Galgalplada

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Galgalplada. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page List of manual image annotation tools, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galgalplada, it is better to discuss Wikipedia-related questions openly here on Wikipedia (unless they include confidential or personal details of course). This way information is transparent and other editors will be able to follow and join the discussion if they wish to.

To clarify list inclusion for this specific list a bit more: entries need at least 1 (the more the better) reliable source(s), that is independent from the listed entry and has some substantial coverage about it. "Independent" excludes sources with a commercial affiliation to the topic, press releases, PR platforms, and similar promotional publications. Please also note, that personal research and knowledge is not suitable as reference (unless it has been properly reviewed and published in a reliable independent publication first).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me, but I prefer to keep non-confidential discussions here on public Wikipedia pages. You can also ask at WP:Teahouse for advice, if you have any Wikipedia-related questions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GermanJoe for the clarification. Totally understood and wanted to discuss on the talk page but as mentioned in the email wasn't sure how to do so (sorry, I'm a newbie). Hope you see this message...

Re the issue, now I see what you mean by reliable source. Reviewing the list again now, how is the first entry aligned with your clarification. The reference is to a Techcrunch article (you mentioned above, no press releases) or are tech blog posts considered a reliable resource? Thanks in advance. Galgalplada (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The source is probably not ideal, but the article has been written by an expert editor and seems to have no direct promotional intent (but I could very well be wrong about that last part). While the company obviously had some influence on the article, it seems mostly written independently and is not marked as press release or advertisement. "Reliability" is often not a perfect black and white decision. Anyway, if you believe that the source is not reliable enough and the entry should be deleted, you could raise such concerns on the article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Had to go check the article again now after your point and read it. The article begins with a paragraph about how the company "...is emerging from six months in stealth with a $3.9 million seed round led by Kleiner Perkins and joined by First Round and Google’s Gradient Ventures." which clearly implies this is a PR re their investment. Also there are a number of quotes all along the article by the owners of the company... Is this reliable enough from your view? Doesn't seem so according to your earlier note. Galgalplada (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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 User:Galgalplada/sandbox 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 User:Galgalplada/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Galgalplada! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Galgalplada/sandbox

Hello, Galgalplada. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Galgalplada/sandbox.

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)