User talk:Петър П. Петров

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crisis Liquidity Ratio (May 28)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Петър П. Петров! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Петър П. Петров. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and COI disclosure for CLR

[edit]

Hi! I acknowledge a COI and will avoid direct content additions beyond factual fixes. I’m providing independent sources (incl. one in English) that discuss the Crisis Liquidity Ratio (CLR) — defined as (Current Assets – Receivables) / Current Liabilities — and motivate its use under stress conditions.

Independent secondary sources: • Ivanova, R. (2021). Reflections on the indicators for the analysis of the entity’s liquidity. Knowledge – International Journal, 44(1.6), 123–129. (BG; reproduces the CLR formula and recommends CLR in crisis periods.) • Conference proceedings (2013, English, Lviv National University): paper that explicitly names CLR, gives the formula, and argues it is more reasonable in crisis conditions (with interpretation/correlations).

Applied use (supporting, notability aside): • Deltastock AD annual/regulatory reports list CLR among reported ratios (e.g., 2020).

If standalone notability is borderline under WP:GNG, I propose a concise, sourced mention/definition to be merged into Liquidity ratio or Accounting liquidity. Otherwise, I’m happy to improve the draft with a neutral, sourced lead and short sections (Definition, Rationale, Academic discussion, Practical use). Happy to provide page numbers/quotes if helpful. Thanks! Петър П. Петров (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crisis Liquidity Ratio (October 28)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
A single article describing this concept, and a single corporate report using it, are not sufficient indications of notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Петър П. Петров, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Петър П. Петров,
Wikipedia is a platform where volunteer editors create and work on referenced articles on notable subjects. It's not a Question and Answer noticeboard for getting replies on random topics that interest you. If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia and our policies and guidelines, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse. But if you are seeking financial advice, you'll have to go elsewhere on the internet to find that. But don't worry, there are plenty of Q&A discussion boards that you can easily find, it's just not what we do here. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, thanks for the note and the Teahouse invite. Understood about Wikipedia’s scope.
My focus is editing Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio and ensuring it meets sourcing policies.
I’ve added independent, secondary Bulgarian-language sources (journal article, a university textbook with page numbers and an appendix, proceedings) and a regulated issuer’s report. If you (or another reviewer) have a moment, I’d appreciate guidance on whether the current sourcing is sufficient for a short entry. Many thanks! Петър П. Петров (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crisis Liquidity Ratio (October 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio

[edit]

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 Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

  • Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
  • Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
  • Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is entirely human-written and cites independent secondary sources in Bulgarian (textbooks and peer-reviewed articles) that discuss CLR by name and reproduce its formula. Wikipedia’s own policies recognize non-English reliable sources.
I am disappointed by the handling of this case and the repeated presumption of “LLM-like” authorship despite verifiable citations. I will not invest further time here. Please delete the draft; if possible, retain a userspace copy for my records.
This episode leaves me with serious doubts about whether Wikipedia can treat non-English scholarship with due respect while applying its policies consistently. Петър П. Петров (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been moved to your user space at User:Петър П. Петров/Crisis Liquidity Ratio.
Your first citation is an AI hallucination, referring to a nonexistent quotation on page 63. The draft also contains typical vapid AI phrasing and use of a template that the AI is unaware doesn't exist any more.
See the discussion you started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Requesting a content-focused review with Bulgarian-language sources, in which a review was done, and an analysis of your citations and the writing strongly suggest AI generation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note and for moving the draft to my user space.
1) Page-number correction & verification
The correct page is p. 62 (my earlier “p. 63” was a typo — apologies). The source explicitly names the Crisis Liquidity Ratio (CLR) and presents the formula (Current Assets − Receivables) / Current Liabilities, recommending its use in crisis conditions. I can provide a short Bulgarian quotation with an English translation and, if needed, a scan of p. 62 to facilitate verification (per WP:V and WP:NONENG).
2) On alleged AI/LLM content
I understand the community’s caution. Going forward I will (a) keep all text strictly neutral and limited to what the cited sources directly support, (b) remove any obsolete templates and “empty” phrasing, and (c) disclose any tooling while ensuring every claim is verifiable.
3) Constructive next step (addressing notability)
I am not insisting on a stand-alone article. Given WP:GNG concerns, I propose a concise, neutral sub-section under Liquidity ratio (or Accounting liquidity) with the definition, the formula, and 1–2 page-precise secondary citations. Because of my declared COI, I’ll post the exact 3–4 sentences and references here as an edit request so that an uninvolved editor can implement them if there’s consensus.
If helpful, I will now post the page-exact BG quote + EN translation from p. 62 and the minimal text proposal for the merge. Петър П. Петров (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had planned to post page-exact quotations and scans; however, in light of the current framing, I will refrain from attaching materials unless an uninvolved editor courteously requests specific pages for a content-focused verification. Петър П. Петров (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't submitting it for review as a standalone article, but you are instead proposing it as an addition to an existing article, then the two best approaches are:
  • Just WP:Be bold and make the change in the existing article, and follow WP:BRD after that if someone reverts it
  • Or, propose your change on the talk page, linking to your userspace draft. You can use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to make your proposal visible more broadly on a category page, if you have a conflict of interest with the subject.
If you submit it for review as you have done, then reviewers assume you are proposing it as a standalone article. If it isn't intended as a standalone article, then you can remove the reviewer templates and comments. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clear guidance — much appreciated.
Per your suggestion, I will proceed via an edit request (COI declared) on Talk:Liquidity ratio and propose the following concise, neutral text:
Crisis Liquidity Ratio (CLR). A number of Bulgarian academic and accounting publications discuss the "crisis liquidity ratio", defined as (current assets − receivables) / current liabilities, and recommend its use under stressed conditions, as receivables may be less reliably realizable during crises.[1]
I will follow up in the edit request with the exact page-precise citations (Bulgarian sources + brief EN translations where helpful). If you prefer that I "be bold" instead, I'm happy to do that as well. Thanks again. Петър П. Петров (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Exact citations of Bulgarian secondary sources with page numbers.
If you have a COI, that is the best approach. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — acknowledged. I have a COI, so I’ll proceed via an edit request on Talk:Liquidity ratio with a concise, sourced addition and page-precise Bulgarian references. Петър П. Петров (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist — per your advice, here is my COI edit request:
Permalink. Петър П. Петров (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some minor formatting corrections to your request. A reviewer would want citations that can easily be copied into the article. I suggest you use the {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} templates, as you did in User:Петър П. Петров/Crisis Liquidity Ratio, to reduce the burden on the reviewer. Ideally, the reviewer should be able to copy and paste your wiki source directly into the article if it's approved. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist — Thank you for the clear guidance. I’ve prepared copy-pasteable cite templates so a reviewer can insert the text directly. Much appreciated. Петър П. Петров (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anachronist,
I’ve submitted a {{edit COI}} request at Talk:Liquidity ratio to add a concise, neutral sentence under “Other variants” about the “Crisis Liquidity Ratio (CLR)”. The proposal is copy-paste ready and uses the corrected `|book-title=` parameter in {{cite conference}}. It’s supported by three independent sources:
  • Kostova (2019) – textbook discussion of CLR and its formula.
  • Ivanova (2021) – notes that Petrov (2014) proposes the “crisis liquidity ratio”.
  • Kassarova & Yordanov (2013) – conference paper using CLR as an analytical tool.
If you have a moment, could you please review and, if appropriate, implement it (or suggest adjustments to best fit NPOV and verifiability)? I disclose a conflict of interest and will not edit the article directly.
Many thanks!
Петър П. Петров (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]