User talk:0XQ

Speedy deletion of Codex Laud
A tag has been placed on Codex Laud, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Codex Laud was nearly deleted (for the wrong reasons); but an article that is just a weblink will typically be deleted anyway. I had to add something quickly. Please improve the article now. Charles Matthews 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning about copy/pasting from other websites
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. GlassFET 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation : I am likely in this case to have cut-and-pasted a phrase from my own web-site (I intend to take care not to do this again). 0XQ (talk)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The True Dharma Eye 300 Cases
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The True Dharma Eye 300 Cases, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
 * I changed the name of the article to "Shinji Shobogenzo", as suggested. Please delete the article entitled "The True Dharma Eye 300 Cases". 0XQ (talk)

Citations please
Hi, I wanted to discuss a few of your recent changes if that's alright. I'll watch your talk page so you can reply here. But to start, I just reverted your addition to Yogacara because the citation, though interesting about hindu views, didn't support I thought your claim that yogacara metaphysics were extracted from yoga metaphysics. It sounded possibly like original research to me, but if you have a citation supporting that claim it would be quite interesting to expand the yogacara article with that. the official stance as i understand it is that the yogacara views came directly from the buddha, though that is contested. but from my amateur view, it also seems to come mostly from buddhist scholarly sources and not hindu though they were in significant dialog then. I've never seen a direct statement of hindu extraction though it does seem more compatible with Samkhya philosophy than other buddhist presentations.

Separately I'm concerned about comparing yogacara with neo-platonism. My reading of neo-platonism fits better with hindu views perhaps? But I don't think the comparison fits really with buddhism, given my understanding of the various views attributed to yogacara - as the views shift over different time periods and people.

Also, in your change to store consciousness do you have a citation for the plotinus comparison? and in your change to Rudra do you have a citation for a publication drawing the comparison to Ludos? or is that your synthesis? I want to make sure that we're adding verifiable things, though what you're adding are quite interesting comparisons. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=vTfm8KHn900C&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Plotinian+Neoplatonism+Consciousness-Only+Storehouse+McEvilley&source=web&ots=I92PoQysSt&sig=37KFY-9Sv6RKj-EmdXMpNxniNpc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result This is a reference to p. 572 of McEvilley : The Shape of Ancient Thought. It is part of a passage (pp. 571-580 of the book) explaining that Neo-Platonic doctrine is more similar to Yogācāra doctrine than it is to the Upaniṣad. I had already posted the same reference on my addition to the Wikipedia article "Storehouse Consciousness", but without the internet-weblink. Since you left i n place my addition to that Wikipedia article, I have now added to that article the weblink-citation to the statement that Plotinian Neo-platonism is more similar to Yogācāra that it is to the Upaniṣad-s. Begging your pardon, I would like to apologize now for earlier omission of the weblink from that Wikipedia article. 0XQ (talk)


 * Interesting comparison by Thomas McEvilley to the three natures. Instead of positing that his view is universally accepted, let's give him specific attribution in the article to his viewpoint. If we find that it's a generally accepted view in comparative philosophy then we can change it to say "the generally accepted view". But when comparing to disparate systems I think we should be careful that the language doesn't imply that it's a universally accepted comparison and view. Thank you for providing the reference link. I'll update the article now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I made some copy edits to the store consciousness article. please let me know if you're ok with those. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

=While keeping your wording, I added another weblink to this article Store consciousness, so as to connect also with the other page (in the book The Shape of Ancient Thought) being referred to (since two different pages of that book are being referred to in this Wikipedia article as written). I thank you for your indulgence in this. 0XQ (talk)


 * Take a look at the External links and Citing sources guidelines, since that book is used for citations they need to be &lt;ref&gt; style notes instead of direct external links, though since they're not from the same page the refs will need to be separate. sorry there are so many guidelines and such to this place, there's a lot to learn with respect to editing, lots of minutia. I hope that does not turn you off to editing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Golden bowl
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden bowl, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. mboverload @ 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Golden bowl
I have nominated Golden bowl, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Golden bowl. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I deleted the irrelevant "bibliography". 0XQ (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Historicity of Jesus
Thanks for your interesting contribution to Historicity of Jesus, but I'm afraid that such controversial ideas need good, solid sources to back them up, rather than vague terms such as "could hardly have" and "is much more likely". Removing this seems a bit harsh, but it's a very firm WP policy: one of the five pillars, in fact. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Secret governmental policies concerning activities of its clandestine agents (such as "St." Paul) are not going to be available for antiquity, nor even for mediaeval times; they have to be deduced from modern governmental policies involving the same sort of agents ("St." Paul was more like a C.I.A. agent than like an F.B.I. agent). The "solid" sources on this sort of matter will be quite modern ones (hardly any earlier than the nineteenth and twentieth centuries), with only extrapolation very possible for much earlier periods. I wonder whether the honorable editor would be satisfied with a description of current C.I.A. procedures to explain the origins of Christianity during the early Roman empire? 0XQ (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The answer to your question is: only if it is the view of a respected, main-stream published authority on the subject, as in the WP:V policy. Best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in here to second Old Moonraker. Wikipedia puts a very heavy premium on 'reliable sources' and 'verifiability'. It reports what reliable sources have said -- so long as we can verify them. Without such policies it would be not an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits about mesoamerican religion
Thanks for adding to the articles about Mesoamerican religion - it is obvious that you know alot about the topic and have acces to excellent sources. However you have a habit of inserting multiple blocks of quotes written by mesoamerican scholars without explaining them or putting them into a context. This is not generally a good way of adding content, since it makes articles choppy and difficult to read, and it is out of style for an encyclopedia. It would be much more valuable if you would paraphrase the quotes in your own words and explain why what is said is the quote is relevant to the topic. You could then supply the quote as a citation within tags and people who were pparticularly interested in seeing the original wording could look at the notes. Please think of how to make articles flow smoothly with brilliant coherent prose instead of blocks of disjointed quotes. Happy editing.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Great Book of Interpretation of Dreams
A tag has been placed on Great Book of Interpretation of Dreams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. – Dream out loud (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nonpseudoscience
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nonpseudoscience, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Nonpseudoscience

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 15:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nonpseudoscience
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nonpseudoscience, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Nonpseudoscience. Thank you. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New Messages
←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 22:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Nonpseudoscience
I'd like to, first of all, let you know that I did not personally delete the article. I am not an administrator and cannot delete articles. I did, however, list it for deletion with consensus. That means that the Wikipedia community (or part of it, represented by those who participated in the discussion) felt that it either did not conform to the standards for inclusion or it was unverified and blatantly violated our policies.

Please do not be offended by this decision. This gives you time to present your article once it fits a neutral point of view and is completely cited, along with being notable for inclusion. Please refrain from making any attacks on editors who participated in the deletion process. These editors (including me) are only following Wikipedia policies and will act to protect the encyclopedia from abuse or the inclusion of content that violates such policies.

Thank you for your contributions and time at Wikipedia. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. ''Please stop spamming your personal website to this and other articles. '' dougweller (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to other "personal websites" (such as http://sacred-texts.com) are frequently included the bibliographies to Wikipedia articles. Most editors allow such links if materials linked are entirely or mainly quotations from publications from materials published by reputable university presses and are pertinent to the topic. The personal preferences of this Dougweller here (to exclude such articles) are hardly representative of usual Wikipedia practices. However, some editors do remark that they would prefer to see summary versions of such materials posted on Wikipedia itself (rather than merely linked to by an external link) : I suppose that is a bit better procedure. But for an editor to simply label something as "spam" (when posted as an external link) which would be perfectly acceptable if inserted into a Wikipedia article is perhaps slightly excessive verbiage.0XQ (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal website, it is your personal website. You might want to take this up with the editor who first called it spam. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I to take it that a writer who has copied verbatim from some reputable academic text, onto a website owned by that writer, is automatically excluded from linking to that material on that website in an article written by that author for Wikipedia? (If so, that would be similar to excluding someone from writing up an autobiographical account as a Wikipedia article; this indeed is a Wikipedia policy to exclude, but apparently merely to keep too many autobiographical articles from being written.) There is such a dearth of writers of articles on comparative mythology (on comparative anything, for that matter); and such a strong likelihood that anyone capable of writing such articles may already have a website covering the same subject-area, that strict exclusion-policies of this sort are hardly very practicable. However, it can be agreed that it would be better for a writer to put summaries into Wikipedia articles than merely to post external links -- that is what I have had some editors state to me, and it would be helpful if more of them would generally phrase their constructive criticisms in that way. [Thank you for your advices.]0XQ (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Asianic religions
I have nominated Asianic religions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Asianic religions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to your comment on my talk page. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done a quick cleanup on the article, attempting to make it easier to read by using standard wikipedia formatting and removing extraneous information to focus on the core issues.--Editor2020 (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diogenes in Islam
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Diogenes in Islam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * POV essay which exists solely to promote a viewpoint which is controversial. Orphan article suspiciously not linked from any other article on the subject.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Diogenes in Islam
I have nominated Diogenes in Islam, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Diogenes in Islam. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, 0XQ, this is a bit late, but welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me.

If you are looking for help, you can just type:
 * Need help?
 * helpme

...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit  New contributors' help page , where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!

If you have any questions at all, please message me. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A good point, and I've added a list of links that would hopefully benefit this user at the top of the talk page. dougweller (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Diogenes in Islam may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Diogenes in Islam.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Diogenes in Islam: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)


 * 3. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oneirocritic literature
I see that you created the article Oneirocritic literature. Since this is a subject about which I know little, I wondered why the word "Arabic" always appears as <arabic. If there's a reason, I don't want to copyedit out of ignorance. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected this to the right IPA character.0XQ (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Verbal  chat  18:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Serratiopeptidase
This article does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. If you have an issue with the article, either improve it or take it to articles for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. Continually reinserting speedy deletion tags is disruptive. Somno (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Somno beat me to it with the request to stop re-nominating this page for speedy deletion. If you believe this article should be deleted please consider an AfD. Constantly renominating the article for speedy deletion in the hope of a different outcome might be seen as gaming the system and may result in the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee decision here. No doubt your renomination of this article was in good faith, but please stop doing it and instead consider the alternatives Somno outlines above. Euryalus (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Lumbrokinase
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lumbrokinase, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from https://www.emersonecologics.com/Content/PDF/ProductSheets/FIBR6.pdf, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lumbrokinase and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lumbrokinase with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lumbrokinase.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Lumbrokinase saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Verbal  chat  09:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit on oral sex
Hi OXQ... I recently posted this | here, and wonder if you could add some quoted content form the source so we could look at context. Thanks for your help.(olive (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)) ''This entry is not particularly encyclopedic in my opinion, since its from a relatively old source (1935), makes a sweeping statement ("all primitive peoples") and is quoted without context. As well the book as far as I can tell is not available for review on google books. I wonder if the editor who added the content would consider giving some direct text from the source, and posting it here so context can be checked. I would be happy to re add the content with a summary rather than quote style and some context.(olive (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC))''

"Cunnilingus is very wide-spread among all primitive peoples and from Kubary's reports on the Sonsolans, it can be seen that even the children are already prepared for this".[1]''

Proposed deletion of Oragenitalism


The article Oragenitalism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No real content. Apparently a table of contents.

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. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do note that inclusion of a Table of Contents is not a valid reason for deletion of a article. Its deletion was contested by Cnilep at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cnilep 15:56, 9 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Talk:Oragenitalism ‎ (Oldprodfull, WP:Books) (top) 15:52, 9 December 2009 (hist | diff) Oragenitalism ‎ (Rm prod, pare down content. This is a book stub which requires editing, not deletion.)0XQ (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexual humor


The article Sexual humor has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"

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. andy (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Adding 'original research' to UFO religion article
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to UFO religion, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exomissiology


The article Exomissiology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Neologism

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. Raziman T V (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exomissiology


The article Exomissiology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Seems to be just a WP:NEOLOGISM which only exists in the title of a paper by Thomas Hoffmann].

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. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Exomissiology
I have nominated Exomissiology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Exomissiology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pushing the limits is one thing, but so much of what you do is challenged and deleted that you should seriously question the basis on which you approach wikipedia andy (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dajjal flag nominated for deletion: OR, SYNTHESIS, word salad
Greetings, I have nominated your article Dajjal flag [|for deletion here]. The article is unintelligible word salad with no evidence that the points submitted have any grounding in academic sources. Further, the article has consistently failed to develop a WP-style lede, and its very purpose is difficult to discern. I can't think of any valid reason to retain this article, in its current forms or in any of its previous forms, but will be interested to see your input in the AfD debate. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. ''I can see little evidence that you are contributing constructively to wikipedia. Very many of your edits are reverted and articles deleted and you have been repeatedly been warned and have been threatened in the past with being blocked from wikipedia. Please reconsider your attitude to this encyclopaedia and try to work with the other editors not against them.'' andy (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dajjal flag
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dajjal flag. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Dajjal flag. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Your dissertation on Roman military flags and the Dajjal flag seems to be a poor fit with the subject of the article, and I have taken the WP:BOLD step of reverting it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trip around the world (sexual technique)
A tag has been placed on Trip around the world (sexual technique), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and for notability concerns

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. &mdash; Deontalk 11:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Playing the harmonica (sexual technique)


The article Playing the harmonica (sexual technique) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oragenitalism
Regarding the article Oragenitalism, which you created, do you have plans to expand on the article? Right now it seems mostly a table of contents of the book and a number of quotes from the book, but the article isn't really about the book, nor does it show why the book should have an article here. The heavy use of direct quotes from the book - especially as the main content of the article - seems to run afoul of WP:Non-free content, and I'm not sure the book is notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps a trip over to WikiProject Books for a second opinion and some advice on writing such an article would clear it up. I think if it remains as-is, it will be nominated for deletion fairly soon (honestly, I might do that myself), but I'm checking with you first to see if you have plans to improve it significantly before going that route. Frank |  talk  18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Pcap ping  09:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've removed much of the contents of this article as the extensive use of quotations is problematic under WP:NFC. Non-free media, including text, can only be utilized within that policy and guideline in order to secure the fair use right to the material. That guideline sets out some of the reasons that we may need to use quotations from a copyrighted source, but we cannot just copy the content for the purpose of sharing the information with our readers, as that infringes on the copyright of the author. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Several articles have been blanked as copyright problems because their contents are almost entirely quotation. These are problematic for the same reason above. They are Flying Fuck (sexual technique), Diligence de Lyon (sexual technique), 32 Positions, and Bowling-Hold (sexual technique). If these are not rewritten, they may be revised or deleted after seven days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your note at Talk:Trip around the world (sexual technique). However, since your question has broader implications, I wanted to reply here as well. For material to be presumed public domain in the United States, the laws of which govern Wikipedia, it must have been published before 1923. Otherwise, you must prove that copyright has lapsed, which can be a difficult procedure. See Public domain. I'm afraid that a 1969 publication can by no means be presumed to be public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bagh-i-Muattar


The article Bagh-i-Muattar has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Just a series of quotations. No indication of notability; no encyclopedic content.

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.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Traité didactique de la Plume


The article Traité didactique de la Plume has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication that this book is notable; article contains virtually no information, not even the author of the book.

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.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Traité didactique de la Plume
I have nominated Traité didactique de la Plume, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Traité didactique de la Plume. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bibliography of sexual humor
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bibliography of sexual humor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Warrah (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of New Testament as political satire
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as New Testament as political satire, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. andy (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Svarbhānu


The article Svarbhānu has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Incoherent essay with no clear context. Impossible for the average WP reader to make any sense of this article.

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. andy (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erotolalia


The article Erotolalia has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dictionary definition now copied to Wiktionary. Irrelevant in wikipedia - no encyclopaedic value.

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. andy (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Svarbhānu
I have nominated Svarbhānu, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Svarbhānu. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Svarbhānu
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Svarbhānu. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Svarbhānu. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of New Testament as political satire
I have nominated New Testament as political satire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/New Testament as political satire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nancy talk  09:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shinji Shōbōgenzō


The article Shinji Shōbōgenzō has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that this book is notable - fails WP:NBOOK

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. andy (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shinji Shōbōgenzō


The article Shinji Shōbōgenzō has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BOOK

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. andy (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important warning!
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Political satire, you will be blocked from editing. ''You must be aware of the consensus that your views on this subject are not appropriate for Wikipedia without the sort of support from reliable sources that you seem unable or unwilling to provide. Now you are trying to sneak this material into other articles. I have considered giving you a final warning for this clear act of vandalism but I think you should be given yet another chance to engage fully with Wikipedia and its policies. BUT if you continue down this route you will certainly be blocked from editing, and then who will be able to hear what you want to say? Wake up!'' andy (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to you on my talk page. andy (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock account
he request was declined will be inserted.

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your recent edits to Ergotism: IMHO the sources you cited are far from being reliable sources per WP:RS. Given the nature of the material I felt it best to revert you. andy (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been revoked. A review of you contribution history shows multiple problems that have not improved, in spite of numerous notices and warnings (see above). Your edits are primarily disruptive: copyvios, poorly sourced, just plain making up stuff, and some socking too. Therefore, this block is indefinite. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Oragenitalism
I have nominated Oragenitalism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Oragenitalism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  MBisanz  talk 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cogender


The article Cogender has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Flagged as nn for five years, with little improvement. Suggest either deletion or major cleanup and, *if* it can be sourced to WP:RS standards, turned into a minor section over at Two-Spirit with this as a redirect.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Corbie V  ☊ 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Veridical dream


The article Veridical dream has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication that subject exists, let alone is notable

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Veridical dream


A tag has been placed on Veridical dream requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G5, creator blocked for disruptive editing, and A11, probably sourced to creator's dissertation.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Veridical dream for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Veridical dream 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/Veridical dream 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)