User talk:LightningThrower

	Archives: no archives yet (create)
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

		The Username Barnstar
		-- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! LightningThrower (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been removing stuff from your talkpage. This is allowed, it's your talkpage and you can remove most things you don't want there. But it's preferred that you let them stay and just archive old stuff, Help:Archiving (plain and simple) can help you with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll consider it.

--LightningThrower (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LightningThrower. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

No notability shown, no context given as to what the list is about. I can't even properly move this to draft space, because I can't sus out what the title is supposed to be.

Next steps

• Edit User:LightningThrower/sandbox/1 to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sulfurboy.

Sorry, the title was meant to be this: "List of Loricifera species". I didn't know where to put it because normally the url would be the title.

How is WoRMS not a reliable source? Should I link every subpage?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Its been approved now. When you dont' give any context or correctly drafty a page, we can't sus out what the list is supposed to be for. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Sorry, that's on me.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, LightningThrower! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

List of Loricifera species, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.

Future articles

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

• 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.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, LightningThrower,

Thank you for creating List of Loricifera species.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is a nice article. It just needs to have some categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Barbara (WVS)}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 16:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Wataloricus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Mariamnei.

Sorry, I must have forgot to add that. I'll move the page back after adding the source.

Thanks! LightningThrower (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, LightningThrower, for your support on the ANI page. I am extremely disinterested from actually contributing to any further discussion there. However, since you mentioned that you might make certain changes to the edit in question, I will just semi-briefly tell you why I have merely performed reverts (albeit once with a slight qualification) rather than changed it. First of all, I will admit that, yes, the edit (photo caption) is unusually long. However, not that you have debated it, but a synthesis of Wikipedia policy and common definition of common terms puts the length of the caption in an area proximal to generally acceptable limits. Just because it looks long and against convention doesn't mean that it's against policy (again, I repeat, this is something I'm saying, in general, and not an arguing point against you because I think that you are taking a fair and balanced look at things). I will state, however, that there are multiple reasons that I have merely reverted rather than modified it, including but not limited to:

1) It is more user-friendly if all of the information and presentation is there in the same place, and splitting it up with notes works against that and works against the integrity of the edit, including future edits;

2) Although I actually have at least 5 more sources, (some of which I already had, others of which I found since I made that edit roughly a month ago), all within the public domain, including a photograph, that further support the implied suggestion in that caption that multiple of the early Austro-Hungarian/Czech/Bohemian gymnastics stars were not Czech/Bohemian and possibly not even Austro-Hungarian, if I were to add them with explanations, they would further lengthen the photo caption by a good bit. Also, some of those sources are from dates not relevant to (meaning that they were actually from "well before") the 1911 Worlds. So, all of the combined facts at hand could metastasize well beyond the parameters of an article on the 1911 Worlds. That could mean that perhaps the material in the edit belongs somewhere more prominent, but that brings up a whole other batch of issues, including how exactly to frame a bigger edit, being very careful about word choice, including at least one more picture, etc. Currently, I am far from motivated, especially by means of negative reinforcement (as opposed to opposite reinforcement), to take on such an ambitious edit, especially if it is to attract contentious edits. As it is, I feel like the material I have introduced sufficiently makes the point for any interested parties.

If you do decide to work on it, feeling that you can make an improvement, go ahead. But I would appreciate it if you would keep the above points in mind. QuakerIlK (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @QuakerIlK, I'll try to keep your points in mind if I edit it.

Really fast, just a suggestion, sometimes your comments do look a little bit like walls of text. Like your sentence here:

Although I actually have at least 5 more sources, (some of which I already had, others of which I found since I made that edit roughly a month ago), all within the public domain, including a photograph, that further support the implied suggestion in that caption that multiple of the early Austro-Hungarian/Czech/Bohemian gymnastics stars were not Czech/Bohemian and possibly not even Austro-Hungarian, if I were to add them with explanations, they would further lengthen the photo caption by a good bit.

It's kind of a run on sentence, try using more periods and less commas. It may improve the readability of your comments.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Miramar Regional Park Amphitheater, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.

Future articles

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

• 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.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Balabush (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello LightningThrower! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Should I comment?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay LightningThrower (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply