Toshmeister

Welcome!

Hello, Toshmeister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Saltus fund management, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Saltus fund management

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Saltus fund management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Novia Financial/Wrapp Accounts/RDR in the UK

• I normally prefer to keep discussions in one place, as it makes it easier to follow them. This means that if a user posts a message to my talk page I reply on my talk page, not on theirs. However, on this occasion my reply to your post contains a good deal of material much more relevant to you than to me, so I am copying your message to here and replying here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson. I am interested in adding and editing content regarding the big regulatory changes taking polace in UK retail financial services (RDR) and the way that they are having a seismic effect on the commercial landscape, like Bog Bang in 1986. However, I see that you deleted a page on Novia Financial when I was about to create one (I would like to cover all of teh key emregent protagonists in this area). I'm not sure whether you deleted it primarily for reasons of G11 or A7 - if the former, I would like to recreate without the advertising element. If it was primarily A7, I would like to ask you to reconsider - please see my edit of Retail Financial Services within FSA, where I have started to cover the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshmeister (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Novia Financial was full from start to finish with unambiguously promotional language, so much so as to read like an advertisement for the business. It also gave no indication whatsoever that the business had any significance or importance: what it said was entirely consistent with its being a perfectly ordinary, non-notable business. Either the promotional character of the article or the lack of indication of significance would have been more than enough for a speedy deletion, and I don't think either of the reasons had priority over the other. Following your invitation I have also looked at your edits to Financial Services Authority. Unfortunately I see a number of problems there. For example, your edits introduce a good deal of unattributed opinion (e.g. "The RDR is expected to have a significant impact..." expected by whom?) and most of what you say is unsourced, giving the impression of being your own original research or commentary.

I have also read your comment at Talk:Saltus fund management, in which you said (amongst other things) "This page should not be speedy deleted because it is one of a number of examples of businesses which are being created as part of a major new trend in UK financial services, which are revolutionary in nature and which are threatening to undermine the power of the large incumbent funds groups which have dominated teh market for decades" and "the key players are mostly start-ups, often privately owned or private equity backed, who are not household names", and "It is completely wrong and inapproriiate to be refusing to allow content which identifiues and expemplifies important new trends". However, Wikipedia's notability standards require a subject to have established notability by having received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources before an article can be written on the subject. We do not have articles because we (or one of us) think that their subjects are important, much less because we think that their subjects look as if they are about to become important, even though they have not yet received much attention. You may like to look at the general notability guideline and at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Also, if you want to read even more, there is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

I find that unfortunately many people who come to Wikipedia keen to produce content on a subject they are interested in have a very unrewarding experience. Because they are not acquainted with Wikipedia's standards, guidelines, and policies, they write stuff which is not in line with those standards, and all or most of it gets rapidly removed. This can be very frustrating, and can result in the person leaving, very dissatisfied, although they had the potential to make a lot of constructive contributions if things had worked out differently. Some editors manage to struggle through an early experience of this kind and emerge at the end of it into a more constructive and positive experience, but in my experience editors have a far better chance of a successful experience here if they start by putting one toe into the water, rather than jumping in at the deep end. In other words, it is best to start by making little tiny improvements to existing articles, rather than either making significant rewrites of existing articles or creating new articles from scratch. That way, when you make mistakes (which we all do) you will not have lost a lot of work, and you can gradually learn how Wikipedia works, so that eventually you can write articles that are consistent with Wikipedia's standards. My experience over the years has convinced me that those of us who follow that path far more often end up succeeding in contributing to Wikipedia than those who try to do big things from the start.

Wikipedia's guidelines can seem arbitrary and even pointless to newcomers. I remember that was how it seemed to me when I first started editing here. However, over the course of time I have realised that there are reasons for them. I do not always agree with every detail of them, but in a collaborative project it is necessary to have some standards, and for individual editors to be prepared to work cooperatively, within the established framework. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

{{subst:db-talk-notice|Talk:Saltus fund management|nowelcome=yes|{{{key1}}}={{{value1}}}}} ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Saltus do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Saltus. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)