User talk:MarioGom

Welcome!

Hello, MarioGom, 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! Bearian (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wikimedia Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the work at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. -- Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look.

You should take a look at the lede on State Security Department.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you could look at National Security Service (Uzbekistan) as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: as you can see in National Security Service (Uzbekistan), the lead paragraph describes it as a national intelligence agency, then there is a brief summary of its origin (KGB successor in the region), which is not a controversial statement, and then some additional details about its functions and problems in the government, which I don't know if are relevant or not because they are unsourced. Only in the second paragraph, there is some statement about secret policing which is clearly attributed to Amnesty International and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, not presented with weasel words as a neutral, non-controversial and generalized assumption. --MarioGom (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would you present the subject without weasel words when multiple sources call the SEBIN a "political police" or "secret police"? That is why I used the word "recognized", but maybe it should be "described"? Should it be presented in the lede at all? Are you saying that there should be more info in the lede before such phrasing is included for balancing POV? Just want to understand the best way to include the information because it is heavily sourced. Not trying to be a nuisance.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: I don't think this should be presented in the first lead paragraph at all unless it was a general agreement of reliable sources, which does not seem the case. Also keep in mind that many sources does not mean that they are the most reliable sources on the subject. Of course Miami Herald or Foreign Policy say so, but they are not authoritative sources on the subject, they have an editorial policy, which means that opinion is intermixed with factual information. You will find other media outlets that say the opposite or use a different characterization (see WP:NEWSORG). One approach would be looking for the most important organizations that publicly denounce SEBIN role as political police, and then say that they describe it as political police. An alternative or complementary approach would be researching the bibliography (books, peer-reviewed papers) for experts in the field of both Venezuela intelligence history or intelligence services in general, and check how do they characterize SEBIN. Then if some of them say it acts as a political police, you can cite them, clearly attributing the statements to them. Even more constructive would be doing this research in a more wide way and expand on the history of SEBIN in general, and write about its actions (some of them will be seen as political policing). --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am worried about is the way people read the article. I can list over a dozen media outlets and books and attribute them, but it would read like "Foreign Policy, BBC, The Wall Street Journal and political science authors Fermin Lares and Clifton Ross describe SEBIN as a political police force". In the peer review for Bolivarian diaspora, we recognized that attributing information to sources was making the article uninviting, with nearly every other sentence saying "according to" or something similar. This is what I am trying to avoid.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:COI

Hi MarioGom! I noticed that you added a message on my talk page regarding conflict of interest editing and then reversed the edit. I do not receive any monetary gains for my contributions; however, I am wondering which one of my edits caused you to place the template? Since you placed the template, I am led to believe that I might have neglected to have a NPOV on the issue. If you let me know, I'd be happy to take a second look at the text I added or removed! Cheers, Daylen (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daylen: I did not see any NPOV problem, just an overlap in edits with a few articles that are subject of undisclosed paid editing (e.g. Framebridge) and are not so popular. I did not keep the whole list, sorry. Anyway, once I saw you are editing on a lot of companies and, in some cases, you were actually removing promotional content, I realized that the kind of COI I initially suspected was very unlikely. --MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind helping with the creation of the Framebridge article is that it was the only company hosted on NPR's How I Built This podcast that didn't have a Wikipedia article. After looking for reliable secondary sources, I quickly realized that the company was significantly less notable than other companies created by founders interviewed by Guy Raz on the podcast. As for other articles, I publicly list my email and respond to Wikipedia related questions on Quora, so some COI editors have asked for assistance regarding article creation and Wikipedia policy in the past. Thanks for the info and happy editing! Daylen (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daylen: Thanks. Note that if these COI editors are blocked, you should not be editing on their behalf (see WP:PROXYING) whether paid or not. The articles of some of these companies were created or signficantly edited by PR firms that do undisclosed paid editing and are now blocked (WP:PAIDLIST). For example: TaskRabbit, Marriott International, GoGo Squeez or Square, Inc.. Best. --MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (II)

Hi MarioGom, thanks for pointing to my presence on the COI board. Can you help me disclose my conflict of interest in the meaningful method required? I'm not sure what my next step is. Appreciate your help in advance. Sghartman (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sghartman: I posted an answer in the other talk page you used: User talk:Sarawhosthere. --MarioGom (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (III)

Hi MarioGom! I noticed your note, and I would like to know what specific language on the page you characterize as non-neutral? Your response is appreciated, thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scwiki3: Please, read the message in your talk page about conflicts of interest. My message is not about neutrality, it is about conflicts of interest. Are you associated in any way with Global Wireless Solutions? Thank you. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: I am a paid contributor for Global Wireless Solutions, as is now stated in my talk page. Does this resolve the COI tag on the Global Wireless Solutions page? Thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scwiki3: Disclosure is addressed. Now you should propose changes to the article on its talk page, using Template:Request edit. A non-involved contributor will review your proposals and apply them to the article if they comply with the policies. You have full information in the links of the message I left on your talk page. --MarioGom (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Thank you for your guidance. Who is now responsible for removing the COI tag? Shall I request it to be removed or do you remove it directly? Thanks again. Scwiki3 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scwiki3: No, it still needs to be cleaned up and structured according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Currently it just reads like a press release, with peacock terms such as "9 million miles worth of data" (what is that?), references to self-published press releases, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: I have suggested edits on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page that have addressed your concerns. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Scwiki3 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: I have changed the language of the page so as it doesn't read like a press release, as you noted and removed all of the "example benchmarking test" content from the proposed edits. Hopefully you can look over these proposed edits and let me know if they are sufficient. If this is the case, would you then manually resolve the COI and press release tags from the page? Thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (IV)

Hi MarioGom. I am not affiliated with FitDay or any direct competitor to them. I just happened across the page, agreed with the Advert template concerns, and figured I'd help out. Hope this clears things up? Drskyrider (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drskyrider: Ok. Your nick is similar to a SEO/PR company. If that was not the case, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Article

I edited the Brian Monaco article you had made a note of the neutrality of the article on. I am a music business college student and reviewed and fact checked the page to make sure it was factually accurate. I have removed the tags and I believe it is now sufficient. Just wanted to drop you a quick note on the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (V)

Hi MarioGom, Sorry about the COI. I am a paid employee but I worked on the article in my own time and without pay. I started editing the page two years ago as I was upset at the lack of information on the page and I wanted to move the quality up to par with pages for other zoos. I had no intention to use the platform for advertising or promoting the zoo and if you read the article and compare it to other zoo pages, you will see that the language used is very tame when it comes to describing the history and the exhibits. I was also using this page as practice so that I may start editing other zoo pages because I know a lot about the zoo. I will agree to no longer edit this page but I want to talk about the maintenance tag that has been up on the page for two years without being taken down.

I removed the maintenance tag because I believe I addressed the issues. I removed all information that sounded like an advertisement (even though there wasn't any specific sections given as examples and other zoo pages have much more flowery wording that could be considered an advertisement), I added multiple third party sources to multiple sections, and there are no longer any misinterpreted citations and all text is verified through one or multiple sources. Because of that, I believe the tag should be taken down. If you can find examples of any more of these issues, I will put it on the talk page and hopefully someone else will fix them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeastly (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obeastly: Thanks for the clarification. The article relies extensively on the official page as a source, so the tag about primary source still applies. Please, take some time to read the relevant policies I posted on your talk page. You can use Template:Request edit to propose changes on the article talk page, a non-involved editor will help applying them. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (VI)

Hello, To clarify, I have no conflict of interest with any associated party from the article. I am knowledgeable about the matter at hand though and knew that the articles cited do not in fact state what the previous author/s of the edited line had written. Thanks. Yettick (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI (VII)

Hello,

I didn't fully understand the rules and limits of editing the wikipedia page for my company Three Six Zero. I would like to rectify the issue, but would like help/instructions on how to do so. If any edits I made need to be removed, I am happy for you to do so. What are the best next steps to get the maintenance flag removed from our page?

In addition, I keep seeing issues with someone at Go Fish Digital editing our pages. I am unaware of any one from our company purposefully enlisting the help of this agency. I am trying to contact someone at the company to find out why they are making changes to our pages.

Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)shaniathreesixzero[reply]

@Shaniathreesixzero::

I reverted your edit to Three Six Zero, so that part is solved.
You can still request changes in the talk page of the article. Use Template:Request edit when doing that, and someone will review your request and act on it.
I assume that you are editing as part of your job. If that is the case, you should also add a disclosure to your user page ([[[User:Shaniathreesixzero]]). The easiest way to do that, if you are directly employed by Three Six Zero, would be adding the following template to your user page: {{paid|employer=Three Six Zero}}. If you were employed by an agency, you would use {{paid|employer=ACME|client=Three Six Zero}} (more info here: Template:Paid).
The maintenance tags will be eventually removed from the article once a non-connected editor reviews it, but you may request it anyway in the user page (using Template:Request edit).
About Go Fish Digital: they have edited a lot of articles related to Three Six Zero, and created some, including the one about Mark Gillespie. Why would they do it if Three Six Zero hired no PR agency at all to do it is intriguing... --MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom::

Thank you for your help here. If Go Fish was enlisted, then it had to have been before I worked for Three Six Zero. What are my options for getting this part cleared up? I am still attempting to contact the company to figure out what our relationship with them may have been, but I am having trouble reaching them since I have never actually worked with them. Is the only way to clear the tags to get them to disclose their possible affiliation on the talk page? Or is there another way I can resolve this, like requesting a new page be created?

Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Shaniathreesixzero[reply]

@Shaniathreesixzero: Whether they disclose it or not, at this point, is not relevant. They have a lot of accounts blocked after abusing multiple Wikipedia policies and they are well past the point where they can make their users appear as good faith editors. As other editor pointed out in the article, tags will be removed once a non-involved editor reviews the page and considers that the article complies with Wikipedia policies. There is no shortcut here. --MarioGom (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaniathreesixzero: Actually, if they disclose that Breeze897 was their account and that they receive payments, we could replace the undisclosed payments tag by a more benign conflict of interest tag. --MarioGom (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaniathreesixzero: On the other hand, if they disclose such thing, I will propose to speedy delete the Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager) article, because it would prove that it was created in violation of a previous block (see WP:G5). --MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom::

edit: Thanks for this information: I of course want to adhere by the wikipedia rules and rectify the situation. I was planning to go in and request edits today that would add more information and citations. Hopefully this will help, as I see there has now been a new maintenance tag added. Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)shaniathreesixzero[reply]

Comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)

Apologies MarioGom, That was a bit harsh. As usual, I let my belly rumble without thinking about it. I will score it out. Sorry. scope_creep (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thanks. No problem! --MarioGom (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MarioGom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Centrify

Looks like you were involved in the original article being deleted. I see your analysis of the SPAs and SOCKs at the most recent deletion discussion. Thought you would like to see this as another one has popped up. There is no way this makes it out of AfC, but thought you'd like to know in case you want to report user for likely being a SOCK or MEAT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNMall41! I have been out for a while, too late now for a sockpuppet investigation... --MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I can say "welcome back." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent work addressing COI issues across Wikipedia! Marquardtika (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart the music processor

Hello Mario First let me say that I understand your concern about my recent changes to the Mozart the music processor page. And I hope this is the right place to contact you as I am completely new to Wikipedia's talk facility. My situation is this: I discovered that the page on Mozart the music processor - don't know who wrote it originally - was out of date by several years, and wrong in some respects. I was keen to correct that, and also keen NOT to have it sound like an advert. Yes, I am the author of the Mozart program: I can't help that, but it does mean I'm uniquely placed to correct out-of-date (now false) information. In order NOT to have it sound like an advert:

I first studied other pages for similar computer programs ( Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and others ) and was careful not to anything that these pages didn't
I preserved the topic structure of the previous Mozart the music processor page (but divided some sections into logical subsections)
I retained the Limitations section - as this surely would not be included in an advertisement.

I am keen to comply with Wikipedia's policies, but am new at this and would be very grateful if you could give me specific advice on how to do this in this case. Dave Webber (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]