User talk:Petuniabaa

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Clark Unitive Effect theory 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Petuniabaa! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello pythoncoder! Thank you for reaching out. I just (re)submitted a revised draft. Hoping this one will meet expectations. Thanks for the invitation to the Teahouse. Looking forward to seeing you and other friends at the Teahouse soon. Petuniabaa (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Petuniabaa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Petuniabaa. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Clark Unitive Effect theory".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. "This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.”

Please reconsider:

1) Significant Coverage: The articles discussed the subject within the context of the subject’s significance to the advance of the secondary source’s core subject matter.

2) The secondary sources are reliable.

3) The sources are independent: not interviews, not press releses, not subject’s own website nor sponsored content.

Please re-read. The most recent changes may not have been received.

Sincerely,

Petuniabaa

Petuniabaa (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S. the linkis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clark_Unitive_Effect_theory Petuniabaa (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Petuniabaa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. We ask that you:

• Avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors
• Disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI)
• Propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions
• Avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming)

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

See the FAQ for article subjects for more information.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay…well that is a lot to take under review and action. Thank You. Petuniabaa (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Petuniabaa. I want to point out to you that the purpose that you have expressed on your User page for working in Wikipedia is utterly incompatible with Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, nor is any kind of argumentation or theorising appropriate: please read What Wikipedia is not carefully.

While Wikipedia is very much a collaborative project, collaboration here is for furthering Wikipedia's purposes, not for anything else. If you have the passion, energy and imagination to build-out a fantastic, comprehensive social-psychology theory that reforms the phenomenon known as Maslow’s theory of self-transcendence and peak-experience then this is emphatically not the place for you, unless you put almost all of that on hold, and confine yourself to what we do: neutrally summarising what reliable independent sources have published about a subject.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)