User talk:RM2001ASO

Welcome!

Hi RM2001ASO! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm still working full time to save the planet Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.science.org/content/article/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power).

After my coworkers and investor $'s, Wikipedia is probably the most important support I have in that task. Wikipedia is important enough that I would spend a lot of my time working on it except for the aforementioned task where my hours are more valuable than hours spent editing Wikipedia, at least for now.

The reason I was motivated to edit the SpaceX Starship article is that I believe SpaceX Starship is at a crossroads right now, and I wanted to do something to help soften in the public eye what I am afraid might be a coming disaster. My whole professional career has been largely around aerospace in general, and specifically at making space flight affordable. SpaceX has done a great job thus far, and Starship is an admirable bold effort, but it could fail unfairly due to public/investor sticker shock.

The Super Heavy booster design with 33 engines is fairly likely to fail the first 3 to 10 times it is launched. This would be for the same complex reasons that the Russian N1 rocket failed Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) ) .

I can't predict the future but I suspect that more than 2 to 3 successive failures could unfairly mean the end of Starship, perhaps of SpaceX, perhaps of Tesla (I own a Tesla.) It should NOT be that way. The public needs to realize how risky the Starship is. It is far riskier than the Falcon series. It deserves to go forward through at least 5-10 successive failures. My fear is that it won't get that chance. My hope was to somehow through Wikipedia point out the extreme risk of the Starship 33 engine design so that people and investors are prepared for failures. Maybe Elon Musk will do that in his press conference this evening. I hope so.

I am not saying that as a rocket scientist I would have done the Starship design differently. The US Apollo program considered the many engine approach and took the 5 engine compromise with the Saturn 5. That approach involves much more upfront expense, billions of dollars, that SpaceX probably couldn't afford. The 33 engine approach is less expensive up front and less expensive in the long run, with a likely cost spike in the middle to get through the possible 3-10 failures. The key is to ride through the failures. A key there is properly perparing people, particularly the investors.

I hope Starship succeeds, but perhaps I can't help through Wikipedia.

RM2001ASO (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Draft:Elicit.org

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Draft:Elicit.org, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elicit.org (April 19)

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

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Only 1 source is independent. The other one is from the company itself.

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:Elicit.org 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.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RM2001ASO! 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! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Draft:Elicit.org

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Draft:Elicit.org, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elicit.org (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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:

References fail WP:ORGCRIT. Note that most AI companies are going to be newer and without significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT, most are unlikely to be notable. Some will be, but most will not.

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:Elicit.org 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Elicit.org

Hello, RM2001ASO. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elicit.org, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elicit.org (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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:

Adding more sources is not what is needed. Adding sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT is. Please be aware of WP:REFBOMBing. I would reduce the number of sources to only those meeting ORGCRIT and needed to support what is in the draft.

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:Elicit.org 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Elicit.org

Hello, RM2001ASO. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elicit.org".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]