User talk:AranyaPathak/Archive01

July 2020

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)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

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).

Some information for you

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).

Rachel Fulton Brown

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)

@Bloodofox: This seems WP:BITE, WP:INTIM, WP:EW, WP:NINJA, WP:DIS, WP:AOBF, WP:CPUSH. WP:PA. Please see the comment of admin]].

AranyaPathak, it's a mystery to me why you refer Bloodofox to my comment on my page. What I told you there was to listen better to Bloodofox;[1] I didn't ask you to harass him, for instance by going to articles he has created and putting an absurd number of unsuitable tags on them. Or to try to drown him in a sea of blue, as you do just above with your list of links. I'm afraid WP:BITE does not mean we have unlimited tolerance for bad behavior by new users. If I see further signs that you are wikihounding Bloodofox and/or trying to get revenge on him for opposing your edits, I will block you from editing. I hope that's quite clear. Bishonen | tålk 18:59, 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)

Not at all. If you do follow our rules/policies, such as WP:HOUNDING, and if you edit collaboratively (Wikipedia is a collaborative project), you are very welcome to contribute here. Since your knowledge of editing principles is understandably limited (we all understand that you're new), I would have thought there is all the more reason for you to listen to what experienced editors tell you. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Mahamba (creature) moved to draftspace

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)

Respected sir,thank you for reviewing the page, and pointing out that it needs more relevant citations along with information, yes it is work in progress. I am facing some problems contributing here, if it is ok with you can I share. Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Seconding what DGG said above, and adding that articles on mythical creatures need to be crystal clear on them being a myth. I have therefore moved several new similar creations to draft: Draft:Vasstrollet, Draft:Maipolina, Draft:Ahul (creature), Draft:Olitiau, Draft:Fangalabolo, Draft:Cuero (creature), and Draft:Circhos. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, though in common usages myth, legend, lore -these terms are often interchangable/substitutable; but, there lies obvious distinction between them; creatures under consideration to my understanding fails to satisfy the criteria to belong within the categories of myth/legend/lore; please do reflect and deliberate on the fact; and revert your changes on the pages concerned; naturally, it is a work in progress, a little bit of patience and consideration will be much appreciated. Also, as per my limited understanding, possibly the movements to draft are not as per WP:DRAFTIFY. Also, requesting DGG to kindly intervene and kindly allow me the space to contribute positively.--AranyaPathak (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as it isn't abundantly clear that water trolls and other creatures are considered fictional by the vast majority of science, this can't remain in main space. Also, if the sole sources are fringe cryptzoology compendiums then it is unlikely to be notable.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix please continue the further discussions in the respective talk pages links provided - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Vasstrollet ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cuero_(creature) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Circhos , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Maipolina, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Fangalabolo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Olitiau, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ahul_(creature)

In a field like where many sources are unreliable. So you must make sure that every statement is referenced to a particular page on a particular book, preferably to something available on the internet. For a book, you have to have actually read the passage. And I agree with the others who have commented, you must make absollutely clear that the creatures of fictional or a traditional myth.

If the pages are moved to mainspace before they are well-cited, the articles will surely be deleted; it is better for others to judge when they are ready, DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Specs (creature)

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)

Sources

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)

Veo (creature) moved to draftspace

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)

your cryptozoology articles

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)

Hi, Vexations, while trying to ascertain the concerned book, I didn't find it 'widely available' rather found it available for purchase. Is someone trying to advocate for piracy when mentioning such a book as 'widely available'? I personally dislike piracy very much. Further, I didn't use the concerned book while creating the page for Elbst or any other page. Furthermore, I have found a review of the concerned book in which some similarity of entry is seen, but if that mere similarity is sufficient ground for accusing copyright infringement, I doubt only a few pages in this vast encyclopedia may survive. Lastly, the most recent edit on Elbst page, this Deutsche wiki page and this wikipedia policy altogether are self explanatory in nature.--AranyaPathak (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia and copyright

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.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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)

advice

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:

1. to combine these articles into a general one on reported animals, using some such title as your proposed category: Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism ‎
2. to discuss each reported animal as part of the article on the ethnography, folklore, or legends of the relevant group of people.

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)

July 2020

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)

AfC notification: Draft:Mahamba (creature) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mahamba (creature). Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Ellengassen for deletion

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)

Proposed deletion of Yaquaru (creature)

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)

Proposed deletion of Coje Ya Menia (creature)

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)

Proposed deletion of Narrara (creature)

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)

Proposed deletion of Mithla (creature)

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)

Proposed deletion of Kovoko

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)

Proposed deletion of Elbst

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

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)

Suggestion

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)

I agree. If you continue to create non-viable articles, you will soon be blocked as a net negative to the encyclopedia. It takes up a lot of other people's time. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC).

I don't exactly agree. User:TimothyBlue's grounds for prodding are nonsense, just like his Cfd rationale. The articles obviously have problems, not least the note " The content has been prepared by the physical copy of the sources mentioned, citing the relevant page number/s might lead to the undesirable confusion in the process of verifying the sources. That's why no page number has been mentioned. Any inconveniences for this, is sincerely regretted." What is that supposed to mean? How would there be "undesirable confusion in the process of verifying the sources"??? It makes no sense. Either these are hoaxes, & should be nominated as such, or they are incompetent attempts to create articles on what might well be notable subjects - at the least they could be added to List of cryptids. I note the concerns over copyvio etc expressed by others above. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, It would help a great deal if AranyaPathak would be more forthcoming about what their sources are. For example, the article on Elbst (you'd need to read the history) made some claims that clearly cannot be attributed to the sources cited, but closely matches a source they deny using. They have so far not explained how that happened. WRT to cryptids, I have the impression that AranyaPathak's argument is their subjects are not cryptids, but "creatures of belief", what I think we'd call category:Mythical creatures. The distinction they seem to want to make is that (some) people (pseudoscientists) believe cryptids exist, and (almost) everybody (folklorists) agrees that their subjects are imaginary. Unfortunately, some of these "creatures of belief", were supposed surviving living fossils, like the Ellengassen, which is the (extinct) Mylodon, whose age was misidentified by 19th-century scientists. Vexations (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure - but the prodding & Cfd grounds are nothing like this - nor are most comments at the Ellengassen afd, where I have just commented. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Johnbod, the note is provisional in nature, with the process of content development, the notes are gradually getting removed. Further, the scope of the concerned articles are not cryptozoological in nature. Thanks for your contributive involvement.--AranyaPathak (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Timothy, So many thanks for your affirmative, positive gesture; now, something needs to be settled definitively at the very beginning - from the very first day I made myself clear on the point that I don't have any interest in a pseudo science - cryptozoology; however, I must have to say that as a subculture it deserves attention; my areas of involvement are cultural anthropology, cultural history and cultural studies; and I am working strictly within my domain; the work I am currently engaged with is heavily influenced by The Book of Imaginary Beings – Jorge Luis Borges,Kant and the Platypus - Umberto Eco,The Order of Things – Michel Foucault,The Location of Culture – Homi K Bhaba.

problem is if someone takes an article name/source and throw them in a search engine and gets 'cryptozoology' pages as results and that can become the infallible criteria of judging the content to be cryptozoological in nature then honestly there is no word for it.

another vexing point is the haste; why so much impatience; the eagerness to expunge the contents; this is a platform, not a journal; why can't one get the time to enrich the content of an article; it can always get discarded but surely after reaching its prospective finality especially considering WP:ATD.

further, there is strange absence of dialogue, discussion or debate while deleting a content; some constraint of time cannot possibly be the justification of this kind of practice.

furthermore, I am only too eager to take your suggestions regarding visiting Teahouse and getting someone as mentor. Also, I would like to request you to kindly be a bit elaborative regarding if my articles have violated the concerned guidelines about notability, verifiability and reliable sources and if so, then in exactly what way since I have gone through them thoroughly but couldn’t find any such ground?

lastly, I have learned something from my brief but intense experience in this platform - that there is some consensus prevailing within a community regarding 'cryptozoology' and 'fringe source' which is enjoying a kind of de facto policy status of the platform; now after completion of my current work of content enrichment of the existing pages (if I am allowed to) I will try to apply this precedence creating principle of content deletion uniformly on all the articles of this platform, preferably under someones tutelage; forgive me if I sound too cynical; as a matter of fact I would have left the platform for good but fortunately I came a cross a figure which made me feel ashamed about my decision to quit; so please again pardon me for this outburst of frustration.

thanks once again for your warm gesture; possibly all these is a case of some simple misunderstanding; I have got every intention to contribute in this reputed platform if I am allowed to do so.--AranyaPathak (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reply AranyaPathak I have only goodwill in offering the following advice. I'm not concerned about what your interests are. Whether you or anyone thinks its cryptozoology or cultural anthropology is not the concern. The concern is that you are creating a large number of articles in mainspace that are not notable and even if they were, they are in no way ready to be published. The place to develop an article is in Drafts.

It is very clear you do not understand the basics of creating an article on Wikipedia. You're not alone, no one does at first and it takes time and experience to understand it. At a minimum you need to learn about WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE before you create any articles. You can learn by spending time studying and creating one article at a time with a mentor in Draft space, working on it until it's ready to be submitted, and then starting on the next one.

Any articles that you have in mainspace that are not nominated for AfD should be moved to Drafts. If you don't know how to do that I would be glad to do it or I'm sure Vexations would also. Then you can work with a mentor from the teahouse on one draft at a time until you both agree it's ready to submit. Some of the Drafts the mentor will tell you are not going to meet WP:N and you can have them deleted and focus on those that are going to meet WP:N. I think you should consider the advice DGG (a very experienced editor) gave you about possibly creating a single article on the topic of (something like) Mythical creatures discussed in colonial travelogues. I think that sounds like an interesting article, one that could be much more than the individual articles you are creating now and one that I think would be read far more often than any of the individual articles you are creating.

You're getting a lot of good advice from very experienced editors, plus some from those with less experience like myself. Please follow the advice. I will repeat what Bishonen (a very experienced editor) stated above "If you continue to create non-viable articles, you will soon be blocked as a net negative to the encyclopedia. It takes up a lot of other people's time." I don't want to see that happen, I want you to spend your time here productively and enjoyably. But continuing in the way you have is at best going to be frustrating for yourself and others and at worst will result in what Bishonen mentioned.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bishonen I've sincerely made a good faith effort to make this situation better (see above), but it appears to be deteriorating [7]. I'm not sure how to improve the situation (or if it can be), so I thought I would ping you. Thanks for any guidance.   // Timothy :: talk  12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Coje Ya Menia (creature) for deletion

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)

Nomination of Mithla (creature) for deletion

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)

Nomination of Kovoko for deletion

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)

Nomination of Elbst for deletion

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)

Blocked

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).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

In reference to the response of respected administrator JBW

Respected Sir/Madam,

"I am apologizing unconditionally"- this statement I falsely presumed wouldn't need any further elaboration. I am sorry if the purported peculiarity of my construction created any undesirable confusion. Further, I have nowhere questioned the penalty imposed upon me by the respected administrator Bishonen.

A clarification on the mentioned "other problems" would have been excellent for my learning as a neophyte/novice especially in relation to the section - 'For the charges mentioned by CaptainEek'. Thanks and Regards. --AranyaPathak (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Though this block is for personal attacks, I think you should also address the many other issues raised on this page, such as copyright, your creation of many creature articles that fail our core policies, your original research, and use of wildly unsuitable sources (books from the 1700s?? Seriously??). If Timothy had pinged me instead of Bishonen, I likely would have blocked you indefinitely for the medly of issues raised; thus I think it important to tackle those topics. Out of some curiosity, what is your defense for your articles at AfD? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

AranyaPathak, Zero: I'm not a sir. One: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPA. Two: I basically don't use any pre-1900 sources, with rare exception. Books from the 1700's are almost decidedly WP:PRIMARY sources, and are so old as to be basically useless in a modern encyclopedia. The intervening 300 years have greatly changed our knowledge on essentially every subject. Three: I suggest you place a sample defense for one of your articles here, to show that you understand our deletion policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 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)

Fidddle Faddle , DGG

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."

b)WP:Primary

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)

Fidddle Faddle , DGG

• @Bishonen: Your thoughts on the matter? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for pinging me. I have no horse in this race. The decisions on blocking and unblocking for whatever reason are made at administrator level. I am not and never have been nor will be an admin here. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll comment since most (or all) of the AfDs are mine.

1. The creator has been asked repeatedly by multiple editors to read and apply WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and has been encouraged to ask questions. They still state above "May I please ask that what are those 'core policies' mentioned by you?" I sincerely don't know how it could be any clearer what the core policies are and if it's not clear by now, I don't think its ever going to be clear.
2. The creator has had the opportunity to learn from several very experienced editors here and at AfC and has had the guidance of several lesser experienced editors, each offering quality advice and for whatever reason, nothing is improving. They reject all advice and everything simply leads to more arguments. They seem completely unwilling to accept or even consider that they are mistaken. I have not seen them ask one question about WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Between here, AfC and AfD hours have been allocated to helping this editor and mitigating their mistakes. It would be worth it if there was progress.
3. If at this point their mindset is that they need to be free to defend instead of listen, learn and collaborate, there is an issue of being incompatible with participating in a collaborative project. The goal of this editor seems to be to argue enough to prove they are right and get the articles published and not to develop as an editor so they can contribute productively. I see edit wars in the future.
4. It's beyond doubt that a language barrier is responsible for some of this. Again I don't know how to overcome this.

I know I'm stepping over the AFG line with this, but if this editor is to ever develop into a productive member of the community I think this must be addressed. I'll be a hypocrite ask others to AGF in my comments, even as I step over it myself because I would like this editor to succeed, but I don't know how it can happen. (I will strike, apologize and do penance if asked by an admin).   // Timothy :: talk  20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I would make one point, which is that the editor was requested to defend by CaptainEek just under the blue notice. It was easy to miss.

It must be hard for them. They have found rich seam of mythological creatures referenced in an old book. These things appear at first sight to be suitable since other mythology is here, yet they are not. So they are faced with a seeming paradox. We who have been here for ever know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but they tripped over it unaware.

I'm making no argument for or against a block here; I'm just saying what I see. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

FiddleFaddle Very fair points, I was speaking more from a place of frustration rather than empathy. Thank you for the gentle reminder.   // Timothy :: talk  01:18, 3 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,

• I am pinging respected administrators as I found them in AfD and CfD pages: Spartaz,Vanamonde, King of Hearts, Bibliomaniac15, Ad Orientem. --AranyaPathak (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia. Even dented items survive in a location only available to those with rights to see them. Applications may be made by any editor at any time to have deleted items placed into their user areas. The rationale has to be worthwhile. I suggest you set aside the work you have done for the moment. I know this feels very difficult right now. At present quiet patience is the most important attribute to display.

Please accept the suggestion, made in humility to you, that you also set aside the creation of article on mythical creatures. Research them with pleasure, and enjoy it. But the sourcing you have found is insufficient today. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle, please accept my gratitude for assuring me about the availability of "deleted items" on the user areas against request and rationale; I am just raising some crucially relevant points and issues in the form of plea/ appeal or obeying direct instructions here; if it expresses impatience then I am truly sorry; I have already stopped creating new articles in compliance with the instruction of respected administrator Bishonen (“..If you continue to create non-viable articles, you will soon be blocked..”); but I will beg you to refer to my preliminary CfD defence while referring the relevant creatures as "mythical creatures"; for the "insufficient sourcing" can you be generous enough to comment on the relevant section of my defence of Kovoko presented here under instruction; it will be invaluable for my learning as well as my effort to further improve the source section of my articles. --AranyaPathak (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me for not following up your request. I only step in to offer very general thoughts, just to try to help you in yourself, not your actual editing. Too many pekoe offering commentary will make things go wrong, not right. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AranyaPathak, There are quite a few open questions that you have not addressed. Answering them honestly would help to convince your fellow editors that your are here to contribute constructively, and in compliance with our policies. I'd encourage you to carefully read Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project and prepare a statement that explains how you created your articles, using sources like Dobrizhoffer (1784). It really is quite remarkable to see someone create this from this: "Yaguarô tigris aquatilis. Bestia quovis molosso major, quam Quaranii Yaguarô, Hispani tigridem aquatilem nominant, sub aquis profundioribus latitat plerumque. Est villosa, caudae longae, & in acumen definentis, unguibus validissimis armata. Equos mulosque, flumina tranantes, ad fundum abripit. Paulo post animalis, quod discerpsit, viscera in aquarum superficie fluitantia cernuntur. In tot fluviorum trajectibus me id genus bestiae nunquam vidisse, gaudeo, fateor tamen, me id semper timuisse praesertim, dum lacum Mbururù, qui ex oppido S. Joachimi ad Urbem Assumptionis euntibus corio bubulo traiiciendus, quoties ex crebris imbribus horrendum in modum turgescit, iterum, iterumque transmisi. Hispani equidem, qui è sylvis cum herbae Paraquaricae sarcinis hunc locum transeunt, mulos onerarios à Yaguarô sibi abreptos, frequenter mihi querebantur. In trajectu item fluvii Aguapey, ad cujus litora Quaranicum. SS. Cofinae, & Damiani oppidum, anno 1760. mulum Indi spectantibus ab assiliente eadem bellua apprehensum, eorum Parochus Pater Joannes Baptista Marqueseti Fluminenfis mihi retulit.Yaguarô fluviorum altis gurgitibus fere immoratur, fed in ripis editioribus specus fibi ingentes fodit, ubi & se, & sobolem abdere fuam queat. In litoribus altis Paraquayi fluvii immanis saepe fragor a nobis noctu navigantibus exaudiebatur, quem ex specubus illis ab aqua alluente exesis, & demum dehiscentibus ortum nautae mihi, militesque affirmarunt."

If you provided an explanation for how you did that, I might find your assurances that you're editing in good faith more credible. So far, you haven't even managed to convince me that you can work with German sources, let alone Latin. I'd welcome an unambiguous effort on your part to demonstrate that you have been completely, 100% honest with us. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I am pinging respected administrators as I found them in AfD and CfD pages: Spartaz,Vanamonde, King of Hearts, Bibliomaniac15, Ad Orientem.

  Sorry, but I don't have any specific expertise in this area, and I don't really have the time to wade into this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion for article Ellengassen, response for Vexations

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)

AranyaPathak, so you're telling us that you went from

28. 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. 8. v. svánati).—Skt. çṓcati ‘leuchtet, glinzt,’

çúciṣ 'leuchtend, glänzend, blank': Gk. κύκνος ‘swan’ (cf. author,

A.J.P. XXI, 179).—OHG. gelph 'von hellglänzender Farbe,

glänzend': Lith. gulbė, Pruss. gulbis ‘swan’ (cf. author, Color-

Names 28).

to: 'The word Elbst is said to have it's origin from the German word "albiz" meaning "swan".' That is incredible. There's not even any mention of "Elbst".

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)

Is it? Perhaps try giving a simple, straightforward example. I would say this when asked if I spoke German: "I speak I German at a near-native level. Native German speakers generally cannot tell that German is not my "Muttersprache". I learned German as a youth. I taught myself to read Fraktur as a child, using books from my father's library. My father spoke Schwiizerdütsch, which I can understand, but not speak. I have traveled extensively in Germany and Switzerland. I do not have any academic qualifications in German (no degree in German studies/Germanistik). I have lived and worked in Germany from 1989 to 2003, where I used German professionally. After I left, I continued to use it professionally until 2012. My personal use is focused mostly on philosophy and the arts (Horkheimer and Adorno, mosty) I still regularly use it in conversation and keep up with the German news by reading German newspapers and magazines. I am not a frequent contributor to German Wikipedia." See? now you understand to what extent I can work with German/Swiss sources, and why I can read 19th and early 20th-century sources like Müller fairly easily. Try it yourself: Other editors (me included) would be more likely to assume good faith, I think. Vexations (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Narrara (creature) for deletion

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)

Nomination of Specs (creature) for deletion

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)

Nomination of Yaquaru (creature) for deletion

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)

A General Appeal

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)

(Non-administrator comment) Let me trot out these deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellengassen: Wikipedia cannot host copyright violations or close paraphrases in any namespace. Someone's already reviewing information in sources subject to editorial oversight for a rewrite post-deletion. Honestly, I'm surprised the stub hasn't already taken Occam's razor to the knee.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithla (creature), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narrara (creature), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specs (creature), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaquaru (creature): no amount of editing will overcome a lack of significant coverage in multiple sources with editorial oversight independent of the subject (notability).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kovoko: heading toward draftify anyway
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbst and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coje Ya Menia (creature): if no one else participates in this discussion within the next two days, likely the prospective closer will relist it for another week. Deletion discussions are not a vote, so if you do not ground your proposal in policy, the closer may not honor your request.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 § Category:Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism: no stopping this train.

Having your work nominated for deletion feels disappointing. Everyone makes mistakes when they're new. Accept it, apologize sincerely, and no one will look upon you unkindly. Digging your heels in and refusing to heed good counsel probably means editing Wikipedia's not a good fit for you. Wish I had a kinder way of saying it. Best wishes, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AranyaPathak, I posted your diff + request for draftification in each of the 8 AfDs. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to discussions, make an unblock request. We don't pause discussions so that blocked editors can contribute to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment for the article Ellengassen

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)

Comment rearding CfD

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)

UTRS 32964

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.

1. Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? If you haven't then I suggest you do so. Your unblock request at UTRS failed in several ways to comply with that guide, all of which you might have been able to avoid if you had carefully considered how the various points in that guide related to what you were writing. You are much more likely to succeed another time if you think about that carefully.
2. When you are blocked for personal attacks, it is very unlikely that an unblock request will succeed if it contains statements which are likely to be seen by others as personal attacks, whether you think they are personal attacks or not. It would therefore be a good idea not to include in an unblock request accusations against other editors of malicious intent or of being part of a conspiracy against you. This applies whether you believe that there really is a conspiracy against you or not.

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)

A Note from user:AranyaPathak

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.]

Please just treat this as a lesson learned, draw a line under it and move ahead.

You found what appeared to be a useful set of additions to the encyclopaedia, but other editors reached a consensus that this was not to be. Thsi is life. It happens.

Simply work out how to work collegialy with other edtors and this incident will be behind you. Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I will make you an offer.

I have had some success with helping editors who have had a difficult start, and showing them how to become a successful part of the community, and helped them to avoid conflict and enjoy a fulfilling hobby here. I offer to try to help you to do the same.

The bargain is a simple one. I promise to guide you, speaking very directly but never rudely when I see you heading into difficulties. In return you promise to listen and to engage in conversation to show that you are listening. You do not have to take advice. You need to commit to asking questions until you understand it and then rejecting or accepting it with a good heart.

I am not an admin. I have no power to do more than offer you friendly assistance.

You do not need to make the decision at once. The offer will stand. Either of us may discontinue the bargain at any time, but will need to tell the other of this.

I do not guarantee to succeed. Success depends upon you Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• AranyaPathak, I sincerely and honestly hope you will stay and contribute. You've gotten off to a very rough start, but that is entirely behind you. You are very welcome here and everyone recognizes you are a good faith editor that just had a rough start. I hope that you seek a mentor at the teahouse and begin to build experience in making small edits to existing articles and work your way up to eventually creating new articles. I offer this with an honest heart in hopes that you stay and find a way to enjoyably and productively contribute. I know that many others feel the same way. Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

When all around you seem to be against you

• AP, I've been sitting here wondering whether I should give you a two-week block for wasting too many people's time in too many ways just to save you from someone else giving you a longer block for the same. You're clearly well-intentioned, but you got off to a very bad start and have been steadily making things worse ever since. The arbitration request was an incredibly bad idea. Is cryptozoology your only editing interest? If it is, you're going to have to accept which sources are considered reliable by more-experienced editors in that area for now, while you're still new here. If you can't do that -- if you can't bring yourself to just accept that when multiple experienced editors are telling you you're wrong, you're probably wrong -- then to be honest it would be a kindness to block you indefinitely now so you can go find some other hobby. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• —valereee, thank you for this note. I was actually looking over the arbitration request, and this talk page, and I wondered why the user hadn't been blocked for being NOTHERE. AranyaPathak, that is still very much in the cards for you, and a good way to at least try and stave that off would be to retract it before it is formally declined. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• AranyaPathak, I (and others such as Fiddle Faddle, Vexations, Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, CaptainEek and a lot of reviewers at NPP) have made several honest goodwill pleas to you here and elsewhere to stop what you're doing, get a mentor and start fresh with their guidance. Editors have spent a lot of time trying to help you get a foothold on how to constructively and enjoyable contribute here because we want you to be here. I know there is a language issue here (as Floquenbeam pointed out elsewhere), but you're not showing any sign of being willing to listen or consider that anyone other than yourself is correct. You've been active in finding policies and guidelines to attempt a defense of your actions, but I see no attempt to understand our core policies and guidelines about contributions such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WWIN, which have been pointed out many times before. This raises a lot of questions. I'm amazed that you made it out of Arb without a block; you probably have no idea you actually just attempted a Wiki-suicide.

I honestly hope you stay, but I want to ask one question to see if I and others should continue to try and advise you: Is it your intention to follow the advice you've been given and stop what you've been doing, get a mentor and learn from them about contributing productively? or Do you still believe you are correct and intend to keep editing in the same way you have been? This will save a lot of time and needless effort. I hope you choose the former option.   // Timothy :: talk  23:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note that ARBCOM is the last venue for handling problems on Wikipedia. WP:DRN may help to know about other venues. —PaleoNeonate – 08:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)