User talk:AnnabelleG69!

Welcome!

Hello, AnnabelleG69!, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Annabelle Gawer, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Annabelle Gawer, you may be blocked from editing. You keep reinserting material that is not properly verified (and promotional), and you do so in incorrect ways--look at how often I've commented in my edit summaries on inline URLs and primary sources. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines--and PLEASE address the conflict of interest I suspect you have. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you PLEASE stop adding primary links as inline URLs? Thank you. Please see WP:RS; Wikipedia works by way of secondary sources--explained in Secondary source. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies,

(1) thank you for your edits on this page

(2) I am trying to comply with the rules of Wikipedia and tried to avoid inline links but when I tried to add the links as references it showed some errors which I don’t know how to correct (something about the date missing, which I didn’t understand as the date was included).

Perhaps you would be kind enough to help fix this instead of removing the content altogether? That is, keep the text for the articles and add the references in the correct way?

The 3 links are associated with the doi numbers

for the article “Towards a theory of ecosystems”

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

for the article “Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organisational forms of the digital age” https://doi.org/10.1080/4479338.2021.1965888

and for the article “Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda”

https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12326

In addition you wrote that I didn’t provide the evidence for the claim of most read article. But there is evidence and again, I tried to include this as a reference but Wikipedia claimed some error: please can check for yourself: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=rimp20

when you click on All Time it’s the first article

and

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13652575?tabActivePane=undefined … when you click on Most Accessed it’s the first article

Finally, you are absolutely right this is not a CV. The CV of Annabelle Gawer comports 40 articles. But these are significant in the field, extremely influential, and linking them to this Wikipedia page shares knowledge to a wider audience than just academics. In a time when a better understanding of digital platforms is important for every citizen, I hope this content can appear and not be blocked. Many thanks for your efforts and understanding. 2A00:23C4:3999:8001:C1E5:D3C7:B629:F14E (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies,

I apologise for the errors I made, I didn’t realise you had been trying to communicate with me… I am not sure you received my message earlier so I am copying it again:

Dear Drmies,

(1) thank you for your edits on this page

(2) I am trying to comply with the rules of Wikipedia and tried to avoid inline links but when I tried to add the links as references it showed some errors which I don’t know how to correct (something about the date missing, which I didn’t understand as the date was included).

Perhaps you would be kind enough to help fix this instead of removing the content altogether? That is, keep the text for the articles and add the references in the correct way?

The 3 links are associated with the doi numbers

for the article “Towards a theory of ecosystems”

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

for the article “Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organisational forms of the digital age” https://doi.org/10.1080/4479338.2021.1965888

and for the article “Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda”

https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12326

In addition you wrote that I didn’t provide the evidence for the claim of most read article. But there is evidence and again, I tried to include this as a reference but Wikipedia claimed some error: please can check for yourself: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=rimp20

when you click on All Time it’s the first article

and

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13652575?tabActivePane=undefined … when you click on Most Accessed it’s the first article

Finally, you are absolutely right this is not a CV. The CV of Annabelle Gawer comports 40 articles. But these are significant in the field, extremely influential, and linking them to this Wikipedia page shares knowledge to a wider audience than just academics. In a time when a better understanding of digital platforms is important for every citizen, I hope this content can appear and not be blocked. Many thanks for your efforts and understanding. 2A00:23C4:3999:8001:C1E5:D3C7:B629:F14E(talk) 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC) AnnabelleG69! (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I am glad you came here instead of going back to the article. The above response is a bit confusing with all these empty lines, and before I have coffee I cannot address all of them. I will say that I see the "most read" article now, but that's still somewhat problematic: it's a search, and it's susceptible to change, of course. Also, I don't really understand the citation problems, but I did note that some of those inline URLs were simply organizational links, and those don't do anything anyway. But to write a good article, we need secondary coverage of the subject--time to pull out the old manila folder with newspaper and magazine articles. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you MUST address the COI. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Drmies for your kind reply. What does COI mean? AnnabelleG69! (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Drmies, I have a question. For the reference to the Award, the Theory-to-Practice Strategy Award, I would welcome your advice on how to get rid of the inline link which refers to a newspaper article in German published in Die Presse and add this as a reference the newspaper article from Die Presse:

https://www.diepresse.com/18535352/bahnbrechend

I am not sure how to do this, and I submit my proposed edit to you instead of just changing it myself on the page.

The article which attests of this award is in German and was published on 06.06.2024 in Die Presse and is titled

« Bahnbrechend“ which means « Groundbreaking », and then the tagline is: « Theory-to-Practice Strategy Award verlieren », which means:

“Groundbreaking”, Theory-to-Practice Strategy Award

awarded.

is this appropriate for me to ask you this advice or should I turn to my « mentor » on Wikipedia ? AnnabelleG69! (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note left on Lajmmoore's user page

Just leaving a link to my reply here too - see - happy to answer more questiosn Lajmmoore (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]