Hello! I'm an admin on the Offbeat Folklore Wiki , and while all our work is CC-BY-SA (so you're welcome to use it), we do require credit. I found a few pages on this wiki that are copied word-for-word from ours, so I'd appreciate if you could either add credit to the following pages, or delete them.
Hello, I noticed all of these pages were copied and pasted into this wiki by User:RUBENHC. He was notable for making edits as such and is currently blocked for "copy-paste from random websites (dozens of edits like this). Reduced overall quality of wiki, almost all edits counterproductive." We have tried to undo many of his edits. Thank you for pointing this out.
Would you be willing to allow me to upload your flying ray picture to my wiki, to be used to illustrate the theory that the kongamato and other alleged "flying reptiles" may be unknown freshwater rays leaping from the water? I would credit you by username and provide a link-back to your profile here in both the image description and captions, of course (this should go without saying.)
Also, I'd like to ask the same question regarding your sachamama illustration, as I consider the turtle theory the most likely answer to this cryptid, but I cannot mention the theory within the text because it's never actually been suggested by any cryptozoologist, so the only way of getting it into the article is by including an image demonstrating it.
Thanks very much! I've just utilised the sachamama image (am still writing up the section on the kongamato/ray theory) on the relevant page - are you alright with the caption I've written, or do you want anything adding/removing?
Since User:Australopithecusman blocked you for redundant category violations (as per your block log), I highly doubt you were given admin rights for creating redundant categories, but you will have to work that out with Aussie.
AmazingAncientWorld wrote: Since User:Australopithecusman blocked you for redundant category violations (as per your block log), I highly doubt you were given admin rights for creating redundant categories, but you will have to work that out with Aussie.
That category was something that I misspelt, I forgot to ad a capital letter, that category was not something I intended to do, where as the diets of the cryptids was
I'm in the process of adding a few new pages to the wiki, about local cryptids in my area. If you would, perhaps check out what I'm working on. If it's acceptable, I'll work up a few more. Mind you, it's a work in progress, so suggestions are very welcome!!!
well now he's inactive. Why did he suddenly just stop doing stuff? he was ranked #2 out of over a thousand people! ...I know It's not very likely but... nevermined he probably just got bored of it. I still wonder though...
I'm not inserting false information by stating that Wikipedia will often use peer-reviewed articles. Wikipedia acts as an online collection of research papers. Very serious articles have over 50 footnotes, and many peer-reviewed sources. This Wikia is part a FANDOM community, which ANYONE can make. I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a solid source. But I could visit the Narwhal page and later go Narwhal whale watching, but I can't go Lochness watching after visiting the Nessy page, just because people claimed to have seen it.
"Cryptids are monsters... except that cryptids could actually exist!" Also: "On Cryptid Wiki, we document all of the possible information you can get about cryptids and determine if they're real or not." This Wikia wouldn't offer enough solid evidence to prove to the world that every creature here exists. It simply offers information that's already out there and compiles it into one place. This is how my small statement was meant to be interpreted. I've stated facts based upon my own experience. People are claiming via comment to have seen Bigfoot; are they getting slapped on the wrist for inserting false information because they can't backup with physical evidence? Meanwhile, I could actually take a photo of a Narwhal, allow 5 independent sources to verify they're undoctored, and use that as proof.
Calling me out as inserting false information by making a simple comment is hypocritical compared to what's actually allowed as comments in this Wikia community.
It was a very minor warning block. However, I still stand with my assertion that the vast majority of sources on Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed. A significant minority if not a majority of "Inserting False Information" blocks comes from comments. While this Wiki has little relation to Peer-reviewed sources, there is more to peer-reviewing than "5 independent sources to verify they're undoctored"; it's an elaborate process involving academics and experts verifying that the content they are reviewing meets that of the overall consensus of its particular subject or is respectable enough to be considered a valid counter argument to the consensus (though the latter rarely occurs to to the biases of the system). Stating that Wikipedia uses "peer-reviewed sources" would be, for the most part, factually incorrect and I feel it would be wrong not to point that out.
And for the comments that stat "I've seen... [whatever]" without any sources are against the rules here as a violation of rules #3 "making up creatures" and #18-20 "spam". An exception to this would be blogposts and forums as they are just fandom/community interactions anyway.
Hey, man! One of the users on the wiki custom-made those "signatures" for us. Idk how to do it,and I don't know if they want that to be Admin exclusive. But here's his profile if you want to ask. From what I can gather, he's not on here as much as he used to be, so you may or may not have to wait for a reply. :)
I was just wondering if there's a need for both the "Arctic" and "Arctic Poles/Islands" categories. An enormous body of work if you and the other big guys decide there's not, but one that I'm willing to pick up on some.