User talk:RachelC8Assoc

Hello RachelC8Assoc. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Dominic McGonigal, 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:RachelC8Assoc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=RachelC8Assoc|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. Toarin (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Rachel,

I looked over your Draft:Dominic McGonigal and there are several areas where I noticed the use of sources is different than how they typically should be for Wikipedia pages.

• For example, in the sentence His secular choral works, such as Animals^[8], have a fluidity of style and lyrical word-setting. [8] is a link to a YouTube video showing that Animals, a choral work, exists. The best possible source for a sentence like that would be an article by a music reviewer or a concert critic who attended an event and stated in a news paper article that the work is fluid with good lyricism.
• Another example is McGonigal trained as a chorister and later read music at King’s College, Cambridge, singing bass in the King’s College Chapel Choir.^[19] and in this case [19] is a link to the home page of the choir. A better source would again be some kind of independent newspaper article that says McGonigal performed with the KCCC and a satisfactory source would be an interview where he says himself that he sang with that choir.

I hope this information helps you to find better sources for this and hopefully many more articles in the future. Moritoriko (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)