Aeþ Eźabrekın

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion nomination of Arkharian language

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Arkharian language, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 removed 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Altaic languages, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Arkhar

Hi, the article you've created: Arkhar language, has the appearance of a hoax and is likely to be deleted as such unless you somehow show that it is not a hoax. Would you be able to provide the sources that you've used for this article? Is there any way you could give some more context, like where is the language spoken? – Uanfala 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Just giving you the heads up that I've replied to your comment on my talk page. – Uanfala 10:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's a hoax, and a poorly written one at that, with as only "reference" a spam link. Aeþ Eźabrekın, you are going to have to do better than this. Also, warning: no more hoaxes or you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I see this was at least the third time you tried this game. CactusWriter, you've deleted one of their hoaxes too (and there was another one in their user space); if you think this block is too harsh, please do as you see fit: I don't see any useful edits in this user's history. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I won't beg you to unblock me, i don't want to be unblocked, but if i can't use this source to save my language, then tell me how, don't just destroy all my progress and act like a hero, tell me where and how can i save it, if it isn't by calling it a hoax to avoid deletion, then how? Do you know all the responsibility that i carry to either make it die or let it live? You will never understand that since your language is probably spoken by millions, mine isn't. Call it a hoax all you want, i know very well it isn't.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a place for "saving" a language you made up one day. Continuing to act like it is only indicates that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 14 November 2017 (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.

To "The Bushranger"

What do you want me to say then? and please, above all, do not insult me and my language calling it "made up". If there is seriously no help you can give me, then just leave me and my user page alone. Vunu śildavaram uŕ Arxaryaþ, kiverveniks an sahweš tevöl iþobzuğazağozum.

Advice

Aeþ Eźabrekın, I am not an administrator so I can't see your deleted work. I also don't have the linguistic expertise to make a thorough search for evidence of the existence of your language, but I am well aware that there are many endangered and poorly documented languages. I see you have edited on several other projects, but I'm not sure anyone has explained to you that reliable sources are vitally important on Wikipedia, especially for the creation of a new article: for that, see this summary page. The underlying principle is verifiability: the reader needs to be able not only to find out more about the topic, but to check that the article is accurate. In addition, we use the existence of sources as an index of whether the topic merits an article ("notability" in Wikipedia parlance), but for a language, that might not be an issue providing there are sources to show that it exists. Drmies wrote above that the only source in your article was a spam link. Can you cite any scholarly articles or passages in scholarly books? or even a news article or coverage on a TV or radio program? Is there a non-English spelling that is used in the sources? Off-line sources and sources in foreign languages are acceptable, as are online sources that no longer exist but are preserved in an archive such as the Wayback Machine. But self-published books and most blogs are not valid for establishing either notability or verifiability; see the link on "reliable sources". Sadly, if the language has not been covered in such sources, it can't be included in the encyclopedia. In that case my advice would be to work with one of the scholars in the language area to publish about it. For all I know, you are already doing so, since you describe yourself as a linguist, and in my opinion that is a far better way to publicize and preserve an endangered language than is a general online encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, this was a hoax about a supposed language ("It has no direct relation to any other languages in the world. About 50% of its vocabulary is of arkharic origin, while the rest comes from arabic, persian, chinese and some european languages. Because of its vowel harmony and grammatical features, along with most of its vocabulary, it is considered a possible language from the Altaic languages") until the user got called on it, at which point they made it an article about a "language hoax", by adding this section: "History: The user Aeþ Eźabrekın created a page without citing any actual sources and thus his page was immediately named a hoax. The language could still exists and there is some unreliable information, which would only classify it as a hoax." The supposed phonology was standards with a few funky things thrown in like dɮ (certainly not spoken in any of the languages surrounding our mythical Arkhar. Nouns have 26 cases--no wonder there were only four speakers. The only "reference" given was this link. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Heh, Duolingo. The thing is, some analyses have Finnish with more than 20 cases—they're better analyzed as postpositions. And other than a word for a kind of sheep, and for a ram or an ewe, which has been borrowed into multiple Turkic languages, off the bottom of a Google Books snippet I found mention of a tribe that has supposedly been referred to by that name. So, Aeþ Eźabrekın, if it was a hoax you didn't do a very good job; if it's genuine, your route to acceptance of its existence is sources. Real sources, not the Duolingo main page or even a Duolingo sub-page for this language. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: As you noted above, I deleted a previous creation of this article as a hoax. Then I had a brief conversation with Aeþ Eźabrekın on my talk page about why an unsourced language spoken by only 5 people was considered made-up. Aeþ Eźabrekın's latest recreation of the same topic under a different name (without any sourcing again) shows their unwillingness to follow policy. I would have also indef'd their account had I run across this before you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, keep talking all of you. I was told articles about hoaxes were allowed as long as they were claimed as such, i thought i could save my page if i accused my own language of being one, but it didnt work. The phoneme dɮ is actually just an allophone, i included all actual phonemes and allophones, my grandfather used to pronounce tł as dɮ (it is supposed to sound like tɬ). Do you know that the Tsez language has more than 200 grammatical cases? (actually case combinatioms, but whatever) yet it is spoken by 13 thousand people, mine isn't. Cases aren't the big deal either, they're easy to learn and they follow vowel harmony. The reason why my language lost speakers is because it isn't important in the economical world, so most of my family just left it and learnt turkmen, turkish and spanish (because of the places we've been in). The same happened to a friend in Mexico, his grandfather spoke Huichol but my friend doesn't, why? because it won't help him economically, my language is at the verge of being totally forgotten, even i don't fully know it since i spoke it mostly with my father and he is dead now. don't make fun of my language's possible death, please.

Aeþ Eźabrekın (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, i found Yngvadottir 's comment way more useful and helpful than the others, i thank you for that, i shall publish a book about my language as soon as i get the money to do so, i have already published a book before and it is kinda expensive tho. Obviously this site will never help me with that. Aeþ Eźabrekın (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Once you, or anyone else, publishes a book (or an article), then it might be possible to start the wikipedia article again. The main reason why this can't happen at this stage – and I'm surprised this hasn't been explained yet – is the fundamental principle that Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. – Uanfala 10:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala:, they were were directed to read WP:OR on my talk page in October. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Love

i've read your page and i support you man. Unfortunately i think they're kind of right because apparently you didn't give any sources. Hope you can get them somehow and keep saving your language.

Thank you. I'll still work on that, but not here anymore.