User talk:L33de2nd

Hi L33de2nd! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello L33de2nd. 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 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:L33de2nd. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=L33de2nd|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. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:L33de2nd, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=L33de2nd|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@L33de2nd Please read above and use the template AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AlphaBetaGamma ,I really appreciate your response and assistance, I'll use the template as you suggested L33de2nd (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma I added the template on the user page I appreciate the help, and I sent a screenshot to the client regarding the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, I wasn't aware of such as policy, I'm learning more about Wikipedia these days.

so what is the next step for me to do regarding the draft? L33de2nd (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait until the draft is reviewed, since now you no longer risk a WP:UPE block. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 11:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Samira Amellal 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SafariScribe I hope you're well today, I have been working on this draft for quite some time and I managed make use of the Wikipedia guideline, but the draft always gets decline no matter how much I make the changes. Also I've ask the client to provide more reliable sources to improve citations....could you please assist me in improving the draft or areas that needs adjustments

I'd appreciate the help. L33de2nd (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Being a Director General of a company doesn't make one notable, and very poor if the company in question is also not notable. Again, the publications are good but we do not depend on people's publications as avenue to their notability, instead, a review of their publications by other scholars will be appreciated. I hope that helps? SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I see so basically the draft is speaking in 1st person term, but sources that discuss her as a subject, not just list her work L33de2nd (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)