User talk:AbrahamDavidson

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I want to proceed with a Deletion Review because I came to an impass with the administrator of my artice "Directed Panspermia". The reason for the request are below. I have some questions on how to proceed.

First, I submitted a Request for Undeletion so that the article will become visible again for the DR. The instructions said to check if the undeletion was done. How do I check this, and what would be the address where the unideleted article will be visible, and how long will it remain visible?

Second, the template for the DR requires xfd_page. I am not sure exactly when the article was undeleted. How can I find this xfd_page address?

The template for the DR requires the following information. Is it filled out correctly below, or what do I need to change to fill it out?

|page=File:Directed Panspermia.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/YEAR MONTH NUMBER #Directed Panpermia.png (How do I find out the year, month and number of deletion?) |article=Directed Panspermia |reason= I created a Directed Panspermia page. It was deleted because there is already a short section on the Panspermia page on this subject. However, my article is subtantially more detailed and in-depth and I believe that it justifies to remain a separate page. The subject has been covered in peer-reviewed papers that are referenced, and it is noteworthy and was covered in the media, including the New Scientist. I believe that it justifies a separate page in wikipeadia, and the short section in Panspermia can be linked to this page.

Please let me know how do I find the needed information and any needed changes.

Also, there was a discussion about the proposed article under Talk:Panspermia. In the request for DR, do I need to give a link to that discussion, and if so, how do I do this?

After I submitted the request for Deletion Review, how do I follow the discussion and outcome?

Thanks AbrahamDavidson

Hi Abraham. Your article is here. Currently it has been redirected to a section of another article, but you can see your original article right here. Your request for undeletion may be seen at WP:REFUND#Directed panspermia. If you want to restore your article, go to this diff and click on "Undo." Your article isn't in immediate danger of being deleted again, but someone may decide to propose it for deletion again if they decide the original issue hasn't been resolved, so keep a close eye on it. You may want to give some justification for keeping the article at Talk:Directed panspermia. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hello, I created a Directed Panspermia page. It was deleted because there is already a short section on the Panspermia page on this subject. However, my article is subtantially more detailed and in-depth and I believe that it justifies to remain a separate page. The subject has been covered in peer-reviewed papers that are referenced, and it is noteworthy and was covered in the media, including the New Scientist. I believe that it justifies a separate page in wikipeadia, and the short section in Panspermia can be linked to this page. Please let me know, in plain English as much as possible, what do I need to do to reverese the deletion.

The instructions below say that ...If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary),

How do I access this page to see if the "db" tag was added and to make these additions? The instructions also say ...coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position. Where do I add this note? Should I resubmit the page with these notes?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamDavidson (talk • contribs)

Welcome!

Hello, AbrahamDavidson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Directed Panspermia, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Safiel (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Directed Panspermia

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.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Directed Panspermia. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Panspermia. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Panspermia - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Safiel (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please obtain consensus at talk:panspermia before attempting to publish this for a third time. I have left your article visible so that you may link to it thus. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind you deleting the above message, if you had read it and actioned it. Instead, you leave a long message on my talk page. Where is your attempt to obtain consensus? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your latest message you said that "I left a long message". This was to give you reasons to reconsider as Wipipedia suggests.

Basically, the reason is that Directed Panspermia is distict from natural Panpsermia that the present articles discusses. Directed panspermia has been researched separately with peer-reviewed references, and it has been noted widely by the media and websites (please do a google search if you wish). My article describes the science and ethics of Directed Panspermia in more detail than a short section in Panspermia can, which should justify a separate article.

I hope that you will reconsider. However, you suggested to seek consensus at Talk:Panspermia If you still like me to do so, please explain how do I do this. Do I leave a new note on Talk:Panspermia with the title "Consensus: Directed Panspermia" or should I do something else? How can people who want to respond see my proposed article? How can I then follow the debate, and how can I respond in this debate?

As you see, I am trying to learn wikipedia for making more science related contributions. Please respond again on my talk page. Regards, AbrahamDavidson (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)AbrahamDavidson[reply]

For goodness sake, yes: start a new section in talk:panspermia - a better title would probably be Separate article on directed panspermia?. Include in it a link to your draft article which I have moved from User:AbrahamDavidson to User:AbrahamDavidson/Directed panspermia in line with Wikipedia conventions. You follow the debate by visiting talk:panspermia regularly and you respond by editing that page - surely that is obvious? See this example of a similar discussion. If you wish to solicit views, find people who have made significant contributions to the panspermia article (you do know how to use an edit history, I hope) and ask them to contribute to the discussion. One obvious person is Eeekster. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, whilst this message was a perfectly good way of contacting me, the preferred method would be to continue the thread here. If you receive no response within 24 hours then slapping a {{talkback}} tag on my talk page should do the trick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RHaworth: I posted a section on Talk:Panspermia on "Separate Article on Directed Panspermia" and will follow the comments as as you suggested. Regards AbrahamDavidson

Hello RHaworth, I posted "Separate Articvle on Directed Panspermia" on Talk:Panspermia and will follow the comments as you suggested. You suggested to continue the discussion as a thread on my usergage so I left a note there about this posting. You also suggested to notify you with a Talkback note if you don't respond in 24 hours, I hope this is what you meant. Regards AbrahamDavidson (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is - sort of - what I meant. All you actually needed to do was put {{talkback|AbrahamDavidson|Your contributed article, Directed Panspermia}} on my talk page. Your comments are noted. I hope you read my suggestions about soliciting above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AbrahamDavidson - The Following Was Posted On The Panspermia Talk Page

Copied From Talk:Panspermia#Separate_Article_on_Directed_Panspermia

FWIW - At First Glance, And At The Moment, The Material In The Proposed Article On "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be A *Really, Really* Excellent Academic Effort - A Worthy Contribution To Wikipedia - And - Sufficiently Substantial To Be A *Separate* Article From The Main Article On Panspermia - After All, The Present Panspermia Article Seems To Be More About "In-Coming" [to planet Earth] Whereas "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be More About "Out-Going" [from planet Earth] Instead - A *Very* Important (seemingly neglected?) Consideration In My Opinion At The Moment - Also, The Minimal Mention Of "Panspermia#Directed_panspermia" In The Present Main Panspermia Article Does *Not* Seem Sufficient For This Very Important Topic In My Opinion - That Said - In Some Ways, The Material In The Newly Proposed "Directed Panspermia" Article Seems Similar In Basic Notions (in a much more extensive way of course) To The (less extensive?) Material In The Present Forward-contamination Article - Perhaps The Two Articles Could Be Combined In Some Way? - Perhaps The "Directed Panspermia" Article Could Be Edited Into The Present Forward-contamination Article - Or - The Material In The Forward-contamination Article Could Be Merged Into A Newly Created "Directed Panspermia" (or related title) Article - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hope It's Ok - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE - New Followup (& related) Comments Have Been Posted At ->Talk:Astrobiology ("Forward-contamination" Section) + Talk:Forward-contamination ("Directed panspermia (draft)" Section) + User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_directed_panspermia + User_talk:Drbogdan#Directed_Panspermia + User_talk:BatteryIncluded#Separate_article_on_Directed_Panspermia - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for contacting me. I'll be travelling heavily (vacation) for the next 4 weeks, but please get started with Drbogdan and I'll jump in whenever I can or when I come back home. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO - I May Have Some Busy Times In My Present Circumstances As Well - Nonetheless, At The Moment, I'm Trying To Locate The "MAIN" Discussion Area For This On The Panspermia Talk Page - There May Be Other Editors Who Might Like To Join In On The Fun As Well - We'll See - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RHaworth: Following your suggestions, I posted a "Separate Article on Directed Panspermia" section at Talk:Panspermia last month. Further as you suggested, I solicited comments from two WP contributors with related interests, DrBogdan and BatteryIncluded. Their comments were favorable, finding the proposed aricle of good scholarly quality and justifying a separate article. Please see the thread on Talk:Panspermia. They also discussed the relation to "Forward Contamination" under Astrobiology. Of course, any such links between these subjects can be added by them or others once the article is published. Given the favorable comments, I would like to ask to reinstate the proposed article. I trust that expanding life in universe is a subject that deserves informed public debate, and a scholarly article on Wikipedia will contribute to this debate. Regards AbrahamDavidson (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)AbrahamDavidson[reply]