 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Untitled
editWhy was my recent edit undone? It had no spam whatsoever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- it was undone because it was done by you a person with a COI, in order to hide the fact that the program is easy to navigate. Abductive (reasoning) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your 'edits' consist in a wholesale replacement of the article with a different version and you have called them yourself elsehwere aptly 'posts'. They remove the secondary sources that motivate us to have an article in the first place as this is not a How-To as well as carelessly and repeatedly the categories. Please tread carefully and start to edit instead of post, building on what is already there. E.g if there are out dated numbers, that actually means that they have changed over time which can of course been addressed in an explicit way. (The current versions have no dates at all, not even when the program was started.) I'll make one attempt at integrating the versions as Abduct's is certainly a valid stub that can still be the lede even if we choose to add more detail.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay i mostly added the stuff up, changed a section header, removed a sentence and added some date questions, so this is not to take a position that all current content should stay inside. In particular I've doubts about the Structure section. Rather its is supposed to be a starting point from which we can continue to edit, hopefully without anybody getting blocked for edit warring. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Too technical
editWhoever added the warning that the article is "too technical" or "lacks a coherent topic" is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.228.216 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed -- the article is not "too technical" nor lacking in coherence. It reads well as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.235.186 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed again—I found the article useful and not overly technical in my understanding of both USA-defined 'small businesses' and in how one might be financed. Eugen Hamerle (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)