User talk:Pandelver/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Pandelver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

lets avoid edit conflicts
We're working simultaneously on the same article, never a happy state of affairs. If holotypes are relevant, surely they need to be written in an encyclopaedic form, accessible to casual readers and avoiding copyvio. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

good to both avoid and synthesize edit conflicts
Yes, excellent: Working simultaneously on the same article is a happy state of affairs. It's gratifying to engage with others evincing additional interests in the encyclopedic pursuit of including diverse perspectives and applications of fact, signficance and meaning, so that articles do not devolve into serving only lesser commonalities of any sociolect. Evolution of Wikipedia content and format through its paradigm of predominantly open book editing with verification, concision, expansion, and increasingly effective cross-linking is always welcome, as your edits have been, and your good trading of notes, when each of us notices the changes of others, sharing in checking what has and has not been included during hand-mergers. Thank you, please continue the perspicacious dynamism. Certainly the section on holotypes in the article you reference can be rewritten or edited for streamlining, and no doubt more definitive information may be substituted in the course of on-going research when live specimens are described and images and media become publicly available for Wikipedia use. (Pandelver, 28 October 2010)

BC —> BCE
Hi, Pandelver. Just letting you know, that as per our policy regarding era notations outlined at WP:ERA, edits changing BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa are not to be done unless there is a substantive reason for doing so, or consensus has been reached to do so on the talk page. Please avoid making such edits in the future; I've been guilty of doing this as well, and I've learned from it. Thanks. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BCE/CE
Thank you for your note on this issue, CIS.

You make me reflect that after all, even among arch(a)eologists reporting pan-human major culture phase origination attested in digs from a notably multicultural nation at present, a little religion-specific calendering may be fairly innocuous: just a tangential issue of particular commentators without implication for specimen culture, or it may even carry personal meaning in the spiritual sensibilities of these authors, which we can also respect without requiring secular humanism as a professional prerequisite in anthropology. Pandelver (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kamala (aromatherapist)


The article Kamala (aromatherapist) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject isn't asserting a level of notability that meets wikipedia's'requirements for hosting a biography.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kamala (aromatherapist)
Following diminution of content and reduction of citations by (KamalaDana) (talk), possibly the subject of the article:

Better sources needed
While other topics suggested this BLP, did indeed find closer reference sources scarcer than expected with initial material. If other editors do not add these, this article may be considered for deletion if editors and admins find citations, while provident of their described content, to be too borderline.

Concur that stronger sources posted by others would strengthen notability in this article, which is sourced, yet whose references are not yet as definitive as others I've reviewed (excepting many others, of course, which seem less notable). The exploration of who's what significantly enough to enough whoms continues. :) Pandelver (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Now proposing (as principal author) speedy deletion
and putting tag into article space after also noting this on article's discussion page Pandelver (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have also proposed (as author) speedy deletion of redirects to this article
to clean up properly along with this article which has been tagged for speedy deletion and blanked in anticipation Pandelver (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Article, redirects and listing in disambiguation article have been deleted
checked on all of these, and found that RHaworth has already done the final clean-up of deleting the listing in article Kamala which contains individuals and groups who already have articles, who were entered in the list earlier, or who are of contextual note in their fields or geographic areas. Pandelver (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussions
I know you mean well, but your excessive comments on Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers is making the discussion very difficult to follow. Simply state your opinion and move on. Boghog (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Boghog. The issues now streamlined with bullet numbers, as best as I can format them, arose in the course of each new point and those it suggested. Sorry if this was difficult to follow, perhaps formatting has helped now, since discussion did indeed come faster than my keeping track of each item in sucession could handle well, for a while.

As a matter of personal attention and schedule, I was not yet intending to extend into these issues beyond the current state of the article at all, until finding the surprising AfD discussion in the first place. Besides having now stated what opinions others have led me to crystallize, I'm in need of work elsewhere by now. Should the weekend be a feature of your schedule wherever you are now, may you have a great one, or a satisfying time at work. Warmest regards Boghog, Pandelver (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I came across a little too strong. Likewise, have a great weekend. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in modifying your posts with some indentation management. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  04:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely not, Æµ§œš¹, very polite of you to mention this, and I say that without having seen your changes, nor for the record yet being acquainted with your editorial work; organizing one another's format is very much part of our collaboration in Wikipedia! Pandelver (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Aaron Tobey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Tobey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Concurring with Elen of the Roads that this article, in relation to Aaron Tobey as a person, principally discusses a single nationally notable act of his, this article has been moved instead to Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest where it is no longer a Biography of Living Person as has been questioned as a deletion candidate. The article, now enlarged, is crosslinked with those Wikipedia articles relevant to its social and legal policy significance, and details of the event it describes are briefly summarized in the article Strip search. Pandelver (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC) If anyone is aware of any details of the case of the Utah young man who did a similar act earlier in 2010, which Tobey verbally mentions in one of his television interviews, please let me know or add the note into the article then let me know. Pandelver : Discussion  Pandelver (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved this proposal into pre-existing proposal at Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey for the common convenience of all editors examining this article. Thanks to SMP0328. for the most recent input! - Pandelver (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calathan (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Elizium23 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Elizium23 (talk), not canvassing but non-partisanly notifying whole WikiProjects, not individual members nor perspective subsets, in a balanced breadth across the topical board of those whose stated topic areas are germane, without regard to what their particular positions may be, thanks. So limited and specific and certainly nonpartisan: the contents of the notices carefully paid some attention to the variety of non-similar POVs which might be joined in 2 articles being discussed, and a specific potential 3rd. Not to WikiProjects with no relation to the topic. No invitations to any individuals in per se. After several days, this particular AfD had only 3 people discussing it, and an administrator reminded us that at least 7 days were routine, so sought more relevant voices, whatever they might say being up to them; and took inspiration from the 4th voice who did not comment directly but showed this person had propagated the AfD discussion area to 4 'lists' of articles to be examined. Also asked that person what this propagation did and how it worked, but have not so far seen an answer. Welcome all views, and do not by personal policy condone opposing views so much as collaboration among the many perspectives which make a whole. In order not to advocate any particular view, but to better Wikipedia's balanced, mini-comprehensive consideration of its content. Do you find the notices in question disinterested enough, or have you noticed anyone left out whom you would suggest for active invitation? - Pandelver (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the notice was a bit woolly, I'll confirm that the problem is cross-posting to unrelated projects. Do not do this, it violates WP:CANVASS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pandelever, have you been following Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Those knowledgeable in the setup of Wikipedia advise that you cannot impose your extra three conditions, over and above the licenses used by Foundation projects. Whenever you submit text content, you commit that you do so under the foundation's terms and conditions. Effectively this is that you must license under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU FDL, and you cannot add restrictios to this. It is possible to submit images under other terms, but not text. This renders your three terms null and void. I'm guessing from the addition that maybe you are familiar with the different licenses, but not with the terms of reference. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have been off Wikipedia a couple of days (which is not unusual, as I imagine, for many of us). Thanks for telling me, Elen of the Roads (talk). Since the important thing in my own recommendations to others is the politesse involved in the 3 conditions, instead of the licenses noted in any Wikipedia templates, will adapt the encouragement of such polite behavior in the section (call it the 4th) which has previously been after the 3 conditions and refers to them, as a general recommendation to users of all kinds (editors, readers, citers, etc) of Wikipedia. - Pandelver (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're not getting it. You cannot ask other editors to give you any kind of attribution, cannot ask for prior notification of reuse, and certainly cannot insist on free copies. The whole basis of Wikipedia is that the content is free to reuse, modify, republish etc without such requirements. What you are trying to do goes against the entire project. If you don't take it down entirely, some of the stricter enforcers will take it down for you, and probably block you as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, all taken down. Not that concerned about attribution in my personal case, as for the case of attribution which is common to all literature, speech, music, and other media! - Pandelver (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Tobey deletion debate
Two things. Firstly, when replying to someone, it is not normal practice to copypaste their signature if quoting them. Peter Strempel has quite rightly complained about this, so please go back and remove all the signatures. If you must quote another user, the correct form would be "Peter Strempel says...." It's also not huge form to quote people's posts verbatim - just enough to clarify the point you are addressing.

Second, never ever alter or change another user's post. This will get you into a lot of trouble. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for refactoring --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been happily indebted to some other Wikipedia users who have usefully reformatted some of my posts when others in surrounding posts have increasingly complex material, and subsections of discussions have been added by various hands during evolution. They have my appreciation, which is as regardless of how much I find the particular alteration perfectly positive as we Wikipedia is so far, at heart, a live, constant re-editing of everyone's contributions to content. Most of it, as Wikipedia says, in "good (Wikipedia) faith." :) - Pandelver (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)