User talk:BrocadeRiverPoems/2024/October

Archives

Your submission at Articles for creation: Han E (Gējì) (October 3)

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

Rewording a sentence isn't really going to help with notability.

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:Han E (Gējì) 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.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 15.ai

15.ai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted

In the open Backlash to diversity and inclusion arbitration case (also called Yasuke), the proposed findings and remedies have been posted—though you are not mentioned in any of them (aside from your evidence). If you wish, you may review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over on Hirohito

In the past, you have pointed out that I have a tendency to get combative with other editors. How would you suggest dealing with an editor such as this one who shows little signs of compromise even when I've tried to explain why the statement he's making is misleading? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest? I'd just WP:DISENGAGE. On a glance my instinct is that a significant number of historians seems to qualify as MOS:WEASEL, though MOS:WEASEL does say it's not automatically weasel to use those words. If you're adamant that some sort manner of contention should be demonstrated, you can try to locate a source that utilizes similar language that many historians believe Hirohito was culpable and attribute the claim. In short, per WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to provide sources that verify there are an equally large number who argue he was merely a passive figure, and thus the contention. Until you can provide sources to support the edit, they're perfectly within policy to remove the edit.

Once you have located appropriate sources, simply create a Talk Page thread detailing your rationale and the sources you've found that support representing the claim was contested. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]