User talk:ARKGJL

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, ARKGJL. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Kar-go, 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello ARKGJL. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ARKGJL. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ARKGJL|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I would like to use the "articles for creation" process. I thought I had made it clear that I have a COI, but I have now added the template to ensure this is clear and compliant with Wikipedia's policies. The information I have provided is fully referenced and I believe that this is of interest to the general public (particularly in the UK) as the company's products are being trialled by UK government departments and as the British Business Bank has invested in the company through it's Future Fund. The Future Fund is a government scheme to support UK-based companies ranging from £125,000 to £5 million, subject to at least equal match funding from private investors. I would be very grateful if you could let me know if my disclosures are now sufficient for the article to be considered for the articles for creation process and what further steps I should take to proceed with this. ARKGJL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is pending, as noted at the AFC Help Desk. That's irrespective of the disclosure requirement- which is now satisfied. As I said there, there is no way to ensure a speedy review. It could be reviewed in the next five minutes, or a month from now. There is no way to know. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Robotics (January 1)[edit]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Academy of Robotics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ARKGJL! Having an article draft 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! _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023: Conflict of interest[edit]

Please refrain from making edits on the William Sachiti page. It appears that you have an undeclared financial interest in Sachiti as on your user page you have declared an interest in the Academy of Robotics which is an affiliated organisation. This is a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Perhaps suggest changes on the Talk page instead. IntentionalModifications (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ARKGJL. Given that your edits have been controversial in face of your COI I recommend that instead of editing articles yourself you post edit requests instead. That way you avoid the appearance of impropriety. See the Guide to effective COI edit requests for help. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Academy of Robotics[edit]

Hello, ARKGJL,

Thank you for creating Academy of Robotics.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

ARKGJL: I note your declaration that you manage communications for Kar-go.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Fiachra10003}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]