User talk:FinHits

New contributor alert[edit]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I respect the existing content, and only strive to add fully footnoted and sourced additions to the pages. I am mostly interested in financial markets, a field where I am fairly competent.

I welcome tips to improve my contributions. FinHits (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, FinHits! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 12:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

Looks like you may be new. I've come down pretty hard on your edit here ... but all in good spirit, I think. If you have any further questions, I hope you'll be in touch. And not be discouraged. (Maybe I'm the one who's wrong. I know that. Please tell me, if so. Gotta run.)

Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I get it right, you think that Malta did not approve EFSF expansion on 10.10.2011? Did you even Google? ;-)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-10/malta-approves-added-powers-for-efsf-shifting-focus-to-slovakia.html FinHits (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't even Google. I was on the run, as I said. All I did was determine that Malta was wrongly there per the source cited and I delete it; then I identified the next steps I could see, at first glimpse, here and at the article talk page.

In the article, what I'd prefer is to have the approval dates with sources integrated into paragraph. It's clear at least with Slovakia that even if they approve by tonight, as you say here may happen, the fight has been rough and I think should be remembered, not just deleted. With Netherlands and Malta, a simpler note that they were the others to take longer to approve (with source if at all possible) would be my preference at this point.

As to your having deleted Malta, I missed that possibility in my quick (I thought, wrongly, successful) effort to pin down where the mistake (or out-of-date info) had crept in. In other words, you deleted it but I guess someone else added it back in thereafter. Sorry to have mis-identified you.

I hope maybe you also take my point on edit summaries. On these big, evolving articles particularly, better edit summaries, or simply edit summaries, would help in fostering just the sort of dialog you and I are having; which in turn I believe are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I do have another of this sort of procedural thought I'm going to be adding to the "Malta; edit summaries" section there. It has nothing to do with Malta or even the Eur. article per se but may be of interest to you in showing (part of) where I'm coming from. For me, it's just a place to lodge the thought while I try to figure a better next step.

Thanks for engaging. Cheers again, sincerely. Swliv (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds fair. I propose let's wait what happens with Slovakia. I guess what needs to be left there under "Finland collateral" is some sort of note that after the collateral deal was approved on October 5, there were still some countries left to approve the expanded EFSF, but they did so (assuming Slovakia goes ahead). FinHits (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of over-reaching (I still haven't confirmed that you are new to Wikipedia, so don't know your level of experience with the variety of ways these things unfold), I will add one piece of procedure: When you go to a User page, it's best to click the "New section" header tab, give the new section a title, then make your point in the body. Keeps the user page organized. ;-)

Oops. I missed your reply. I've now retrofitted yours with three colons (up from one), for a clearly identifiable indent. And tucked your user id (formerly the four tildes ("~")) up as the end of the reply.

Agree completely, on the substance. Though now I realize I was never 100% certain the collateral and the EFSF issues were completely linked. I'm going to have to rely on you for certainty on that. It was perhaps I who started the association, and I have a high enough degree of certainty to have made it, and to allow it to continue (in my language in my original edits), but now that we're in this specific dialog with a lot of evolution having happened in the article I don't want my degree of certainty to be overstated or overly-relied-upon. The reason I made the link in the first place is that I was working up at the end of the EU emergency measures section and it seemed like the collateral section was covering parallel or identical issues and I didn't want it to go out-of-date relative to what I was doing above. Would you be able to take a look at those two sections to see if together they mesh with your view of the overall situation? Well, if so, great. If not, on we go. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tidying. I am still learning. I think Finnish Collateral and EFSF approval are not really that related, except that the first Collateral deal was not accepted by some countries. Slovakia did not approve EFSF yesterday, but looks like they will change parliament(!) to do that. Could you have a look at European Financial Stability Facility - This Lihaas incorrectly moved the whole thing under European Financial Stability Fund, which is incorrect and annoying, since it is based on some BBC googling, not checking the official web page of EFSF http://www.efsf.europa.eu/about/index.htm . It is too heavy change for me to undo. Can you do that? FinHits (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got the EFSF as you wanted. Good. That's certainly the title I've heard. (Enough "Fund"s, right?) And you're welcome for the tidying. I was hoping I wasn't being too nanny-ish. I appreciate the reassurance. I may work to reconcile better the Collateral and the EFSF paragraphs; or you certainly are welcome to. Not right now. Maybe later. Cheers, and good work. Swliv (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]