User talk:AEldreth

Welcome!

Hello, AEldreth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Chupacabras (Legend and Failures), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Your contributed article, Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Chupacabras (Legend and Failures). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - chupacabra. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at chupacabra - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi AEldreth. Your work on this article is fascinating. A very enjoyable read. Because the page is no longer in danger of deletion, is it okay if User:AEldreth and User:AEldreth/Chupacabradraft are deleted as housekeeping? Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much and it is absolutely fine for them to be deleted; I just did that to ensure I would have some way to save my work in case of deletion. --AEldreth (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't let your harsh first experience here color your view of Wikipedia. I hope you continue contributing as you are definitely a very good writer and researcher. I have tagged the pages for deletion with db-author so the Wikipedia administrators can delete it. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly won't allow it to affect my view of Wikipedia; the entire process was a learning process for me anyways. I aspire to have some sort of career in writing and posting on Wikipedia was a big step for me and I'm glad I took it because I enjoyed researching and writing for this article and I do plan on contributing more, despite my first experiences --AEldreth (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you plan to stay. :) Wikipedia is home to numerous quirky articles. Green children of Woolpit, a featured article that passed a rigorous review at Featured article candidates/Green children of Woolpit/archive1, is about folklore like Chupacabras (Legend and Failures). Perhaps, using green children of Woolpit as a model, you can bring Chupacabras up to good article status? The article failed a Good Article nomination in late 2007 (see Talk:Chupacabra/Archive 1), but with some work, I think the article can be written to pass the good article criteria. If you'd like, I'm willing to provide guidance about issues like whether a source passes Identifying reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, each logged-in user on Wikipedia has a watchlist, which lets him or her keep track of the articles he or she has been editing. For more information on creating a watchlist and accessing it, you can read more at Help:Watching pages. If you ever have a question or need any help, please stop by my talk page at User talk:Cunard. Having read your work, I am impressed by how much you have already learned about wiki formatting. See you around. :) Cunard (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly more interested in the quirky articles and certainly plan on on reading the article you suggested :). I think working on bring Chupacabras up to good article status would be an interesting challenge that I would be up to tackling. I would never turn down guidance or help in anyway, so thanks so much. I found plenty of difficulties in finding reputable sources when I was doing my research because of the topic and all the weird sites out there. I did discover the watchlist but I'm still getting accustomed to everything on here, and on that note, I'm glad my work reflects the hard work I put into figuring out the wiki formatting :). Thanks for being so helpful too. :D --AEldreth (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I love quirky articles too. I'd say that have a nice day is one of the best (though the prose is still not good enough yet). But I'm biased since I wrote it, with some copyediting help from . It'd be nice if you would bring Chupacabras up to good article status. Wikipedia needs more high quality quirky stuff. By the way, can you edit Chupacabras now? I think you meet the requirements at User access levels. Your account was created on 28 April 2011 and you've made over 10 edits. I'm sorry that you weren't able to edit Chupacabras because of the semi-protection. Pages are semi-protected because some people tamper, or vandalize, the article. See this funny edit for what sometimes gets added to Wikipedia articles. :) Cunard (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'm going to check out that article as well :). I just checked and I can edit Chupacabras now so I can actually work on the page and hopefully raising it to standards for good article status. I think by having more high quality quirky stuff more people would less likely to automatically dismiss the topics and be more inclined to read them. I'm a college student and I think it's funny how professors say to avoid Wikipedia at all costs when the information is protected on various levels and reviewed so closely. I especially scoff at them now because I've actually posted and understand how much work goes into creating a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEldreth (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I hope you'll enjoy have a nice day (and if you see any prose issues, feel free to edit the page). Although some articles—those that have targeted by much vandalism—have been semi-protected, many articles are not. If no one is watching those pages, they are susceptible inappropriate changes that are not reverted. I generally trust Wikipedia articles if everything in the article is sourced to an inline reference and nothing appears awry. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Chupacabra
Hi, I was about to merge the article Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) with Chupacabra, when I saw on the talk page that you were planning to do the same thing. I just wanted to see if you were still interested in doing the merge, and if not I can get that done for you.--K e rowyn Leave a note 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've been meaning to do so much with this but I got a new job that takes up most of my free time, I'd rather the merge be done instead of it waiting around for me to finally have free time to do something with it. Oh and thank you! --AEldreth (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)