Misplaced Pages

User talk:BrocadeRiverPoems: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:54, 9 November 2024 editThought 1915 (talk | contribs)190 edits →Here's a barnstar!: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Revision as of 21:55, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:BrocadeRiverPoems/2024/(monthname)s) (botNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
=== Proposed decision posted === === Proposed decision posted ===
In the open ] arbitration case (also called ''Yasuke''), the ] 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 ]. For a guide to the proposed decision, see ]. ] ] 00:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC) In the open ] arbitration case (also called ''Yasuke''), the ] 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 ]. For a guide to the proposed decision, see ]. ] ] 00:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Kindly requesting you self-revert ==

Hi, and hope you're doing well. May I kindly ask you please revert your tagging of socks at ] and ]? From the first bullet point under ]: {{tq|Do not place tags on their talk or user pages. There are a number of different tags that can be used, and often there are reasons why tags shouldn't be used}}. Thank you! ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:Oh, okay. I had seen it done elsewhere and assumed it was just a typical thing to do. Done and done. <b>]</b> 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:That said, I am slightly confused because ] said {{tq|Tag the sockmaster's user page – Unless otherwise directed, the sockmaster needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done.}} and {{tq|Appropriately tag the sock puppet's user page – Unless otherwise directed to, the sock puppet needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done.}} which gives the impression that they need to be tagged? <b>]</b> 20:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. (My understanding is that SOCKTAG is for Checkusers.) ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Oooh, okay. Thanks! <b>]</b> 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

== Your submission at ]: ] (September 28) ==
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> ]Your recent article submission to ] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Ktkvtsh was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This submission's references do not show that the subject ]—that is, they do not show ''significant'' coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in ''published'', ], ] sources that are '']'' of the subject (see the ]). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see ] and learn about ] when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Misplaced Pages.|}}<!--
--
--> 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''.
{{clear}}
* If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to ] 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 ].
* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any ] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the <span class="plainlinks"></span>, on the <span class="plainlinks"></span> or use ].

] (]) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

:@] I am slightly confused by this as I had asked the last reviewer if the fact that she had an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese women (which I included in the recent draft), meet the notability requirement, and the last reviewer said yes, it would per ] {{special:Diff/1248224834}}. I wouldn't have submitted it again if not for the fact that I had been told it met notability? <b>]</b> 23:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::The sentence "Little is known about the life of Han E" is what makes me decline your draft. I recommend removing that and resubmitting. ] (]) 13:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Very well, I only included it because it was what the sources say. For instance, the Biographical Dictionary says {{tq|Although little is known about her, as a talented singer whose singing had such a tremendous effect on her audience Han'e occupies an important place in the history of Chinese women. The phrase "reverberating around the beams for three days" (rao liang san ri), which is frequently used to praise someone's singing, is a direct reference to her.}}. <b>]</b> 04:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Understood. If you disagree with me, you can resubmit and another reviewer will take a look. ] (]) 14:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oh, I don't disagree. I changed the wording. I was just explaining why I had used it in the first place. The subject is a confusing thing for me because I teeter back and forth between whether or not it needs an article. The subject is recorded, but only seemingly in a Taoist manuscript. They seemingly meet ] by being in the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women, but there really is little record of their historical life beyond what seems to be a folktale recorded in the Taoist manuscript. However, Han'e ends up being mentioned later on by others, with talented singers being compared to Han'e or being called Han'e reincarnated, she is credited with creating an entire style of singing that became popular in the State of Qi in the Taoist Manuscript, but ''Mencius'' attributes the style to someone else, and there's an entire popular idiom in Chinese that is a reference to her. That said, almost all of the sources relating to Han'e admits that the stories about her are exagerrated at best or just folklore and fictive at worst. Even the name "Han'e" might not even be her actual name but rather a title because I have seen it translated as "Beauty of Han" and she is from the State of Han. At this point I have exhausted my ability to find any more sources that describe her, so if it doesn't pass muster this time than my first instinct that the article should have been deleted is probably correct. <b>]</b> 03:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


== Your submission at ]: ] (October 3) == == Your submission at ]: ] (October 3) ==

Revision as of 21:55, 9 November 2024


Archives

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here's a barnstar!

The Special Barnstar
I thank you for continuing to have a presence in the editing of 15.ai. Your responses to many of claims in talk pages and when others were involved were very calm in spite of possible hostility. While I am not completely sure how Barnstars work, I feel quite sure you deserve one. Thought 1915 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)