User talk:Sassamirra

March 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to MonkeyParking, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:COIADVICE before updating this article any further: "If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." - with the few exceptions listed on that page, you should not be editing the article directly. If you feel the information in the article is outdated or incorrect, you are welcome to leave feedback and suggestions on the article talk page. You can remove "content that unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy" directly, but so far as I can see everything in there is sourced to press coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just looking for sources now. I've found a line about it being useful for reusing church parking spaces, and will reframe the public parking spaces into the past tense as far as it matches the sources - if there's anything else out there about how the app is being used today, then let me know, ideally at Talk:MonkeyParking so that other editors can help out. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I simply need a reliable secondary source, such as some press coverage - Wikipedia relies on secondary sources rather than primary ones. Has there been anything in the press that's covered this shift in the app's stated purpose? --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've edited the Wikipedia entry to match what that article seems to be saying. If you have any future suggested changes, you can raise them at Talk:MonkeyParking. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Sassamirra. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article MonkeyParking, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''On User talk:McGeddon, you claimed ". I am one of the founders and you are currently describing the app in a wrong way. Update your info at the app website." WP:OWN says that no individual user owns the article, and secondary sources are considered better than primary sources.'' Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)