.250 for illuminating all manner of problem about the wiki with unusual insight.

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)