User talk:Blue nutcracker

Thanks for your contributions to Mariko Sasaki. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, thanks for pointing that out! I'd be happy to add more sources to the article. These are a few I have found so far:

https://teenworldarts.com/magazine/mariko-sasaki-swan-lake

https://www.prixdelausanne.org/prize-winners/mariko-sasaki/

https://bachtrack.com/review-swan-lake-royal-ballet-royal-opera-house-london-may-2024

I'll go ahead and make the changes Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the suggested changes and submitted it for review. Please have a look if you'd like. I welcome any other suggestions! Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blue nutcracker, do you have any conflicts of interest when it comes to Falun Gong and related topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't and to be honest I find it a little odd that you left this message on my talk page. Blue nutcracker (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think that it should have been left? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think the place was fine, I just didn't understand why you asked me this question. I didn't expect editing the Shen Yun page or discussing about changes on the talk page would be so stressful. I'm trying my best to take a little break and have been mainly focusing on bananas. Found out this recipe actually exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooking_banana&diff=prev&oldid=1248532642 if you care to try it haha.

If you're still interested in the discussion in the notice board, I will be working on a replacement of the paragraphs in question that uses the nbc sources instead of the braslow article and will include whatever claims they have in common, which will hopefully satisfy everyone. I guess I will post it on the shen yun talk page if its not ready by the time the noticeboard thread is archived. I will then suggest the new paragraph be moved to the media reception part as it makes more sense to be there than in the history section. It's not my intention to remove critical stuff from that page, I just thought poorly sourced claims in articles about people were a delicate issue around wikipedia based on my reading of some of the policies. I don't mind also mention of the braslow article lawsuit and retraction, but i dont know yet if it is even notable enough to be up there given that there's only one source? But I'll try to find more sources for it. If you have any, I'd appreciate them, it would save me time. If you have any other sources that echo similar claims, as I asked @Binksternet and @Bloodofox by all means send them my way. I'm sure eventually we'll figure out something that works out and everyone is happy. I am obviously new and not as experienced as some of you, so it's not my intention to stirr up trouble and tirelessly insist on my opinion without considering your concerns. I apologize if that's the impression you got as that's not what I'm here for. I'm looking forward to your feedback once I bring out the new paragraph and looking forward to your support in finding good sources. Blue nutcracker (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and I apologize for coming at you so strongly. Are you familiar with Falun Gong's history of abuse and disruption on wikipedia? Its the reason the regulars in the field are primed to see disruption and abuse... In general we have major problems with members of fringe religious groups like Falun Gong, Moonies, Mormons, and Scientologists and COI editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks! hey no worries at all! Actually I was not initially aware, but then when I started seeing the reaction my posts were getting I got curious and started looking around, and I just found some super long arbitration cases about people misbehaving and just arguing back and forth endlessly and then getting banned, sometimes permanently. And then I ran into some editors page who was talking about what a terrible experience it was to edit the articles on that specific topic, and I kinda felt bad for him/her, and started understanding why you guys reacted this way when I started working on the article. I feel sorry you guys had to deal with all that. I am definitely not interested in arguing and stressing people out or making changes without us working together.

What I am trying my best to do is to not be biased and to try to give that article a nice neutral pov because, when I first saw it, it said that Shen Yun was a "performance art and entertainment cult". I never heard of something like that. Objectively speaking, it sounds like a bit of an absurd descriptor. So I went into the citation source and found that the source didn't call it a cult but a non profit. That gave me the impression that there was something wrong with the article, and so I started making changes based on what I thought was ok, but I didn't know all the background or history and edit wars about these topics, and didn't know there were editors that cared or that it was such a contentious topic.

I am glad we're having these discussions whether on the talk page or the notice board. They've gotten a bit heated at times but at least people care and are interested in the topic, and so its nice to hear everyones opinion on the matter. Blue nutcracker (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sae Maeda, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Maliner (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm new, it would be really helpful if you could tell me how each of the sources I used doesn't meet the qualifications, otherwise I wouldn't know how to fix the issues as I thought they were appropriate and the article was published after a review. The article uses 4 sources so I thought it was enough in terms of notability. Is it just a matter of needing more sources, which I assume would make it more notable? I am not clear on what the problem is and am just left with an impression that there's some sort of problem with the sources. Could you please help me understand what's going on? Blue nutcracker (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the conversation in one place, I am replying on my own talk page. Maliner (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Mariko Sasaki 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.

Tavantius (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blue nutcracker! 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! Tavantius (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]