User talk:Cstate2002

Nomination of NS1 (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NS1 (company) 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/NS1 (company) 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi, I had reverted 2 of your edits and it seems you reverted them back [1], [2]. I would request you to read WP:BRD and please undo your reverts, since your edits are contested. Please explain on the article talk page why you want the particular information to be there in the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I have reverted them now. Please discuss on the talk page before reinserting them back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we not want to include a managed DNS vendor to the list of managed DNS vendors on Wikipedia? It seems clear to me that not having NS1 on the list is an omission. It is presented in the same way, so I will revert this back now. Thanks. Cstate2002 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cstate2002, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cstate2002! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Cstate2002I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Almost all your edits to date are about NS1. 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, Cstate2002. 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 NS1? 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) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I work for NS1. Trying to update the managed DNS list because many people complain they can't find us there along side the other managed dns providers. Im trying my best to make it as similar in nature (i.e. unbiased) as the articles on other managed DNS providers like Dyn and UltraDNS. Cstate2002 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the disclosure. So you have a COI for NS1, as we define "Conflict of interest" in Wikipedia; within that, you are what we call a "paid editor" - please do see WP:PAID so you are aware of that policy.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Cstate2002 - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for NS1 and have a conflict of interest with regard to that topic" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag at Talk:NS1 (company), so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

And you also should note your conflict of interest at your "keep" !vote at the deletion discussion.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes (too late for this now!); and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. Someone else already added a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:NS1 (company) - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. Doing something like adding reference to NS1 would not be "simple and controversial".

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the NS1 (company) article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. I think it would be helpful for you, as a lot of things here are not intuitive. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog. I have added the COI statement to my user name. Thanks for your help on this. I can follow this process going forward! Cstate2002 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! 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 WP 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, then three, etc., 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 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. 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 in. Sorry about that. Also, if you want me to provide the brief overview of how this place works, I can do that. Going off other articles is generally not a great idea, as there is lots of bad content in Wikipedia. Lots of good content too! But enough bad that people get mislead by bad examples all the time, and in any case (like in math) it is always better to work off first principles.... do let me know. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]