User talk:Yankeerudy

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 in articles. 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 if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flowanda | Talk 03:10, 12 August 2008 (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
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Curious developments
In the course of doing my part for wikipedia's overall development, I have made some edits and additions to an assortment of pages. A small number of these, however, were removed due to the question of the authority of the cited sources. Here are my references for each of those:

Bankruptcy
I added to the US/Chapters section a while back the following: "(As much as 65% of all U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings are of the Chapter 7 variety.)" The citation link http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/chapter7.htm Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Information was recently removed; "removed commercial external link not meeting WP:RS as a source". So here's the question: if the citation was untrusted, then why was the fact retained? Alternately, if the fact was good, why was the citation of that fact removed? Just trying to understand how things work around here, thanks. —Preceding comment added by Yankeerudy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreclosure
A while back I modified the Process section: "The process of foreclosure can be rapid or lengthy and varies from state to state. Other options such as refinancing, alternate financing, temporary arrangements with the lender, or even bankruptcy may present homeowners with ways to avoid foreclosure." My citation (http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/stopforeclosure.htm) was overwritten by another editor with their own and was subsequently deleted as spam; when I replaced my original citation is was later removed as being not a source that meets WP:RS.

I'm trying to understand how the citation deal works... If the citation is untrusted, then why are the facts retained? Yankeerudy (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy discharge
I added to the opening section a while back the following: "The debtor's credit report will retain evidence of the bankruptcy discharge for seven to ten years." The citation link http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/bankruptcyblog/2008/01/22/discharged/ was removed as "not meeting WP:RS as a source".

So here's the question: if the citation was untrusted, then why was the fact retained? Alternately, if the fact was good, why was the citation of that fact removed? Just trying to understand how things work around here, thanks. Yankeerudy (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did remove the statement as I could not easily verify the statement. Flowanda | Talk 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code
A while back I modified the "For Individuals" section to include: "Spousal support is likewise not covered by a bankruptcy filing."

The citation (http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/bankruptcy101.htm Bankruptcy 101) was subsequently removed as not meeting WP:RS. Can you explain why the citation is untrusted yet the information cited is good enough to remain in the wiki? Yankeerudy (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 13, Title 11, United States Code
A while back I modified the "Choice of Chapter" section: "This written plan details all of the transactions (and their durations) that will occur, and repayment according to the plan must begin within thirty to forty-five days after the case has started." My citation (http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/chapter13.htm) was subsequently removed as being not a source that meets WP:RS.

I'm trying to understand how the citation deal works... If the citation is untrusted, then why are the facts retained? Yankeerudy (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
I added to the Provisions section a while back the following: "Chapter 13, Chapter 7, and Chapter 11 filers must also complete a course in “personal financial management” after filing the bankruptcy but before the bankruptcy is discharged." The citation link http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/bankruptcyblog/2006/09/25/new-bankruptcy-law-provisions/ was removed as "not meeting WP:RS as a source".

So here's the question: if the citation was untrusted, then why was the fact retained? Alternately, if the fact was good, why was the citation of that fact removed? Just trying to understand how things work around here, thanks. Yankeerudy (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Return on Equity Du Pont
The article you created at Return on Equity Du Pont seems to simply be the Du Pont Identity. The formula you gave in the body of the text does not appear to match the "source", which appears to be some kind of online college cram guide. Since there's not a reliable source for what you're trying to present, I'm assuming that it is indeed the dupont you're trying to represent and I've redirected the article there. If you're trying for something else, please use a reliable source so I can help you. thanks. Kuru talk  21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes. You appear to be adding "college-cram.com" to many different articles.  As there are literally thousands of texts on finance and accounting, I can't see why you would choose that site.  Please don't use it in the future, and I'll work to clean up the ones you have added with reliable sources.  Thanks.   Kuru  talk  21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been a long term problem. Rudy, is there a conflict of interest with that site you would feel comfortable revealing?  Please feel free to use e-mail if you'd like to keep it private, but I'm concerned that this has the appearance of SEO.  I think we can avoid that appearance if we were to work together to replace the many links you've inserted with actual sources; I'm sure your primary concern here is to improve the encyclopedia.   Kuru  talk  23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)