Gabriel.vergara

Speedy deletion nomination of NextGenSearchBot

Hello Gabriel.vergara,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged NextGenSearchBot for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —swpb^T 18:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zoominfo Crawler

Hello Gabriel.vergara,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Zoominfo Crawler for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —swpb^T 18:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry in my save i removed the speedy deletion tag Please review

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoominfo Crawler

I believe your article was wrongly deleted via A7, as it only applies to certain things, which this is not one of. I have challenged the deletion on that basis and may take it to DRV (deletion review), where it may be overturned and restored. Adam9007 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks I tried to cross link to Zoominfo wiki page, like googlebot or any other bot its related to the company I will try to improve more the references.
While the bot itself seems not to be relevant, it is due Zoominfo practices and the challenge that web scrapping activity has become controversial due what it represent to copyright law and privacy rights.
Thanks and if you have some advice to improve the article I'd appreciate it.
I'm quite newbie and starting on wiki :D BR gv_sec_trans 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Zoominfo Crawler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zoominfo Crawler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoominfo Crawler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Gabriel.vergara. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are on a bit of a run about Zoominfo and its products. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Gabriel.vergara. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Zoominfo? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC) the following was left on my talk page in this dif. am copying it here, to keep the discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Id been trying to add to Zoominfo company page information that although its true its is not favorable to the company,apparently before someone tried to add company page remarks to its behavior that are not the brightest side of the company but are facts that should be mentioned due the techniques they use for data mining.

The User User:Tacodile keeps reverting anything that its not favorable to the company and im just not sure if its COI and marketing.

The company lately has been trying to enhance its reputation and I suspect is more behind that curtain ,I'm just starting to try to aid to Wikipedia due my IT background nut I'm just not so savvy how to handle this kind of situations yet.

I tried to make a TALK comment and changed some of the wording on my editionPlease advice or help you can check the comment in [1]

Is that remark correct or should I remove it ?

See the difs on by the user [Zoominfo History]

Best regards and Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.vergara (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Would you please let me know, do you have any relationship with ZoomInfo or its competitors, in the real world? We can talk about your other concerns in a moment, but let's just go slowly, OK? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No im not related to Zoominfo or its competitors I am just a IT Architect that knows about them by research and IT Security Reports, I Work in Fujitsu Finland Oy [Vergara On linkedIn] Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I am going to end this section, and open a new discussion with you. When we are done with that, we'll talk about the stuff you mentioned above,. I'll also remove the COI category. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Thanks, I'm learning a lot now I wait for instructions, its getting late here :D Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Advocacy in Wikipedia

OK, this is a harder issue.

Based on the edits you have made to Zoominfo, it is clear that you are passionate about privacy issues, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat... you understand. We get all kinds of advocacy (COI is just a subset of it) and all it violates NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA that I already pointed you to, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave.

So, while I hear you that you are passionate about privacy in the real world, but please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The content you added to Zoominfo is not neutrally written - you use language addressing the reader like "you", and you use strong language and make strong claims that are not supported by the sources. Please don't edit that way, no matter how strongly you feel. You have to use great sources, and summarize only what they say, not what you think. I am trying to fix the section you added to the Zoominfo article so that it complies with policy...

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. Thanks again for your patience with me. Let me know if all this makes sense or if you want to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and you are right, while now reading my wording, I used you as addressing to the reader, my sin, now I noticed you added a template {{in use}} that gives you more time to work on the article itself, yesterday I panicked when the just made category was proposed to deletion and today when trying to amend the article noticed the rollbacks. and decided to ask professional Help ;D before it goes more wrong

Regarding advocacy well everyone is advocate to something and cant be 100% neutral but I agree 100% with you and Wikipedia policy, regarding Zoominfo and privacy concerns, in one side that also motivated to try to improve it more but I failed on the attempt.. Where its a true fact that zoominfo regardless how it is said scrapping methods are a way of plagiarism and its is not a good remark for any business I tried to fill that categorization gap because for any IT security professional truthful information it what we need in end of the day.

IN the future I will keep my focus on this advice

I really appreciate your efforts and I will keep on learning and contribute the best I can, I really admire your dedication and your valuable time and thank your for aiding me

Best Regards Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is 2 AM im signing off today Thanks again Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for talking so nicely with me! Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Note on talk page logistics

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, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and 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.

And at the end of each 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. That is how we know who said what. Please do that, and if you need help with it, please ask. This is an insane way to do things, but this is software we have. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jydog I will keep in mind Im learning wiki ways:D gv_sec_trans 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OK but you didn't actually sign that comment. You sign by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" after the comment. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny I added "~~~~" gv_sec_trans 22:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC) them Actually I have been using the Sign your posts on talk pages: link

what Its wrong I see that it posts gv_sec_trans 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC) text after I save

did you maybe change your preferences for your signature? the preferences are here. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Now i found the problem .. it was in my preferences page set as an acronym i added long time ago now should be ok Thanks .. I keep learning Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hooray! OK, please read what I wrote below. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Hey Gabriel, you cannot copy information from a website and paste it into Wikipedia, OK? You've copied content from http://www.internetofficer.com/web-robot/zoominfo/ into three different articles now. You absolutely must stop doing that, OK? Please read WP:COPYVIO - this is very important. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep I noticed that and was not my intention to leave it like that I actually was trying today to add the Zooominfo bot agent to the bot categories and was using the bot agent information like Diffbot, but the pending issue of COI raised me questions and tried to fix it and this takes time, here in Finland its getting late ;D I really appreciate Wikipedian work :D

Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)