User talk:Saranavas90

Copyright problem on OPKO Health

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page OPKO Health, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page 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 my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest/ OPKO Health

Hello, Saranavas90. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, Saranavas90. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no external relationship with the people of Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas. Nor was my intention in advertising, publicising, or promoting. I just wanted to make an English page similar to the Spanish page, since it is the most updated of all languages. I am sorry if I have made mistakes, I am just starting with the translations, I hope not to make the same mistakes in the next editions. Thanks for your help Saranavas90 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just wanted to make the translation more similar to the Spanish page, it seemed more correct. It will not happen again. Thanks for your help Saranavas90 (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FCC Group

I have opened a conversation at Talk:FCC Group about the company's failure to account for depreciation in its headline figures. Please contribute there. Dormskirk (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the company does not take depreciation into account in its main figures or if it does. I simply posted that data because I saw it in the news. I am not an economist to know if they take depreciation into account or not. I am a simple citizen trying to collaborate in improving this page, and I put the data I read in the news and in your web page. Saranavas90 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not take depreciation into account in its announcements in clear breach of Financial Reporting Standard 102. However, it does make adjustments (to include depreciation) in its audited financial statements which is the only safe place to take the figures from. Dormskirk (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do what you say when their official data is in the CNMV, you can check it yourself if you want: https://www.cnmv.es/portal/otra-informacion-relevante/resultado-oir.aspx?nif=A-28037224&lang=en . If they did not comply with any financial reporting standards, the CNMV would not publish it. Saranavas90 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well how do you explain that the information in the audited financial statements is different? Dormskirk (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them and the CNMV, I guess they will know more about it than I do. Saranavas90 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of asking them. I only use information from the audited financial statements which is the only financial information that you can trust. Dormskirk (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are using it wrongly, since you are using the information you are interested in, not the information published both in the CNMV and its audit. It is possible that being the audit in Spanish and not in English is leading you to confusion in the translation of some terms? because otherwise it is not understandable what you tell me. Saranavas90 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I understand the figures very clearly both in Spanish and in English and have explained exactly how the descrepancy has arisen. Dormskirk (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the audited financial statements it says "Resultado de explotación" (in English operating income) 910.251 It also says "Resultado Consolidado del Ejercicio" (in English consolidated result for the year) 744.810 These are the correct figures that comply with all financial reporting standards. Dormskirk (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so we are agreed. I just want to include 910,251 for operating income and 744.810 for net income which is another way of saying result for the year. Dormskirk (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at page 223 to see if you understand it. Operating income = 1529, Net income = 910. I don't understand what problem you have, it's all on many pages of the audit that you mention, on page 223 you can check it, in news https://cincodias.elpais.com/companies/2024-02-29/fcc-eleva-sus-ganancias-un-87-tras-apuntarse-142-millones-por-su-21-en-metrovacesa.html https://www.europapress.es/economia/noticia-fcc-dispara-87-beneficio-2023-591-millones-euros-impulsado-negocio-cemento-20240229185744.html in the CNMV https://www.cnmv.es/portal/otra-informacion-relevante/resultado-oir.aspx?nif=A-28037224&lang=en You are totally wrong with the terms. Check, please. I do not believe that they are wrong in an audit, in various news items and in the CNMV itself and that you are right. Thank you Saranavas90 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should always look at the consolidated income statement with is on page 16. However if you want to look at page 223, which is additional management disclosure reconciling the management figures with the consolidated income statement, it says Resultado Bruto de Explotación (EBITDA) 1.529,6 (in English gross operating income) EBITDA means Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. This is what I have been saying all along i.e. it excludes depreciation and amortisation. It also says Resultado Neto de Explotación (EBIT) (in English net operating profit) 910. This is the figure we should use for operating profit i.e. after depreciation. It also says Resultado atribuido a sociedad dominante 591,0 (in English Result attributable to the majority shareholder). This is the net profit excluding minority shareholder interests. Dormskirk (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it another way. Wikipedia uses the term "operating income". The Spanish for that is Resultado de Explotación. That appears in the consolidated income statement on page 16 as 910.251. Dormskirk (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why in operating income you put the total income, in this case 1,529.6, and in net income you put net operating income, 910.3. If you want to subtract depreciation and amortization, that is your problem, but you are not right, you do not have to subtract all that from a gross profit. Saranavas90 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to deduct depreciation and amortisation in arriving at gross profit but you do have to deduct it in arriving at "operating profit". This is going nowhere. You may not recognise depreciation as an appropriate expense in arriving at operating profit but I certainly do. Financial Reporting Standard 102 explicitly says in respect of operating profit "Similarly, it would be inappropriate to exclude items on the grounds that they do not involve cash flows, such as depreciation and amortisation expenses". See here and here and here and plenty more. The wikipedia heading is "operating income" not "gross income" and the concept is closely defined in financial reporting standards. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FCC Group charges

The group was charged, as per the citing sources. The Wikipedia article does not make any statements as to whether the charges are appropriate or what the outcome might be. The fact that they were charged itself is relevant to the article and there's no reason to remove that content. ... discospinster _talk 15:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why do they delete data that I add when they are data cited in several sources and checked with the CNMV? Do I have to be an expert in economics to publish data I read in the press? Saranavas90 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why is this information not available for the rest of the sanctioned companies? For example ACS_Group was the company with the highest sanction and it has nothing on its page, I do not understand why in some pages it is relevant and in others it is not. Saranavas90 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable source that says ACS Group have been sanctioned then you are free to add it. ... discospinster _talk 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sources cited here where they talk about FCC they talk about ACS and the rest of the companies involved Saranavas90 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saranavas90! I noticed that you recently marked two edits as minor at FCC Group: one was a controversial edit, the other added details of their history and add their presence in the world. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Both of those edits changed the meaning of the article and so were not minor edits. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you do citations, please make sure that you give the actual title of the citation. Similarly, if a document was produced by Ernst & Young, it should say so.

Correctly completed citation template: "Annual Report 2023" (PDF). FCC Group. p. 273. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Wrong title and publisher in the citation template: "Annual Report 2023". FCC Group. p. 223. Retrieved 14 March 2024.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]