User talk:Contenidos01

Welcome!

Hello, Contenidos01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Dianrong. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Dianrong shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of PAID editing policy

Hello Contenidos01. Your edits look as if you are being paid. Paid promotion is an especially egregious type of conflict of interest (COI)
Paid articles should be submitted through the articles for creation process. If you are receiving or expect to receive money for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post the disclosure on your user page at User:Contenidos01. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Contenidos01|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.
If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being paid, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog. it's really amazing how you try to divert comments, by crying out a slur. I am not a paid editor. However, you have managed to certainly make it look like you are. If this is the case, please use the template {{Paid}}, so we can continue this talk on a fair basis.

Kindly respond to my comments, and quote all debatible issues you find in the article, so I can make corrections if requiered.

If you feel that you are not prepared to edit a fintech related article, due to lack of preparation, kindly request the edit to be done by someone else.

Please provide evidence of promotional content or lack of quality of bibliographical references in detail, so I can adjust and improve the edits made. Otherwise, kindly restore my version.

Thanks Contenidos01 (talk)

Hello Jytdog (talk). Kindly respond to the issues addressed previuosly, or refer the task to another editor. Please refer to this article. A third party meditation will be required in case you persist with your unfounded attitude. Any of these [editors] will be suited to mediate. Otherwise, kindly restore my version.

Zackmann08 (talk), the issue is solved. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Kindly prove it. I am an independent editor, and I have already stated that there is no COI. Please respond to my objections with a founded responses, or remove the Warning.

Thanks Contenidos01 (talk)

Thanks for replying above. Sorry that I didn't see this earlier (I forgot to watchlist this page - again, my apologies). Thanks for saying that you are not a paid editor. Before we turn to work on content, would you please disclose any relationship you have with Dianrong, directly or through a third party? We need to establish the foundation on which we are working together. (Please be aware that I am asking you to disclose relationships, not evaluate them.) Thanks!

To reply to your question, I do not receive any consideration for editing WP, and I have no connection with this company or the fintech industry. I do work a lot on COI and paid editing issues, and other forms of advocacy in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog (talk). I have no relationship whatsoever with Dianrong, I am only a Fintech advocate and fan. I feel that my edit of the Dianrong's entry has a lot more of information and hard fact on the company.

All I am politely asking you is to go over suggested changes again with an impartial eye, especially the bibliography and facts stated on the company.

Thanks a lot. Kind regards Contenidos01 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)ContenidosO1[reply]

OK, thanks for acknowledging at least that you are a "fan". In terms of the editing they do, editing by "fans" and editing by people with a COI, is indistinguishable. Both tend to write promotional content that is unsourced or badly sourced, and both tend to try to force their content into WP and behave badly when they meet resistance. Please read the helpful essays WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY, and the policies WP:PROMO and WP:YESPOV (really, please take the time to read them), and please try to check your feelings about the company at the login page. We can discuss content at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on. When that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. You already have this part figured out, but at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog (talk). Thanks a lot for all the format clarifications. Will follow through. As you see, I am not a professional or paid editor. I feel that loving or having an intellectual interest in what you edit and contribute consitutes an essential part of Wikepedia. No one would refer to a topic they don't have the slightest emotional attachment to. We are not bots, or AI devices. We are all human beings trying to make something better, and leave a footprint in this world.

Having said so, I'd like you to refer to WP:NOWIN, and WP:WINNING. This articles reflect the spirit here. Kindly review the edits done by me, and pin point those which sound like advertorial or paid contributions. All there is here is the good will to enhance the information provided to readers, and add important or relevant facts.

Thanks a lot

Contenidos01 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Contenidos01[reply]

One of the ickiest things that new users do, is find some bit of policy/guideline and quote it. It is called wikilawyering. Please see WP:CLUE, which is the opposite, and takes time to acquire.

Of course having interests is normal/natural. The way that Wikipedia is able to thrive, is that people who arrive full of enthusiasm harness that and learn how to edit according to the norms here.

Now that you have replied and hopefully have heard some of this (about being mindful of the policies and guidelines and checking your enthusiasm), we can indeed to back to the article talk page and discuss the specific edits. Please do be open to learning. See you there. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog. Thanks for your insight. Really looking forward to learn as much as I can, a notion I like to apply not only in Wikepedia, but also in my personal and professional life.

Wikipedia is a public tool, and basically it enrichens day to day with the contribution of users, simply people who want to share knowledge and help make this product big and transcendental. When it comes to Wikipedia, we are all here to learn, but more often than not, experience seems like a reliable guide, yet sometimes it fools us instead of making us wiser. You see, that's basically the problems with notions such as "that is how it's done around here". Dogma is the nemesis of knowledge, and that seems to be a little bit the situation here.

Bottomline: lots of phylosophical and epistemological notions, but no hard facts. Please, debate in terms of the content uploaded by me. Kindly point out what you feel (because, yes, that's what's seems to be at stake here, your feelings) is marketing, and I will gladly revisit it. Many words have been written in this page, but not a single thread of solid evidence.

Usually, discussions are much more fun when both parties are willing to learn and accept mistakes. No value in discussing with an Oracle.

Please, quote marketing oriented paragraphs or bibliography, and I will gladly rephrase.

Thanks a lot.

Contenidos01 (talk) Contenidos01 - 2 November 2017

Wikipedia:Third opinion Request

Since no answer has been provided by Jytdog regarding the edits he has performed, a third [opinion has been requested]. Thanks Contenidos01 (talk)

I have removed your request as it is not an appropriate topic for a third opinion, as that is primarily used for content discussions. If you are discussing something with a user and have not heard back, it is best to contact them on their talk page as a friendly reminder. Thanks. Nihlus 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit Nihlus. Apparently Jytdog is back in the conversation. Regards Contenidos01 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Contenidos01[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avana Capital (September 11)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Newslinger was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Unfortunately, Avana Capital doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations. You're welcome to submit another draft if the company becomes notable in the future.

— Newslinger talk 10:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Contenidos01! Having an article 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! — Newslinger talk 10:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Avana Capital

Hello, Contenidos01. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Avana Capital".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]