Hi FlammablePizza! 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! ✗plicit 07:15, 28 May 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, Hurricane Wind and Fire, left the following feedback:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirects.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:System Era 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.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlammablePizza! 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! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FlammablePizza. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. You may also add a new section like == May 2026 == {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for best results. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which one? I've been pretty busy watching the recent change list and thought I warned everyone I reverted (well, the intentional vandals at least). FlammablePizza (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FlammablePizza: Additional autoconfirmed users can use Twinkle to reverting vandalism with pseudo-rollback. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I'll try it out when I am autoconfirmed. Found the person whose edit I reverted but didn't warn and warned them. FlammablePizza (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlammablePizza. I am responding to politely contest the removal of the change I suggested in the article for the Flag of Wichita, Kansas. First, the change I suggested was just a reversion of a recent change to the article. Secondly, I am a firm believer in citing sources, and the City of Wichita('s Chamber of Commerce) has never cited a source for this claim that they make in the source referenced in the article. Further, to my knowledge, they have never provided a source for this claim at any point in time (I have looked extensively for any justification for them to make this claim). Although it is accurate to say "The Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce states", it is not inaccurate to say that it is an unsubstantiated claim. And I believe that it is the most responsible statement to make at this time, until the City of Wichita (or anyone else) is able to provide some evidence. This has been discussed on the talk page for the article since 2024. ~2026-32238-83 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, please ignore what I said. I thought it sounded biased originally. While I'd personally prefer not to use words with such a negative/doubtful connotation when citing a fact from a source (perhaps better in this situation), the page has used such wording for a while and it carries the same meaning. Feel free to change it back at any time. FlammablePizza (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(

~2026-32453-77 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

) (Please do try to contribute helpfully to articles though. Plenty of articles that need improvement.) FlammablePizza (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia messing up my smiley face? FlammablePizza (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, I added sources from Indian governemnt. Second, I explained every edit.

It would be good if editors would keep the focus on the page. The article is about indians in Japan, not about indians in Malaysia, Singapore etc.

There's already another artcile about Japan-india relations.

India–Japan relations - Wikipedia

Everyhting about historical connections etc (if it doesn't concern migrants) should be on that page, not here.

An example of something which doesn't belong on this page as all follows here:

"Some scholars further argue that the sudden introduction of wet-rice agriculture and bronze metallurgy in Japan was catalyzed by these southern maritime routes, which moved technology from the Austroasiatic and Austronesian spheres of influence toward the Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu"

That is about a possible ancient trade route, involving Austroasiatic and Austronesians. Why it's on this page is a mystery. Please be careful not to go out of scope.

Wikipedia:Out of scope - Wikipedia

Also

WP:TOPIC

Stay on topic. Irrelevant material will be removed ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As @Discospinster said, please "discuss on talk page before removing such a large amount of text". Also, it appears that you are involved in a WP:Edit war, please read the 3 revert rule and discuss such a major and non-controversial change on the talk page before editing. And finally, refrain from using Copilot or any other AI. FlammablePizza (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• While contributing to Wikipedia i mean. FlammablePizza (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using ai for writing this.

It's non controversial to rmeove off topic content. ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If four users revert your edits AND it involves blanking large sections, it is potentially controversial. Also, the WP out of scope link you provided is the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Out_of_scope?utm_source=copilot.com. Copilot AI is the only thing that adds "?utm_source=copilot.com" to the URL. While you may or may not be writing articles with it (haven't checked), it is specifically forbidden to use AI on Wikipedia. FlammablePizza (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

First, all unsourced content should be removed per wiki policy. That's not up for discussion even.

Second, The article has recently expanded beyond the scope without discussion at all. I mostlry removed things that doesn't even have anything to do with neither india nor Japan, for example parts about austronesia. Thsi doesn't even have to be discussed beforehand. And did you read that there's another article about the same topic?

So when did the scope of the article starting to encopmas eveyrthing from spread of buddshim to other south asian cusine. And austronesian trade routes?

I dont't think it's forbiden to use copilot as a search tool now is it? I didn't write any article either.

Also, I did make a post on teh talk page about it ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if 1000 ucers said the earth is flat, doesn't make it right. We need reliable sources, no? ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But we also can't delete Flat Earth without a discussion first. Anyways, please wait and discuss it on the article's talk page with other editors. Just give it some time. FlammablePizza (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't think flat earth page should be deleted either of course, just it should be clear that it's not credible... My point is that many htings are out of scope, And I will discuss it on the talk page, and happy you're engaging in a discussion. It can easily get out of hand with like several editors against one. For me, it's just about sources being represented fairly, relibale sources, and on topic articles. Like an article about earth should not have a large section on Mars or Venus...

I would be happy if oyu could take a detialed look on the article indians in japan if you have time, i mean india japan relations already cover all in that case shouldn't they be merged? ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]