User talk:Cnilep/Archive/10 January 2010

PROD of Panditer vita
Regarding your PROD of Panditer vita. It appears to me, after some research on the web, that the best solution for this might be to redirect it to Atisha. The term is given in the Banglapedia as Panditer vita, so it is possible that someone may search for it under that name in Wikipedia. It is mentioned in the Atisha article under the name Ponditer bhita. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to making such a redirect, and of course any editor is free to remove a dated PROD. Cnilep (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cnilep (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
No problem at all; I'm glad to help. As you can see from the discussion I linked to, where to put DAB pages nominated for deletion is probably one of the most confusing gaps in Wikipedia's deletion apparatus. Best, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion of article "Oragenitalism"
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.)

These were your remarks contesting the proposal for deletion, by Shadowjams, of this article. However, it was deleted anyway (apparently by the same Shadowjams). I suspect that the real reason for deleting it was that my other article about another book by the same author contained a discussion of the historical derivation of Freudism from the sort of materials represented by the book under discussion. Shadowjams is apparently a stalwart Freudian who cannot tolerate any possible challenging the validity of any orthodox Freudian article of faith.

I had been intending either to expand each heading to include a definition each term cited; or else to use this article as an index-article for separate articles for each of the terms as separate topics.

Please see to it if you can help get this article re-instated.0XQ (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is still here. The page does not specifically mention Freud or psychology, nor did its previous contents. Cnilep (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbeam
Thank you for redirecting Thunderbeam. It certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Regards, PDCook (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blood Knight listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blood Knight. Since you had some involvement with the Blood Knight redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Taelus (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gestures
Still seeking consensus on Talk:Types_of_gestures. Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009(UTC)

List of linguistic example sentences
You're right. (In a word, ugh.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hagakure of the Samurai of Saga Han
You placed an Article issues template on The Hagakure of the Samurai of Saga Han, a new article by an inexperienced editor. While the article does indeed have multiple problems, using that template without parameters is not all that helpful. The template's documentation says, "Always specify which issues the article has. Don't use this template without parameters." Also, especially in the case of work by an inexperienced editor, an explanatory talk page entry is advisable (the template specifically refers to the article's talk page. Please consider these suggestions the next time you use that template. Thanks.—Finell 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I often add the Article issues template with 2-3 parameters. (As the template documentation suggests, "A very lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one.") If I forgot to add any parameters, that would indeed be unhelpful and inadvisable. It is not my recollection that I did so, but since the article has been deleted I'm not able to check it in order to jog my frail memory. At any rate, thanks again for the reminder. Cnilep (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Samuil Shatunovsky
Hello Cnilep. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Samuil Shatunovsky, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that page sure expanded quickly. I'm happy to see it. Cnilep (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments
Thank you so much for those helpful tips you put on my talk page! They'll really help me avoid mindless editing and sockpuppetry like the User:Gigogag/User:Ipownfroobs/User:Bdfjghkgj/User:Red Hot Chili Peppers360/User:Abadaba123456789 craze. Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Whatever You Want!
On my talk page, you said that you moved the Talk:Hugh Jackson (businessman) to the talk for his son, Andrew Jackson, Sr.. That is perfectly fine with me. After all, that article was created by one of the most abusive sockpuppetiers in the history of Wikipedia. It doesn't deserve to live! Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of User:Bambifan101 or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy? They pwn are widely considered the most abusive sockpuppetiers in the history of Wikipedia.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

o sory. everybudy maeks mistaks, lyke i due with my speling, although i dont reeliz it Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are doing that on purpose. Stop.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance Needed
Is there any non-existent article that you'd be happy to see on Wikipedia? If so, could we team up and create it? Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)