User talk:Billyboybliss

This is Billyboybliss's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Hello, Billyboybliss, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Billyboybliss, good luck, and have fun. PamD 07:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 07:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annette Gough (March 22)[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 DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Too much unreferenced content, eg. the entire 'Other activities' and 'Personal life' sections have no citations. See WP:BLP for advice on referencing articles on living people.

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:Annette Gough 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Billyboybliss! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annette Gough (April 1)[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 Greenman was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:COI.

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:Annette Gough 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.

Greenman (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annette Gough (April 3)[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 Hoary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Quote: Her pioneering advocacy for a feminist perspective in environmental education started with her doctoral research and continues.^{[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]} The reader infers that seven reliable sources will attest to her pioneering advocacy, etc. But actually none is cited for this. Instead, each source is by Gough herself; and no writer is a reliable source for a claim for her own accomplishment, such as that she is, or was, a pioneer. ¶ Sources for Gough should not normally be by Gough, her associates or her employer; they should be by people independent of her. ¶ An assertion usually comes with just one reliable source; citing more than three is a pretty reliable indicator that something is very wrong. ¶ External links belong in references and perhaps in a very short list of "External links"; they don't belong in the body text.

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:Annette Gough 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.

Hoary (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annette Gough has been accepted[edit]

Annette Gough, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creep^Talk 21:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

I see that all your edits to the encyclopedia have been on this one article, Annette Gough. You have also included information, such as Gough's birth surname Wilkinson, which does not appear to be in any of the sources supplied. Do you have a connection with her as a friend, colleague, family member, etc? Please see Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest and tell us whether you have a COI in this article. Thanks. PamD 07:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pam, Yes. Professor Gough was my doctoral supervisor from 2013-2017. Can you advise how I might include that in the article? Kind Regards. Billyboybliss Billyboybliss (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't unless you have an article on WP and notable in your own right. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Gough[edit]

Hi @Billyboybliss: How are you. I was the editor who promoted your article in mainspace. I spent about 4-5 hours on the article in the last few days. I was planning to copyedit it, and thought it would be relatively quick process. However, there is barely any WP:SECONDARY souring on the subject and what is there is most WP:PRIMARY and very poor quality profiles, which are unsuitable as sources. That leave the problem of the current article. It cant' remain in mainspace in that state. I would suggest doing one of two thing. Either the article needs to be reduced to a stub. She is absolutely notable and as stub it can remain in mainspace until sufficient sources are available to expand it, in the future. The other choice to remove it back to AFC where you can work on the coming months. Unfortunately I don't think there is sufficient sources to work on it over time. Thrre just not a lot of secondary sourcing to make that worthwhile. I think WP:STUBIFYing is probably the best course. There is established consensus for this and it would allow it to remain in mainspace as a small article explaining who she is, the fact she has a AO and a description of her work. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scope. Thank you kindly for your invaluable time, helpful advice and the link to STUBS. I have already examined some of the stubs and will take stock of the other concerns that you have raised. I have other pressing issues that need my attention and will return to editing when I can. Regards. Billyboybliss Billyboybliss (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That fine. I'll stubify it myself sometime over the weekend. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Scope. You are generous in helping out. Billyboybliss (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]