Talk:InfoUSA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Content being removed

I am not sure why the content on this page has been deleted. You stated that the reason was because of advertising, but all I see are facts about the company. If there is a specific sentence thats seems like advertising to you then only remove that instead of all the content or fix the wording. Because all it does is hurt other users who would like to know more about the company other than a 3 year old controversy that has since been resolved. I looked at infoUSA's competitors pages such as Dunn & Bradstreet or Experian and I don't see how that content is stated any different, but yet it has been left alone.

I was glad to see that more information about infoUSA had been posted but when I saw that the user who posted it worked for the company I changed some of the wording they used to make it unbiased. Please use the same concept instead of removing everything. --Thanks for your consideration.

Actually, the initial reason I removed all of the information was because it was copied and pasted directly from the company's own website. When the person mentioned that they were an employee of the company, that was a second violation. So basically, two rules were being broken - the use of copyrighted content presented as original thought (see WP:COPY) and the fact that they were an employee with a vested interest (see WP:SOAP). It looks like your edit here is fine, so it will stay. But the fact that two people were basically adding the same data made me suspicious that it was one company representative. The deletion of the controversial text also made me suspicious as well. --Thesilence 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry one more point. I referenced WP:COPY up above. I really meant to reference WP:NONFREE as this was non-free content. --Thesilence 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InfoUSA's Gupta Defends Pelosi Hire

This link is broken - can someone correct it? I can't seem to find any reference to it on the NewsMax site. If this isn't corrected, I think we'll have to delete the link and it's info. --Thesilence 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this link is working again. --Thesilence 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:InfoUSA.gif

Image:InfoUSA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Content

The content added by ktrob383 should not be considered as plagiarism . I work for infoUSA and have been given permisson to use the content I post.

--Thanks!
Ktrob383 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ktrob383, but editors are expressly forbidden from editing articles in which they have an explicit interest. See WP:SOAP for more info. Not to mention, your posts are directly plagarized from corporate publications which are copyrighted, thus you are violating WP:ADVERT and WP:NONFREE. As a result, your edits have to be reverted. Sorry! --Thesilence 15:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Content Needed

The Salesgenie.com controversy was deleted until more independent references could be cited. Introduce a couple other citations from other publications to the article. Show notability using the standards at WP:CORP.

Working on adding relevant internal links. Mrtriviamaniacman (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)