User talk:InterstellarGamer12321/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:InterstellarGamer12321. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi InterstellarGamer12321! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pax85 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. 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:

With the sources provided, the subject does not meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) or the criteria established specifically for astronomical objects (WP:NASTCRIT). The first source focuses on the topic only for one paragraph. Sources two and three do not establish notability. Source four works well - we need a couple of more sources like that one. Doing a quick search, I think they may be out there. Also, while not strictly required for approval, having the star infobox would be a nice addition.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SSSPM J0829-1309 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:SSSPM J0829-1309, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Pax Verbum 03:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is InterstellarGamer12321, the person who created the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SSSPM_J0829-1309 Thank you for reviewing the draft. I have added a star info box though I am still adding information and references. I am sifting through all the references I can find for good verifiable information. So far I have 7 references and the article size is around 5,000 bytes, although I am regularly editing it so these statistics may change. I have also resubmitted it for review. My only query is the fact that although this does not necessarily meet general notability guidelines (at least not with the 4 references I had for my old submission), there is still an article on it in the Polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSSPM_J0829-1309) and also the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSSPM_J0829%E2%88%921309). What is even weirder is the fact that both of these articles have less references. Does this mean mine should be accepted or should these other articles be removed? Many Thanks InterstellarGamer12321

FYI I only saw this post by chance- it will be much more likely get attention if you mark it as a help request with {{help me}}, or ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk. To answer you, all that means is that the Polish and German Wikipedia have different standards, editors, and policies. What is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another. It depends on the policies for that particular version. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by RandomCanadian was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The sources added since last time do not seem to include much if any significant coverage (the L2V standards page only lists it as basically a data-point in determining the spectral standards of that class; livingfuture.cz looks like a database; and the German site is not accessible to me, although looking from the google search results seems like a mirror of the German Wikipedia [in one direction, or the other], so not acceptable). The only source which seems to provide significant coverage would be the discovery paper [whose citation is not correctly given, fwiw] (source no. 2), as noted last time. What else I can find that is not already here looks like either other language Wikipedias or Wikipedia mirrors, or trivial mentions and another page by the same authors as those who discovered this. Sadly, it looks like this stellar object simply is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines: as are many other thousands upon thousands of them...

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

=)

Bli231957 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

t

Bli231957 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

	huiooujj
	iojhihil Bli231957 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you have been doing some excellent work on the templates as they look great. In other words they match the ones I was doing. But, and there's always a but, according to Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines "Templates...used on only one page...may be nominated for deletion". One thing you could do is use the {{Arviat weatherbox}} and {{Rankin Inlet weatherbox}} at Kivalliq Region to start a climate section. This would give each template a second use and protect against deletion. It could be done with any community in the Kivalliq and with the Kitikmeot Region and the Qikiqtaaluk Region Some other weatherboxes are an Iqaluit box for use in Apex, Iqaluit as well. Cambridge Bay and Ulukhaktok in Victoria Island. Coral Harbour in Southampton Island. Those are just off the top of my head. There must be more in eastern Canada. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I did Iqaluit and Apex. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to say that the English Lake District is in England, that should be obvious. It also makes your short descriptions too long; you should be aiming for 40 characters or less. Please say either "the English Lake District" or "the Lake District, ..., England" but not both. Thanks.  Dr Greg  talk  17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for making my short descriptions too long. I had copied it off of one of the already existing short descriptions on one of the fells. I will make sure not to mention England twice from now on. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sweden into Geography of Sweden. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added some {{copied}} templates to article talk pages, and I will make sure to put attribution in future edit summaries. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, on Geography of Honduras — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn’t directly copied and pasted material onto Geography of Honduras from Hurricane Mitch. Only the references were copied. I had modified the actual text. Am I meant to put attribution if I copy references? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. This is the edit in question, which contains both text and citations.

Another example where you copied without providing attribution is this edit. Please remember to mention in the edit summary where you got the content if you copy within Wikipedia in the future Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - this was my mistake for not seeing that I had copied text in these edits. Over the past month I have put attribution in several edit summaries and added multiple {{copied}} templates to talk pages. Sometimes I copy text and references from an article to another article where content is missing - usually I change the text and references significantly before adding so that it is suitable for the article. However, sometimes I do not. I will make sure to be more careful with my edits from now on whenever I copy text. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you've created a bunch of redirect and associated talk pages for short Bayer designations of stars. Thanks for that! When adding the astronomy banner to the talk page, please be aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Importance_ratings#Importance_scale states that "Pages that are not articles, such as categories, redirects or projects" should have importance ratings of 'NA' , not 'low'. Modest Genius ^talk 14:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for putting an importance rating on the redirect talks. I will make sure to put NA-Importance for any redirect talks I create from now on. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Modest Genius ^talk 17:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I second the thanks. I'm going through now and setting those importance ratings to 'na'. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)