User talk:Dancmaster

Speedy deletion nomination of Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ASUKITE 18:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you able to confirm the existence of Chupacab specificallyra to note that it is not a hoax? Specifically, The main article for that creatire list other regional variations of which I'm adding a regionalize version - which includes an article from a reputable news source. Since we are talking about mythically creatures - there is no hoax because there is no definitive proof of the creatures existence. The logic here is flawed because to say Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra is a hoax but a Chupacabra isn't doesn't make sense. Dancmaster (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No sources = no article or mention on Wikipedia, whether real or mythical. You appear to be using Wikipedia to promote something you made up.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cited a PennLive article talking about local sightings in the Huntingdon Valley Area. https://www.pennlive.com/wildaboutpa/2015/06/chupacabra_rarely_reported_in.html
 * There are others:
 * https://thelibertyline.com/2022/02/20/has-the-pa-chupacabra-finally-been-identified/
 * https://6abc.com/archive/9490035/
 * https://the-cosmic-web.com/2022/01/21/the-chupacabra-reports-from-puerto-rico-to-pennsylvania/
 * https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2022/10/26/albatwitches-river-monsters-and-more-central-pa-s-cryptids/69586380007/
 * https://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/08/03/7-weird-pa-nj-animal-sightings-power-ranking-coyotes-snakes-bear/
 * https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/woman-rescues-mystery-animal-pennsylvania-b1999641.html Dancmaster (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * None of those mention Huntingdon Valley specifically. The first is a decidedly unreliable source, the rest are repeats of the same general content that don't give the topic any real credibility, treating it as a joke. You appear to be using Wikipedia as a tool for promoting something you have made up. We already have a chupacabra article, which treats the subject with much less credulousness and promotional character than what you've written, and which might warrant a line about the critter described in Pennsylvania, but only with much better sources. Wikipedia is not for things you've made up.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra


A tag has been placed on Draft:Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify things, the page was not deleted as a hoax, because I declined the nomination, as I did not think the page was a hoax. I also moved the page to draft space, because I was sure it would very soon be deleted ifcit were left as an article. (As it turned out, it was deleted anyway, for a different reason, but obviously I didn't know that would happen.) After I declined the deletion nomination as a hoax, someone else nominated the page for deletion as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and it was then deleted on those grounds. I would not have deleted it from draft space for that reason, but the page certainly sought to promote a point of view, and stated opinions as facts, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy that content must be written from a neutral point of view. For that and other reasons, the page was nowhere near suitable to be an article. JBW (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Yamla I was just replying to clarify the confusion I was having with bbb23 decision to block me from editing by providing a timeline of the events that lead to it. I've been instructed why my article and edits were removed and I haven't argued against their removal after I was given explanation why they were removed but I was blocked from editing after all that was clarified. My intent was in bad faith and I haven't disparaged the admins replies and clarifications.


 * It looks to me like your only interest is in promoting fiction in the hopes it can be passed off as truth. That's not compatible with Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not the case, as stated above, I have not challenged any of the admins responses, there were instances where I asked for clarification and was given it. You yourself clarified that the news sources I were using were not permissible, I did not challenge this.
 * I have converted your second unblock request into a comment. You may have only one unblock request at a time. Frankly, neither of them is an unblock request. Unblock requests are not for conversations with administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@bbb23 @Acroterion "Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers

@PhilKnight thank you for the review, I was attempting to build the article based on articles that I had come across from various sources. Generally the articles on wiki I had seen were mainly backed up but articles vs text or encyclopedic sources. Being proxy to the locale in which the article was based I sought to provide the information in such a way as to account for oral history passed throughout the community specific to this article. As you read I initially posted with no sources which was an error on my part as I am trying to understand the proper coding the wiki uses to properly reference. When that was delete I attempted to repost citing an article for Pennlive.com an Advance Local News LLC affiliate. I had some other articles including on from a local ABC affiliate. However, one of the admin clarified that the Pennlive.com wasn't a source that would be up to wiki's standards and that the remaining articles I provided the admin with weren't specific enough to warrant the context presented in the article. I agreed with the determination. Due to the personal proxy of this topic I made an article that was not up to wikipedia standards but I wouldn't say that speaks to my intent moving forward, frankly after this experience I am pretty sure I would contribute to existing articles rather than attempt to create one again.

Bad faith users request to be unblocked all the time, usually to just waste our time. Okay, you're not doing that- but we still need you to show that you understand the issues here. You keep citing WP:BITE but that is not a license for new users to be allowed to run wild and do whatever they want without showing that they understand what it is that they are doing wrong. Admins have been entrusted by the community with the responsibility of protecting this project. If any of us are going to put our name and reputation on the line by unblocking you, we must be convinced that you will not repeat your errors. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @331dot I've revise my request to clarify my understanding of what lead to the block.


 * You appear to have missed the crucial issue: you appear to have been using the encyclopedia to create a meme or an article to promote something you've made up. Your items 1 through 4 are just obfuscations of that central issue. That is why you were blocked, and it's why nobody is taking your requests seriously. As of right now, you look like you're sealioning the unblock process.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Acroterion it was not my intention to meme, the article that I attempted to create was based on real localized lore that I had been given oral history of. In earnest I attempted to back up the article using local articles that do reference the cryptid in the area but doesn't reference it by name specifically to Huntingdon Valley. This isn't an attempt to sealion - I've only agreed to what was clarified and only submit revisions of my plea based on the other admins as they directed with notes in their comments for unblocking. Dancmaster (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to remove this block request before an admin acts on it, because it appears to be entirely, or at least mostly, to be written by AI. Most administrators won't even consider an appeal that is generated in this manner because they want to hear your understanding of site policies and promises, not those of a large language model. Admins don't allow an infinite number of block appeals, so an appeal like this would just bring you closer to having talk page access removed, which is the opposite of your goal! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi CoffeeCrumbs, I was given some notes on my previous submission by an admin to make my plea clearer so I did take what I had and had an AI program clean it up and make it clearer. So the foundation is still mine but the formatting and grammar is assisted with AI. Dancmaster (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is interminable. TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As you edit
Wikipedia for your job, please read and heed WP:PAID. There are disclosures you must make should you be unblocked. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Compromised
As per, this account is considered compromised. See WP:COMPROMISED. --Yamla (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)