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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dancmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm unsure why you felt the need to block me indefinitely, I made an edit to a page and then created an article from that edit both were removed by user Acroterion, from their reasoning I then decided to repost with cited articles and sources.

This then prompted you to remove those on the grounds you've listed above.

I inquired to both you and Acroterion to the clarify specifics regarding some of the confusing wikipedia definitions.

You did so and in Acroterion's case they clarified that the source used was a "decidedly unreliable source".

I've not argued against either of those clarifications and you've gone and blocked my ability to edit indefinitely. So I'm confused by this action Dancmaster (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not sure what is confusing about the fact that you are posting a local legend for which you have no sources- the sources that you offered do not mention your legend specifically. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Dancmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm confused about the haste in a decision to block. My actions as laid out above do not denote ill intent nor do I concur with the quick determination of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". Reviewing your other bans for other users there is obvious intent to vandalize or disrupt wikipedia pages. I've been a long time user of this platform and am not looking to vandalize pages. The following is a timeline of the events that transpired yesterday, I feel it may be necessary for purposes of recontextualizing the events and possibly reviewed by another admin as I think you may be interpreting my actions as hostile with no context. I attempted to edit one page and create a new one. An admin removed these changes and gave the basis that there was no sources. I sourced linked articles and re edited one page and recreated the new one You removed that one on the grounds of Hoax and self promotion respectively. I inquired to receive clarification on both as I felt some of the directions specifically the term "hoax" when dealing with a mythical creature was confusing. The links to self promotion section was informative because the term self promotion in general didn't seem to be the correct description until I read wiki's broad scope for that. Both of the admins clarified these points. However, one admin was again requesting sources - in response to I highlighted the source I use as well as other links as additional references to that admin directly. The admin then explain that those particular sources were unacceptable but the wiki standards. With that all clairfied I offered no further argument or edits. Then I was banned. This is where my confusion lies. Admins removed content, reached out, engaged in dialogue for context around the content removal, I complied but was banned due to one admins personal determination of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". I pose the question who would take the time to create a page with multiple sections and images if it wasn't an earnest attempt? This would be my first attempt at tackling a full page and I am met with less than encouraging actions on the part of the admin which other than opinion doesn't seem to have any real evidence on bad intent. Of course as an admin your decision is your own especially if you are the only person capable of restoring my account's editing capability but whatever your decision I would just state that in the future this edit banning process be reevaluated as it seems to give one individual a great deal of power with very little oversight and is discouraging for people trying to assist in Wiki's mission and learning how to with stumbles along the way.

Decline reason:

This is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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

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).

Dancmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Subject: Request for Unblock: dancmaster

Dear Administrators' Noticeboard/Blocking Administrator,

I am writing to request an unblock for my account, dancmaster, which has been blocked due to "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". After carefully reviewing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I understand the concerns surrounding the block and would like to address them as follows:

1. Understanding the Block: I acknowledge the reason for the block and understand the necessity of preventing abuse from a given source. However, I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding my involvement in the disruptive behavior.

2. Admitting Responsibility: I maintain that I have not purposely engaged in any disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. I respectfully request a review of my editing history to verify this claim.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that you reconsider the block on my account. I am eager to resume contributing to Wikipedia and assure you of my commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards of conduct.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, dancmaster

Decline reason:

I have read this talk page, and the history of your deleted page. You are presenting yourself as a good faith contributor who made some mistakes in the creation of your first article. The problem I have with this is that you should have known your article was not encyclopedic. If you did not, and you say you did not, then I have little confidence in you becoming a useful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@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)[reply]

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

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).

Dancmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request an unblock of my account. I understand that my previous editing behavior warranted a block, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter.

In my initial article submission, I failed to adhere to Wikipedia's policies regarding proper sourcing, neutrality, and reliability of references. I now understand the importance of these guidelines and am committed to following them in all future edits. Moving forward, I will ensure that all my contributions are thoroughly sourced from reputable and verifiable sources, written from a neutral perspective, and adhere to Wikipedia's standards of reliability and accuracy.

I acknowledge my mistakes and am dedicated to making constructive edits that contribute positively to Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate and reliable information.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I am eager to resume editing and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

Decline reason:

AI generated requests are not accepted. GPTZero score: 100. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

Dancmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Administrators, I am requesting an unblock from my account. I acknowledge that the block imposed upon me earlier was justified, and would be grateful if it could be reconsidered. My article submission was not in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on referencing, neutrality and source quality. I am willing to make every effort to ensure all my edits in the future meet these standards. Any future contributions will be properly cited from reputable and legitimate sources, and to maintain a neutral point of view on articles I contribute to, in line with Wikipedia's standards. I also want to apologize for the previous plea as per an admins suggestion, I attempted to make my original plea clearer utilizing an AI program to rewrite the content of my original post for more clearer reading and grammar. I was unaware that this would come across as a negative until another admin let me know and a second admin declined the request due to it being deemed AI generated, which was also not my intention. I understand my errors and wish to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please also note I'm not trying to spam the unblock requests process but rather I keep revising requested based on admin feedback for clarification, additional context requests and rewording. Thank you for your consideration of this unblock request.

Decline reason:

No point in leaving this open with TPA revoked. Procedural decline. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

As you edit

Wikipedia for your job, please read and heed WP:PAID. There are disclosures you must make should you be unblocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised

As per UTRS appeal #88592, this account is considered compromised. See WP:COMPROMISED. --Yamla (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]