Gismart moved to draftspace edit

An article you recently created, Gismart, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

thanks Celestina007. I just tried to create a new page. I found dozens with much less references and reliable sources and I'm quite surprised that my new article happened to be so questionable. Can you say, if this article Gamsole (I edited it yesterday) is good or also should be drafted? If it's good, how it can be live with so little sources. Just asking. I want to understand how it works. P.S. I know that every article is the unique case but the rules are universal anyway. --Golden Ranky (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

July 2021 edit

 

Hello Golden Ranky. 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:Golden Ranky. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Golden Ranky|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. GSS💬 03:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gss hey. No, I'm not a paid contributor. Wikipedia is my hobby. I wanted to create a page about something interesting. It's not so easy to fina a topic that is not already on the wikipedia :( --Golden Ranky (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gismart (July 15) 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 GSS was:  The comment the reviewer left 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.
GSS💬 13:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply