User talk:Bo2pup

Hello, Bo2pup!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) Bo2pup (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niall J. English, 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.

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!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Memer15151 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more reliable sources; one is not enough.

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:Numrud Muhatasov 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.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bo2pup! 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! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Baker Barnes, 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.

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!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe Thanks a lot. I will prefer to keep using Wikipedia:Articles for creation till I am confident enough to have my own publication, would that be alright? Bo2pup (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly ok. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Sorry, I think it's really unlikely that you'll be able to show that this meets our notability guidelines.

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:Matchpoint NYC 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.

asilvering (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bo2pup. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Daniel W. Nebert, 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:Bo2pup. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bo2pup|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. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Russ Woodroofe, hopefully you are doing well. Firstly, I don't have any conflict of interest (COI) with Daniel W. Nebert's page. Secondly, you have removed my edits which I believe to be in accordance to Wikipedia norms and policies, as far as I know. Kindly refer to the following, and guide me if I am wrong:

1) Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Selected publication section in professor articles

2)User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher#Step 1. Start the article (For article's structure)

Thirdly, I am citing the following pages as a reference to creating a "Selected Publication Section"

David A. Hafler

Rae Langton

John Swinton (theologian)

Catherine L. Besteman#

Fourthly, I used Google Scholar as a reference to the selected publication, as mentioned above, it is not necessary to cite any reference to publication, as by definition, "Selected Publication Section" is comprise of most cited publication.

Lastly, you also reverted my edits last Saturday (according to the country I live in)... as far as I know, "National library of Medicine", "NIEHS News", and "Research.com" are independent platforms. However, you removed them under "rm repeated ref; rm self-published memoirs with no apparent reviews", Kindly explain.

P.S. I do understand that I am new here and have a lot to learn, I also, understand that my understanding of the policies are not as strong as yours, as you are more senior than me.

Thank you. Bo2pup (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for slow response -- real life interfered. The article could support a "Selected publications" section. My main concern is that the section you added was overlong, with no clear selection criterion. About 3 articles, with a selection criterion could be appropriate. The award section should contain only career highlight awards. It was significantly trimmed (with good reason) when the article was at AfD. It is possible that it could be expanded slightly, but I think you should open a talk page discussion before doing so. I am doubtful about several of the awards you added. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand. Well, my selection criteria was the same as mentioned in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Selected publication section in professor articles. I used the most cited articles first then decending order from there. This is why I also cited Google scholar, as there is the number of citation given. So, if there is no issue with Publication section, can I restore it?

As for the awards' section, I will open a discussion on the talk page. I do understand that I am new here, and my understanding of the policies would not be as good as someone experienced like you.

I apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you.

P.S. I will restore the publication section in few hours, and will mention this discussion on the talk page. Bo2pup (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how you stumbled upon the Nebert article? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Look2cool per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Look2cool. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]