User talk:Dearieme

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dearieme! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Marek.69 ^talk 23:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Oneiros, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC) OK will do so in future. Dearieme (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Did that work?[reply]

PIIGS

Your contribution at PIIGS had a number of problems. The most important is that it is very clearly an argument against the use of austerity measures in Greece. Wikipedia is not the place for argumentation. It is perfectly appropriate to note that there are differing views on a subject, but it is wholly inappropriate to simply argue for one side or the other. In addition, when you add information to an article, you should be aware that the first, unlabelled section is the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article. If you add new information to the article, start a new section. Finally, when articles contain a list of references as PIIGS does, do not simply add links in line by enclosing the url in brackets. Instead, put it in in reference tags. See Help:Footnotes for more information. When using reference tags, do not put the link in brackets unless you are also providing link text: [http://wiki.riteme.site/ The Free Encyclopedia] renders as The Free Encyclopedia. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page PIIGS has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/c688a4c4-256e-4dad-89ba-13f72f0c91d8/ChartA_20100308103922.jpg. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIIGS again

Stop removing "according to an Italian study. That the opinion comes from an Italian sources is clearly noteworthy, and readers should be given that piece of information when evaluating the opinion. Also, please read Help:Footnotes. You also need to avoid using technical jargon, and you should explain it when you have to. The odds of ever needing to use the word "inflows" in text aimed at a general audience are approximately zero. Finally, "government" is not capitalised when used generically, so it's "government bonds" and "government debt". -Rrius (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and maps, charts, and other images aren't good sources, so please don't add them. Either add the source the chartmakers used to develop the charts or keep looking for a different source. -Rrius (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is relevant to add 'Italian study' then every other report on this page should be referenced according to the nationality or residence of the author. Adding Italian study appears simply to suggest that the study is somehow biased in favour of Italy because it was written by an Italian (in English I might add) when actually the reason it was written by an Italian is because he had more background information on Italy than many of the so-called 'analysts' going around grouping countries according to non-pejorative terms like PIGS, as opposed to for example GIPS or SGIP or however else you might accidentally arrange the letters. Dearieme (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unique thing is that this is an Italian study saying Italy shouldn't be included in the group. If you can't see the conflict of interest there, then you need to step away from the article. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical financial data which I added in charts are simply not available easily. The information provided on the charts was relevant and useful, particularly if you have any financial market experience at all. Dearieme (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how hard it is for you to find actual support. Using a map to say that a country is in an organization is wrong. Using a chart to say bond prices have risen is wrong. Sources must be reliable, not just relevant or subjectively "useful"

With regard to the 'blaming Germany' it is not a question of 'blame'. It is a question of economic reality and working out what process is actually going on here. Globally current accounts net out to zero. A deficit in one country is matched by a surplus is another. Germany is exporting capital. Fact. This capital has and is moving into other countries in Europe such as Greece and Spain (in particular). Those inflows (sorry you don't like the term but that IS the term) have an impact on the country getting the dough (if you prefer). Money coming in creates asset bubbles (Spanish property and Greek bonds) and finances excess spending etc in those countries. I could go on. In the same way if China and Japan stopped exporting their dough to the the U.S. then the U.S. would stop running an external deficit. That is a hard and fast economic fact, whether you want to accept it or NOT. Dearieme (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) The FACT of the matter is that if Germany stopped exporting its savings to other countries in Europe, in search of for example higher yields, then countries in Europe would stop running current account deficits. Absolute economic fact. (Dearieme (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)) Eliminating the reference to Germany suggests that we don't know where the money coming into Spain and Germany is coming from. When in fact we do. This is not magic it's economics and if, big IF, we are trying to understand what is going on then information is usually helpful. (Dearieme (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, it is a question of supporting your contentions. There was no support for what you said from reliable sources, so I removed it. The thrust of the paragraph was that Germany caused the problem through its policies, so the characterization was not unfair. In any event, the characterization is irrelevant. If what you say about Germany is fact, and I don't care one way or the other, all you have to do is actually put the effort in to find support for your contention. Wikipedia is not meant for original research. Finally, don't be a condescending ass. I understand perfectly well that economics is not magic. However, unlike you, I understand what Wikipedia is meant to be. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expression involving swearwords should be avoided ("ass"). Please try to be more civil in future. Thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Instead of trying to have your way at PIIGS, why don't you read up on some policy. You should read Help:Footnotes (or WP:Footnotes), WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verified, WP:Manual of Style, WP:Consensus, WP:Three-revert rule, and WP:Edit warring. -Rrius (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 European sovereign debt crisis ‎

Good job on that article. I particularly liked how you split it into sections. Hope you continue to improve on it. Take care.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really want to do more but just need more time to source etc. Anyway it's a start. (Dearieme (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Charts

First of all, as I have already told you, graphs and maps should not be used as sources. Therefore, if they are still used somewhere, they should be removed. Second, two editors have removed the charts because the are so small you can't read them, because they are "confusing" (the other editor's word), and because absolutely no attempt is made to put them in context. Also, it is not clear whether they are reliable. If you insist on having them included, you have to address these issues or obtain consensus for their addition. If you created these charts yourself, they are already suspect as WP:Original research. If they are from an online source, link to the charts in an "External links" section below the "References" section. -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the economics discussion belongs in the economics section. All the talk about "current-account deficits" (note the hyphen in that phrasal adjective) is unnecessary for a section about the history of the term, especially when that exact economic context is discussed just a few lines later. -Rrius (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree with you there. In the first instance there was no clear economic link (except for a few nebulous concepts) when Italy became Ireland the ECONOMIC context was quite specific: twin deficits in current and government accounts. That's a fact. And it needs to be stated as such, even though you feel that economics is somehow NOT relevant to an economic grouping, so what are we left with then? Just a racist slur? If so please clearly state as much. (Dearieme (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Of course economics needs to be discussed, that's why there's an entire section devoted to it that talks about "current-account deficits" to your heart's desire. To say that context is needed when the entire section that follows is that context is fatuous. What's more, the sentence you keep adding that horrible monstrosity of a sentence after already gives the context by saying that the term re-emerged with the 2007 global financial crisis. It is wholly unnecessary to start talking about "current-account deficits" at a point before that term is explained. It is not a commonly understood term, and should not be used as though it is. -Rrius (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if your perception of what is or is not commonly used in economics does not agree with mine. We are talking about economic concepts, the supposed economic groupings of countries and why they are grouped together based on SPECIFIC economic variables. Initially the 'economic variables' that links the PIGS in 1997 was UNCLEAR, or do you have some details on that? I don't. In 2007 the economic variables what linked the group was clear: deficits in government accounts and in external accounts. Stop trying to make this page something that it is not. OK? (Dearieme (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"I can't help it if your perception of what is or is not commonly used in economics does not agree with mine." That misses the point entirely. The point is not what is commonly used within economics, but what is used in general speech. The article deals with economics, but it is aimed at a general audience. Therefore, you cannot assume that your readers will automatically have the economics background you want them to have. As to your other point, this article is not about the 2010 crisis. It is about the terms, which predate the crisis by many years. -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"hithertofore" :-)

Hi, yes, I'm Irish. Do you mind if I ask whereabouts you're from?

I'm going to dip into the "Economy" section next, if you don't mind, and try to focus it as much on the term as possible. -RA (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Australia. I think u've done a reasonably good job but I still think the opening bit is a bit awkward. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to sticking it to them, so to speak. The people behind this 'crisis' are broke and we are about to find that out. cheers (Dearieme (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Adding links

You can use the following format to add links: [link linkdescription] and it will look better in the references section. You can also use the button with the globe and mouse. Hope that helps. --Anothroskon (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. I'm just not sure when it is permissable to use a link or a reference. What is the policy on that. Personally I prefer links but I noticed all mine got quietly turned into references (by whom I don't know) so I stopped using them. Any suggestions on that??? (Dearieme (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)) (14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Try to use references in the above format. Direct links are only rarely used in WP, there is however a place at the bottom of articles where you can place external links (e.g. "==External Links=="). Asterisks (*)can be used as bullet points. Also remember that this is an encyclopedia and there are guidelines against original research, the point of WP is to reflect consensus on the non-WP universe. So try to find news articles and pieces from reliable sources WP:RS that directly support the point you want to make and quote them liberaly. Also don't let yourself get dragged into edit wars (remember there is a 3 revert limit per article per day, WP:3RR) but use the talk page to resolve issues with other editors. Finally if anyone attacks you personally don't flame back but consider contacting an admin via WP:ANI. Hope that helps. All the best!--Anothroskon (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debt crisis

Sorry for removing a bunch of content you have added, I know this can be upsetting. Unfortunately much of it is not suitable for Wikipedia. It includes a great deal of original research and also seems to be pushing a very definite point of view. Rather than reverting, please discuss edits that you have concerns about on the talk page. - SimonP (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting me. The obligation is for you to have consensus to remove referenced content, not for me to add new information. - SimonP (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have continually removed referenced content with absolutely NO discussion. Stop doing this. You do not have consensus. (Dearieme (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

please stop reverting or I will file a case at WP:3RR. - SimonP (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Talk:2010 European sovereign debt crisis. - SimonP (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]