User talk:Poppyandmarigold: Difference between revisions

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

The “British Parliamentary Endorsement” in particularly is just PR.

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.

qcne (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear qcne,

Thank you for taking the time to look over the article. Could you please clarify whether specific sections need revision, or if a full rewrite of the article is necessary? Any guidance on which areas require improvement-such as tone, structure, citations, or neutrality-would be greatly appreciated to help align the content with Wikipedia’s standards. As far as the topic is concerned, it is purely non commercial initiative which is aimed at creating awareness about the participation of millions of martyred soldiers from commonwealth countries. Poppyandmarigold (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Poppyandmarigold! 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! qcne (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Poppyandmarigold. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to User:Poppyandmarigold/sandbox, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Poppyandmarigold. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Poppyandmarigold|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. qcne (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]