This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your recent editing history at Almas (folklore) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not accuse constructive editors of vandalizing articles as you did here, just because you are opposed to their edits; it is a personal attack. See our policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Vandalism. You are a new editor lecturing an experienced and knowledgeable editor (Bloodofox) about Wikipedia's principles; please think about it, and remember that Wikipedia goes by reliable sources (a link that Bloodofox has already given you). This is a warning from an administrator. Bloodofox is not an admin, by the way, and I don't know why you assume it and berate him for it. Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 11:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
This sort of bad-faith, wikistalking behavior is unacceptable. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing before editing any further. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Respected mam,
May, I conclude from the relevant communications that you are strongly dissuading me to contribute in Wikipedia further, even if I follow Wikipedia rules/ policies, known to my limited abilities, and following your instructions. Thanks and regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Mahamba (creature), does not have enough sources and citations 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Specs (creature) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In case you've found your sources online, it would be quite helpful to us who are trying to verify the information if the sources were to include URLs. Of course, offline sources are usable sources as well, but perhaps some of these you have found online.
You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, it makes it much easier to verify if sources are placed directly after the statments instead of all at the bottom of the article. This is not a requirement, but it does makes verification easier.
Page numbers are also quite helpful. I was unable to find any mention of the Irish wildcat in "Wild Sports of the West", which page were you citing there?
See you around, – Thjarkur (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The body of the article describes the creature as if it was a realistic entity. This is somewhat misleading for a folklore element. Please make clear that this is not about a real animal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I am failry certain that you have been copying articles from Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology by George M. Eberhart which has been pirated and is widely available in text format and presenting them here as your own creations. I only noticed it because Elbst contained such an obvious error that it was easy to find out where you got it from. This needs to stop. You cannot copy/paste copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello AranyaPathak, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Elbst have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vexations (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
AranyaPathak. If the scholarly consensus is as you say, there will be articles in Peer reviewed journals and books published by academic publishers to cite, But Mahamba references only a 19th century travel book, reflecting, presumably what the local people told the traveller through interpreters. That's not sufficient evidence to show that anybody believed anything or had any real cultural tradition. Looking at your articles most do not have anything approaching such references. The ones that do have modern refernces aare using references that are almost equallly unrelable, are are using genuine reliable references to establish incidental points. I see two possible ways to proceed:
Otherwise, I can predict on the basis of long years of experience here, that if you continue with them as you are doing at present, there is little chance they will be accepted as articles--even if they should somehow pass AfC, they'll be deleted at AfD. If I give you advice I have to give you realistic advice. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Draft talk:Vasstrollet. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Your comments towards me are a personal attack - repeated across 8 different pages. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 03:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ellengassen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellengassen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vexations (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Yaquaru (creature) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information in the article (and other similar articles created recently by editor) appears to be sourced from [2] pp 652.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Coje Ya Menia (creature) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information in article (and other similar articles created recently by editor) appears to be sourced from [3] pp 111-112.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Narrara (creature) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information in the article (and other similar articles created recently by editor) appears to be sourced from [4] pp 434.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Mithla (creature) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Kovoko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information in the article (and other similar articles created recently by editor) appears to be sourced from [5] pp 164.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Elbst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information in the article (and other similar articles created recently by editor) appears to be sourced from [6] pp 210
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, at least two editors have approached you regarding creating articles with subjects that do not meet WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. I think it would be beneficial for you to stop creating articles, spend some time reading and learning about notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and other guidelines such as WP:WWIN regarding creating articles. Your interest in cryptozoology makes this especially important since there is so much material that will never meet these guidelines. I also think going to the WP:TEAHOUSE and asking if someone is willing to mentor you would help. This will help you spend your time here more productively and enjoyably. // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coje Ya Menia (creature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coje Ya Menia (creature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mithla (creature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithla (creature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kovoko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kovoko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elbst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbst until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I have warned you against personal attacks before, higher up on this page. This attack is quite egregious. You have been blocked from editing for one week. People have been very patient with you. If you don't speak decently to other editors when you return from this block, the next block will be longer, perhaps indefinite. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 13:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC).
AranyaPathak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Respected Sir/Madam, At the concerned comment, my intention was to request not to personally attack me which User:Vexations was doing persistently. If that request has turned out as a personal attack, then I am apologizing unconditionally. Presently I have five articles - Ellengassen, Elbst, Mithla (creature), Kovoko, Coje Ya Menia (creature) which are under AfD discussion, where I have to defend them. Additionally, the Category:Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism is under CfD discussion which I have to defend as well. Further I have 20 articles to enrich, which are under the process of construction. Thus, I am earnestly requesting you kindly reconsider and unblock me as soon as possible. Thanks and Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
AS far as the immediate cause of the block (personal attacks) is concerned, you have not accepted that you have made personal attacks, even though it is blindingly obvious to anyone who checks that you have done so. Giving a non-apology apology (not apologising for making the attack, but apologising below "if the mentioned request sounded like a personal attack" (my emphasis), with slight difference in wording above as "If that request has turned out as a personal attack") if anything makes it worse. Nothing you say contains the slightest indication that you intend to do differently in future. If yo wish to do other editing, such as "defending" your articles, then you should have avoided behaving in a way which was likely to lead to your being blocked. In fact, considering all the other problems, in my opinion the only aspect of the block which might reasonably be subject to reconsideration is that it is for so short a time. I am largely in agreement with CaptainEek in that respect. JBW (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Respected sir CaptainEek - 1. May I please ask that what are those 'core policies' mentioned by you? 2. Any book 'from the 1700s' just for being so becomes 'wildly unsuitable'? 3. As I have been blocked, how can I place my defense? further, since your referred Timothy have nominated most of my articles for AfD, I am not getting defense for which article is asked for here. Thanks & Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Respected Sir/ Madam, as per the instruction of CaptainEek, the mentioned defense is under preparation. Thanks & regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Respected Sir/Madam
For defense, let's consider the article Kovoko,
i)Notability WP:N
The Original referrer of the Kovoko (referred as 'Bubu'), Livingstone is a notable person, his book is notable, characters (Chuma and Susi) from the book are notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.
ii)Reliability WP:RS
The book has its latest reprint on 2011. These many reprints wouldn't have been there if it wasn't WP:RS. Charles Pitman and SHIRCORE, J. O (other references used) are also notable persons and their works are satisfying WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:REPUTABLE. Furthermore, this book is also used in at least following five mainspace articles of Wikipedia as reference: History of slavery, Arab slave trade, Human tooth sharpening, Kazembe, Chuma and Susi.
iii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
iv) Verifiability WP:V
The references used are available for verification: African Affairs 43 - SHIRCORE, J. O., The last journals of David Livingstone in Central Africa (Vol II) , A report on a faunal survey of Northern Rhodesia
v) Alternative of Deletion
The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article is under-construction and is in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.
vi) Good Faith and New Comer
Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.
vii) WP:Copyvio
Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.
Thanks Regards,
--AranyaPathak (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
For the charges mentioned by CaptainEek-
a)Original Research
The article Kovoko is definitely not WP:OR since it does not violate "Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research."
The reference list ( 1 primary and 2 secondary sources) of the article Kovoko comply WP:PSTS, which is "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".
c)No Personal Attack
It is under-clarified in WP:NPA that if requesting to refrain from personal attack is an instance of personal attack itself. Additionally, I don't have any intention to hurt anyone and if anyone has gotten hurt inadvertently, I have apologized unconditionally already and I am always ready to do the same in future under the similar unfortunate circumstances. --AranyaPathak (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Respected Sir/Madam,
I only asked a fellow user/editor from refraining himself from persistent personal attack for which I have been accused of personal attack and have been blocked; however, I have apologised unconditionally if the mentioned request sounded like a personal attack; in response to my unblock request I have presented a defence for one of my articles; further, I have answered for the additional charges brought against me; now, I have eight number of articles created by me to enrich, discuss and defend as they are under AfD; besides, I do have a category created by me to defend and discuss; but I am getting deprived of that oppurtunity owing to my blocked status; if due to this effective denial of defence, concerned articles/category get deleted then my sincere, honest, hard labor as a new user in this forum for past two weeks will be lost, which appears to be extremely unfair and unjust; further, it goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia to my humble understanding. it is my earnest appeal that kindly take the matter under consideration on urgent basis.
Thanks and Regards,
Note: it can be observed that some of my fellow more experienced users are apparently giving a profile/portrait of me within the community which is furthest from the truth; all my communications as a new user with my fellow users over the past two weeks are strictly content specific and in the spirit of dialogue/discussion/debate; I have never failed to acknowledge any positive contribution, obeying instructions, listening to constructive advice/criticism from my fellow users; I have only respect and admiration for my fellow users and eagerness to learn from them so I can contribute more effectively in this reputed forum; if I ever sounded negative it owes solely due to the frustration of my expectations from my fellow more experienced users for those I have such high regards. --AranyaPathak (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
For AfD discussion for article Ellengassen, the deletion discussion has almost taken a final shape. I had a comment to make to the query of Vexations which I am mentioning here since I don't know when I will be unblocked: Please see: Greek and Latin Etymologies; Author(s): Francis A. Wood; Source: Classical Philology , Jan., 1908, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan., 1908), pp. 83; Point 28; Published by: The University of Chicago Press. - "Lat. olor 'swan' etc. (cf. Walde s. v.) probably received the name from the color. Compare OHG. elo 'gelb,' Lat. al-bus, etc. So also the following: Lat. albus, etc.: OHG. albiz, elbiz 'Schwan,' etc.-Av. xvan- 'shine': OHG., OE. swan 'swan' (cf. Uhlenbeck Ai. Wtb. s. v. svdnati).. " --AranyaPathak (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Vexations (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, "AranyaPathak, can you read German? Where did you get the idea that albiz means "swan"? What was your source? Vexations (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)"- This is self explanatory. --AranyaPathak (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Narrara (creature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narrara (creature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Specs (creature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specs (creature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yaquaru (creature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaquaru (creature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Due to the prevailing highly unfortunate exigent circumstances I am incapable of participating in the AfD discussions of eight of my articles (Ellengassen, Elbst, Mithla (creature), Kovoko, Coje Ya Menia (creature), Narrara (creature), Specs (creature) and Yaquaru (creature)) or in the process of their planned enrichments ; thus, I am hereby imploring kindly to move those articles to draft space; further, a rich and vibrant discussion is going on over a created category of mine under CfD from which I am estranged, separated; again I am beseeching hereby to kindly defer the date of closure for the same or re-enlist it. Thanks and regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Since, the closure date of AfD discussion for Ellengassen has almost come and I am estranged from the discussion, I am placing my comment in regard to the ongoing discussion here, as I have done before for one of my articles under instruction:
i)Notability
The Original referrer of the Ellengassen, Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard is notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in the Cambridge Natural History Reference and A Yankee in Patagonia are reputed and reliable secondary sources.
ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
iii) WP:BEFORE Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.
iv) Alternative of Deletion The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD.
v) Good Faith and New Comer Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.
vi) WP:Copyvio Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.
vii) Regarding Merger Proposal As mentioned before, Mylodon (had been traced back 10,000 years ago) and Ellengassen (reported around 1897) are not the same, thus merging will not be proper.
viii) Regarding "Precedence Creation" If it is a a question of "precedence creation" then the concerned article do have many precedence (e.g. Big Ghoul – found by a random but related search) but if it gets deleted (don't even survive in draft form) then it will definitely create a precedence that might make extremely problematic the survival of the hundreds of existing Wikipedia articles; which obviously is highly undesirable; and should be avoided.
Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to reigning exigent situation, otherwise there would have been no requirement for this debate. --AranyaPathak (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Since, the closure of the CfD is ensuing and I am estranged from the discussion, I am placing my comment in regard to the ongoing discussion and in reference to the question asked by Marcocapelle here, as I have done before for one of my articles under instruction:
I can only try to unpack my otherwise too compact initial defence here -
the creatures under consideration -
neither, fictional as the sources are nonfiction thus not a creature of imagination.
nor, creature of error (highly likely) due to lack of concomitant demonstration and explanation/verification/ absence of refutation completeness.
further, they are inadmissable to the categories of myth/legend/lore due to criteriological restrictions/constraints.
hence, creature of belief (creatures lacking in verifiable/objective existence).
why these creatures should remain confined solely within the ambit of a pseudoscience/subculture (in a strictly non pejorative sense) is a question that demands a compelling answering from the objector.
if one needs to forge a relationship between creatures of belief and cryptozoological creatures (which is outside my current scope) then the relation necessarily should be of subsumption, definitely not the other way round as the descriptions of these creatures precedes their cultural reception (cryptozoology).
the specificity/uniqueness of these creatures is undeniable; thus they need a separate class/category especially in relation to my current project/work.
merger will only exacerbate already existing massive category confusion in the relevant field/area/domain.
any proposed merger should be deferred for the time being as the demanded debate/discussion is premature to my opinion.
however, I am always open for a subsection of my articles designated for cultural reception (where cryptozoological cultural enthusiasts may contribute, preferably acknowledging the lack of verifiable/objective existence of the creatures concerned).
Note: All the accounting figures are result/consequence/effect of a tensed dialectic of enlightenment and counter enlightenment, portraying them as innocent/naive/gullible is possibly an instance of historiographical violence.--AranyaPathak (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/32964 is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I have two suggestions regarding unblock requests. Whether you wish to take any notice of either or both of them is, of course, totally up to you, but I sincerely offer them in the hope they may help you to understand better what kinds of unblock requests are likely to succeed.
As I said above, you are free to take notice of this advice or not, but I hope it may be helpful to you. JBW (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
In our forum the standard/quality of the articles is heterogeneous/widely varying/non-uniform; as a new contributor the purpose of publishing the concerned articles in their generic form (within the stricture/restrictions of instructions) following the relevant guidelines were twofold - first, to estimate the appropriate standard/quality from the community response, community demand and expectation; second, to make the articles intensely collaborative.
Thanks to our community the mentioned purpose for now can be considered partially fulfilled; partially because the process of simultaneous planned enrichment of the concerned articles got interrupted; however my gratitude for all the content specific suggestions; stringent, even acerbic content related criticisms deserves special mentioning here; I would have love to participate in a 'heated' debate; but, the circumstances somehow appears to be not congenial to an open and free argumentation (fault aught to be entirely mine).
In fact to confess right now I am simply scared; afraid of participating in any content related activity for the time being (again, fault aught to be entirely mine); possibly, an instance of 'integration problem'.
But, in future if I am allowed to stay within the community and permitted to contribute then I would very much like to follow the model mentioned; with the number of passes/iteration/repetition determined by the community as well as the associated resulting quality.
I believe this 'model' is no innovation; it is the implicit time honoured tradition of our forum; again my gratefulness to the community for their affirmative participation; if the concerned articles survive and reach the desired "feature" quality then obviously the credit will go to the community and community only, I just want and hope to be a part of it by satisfying demands and expectations, incorporating affirmative suggestions, engaging with productive/constructive criticisms while incrementally adding up the materials already prepared for the contents if I am allowed/permitted to do the same.--AranyaPathak (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
[If this communication causes anyone any inconvenience then my sincere regrets in apprehension.]