User talk:Dinodong
May 2011
[edit]
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Who needs names? (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Early Light International (Holdings) Ltd.
[edit]The information you inserted in the above is feasible – except that the company today has 70,000 employees and not 80,000. However there is nothing to support the information you introduced. Can you provide citations to support your edits, please? Also, when removing sourced information, you are advised to include a brief rationale in the talk page. Thanks. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution. I'm sorry your editing got off to a wrong start, and that you were suspected of being a vandal. Anyway, thank you for your persistence, and for demonstrating with sources that your efforts are bona fine. I would take the opportunity to welcome you to Wikipedia, and hope you will enjoy contributing here. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need any pointers. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warm welcome, as you can see I am rather lost on how to go about doing this. Some help from you would DEFINATELY be great. As a matter of fact, I don't even know if I am meant to be typing here right now. lol. So here my goals. The page currently that I currently have interest on is the Early Light International piece. It seems that the piece blurts out nothing but negativity after its brief and neutral speech on its very minimal history. Which can also definately be more positive after reading numerous articles online about this company.
So lets say I want to change the formating and wording for the last user who entered all this negative stuff about the company, am I allowed to delete the stuff he typed overall and just type a new one which shows his point of view and sources and more positive points of views from other sources? Am I allowed to change the title of the paragrahs he already named? Thank you SO much for your help and looking forward to your responses. Dinodong (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please help ohconfucius? 210.176.88.1 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- A neutral point of view is regarded as a fundamental requirement of all Wikipedia articles. Therefore, if you can demonstrate, preferably with quality sources, that certain information is inaccurate or a certain viewpoint is fringe, you are welcome to make the necessary changes. In the same way, you are welcome to change headings, wording or weighting of sections if you perceive that undue weight has been given to any sub-topic within an article. I would just remind you the problem with your previous edits is that you are a completely new editor, and you removed material without any explanation or discussion. It is certainly helpful that you are now discussing changes; a good place to do it is at the article talk page.
I am responsible for most of the content on this page, so any fault in what you read is probably mine. I wrote it using the best information I was able to obtain – but that does not mean better information does not exist. However, I would welcome introduction of material which is truthful and verifiable. Note that opinions ought to be attributed. You also referred to information given by the company... here, I would draw your attention to WP:SPS, which gives guidance on using sources lacking in independence – this practice is not prohibited in the absolute, but must be used with care. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- A neutral point of view is regarded as a fundamental requirement of all Wikipedia articles. Therefore, if you can demonstrate, preferably with quality sources, that certain information is inaccurate or a certain viewpoint is fringe, you are welcome to make the necessary changes. In the same way, you are welcome to change headings, wording or weighting of sections if you perceive that undue weight has been given to any sub-topic within an article. I would just remind you the problem with your previous edits is that you are a completely new editor, and you removed material without any explanation or discussion. It is certainly helpful that you are now discussing changes; a good place to do it is at the article talk page.
- hahaha...thats funny, all along you were the person who wrote the article. Well, in all honesty I am not challenging the sources you obtained your information from nor am I going to used any SPS sources. At least I hope what I am saying makes some sort of sense. I simply have taken an interest on this and want to set a better image for this company other than negative issues that seemed to be the only thing this whole article is about. Regardless, all the sources I am looking for are just going to be from articles on the internet, so I hope that is sufficient eventually when I am ready to edit some stuff. Thank you so much for your help once again. I now understand that I am at least able to edit headings, titles and your text providing that my content is from legitimate sources. Dinodong (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good to have you on board! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Each page has its full history for editors and readers to click on. When at the article, click on the 'View history' tab near the search box at the top. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Kinchil
[edit]It's extremely unusual for two users to suddenly turn up at one low-frequentation article. I do not know if you are Kinchil, nor am I making such an accusation, but would point out to you that the practice of using more than one account in an undeclared fashion is frowned upon. I do not wish to see you get into any sort of trouble, hence this note. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)