User talk:Cindyjwilson

Hi Cindyjwilson! 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 Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 18:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cindyjwilson. Thanks for disclosing that you work for Check Point.

You have been directly editing content related to your employer, and that is something that you shouldn't do.

We have a process to manage contributions by people with a conflict of interest.

It has two steps -- disclosure, and a form of peer review.

The "peer review" 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 voilà 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. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, 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 through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; 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

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

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. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

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. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on 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. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, thanks for the feedback. Are you responding to my request at WikiProject Computer Security? As you've probably seen, I've been seeking out feedback and peer review throughout my edits -- I've gotten some very helpful attention from a couple of editors, but am hoping for more, especially from editors familiarity with the computer security field. My primary concern, as I described on the WikiProject and on the Cyberattack article, is that much of Wikipedia's high-level coverage of cybersecurity issues, though highly detailed, has not been substantially updated since about 2010. I think it's an unfortunate accident, rather than any intentional omission. But the field has evolved substantially in the last decade, and I think it's very much in the interest of Wikipedia and its readers -- as much as my employer -- to have up-to-date info with strong sourcing. The Marius Nacht biography is a secondary thing to me, and I'm happy to try the AFC process if you think that best. Thanks for setting up the "connected contributor" banner on my behalf, too. -Cindy (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your editing, on an article that was already on my watchlist. It looked like direct paid editing, so I checked your userpage, and was happy to see that you had disclosed.

In my view, from a conflict of interest perspective, if you want to directly update pages like cybersecurity and cyberattack that would be great; please use high quality sources (avoid company websites, please) and if you want to add content about your company, or sources emphasizing your company, please do not do that directly, but instead offer those up on the article page for others to review and implement.

And of course if you want to generate content about your company or its executives, please do that through AfC or suggestions on the talk page.

Does that sound reasonable? Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Thanks for describing your process, it's helpful for my growing understanding of how Wikipedia's pieces fit together. Your suggested approach sounds like a slight refinement to what I've settled on doing up until now. I'll submit the Marius Nacht biography through AFC, and continue seeking feedback on anything more substantial than a mere factual update. Since most of the feedback I've gotten has been positive, I have become a bit more bold about adding things directly, but I have not stopped seeking out feedback; I'll make a point of always seeking feedback before posting in the future. I appreciate the guidance. -Cindy (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,907		Cybercrime (talk)	Add sources
5,664		Denial-of-service attack (talk)	Add sources
47		Saturation attack (talk)	Add sources
19		Counter-recruitment (talk)	Add sources
2,368		Malware (talk)	Add sources
64		Dogo (dog type) (talk)	Add sources
774		Internet privacy (talk)	Cleanup
96		Bird dog (talk)	Cleanup
198		Timeline of computer security hacker history (talk)	Cleanup
859		Workday, Inc. (talk)	Expand
233		Professional Association of Diving Instructors (talk)	Expand
1,766		Broadcom Inc. (talk)	Expand
1,227		Ransomware (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
149		Managed security service (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
87		Steven R. Donziger (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
306		Toy dog (talk)	Merge
53		Toy group (talk)	Merge
29		FCI Companion and Toy Dog Group (talk)	Merge
14		Medical device hijack (talk)	Wikify
14		Hypoallergenic dog food (talk)	Wikify
8		Software-defined protection (talk)	Wikify
77		Outline of computer security (talk)	Orphan
2		Arizona House Bill 2005 (talk)	Orphan
5		Military-digital complex (talk)	Orphan
24		Military specialism (talk)	Stub
161		Paychex (talk)	Stub
2		Glan Williams (talk)	Stub
166		Idexx Laboratories (talk)	Stub
42		Housebreaking (talk)	Stub
10		Blended threat (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fifth generation cyberattack 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/Fifth generation cyberattack (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 18:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Fifth generation cyberattack, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Diff: Special:Diff/847785898/prev ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Check Point. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

His only notability has to do with the company, and so he can be included in the company, with appropriate additions as needed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marius Nacht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marius Nacht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cindyjwilson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marius Nacht".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]