User talk:Tinathebanker

Welcome
Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz chat spy  17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Manual of Style

Financial Times LTD
Given that this seems to have nothing to do with The Financial Times, it is not a reliable source, and your edits are being reverted. Please discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboards before adding again. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, given that all your edits are done to multiple articles in a short period of time, please read REFSPAM. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi CutOffTies,

These findings relate to in-depth research into the amount of foreign direct investment each area is involved with and how prosperus the region is, making it valuable information. It was conducted by fDi Intelligence, part of the wider FT Ltd group as you can see listed on the FT's own website: http://aboutus.ft.com/corporate-information/ft-company/ and http://lexicon.ft.com/. As part of the Financial Times family it is certainly a reliable and respected source in this field.

I didn't notice the original post so apologies for adding too many edits - we really do think this is very valuable information for the regions involved. If we were more selective and reduced the amount of messages would this be acceptable?

Thanks for your time Tinathebanker (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize about not seeing the correct relationship with the Financial Times. I will undo my reverts. There's reasons other editors may have problems with the content, but I guess you'll deal with that if it comes.  --CutOffTies (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I'll look into reducing the coverage for this and ensure that any future posts add increased value to the thread. Tinathebanker (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, I've had to remove the text as it represents the mass addition of the results of a survey. While the FT may be a good information source, that does not necessarily mean that we would add the results of a survey/assessment simply because they have done it. The fact that it is being added by someone who appears to have a connection with he FT complicates the matter, as you are thus in a conflict of interest with regards to the value of your publication's material. I'll try to track down a few forums on the site for you to post requests for independent assessment of the best way to use the information. --Ckatz chat spy   19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz, thanks for the explanation. I am connected with The FT so if it is viewed as a conflict of interests then apologies, I wasn't familiar with all the rules. I've skimmed a lot of the guidelines today but it would be great to have the posts assessed. I'd have no problem reducing them right down to a few of the headline stats if that would help? The findings are from a detailed report, rather than survey, with the full methodology listed on the page, including a panel mostly made up of neutral experts. Hopefully that will display the neutral point of view. I'll certainly be more selective and careful with anything I submit in future posts.

Tinathebanker (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)