User talk:Gogino

Please note that I will reply here unless you ask otherwise.

Hi. In the Main Page design discussions you expressed interest in a version of the Main Page for beginners and another for kids. I've set up Main Page alternates for specialized versions of the Main Page as well as for versions of differing styles. There are currently 11 Main Page alternates available. I wouldn't know what to put in versions of the type you mentioned, but I thought you'd like to know there is a place for them once they've been created. Sincerely, --Go for it! 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Here are some of my thoughts:
 * There are two major activities on Wikipedia: searching for info and contributing. The amount of info needed to know how to search and how to contribute is fixed (except for the little new info needed because of the constant dynamical change).


 * And I think that this fixed info you need handy only for a limited time. After that you are concerned about Wikipedia mainly as a vast information resource and you can use different Main Page that is streamlined to access this information. The page for beginners would hopefully alleviate some problems that they, in fact, do not want to cause. They just don't know yet how... they want to join in and do it fast. So this explains the beginners.


 * I think kids differ from beginners. For example, they cannot understand "adult" wording as good as adults, they are more playful, and they can get bored more easily. They want to read and contribute even though they do not have enough knowledge (maybe part of the vandalism is not a real vandalism but only a part of being a child...). On the other hand, we want them to understand and to prepare them for being able to contribute in the future - like home grown wiki's ;-).


 * For this reason, I would go even farther and propose a separate version of Wikipedia for them - something like another language version - where they could contribute and build it for themselves with some 'adult' supervision.
 * --Gogino 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (ver.1: 7 February 2006)

Subprime mortgage timeline etc
FYI I have been beefing up the time line in order to go back at a later time to Mr. F's SMC article and make the argument that the timeline shows a variety of govt policies lead to the problem, over regulation in some cases, and selective deregulation in others that benefited one group while hurting others. Still working on getting in any more major govt or private initiatives and then cleaning out excess verbiage. Feel free to help. At first I didn't get the FASB stuff you added and deleted it when the refs got too confusing; but when I realized it was connected to mark-to-market and figured out what the heck that was, put it back in. So we have to be clear to readers why any specific govt or private move had an effect. Anyway, once done with that will go back to main article with argument that current structure is WP:OR and govt as cause should got first in cause listing and in the lead, per the timeline. I'll use every WP:dispute mechanism possible to get Mr. F's stranglehold off it. The more of us on board with that the merrier. So hang in there. However, first I have to finish with the CRA article where a POV pro-CRA guy has heavily redacted what he doesn't like. I've fought back a lot, but some things did need better support. (One frustrating point: I've seen no evidence since 2005 bank regulations eased that banks heavily bought subprimes to satisfy CRA, which I think they did.) But I'm on top of all the reverse edits and making adjustments where he is correct and then going to just rewrite whole article by end of week and insert it a section at a time. Carol Moore 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * You are right with the FASB. I put it there to make a note in my contributions to improve it later if nobody else does.
 * Mr. F started on wiki mainly after this mess started to pour our and seems to be very protective of his views. Nevertheless, he responded to start a discussion and I first assume that he just believes in correctness of his opinions. I will try to discuss and see if he can convince me that the cause should not be listed there. Gogino (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The situation with Mr. F is becoming more clear. He removed my contribution again without continuing in the discussion.
 * He also removed a "speedy deletion tag" (initiated by JameonTai) on 2008-09-18T20:17:20 from Federal_Reserve_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis without properly contesting it and explaining his position. He also removed a notification of the speedy deletion nomination from his talk page without explanation. Gogino (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience with him: First he called me a "virulent libertarian" for suggesting govt causes go first and stating my intention to eventually get them up there. He also hates me for getting his favorite WP:OR graphic banned from subprime crisis article - though he refuses to take it down from background.
 * I'd first ask him to read: Etiquette and note there is recourse for editors having problems with others' bad etiquette. Not that he'll take a hint. Then there is the Wikiquette_alerts process. And it seems to me there's something a few people can do together to complain at once about an editor. Requests_for_administrator_attention??
 * As for CRA, it's part of the overall govt massive promotion of low income housing, including through the Fed, HUD and Fannie/Freddie under Bush - and something that all sorts of crooks in the private sector took advantage of - so saying it's a major cause by itself is more easily contested that linking it with similar bills, which I'm doing in the timeline and the CRA article to get a good understanding before I take Mr. F on. The Community Reinvestment Act article does a fair job now, despite the edits by the pro-CRA guy, and it will be much better when I finish it.Carol Moore 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * > As for CRA, it's part of the overall govt massive promotion of low income housing, including through the Fed, HUD and Fannie/Freddie
 * I agree and don't care under whom. On the discussion page I already wrote that it is only one of the major causes. It became a vehicle that carried as you said the "massive promotion of low income housing" or a political correctness of affordable housing. These causes need to be clarified. Let me know when you will go to complain together. Gogino (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked him to reconsider here. We'll see. Gogino (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck. The problem is the guy is some sort of accountant who can talk B.S. circles around anyone who isn't a professional economist, so you really have to bone up on your economics before you can argue with him. That's what I decided to do, and I have undergraduate and graduate work in the topic and 40 years of reading lots of free market economics, plus economics news. But it's good boning up for other work I'm doing so I can deal with it. However, I just decided to give him a swift kick and back you up on the talk page. ENJOY!! Carol Moore 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * Good to count one's own Rs first :-) Also see comments on User_talk:Farcaster. Hopefuly he will read more about cooperative editing now! Carol Moore 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

-

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. See also Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR--Tikiwont (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tikiwont, I am sorry that I failed the 3rr rule but it is a misunderstanding. I read the 3RR page and couldn't find examples of how it exactly works. After his 3 reverts I wrote in the edit summary that he violated 3RR and wanted to report it, but all the reports requested a special announcement on his talk page about the potential violation before the violation happened. I put the announcement there but then I realized that he will not be able to revert it after that announcement since he already did. So I was thinking that since he didn't put that announcement on my page I still can revert it and than after he does that again I can report it. You can see that about an hour passed between my 3rd and 4th revert when I was researching how to report it. I also noticed that some people did more than 4 reverts, which is only possible if the person who reported it reverted it back more than 3 times and they were not blocked both. Why is my case different? Could this be also better explained on the 3RR page? Thank you. --Gogino (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see my block expired already. Well it is good that this works because I felt kind of powerless. --Gogino (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you're back to editing and following up at the 3RR board yourself, so let me just address a few points here: Edit warring is unconstructive and we use blocks if insight and warnings don't stop it. The 3RR boundary is only one indicator but there isn't even an an entitlement to three reverts. Furthermore we put emphasis on the warnings to make sure that an editor is aware of it or hasn't forgotten. But that is more with the intention of persuading them once more to stop that as a legal advice before a block. Of course I will have to assume that an editor who has just issued a 3rr warning is aware of the rule themselves...Actually you're saying above that Farcaster had no need for another revert after his warning until you reverted another time, which underlines that it takes two sides to edit-war. Finally there are numerous reasons, why the reporting side may not be subject to a block ,from the reported reverting several editors or several types of edits at once over other exemptions referring to the type of edit till simply not being noticed. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time and writing this explanation.
 * > Farcaster had no need for another revert after his warning until you reverted another time, which underlines that it takes two sides to edit-war.
 * That is true. But it is a high profile article and I couldn't find anything that would work reasonably fast and compelled him to discuss things before making them biased. I have never met such a person in my 3 years here a never needed to revert anybody's post! (except for vandalism as you can verify in my contributions). This action showed my desperation. I am afraid there are others who wouldn't engage in edit-war if not for desperation.
 * The pages about edit-war and 3RR need to be improved. I would like to do that. For example if somebody reverts your every single contribution. It is always one revert not 4. Where this should be reported and what is chance that the person will be blocked? Are high profile articles treated more seriously? --Gogino (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I appreciate that you acted out of a strong feeling to defend the integrity of the article. The thing is: often the other side does so, too. High profile articles subject to edit warring are sometimes protected for a while, but then always with the wrong version ;). For the rest we can discus at the 3rr board.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)