Archives

(Talk page archives) Archives index page Archive 1: 04/05/23 - 12/31/23 Archive 2: (planned future)

Thanks for your contributions to List of Elon Musk's predictions. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has original research, likely fails our notability guidelines for lists, and is unfinished. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ^Queenof_Hearts 03:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my reply in the next topic section below. Thanks,Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again @Queen of Hearts:,

I've now attempted to make the article more balanced by including one of Musk's accurate predictions, and done some other tidying up there. I then submitted the article for review so it could be put back into the "Main Article Space." I will not move the article back to the "Main Article Space," because it was moved to "Draft Space" with no real discussion at all, and I don't want to get blamed again for doing something that I don't understand, or to be blamed again for something that no one is willing to tell me what it is.

As far as I can tell, Elon Musk is a very notable person whose predictions are noteworthy, and there is no OR in that article. Yes the article could be lengthened, but typically overly short articles are lengthened rather than moved to draft space as far as I know. In fact I was in the process of lengthening it when it got moved by you to draft space.

I will wait for either you or some other qualified person to move it back to the "Main Article Space." I would very much like to know whether or not you think the article is ready for our "Main Article Space," and why or why not?

Thanks kindly,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OR?

Hi Queen of Hearts,

I apologize, but could you please tell me what was OR on that page that you just deleted about Elon Musk's predictions? I haven't got a clue what was OR on that page when you deleted it, and I've been editing on Wikipedia for long enough to know better. I know that you probably have too much work and not enough time to do what you are being asked to do, and I do appreciate the work that you do as an admin, but I really don't think there was any OR on that page at the time that you deleted it.

Thanks kindly,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: And if you concur with my assessment here, could you please put the page back? Thanks again, Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Elon Musk's predictions (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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:List of Elon Musk's predictions 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Lighthumormonger! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Beshogur:,
When I first started studying Osman I back in the 70's, as I recall in the literature of that day, he was then often referred to as Othman, and in fact that was the spelling of the name by which I first became familiar with "Othman I." I have no idea why you feel people should not know about this other once popular spelling of his name, but I will trust in your own best judgment here.
I do not like to confront others, because ultimately that never makes me feel any better. I do however still like to state my views though, whether they might ever be accepted or not (and whether or not they might ever amount to anything more than a little doo-doo along the way). May we all make Wikipedia one of mankind's greatest ideas!
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lighthumormonger: sorry for misunderstanding. I had to be more precise. Normally Othman is already present. I didn't see someone putting in a note. You can see it yourself, it's still present. Mentioning Othman is an Arabic name is irrelevant imo. It's already mentioned below. Beshogur (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are happy with it, then so am I. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Sdsds:,
Thank you so much for pointing out the need to do better with that one cite at the Nova-C article. I noticed that your Talk page is sort of out of order, and if you would like I would be happy to help you archive it tomorrow. If you would like to take a look at how I set up my archives, I would certainly be happy to help you to set up the rest of yours in the same manner.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: I live in California and I noticed that you live in Washington state, so we're in the same time zone. Name a time tomorrow or some other day, and if you wanted, I could probably help you archive it then.

Yes, my user talk page is something of a mess — thanks for the offer to help! Since I prefer using article talk pages for most topics it isn't a high priority for me. I'll take a peek at what you've done and see if mimicking it would be a good approach. (sdsds - talk) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've set up my Talk page archives so that so far I'm only archiving annually. But that is a matter of personal preference of course. I'm curious as to why you stopped archiving your talk pages the way you had started archiving them way back in 2007? Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I know a little bit about coding, and if you wanted, this could be a good excuse for me to dive in and figure out how to automate both of our talk pages. I would only automate yours after I have successfully automated mine, and of course with your permission only. If you might be interested, please let me know. For some reason, I find that it's usually easier for me to accomplish most things when I'm doing them for more than just "for my own self." Maybe that's why I've stuck around here for so long, who knows? I really love this "slightly horrible" place and I can't quite figure out why! 🤔
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Sdsds:,
Thank you for the brilliant idea that I should close the discussion first. I've been here long enough that I should have known that, but I had forgotten. It would probably take me one or two hours to fix your Talk page with annual archives, but to each his own. If you didn't like the way it looked after I was done, you could always revert it and of course I would have no problem with that. Please let me know if you might ever want me to fix that.
In appreciation,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking action! I wonder about the use of italics in the title. (Compare with Ford Mustang.) I do believe the move will be uncontroversial, and the reason for prompt action, i.e. the upcoming launch, is documented in the discussion.

Regarding auto-archiving a talk page: it's easy with a page in the main Talk namespace using user:Cluebot III. Long ago user:shadowbot3 did it for User Talk pages; maybe cluebot is too busy for that? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the fact that the new article title is italicized, I figured out how to de-italicize it, and I de-italicized it.
I thought a little bit further about the value of automating my Talk page archive process. I think I'm going to stay with doing manual archiving on my own Talk page for now. I decided this because I like the idea of forcing myself to have to be combing through all of the discussions on my Talk page, and then weeding out anything that seems to be distracting or unnecessary. I believe I have enough time to do this once or twice a year.
If I was an admin or something like that who gets lots of talk page discussions, then I would probably want to have my talk page automated. I'm still going to try and take it upon myself to learn how to automate archives here, one way or another. I've done a little bit of computer programming in my life and I'm pretty sure I could do it. Perhaps you might not want to be my "guinea pig" with this (and I can't say as I blame you.) Perhaps a regular article would be a good place to start learning about this. If I ever master it, I'll let you know.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It worked just fine [here]. Cluebot responded ~6 hours later and did some work [here]. Response times may vary, of course! ;-)

I would take it as a favor if you joined WP:Spaceflight and took a look at what's wrong with the Talk pages there that prevent the built-in "Reply" functionality from working right.... (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello once more @Sdsds:,
I just joined the Spaceflight Project where I plan on staying active for about a month. Thank you very much for the generous invitation. The first page that I could find that had that problem was at the Talk:Artemis program page. Apparently whoever wrote the Sigmabot archiver did it before the "reply on Talk page" feature was created, and whoever wrote the reply feature code, did not write it so that it would be compatible with the older Sigmabot archiver.
I don't know who wrote the "reply feature" code, but that would be the person that could probably fix it most quickly and efficiently, if they had the time (and money) to do so. You wouldn't happen to know who wrote that "reply code" software, would you?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: @Sdsds:, I think I found out exactly why they're incompatible, but it's too late for me to be working on this now. I will work on it tomorrow. Thank you for the challenge.😊 Lighthumormonger (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]