User talk:Financeeditor

Welcome!

Hello, Financeeditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --SueHay 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion, before making significant changes to well-established articles here in Wikipedia, it's a good idea to discuss the change on the article's discussion page. It's also helpful if you put an Edit summary on your edits. This gives everyone a summary of the changes you made. You might find, especially at first, that some of your edits get reverted (removed). Don't take this too personally. Opinions can differ, and sometimes it takes awhile to understand what improves an article. References for information in articles are always greatly appreciated! --SueHay 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a few minutes to look at WP:COI. Your recent edits to Trade-Off Theory, Pecking Order Theory and Corporate finance suggest that you have a tie to these theories. If so, please make your bias clear by mentioning it in the artiticles' discussion pages. --SueHay 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me One

I do research in this area but have no connection with any of these people nor do I have a stake in the outcome of these controversies. Is that still bias or COI? (Financeeditor 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)) I can make draw the line more clearly between evidence in favor and against each theory. Is that what you'd recommend?[reply]

You can edit these pages, but you can't add original research. If you are involved directly, then I suggest you not to make any edits to these pages. However, if you see a defect, talk the discussion out on the talk page. Please cite your sources on the encyclopedia if you want to add new information. Thanks! Real96 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no original research, and of course I don't reference anything close to my own research, plus all the relevant comments are sourced. Thanks! (Financeeditor 05:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

References for Pecking Order Theory

Two of your references for Pecking Order Theory refer to the "pecking order model" and "trade-off model", and the third link doesn't work. I don't mean to be overly-critical about your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, so please don't take this more strongly than it's meant. The article on Corporate finance has a long history of contributions by many Wikipedians. Your recent contributions have added a lot of red links (dead-end links) to the article, which makes the article appear less-developed. Someone will need to fix that. If you can, please do.

Please consider taking time to read the information linked to your welcome message before you make further edits. I think you could make some wonderful contributions to Wikipedia, but please take time to understand what makes a good article.

By the way, I'm not your enemy. I'm a relatively new registered user to Wikipedia myself. I questioned your possible WP:COI because all I had to go on was your edit history and the anonymous edit history of the articles you worked on. Wikipedia gets a lot of self-promotion and spam, and the articles related to business and commerce seem to attract more self-promotion and spam than other topics. If I misjudged you, I humbly apologise.

Welcome to Wikipedia! --SueHay 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The whole area of finance and corporate finance is sort of empty in the wikipedia, so there are bound to be some red links. I though it better to leave some red links than to assume the reader should know all these terms. I'll try to slowly fill in references where I left red links or otherwise find the right references for those articles that do exist. It also seems to me that one can expect the wikipedia to be collaborative. That's all I could do today, somebody can pick up form there. Does that make sense or do you expect people to write good articles form the start? I could attempt that too.(Financeeditor 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

We all do what we can when we can. I agree that the financial articles in Wikipedia need work, and your contributions are appreciated. Collaboration here happens through projects, article talk-page discussion, and often simply through edit summaries. For instance, when you add a paragraph to Corporate finance, it's helpful to other editors if you include an edit summary such as "Add main financial decision-making theories to introduction." Hope this is helpful. Good luck! --SueHay 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a "Finance editor"

Welcome. You might edit or add something else on your user page. A red link in the edit summary appears if there is absolutely nothing on the user page, and it is a sign of a novice editor. Don't worry too much about COI - but please just step back a moment if somebody suggests that your editing might be affect by it on a certain article.

Smallbones 11:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hot debt periods

The article Hot debt periods has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, clearly not a widespread term

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me One

References for Pecking Order Theory

We need a "Finance editor"

Categories

Proposed deletion of Hot debt periods