User talk:AranyaPathak

• Archive01 (19th JULY- 16th AUGUST)

AfC notification: Draft:Elbst has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Elbst. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You asked me to give you a solid analysis of the draft, and I think I have done so. I am pretty sure you will have questions about what I have said, and also may have corrections to what I have said that you woudl like to raise with me.

What I have tried hard to do is to give you a completeoy unbiased opinion of the draft, and to show you the difficult areas. As a reviewer at WP:AFC I woudl be unable to accept it as an article for all the reasons I've said. There is a differences between those who revoew with a view to accepting and those who look with a view, at AfD, to deciding whether an article ought to be kept.

That difference is to do with time spent within the article. A reviewer has a particuel instruction. If in the reviewer's opinion the draft stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process then they should accept it. I usually aim for 60%.

Deletion is different. Anyone may offer an opinion, and often those opinions can be lazy opinions. There is no commitment to spending time in the article, Some do, some do not. It is a more casual and more brutal process

New editors can take years to undersand that the less said in defence of their 'first born article' the better chance it has of surviving. New ediotrs defend and defend and defend. The community gets bored with them and reacts, sometimes poorly. The new editor gets caught up in an escalating mess of righteous indignation and everything goes wrong for them.

That seems to be what happened to you, I htink? Enough of my voice for now. The questiin is "Does this sound familiar?" Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, as with all new things, let us take this in small steps. This is a new world for you. Let's get it right. Festina lente. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

case request declined

The case request "‎Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution" that you were a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request.

The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Block notice

I have been looking at your recent editing, which consists almost entirely of creating drafts. I checked a number of those drafts, and in every one that I looked at I found content which had been copied from other sources. In some cases I found the copied source immediately, in other cases it took a little searching, because you had made trivial changes in wording, or fragmented quoted material into separate pieces so that it wasn't word for word identical to the original, but it was still clearly essentially a copy. You have been told about copyright a number of times before. I suspect that you are continuing to infringe copyright because you don't fully understand the issue, rather than because of malicious intention. That, unfortunately, makes it less likely that you can easily stop, which you could if you understood better what you are doing.

One fact which made it easier to find your copyright infringements than it otherwise might have been is the fact that where you have copied material it is mostly in coherent English, contrasting with text which you appear to have written yourself, which frequently is written in English words but not English syntax or not in English idiom. That raises the question of how well you could actually contribute to an English language if you wrote everything in your own words.

As you must be aware, a number of experienced editors, including several administrators, have indicated that they think it may be necessary for you to be indefinitely blocked, because the problems with your editing seem to be incapable of solution. Drmies, one of the most experienced administrators on the project, said that they wondered why you hadn't already been blocked. I think the answer to that is that everyone involved accepts that you are a good faith editor, really trying to do right, and all of us are reluctant to take action against someone with good intentions. However, there is also another side to the matter, which has been mentioned by at least two administrators. Valereee suggested that it might "be a kindness to block you indefinitely now so you can go find some other hobby", and RexxS said almost the same thing: "it may be kindest to simply bid them farewell sooner rather than later". Their point is that although blocking a good faith editor from the project might seem unfriendly, it is in fact a kinder thing to do than to let that good faith editor struggle and come across frustrations and problems for a long time, and eventually either be blocked or give up and go away frustrated and annoyed. I have, with great reluctance, come to the conclusion that we have reached the stage where that message applies, and so I am going to block your account from editing, indefinitely.

Like most administrators, when I block an editor from editing I usually post a pre-written block notice, which takes me a few seconds, or a minute or so if I decide to make slight customisation to fit the particular circumstances. This time I have put a very considerable amount of my time into composing this fairly long message, because I do recognise that you have been editing in good faith, and you deserve to understand that the block is no reflection on your intentions. It is, however, a reflection on your ability to become a constructive editor. Your continuing copyright infringements after being warned, on their own might have led me to block for a couple of days or so, but it is not only that: it is a continuing pattern of many problems, most if not all of which seem to stem from an inability to understand what the problems are, or to understand what you are told by others. Problems due to difficulties in understanding, or limited competence in English or in other matters, may be impossible to put right, no matter how sincerely you wish to put them right.

An indefinite block does not mean a block for ever: it means a block with no definite time limit set, and you can request an unblock if you wish to. However, my personal advice is that, as suggested above, it would not be in your own interests to do so, because if you were unblocked you would merely encounter further problems and frustrations. That is advice, not instruction, and if you do decide to request an unblock then first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with your statement as to why you think it would be a good idea for your account to be unblocked. JBW (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)