And thanks for keeping the TF2 article clean. :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize Eric the Midget -- I put correct factual information that was presented on the Howard Stern Show, by Eric himself. ~litclass

Sorry but the paragraph:

Lucid dreamers regularly describe their dreams as exciting, colourful, and fantastic. Many compare it to a spiritual experience and say that it changed their lives or their perception of the world. Some have even reported lucid dreams that take on a hyperreality, seemingly "more real than real", where all the elements of reality are amplified. Lucid dreams are prodigiously more memorable than other kinds of dreaming, even nightmares, which may be why they are often prescribed as a means of ridding one's self of troubling dreams.

is nothing but weasel words and the claim that "The validity of lucid dreaming as a scientifically verified phenomenon is well-established." is unsourced and does need a citation. Your edit summary in removing my tags was unnecessarily incivil. Please try to stay calm and comment on the content being discussed. Gwernol 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation for the "validity" claim, that's excellent. Glad we could agree on the paragraph too. Best, Gwernol 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have responded to - well whatever that thing is. I have rolled back your changes - again - you will notice that the set you hasve changed were not mine but an admins! And I have contacted said admin.

It is a pity this could not have been delt with rationally and normally.

I am now off to have a drink - its new years eve here but wish you a hapy new year --Wolfit 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfit, I am dealing with this rationally. I started a mediation so it could be fairly decided. You simply edit war and revert all my changes. I don't really care that an admin reverted my changes, that doesn't mean anything... LilDice 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your help on the Opie and Anthony article. Most of the articles sighted on Opie and Anthony's higher ratings don't even exist at those sites anymore. TheWikiTruthisOutThere

Thank you for your suggestion that I should have added real sources. My contribution was intended to provide info on a very popular induction device that is not currently discussed. This would be similar to the other induction devices currently discussed - Nova Dreamer and Lucille. I'm new to adding information to Wikipedia, although I've been using for a couple years. I'm working on several additions to my previous change which will hopefully provide the needed sources and verifiablity. Should I post the new version of my changes directly to the page (in the same way I did previously) or should I first send you the new version of my changes so you can confirm that are now acceptable (and if not possibly give me a couple suggestions on what else I can do to improve)? Bengler 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that I reverted to a worse edit. Thanks for fixing itC 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits regarding Stern are off a bit. If you want, email me offline to discuss and/or explain? newsyprd@megahits.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.111 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on the articles talk page about how they are 'off a bit'. That's what it's for. LilDice 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Robin Quivers page:

If Howard took the time on Jan 22, 2007 to talk about the site, HowardTV covered it, the site has received 350,000 visits in a month, it deserves to be part of her page history. It isn't slamming her, it is just a side note of her history on the show. It has been added by many people and nobody can understand why you want to keep taking it off her page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.54.242 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk:Robin Quivers page. LilDice 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update your userpage link from Howard Stern Show to The Howard Stern Show, I noticed yours when I was updating pages from the what links here page. Or you can use {{user howard stern}} - Optigan13 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Props on your recent edits to the dream article! V-Man737 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was attacked by the same users around the same time, so it was easy to follow them. They never seem to understand how easy it is to revert their vandalism! Leebo ^T/C 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently had issues with the use of the term WILD. It is a common misunderstanding in online lucid dreaming circles that WILD refers to a technique for entering a Lucid Dream, this is not the case - the author of these terms NEVER intended this definition which is clear when reading any of his works.

Laberge who coined the terms WILD, DILD and the MILD(technique) MILD is a technique - and stands for Mneumonic Induction of Lucid Dreaming. This is Laberges prefered technique and has specific instructions layed out AS A TECHNIQUE by LaBerge himself. It is the similarity between the words MILD and WILD that probably cause the confusion that both are independant techniques, when in reality only MILD is considered a technique.

On the other hand DILD and WILD are not techniques but definitions of Lucid Dreaming TYPES, in which Laberge is trying not to focus on the end result but the route towards that end result. They do not refer to the qualative differences between the resulting lucid dream, which of course makes no sense whatsoever, as lucid dreams are clearly a specific state with only a sliding scale of awareness to differentiate.

In LaBerge's "exploring the world of lucid dreaming" HE says the following:

"Experiences in which people consciously enter dreaming sleep are referred to as wake-initiated lucid dreams (WILDs), in contrast to dream-initiated lucid dreams (DILDs), in which people become lucid after having fallen asleep unconsciously. The two kinds of lucid dreams differ in a number of ways." PAGE 95 Stephen Laberge's "Exploring the world of Lucid Dreaming" 1990

It is therefore completely misleading to refer to a WILD as a "Technique" because it is not. There are many techniques for inducing WILDs (such as counting oneself to sleep) - but the word "technique" is defined as: "A specific approach to performing a task. A methodical means of handling and communicating complex details." - WILD has no such instructions, it is a TYPE of lucid dream defined by it's induction route. Type is defined as: "a subdivision of a particular kind of thing" - which is exactly what LaBerge intended when using the terms DILD and WILD.

So please, thouroughly research these facts before continuing to feed into a common misunderstanding of the correct use of these terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.5.97 (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're out of your mind, it's a semantic difference you could really use type and technique interchangeably it makes no difference. I have read about everything that's written on Lucid Dreaming which is evident by my edits, if you're going to be unreasonable than fine, but at least don't make a mess with CAPITALIZED words in the middle of sentences. LilDice 14:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type and Technique are quite different, it is not simply semantic. The difference between the meaning of WILD and MILD is vast. MILD could not be considered a type of lucid dream, it is clearly a specific set of instructions to enter a DILD or WILD. WILD and DILDs are terms for a type of lucid dream and in no way refers to any one technique.

A WILD is an a state that is achived. MILD is a technique to achive a state of lucid dreaming.

I know this for certain as have had this discussion directly with LaBerge in Hawaii on one of his courses. I know who I consider more the expert in these matters.

You seem to have taken ownership of the Lucid Dreaming Wikipedia - and there has been a good deal of legitimate and useful information removed due to personal opinions as to what is valid. I personaly find this unhelpful and counterproductive.

Also personal comments about peoples state of mind in TALK is offensive, poinltess and comes across as overly defensive.

You seem very certain you know EVERYTHING there is to know on Lucid Dreaming... well I disagree. This is a very basic yet very fundamental point and has been overlooked and disregarded as "semantics" - sorry but that simply isnt the case. There are plenty of examples in other subject that would make just as little sense with this logic. For example in swimming. Breast Stroke is a technique for swimming, whilst Snorkelling is a type of swimming. You can use many techniques whilst snorkelling to swim, but you cannot use snorkelling TO swim. Exactly the same concept.

Have you published any works on lucid dreaming? What are your qualifications other than the belief that you have read "everything" on lucid dreaming? Considering there is published evidence of this clear distinction by one of the leading field in lucid dreaming, in one of his major publications... why do you consider this basic concept irrelevant?

Personally I would prefer a messy yet useful and correct Wiki on Lucid Dreaming, over a tidy, incorrect and restricted to one persons opinion Wiki.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.4.186 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're cracking me up. If you're talking about the state of mind of being conscious while entering REM then sure that is a different state, since you're not quite dreaming you're experiencing HI and all. However, ook at the name WILD = Wake Induced Lucid Dream -- a lucid dream induced by being wakeful, in contrast to a dream induced lucid dream. However, in both cases you end up at the same point a Lucid Dream! You're just hung up on how things are classified, relax a little bit. If you've found a problem cite your sources like a reasonable person and get on with it. Instead you insist on insulting me, no I didn't pay LaBerge to attend an LD seminar, however I have read every published article on lucid dreaming I can find (check the LD page history and you'll see I cite them) as well as LaBerge's book. That's really great you prefer a messy article, however a messy article is not a good one. If you find an error, correct and cite it and there is no argument. But don't foul up the page with bad grammar and spelling. Please use the talk page on the article also, not my own personal talk page so others may be involved. LilDice 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the review on the blog, & then the review offered by the New York Times, & conclude which one is more substantive. Wiki says only blogs from "recognized authorities" can stay. What is a "recognized authority"? My blog review, which includes quotes & references to McCarthy's other work, & extensive quotations from the book itself, is authoritative enough. While not as famous as Michael Chabon (who reviewed the book for the New York Review of Books), I have had novels & poetry published, although here even my own publications are irrelevant--the authority of the piece is what is at hand.

If substance & authority were really the issue here, reviewers for Newsweek or the Village Voice have even less reason being linked to, since they write their reviews to be read in a few seconds, & then forgotten. What really bugs you is that it's coming from a blog. So here--mostly nonsubstantive reviews are allowed links, because they come with a big name attached to it (Newsweek, etc.); why shouldn't a review with actual substance, & the potential to still be read in ten years, not be allowed because it wasn't in a magazine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.229.242 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's just the way it works at wikipedia, I have no doubt that you've written a fine review and are qualified to write a review, however this is an encylopedia, 20 years from now someone will be able to look up the newsweek review, or the NYT review no problem. The same can not be said for most blogs. 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in an attempt to move beyond this contretemps, we've gathered a number of options here. I wonder if you'ld mind having a look and weighing in as to which you'ld prefer. Thanks, --Javits2000 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wish there was some sort of template for that; there are some admins who might not read the article closely and decide: "living? replaceable". Daniel Case 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was just wiki-stalking you to MacCarthy from your user page. I haven't read any of his books, but I have a friend who is a big fan, although she did have him in her death pool last year. I was actually adding the prank call page to wikiprojects, and was going through other pages as well. I just feel like without a project or two pages can go to shit, and adding the workgroup might help you guys out since bio is a huge umbrella. Optigan13 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my next book was going to be private parts, since I've never read it, so over the summer when I have time I'll hopefully be able to add historic stuff to the Howard articles. I was also hoping to read some Bukowski. Optigan13 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to see most of those staff pages go, I need a smaller watchlist. Although Eric just mentioned his article on air apparently, so watch for vandalism on all the stern stuff.Optigan13 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

LilDice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

64.111.107.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy, such as a VPN service. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

If you are using an open proxy or VPN service, you will need to disable it or turn it off in order to edit Wikipedia.

If you believe you are not using an anonymizing proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer using your IP address who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. You may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the Unblock Ticket Request System.

More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). For more information, see the WikiProject Open Proxies.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using an open or anonymizing proxies in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

• Blocking administrator: Ryulong (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: We do not permit editing from open proxies. — Yamla 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Image:Broken-social-scene-.jpg - I removed the speedy delete tag as it was not applicable, please read the speedy deletion criteria again. Thanks, feydey 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know this was a hoax. I heard about it from a friend at work, apparently, he must have lied to me. Delete the article. Klypto 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, your edit requesting speedy deletion of Dinamo Sukhumi was completely wrong, wildly inappropriate, and amounted to a blatant violation of WP:BITE -- Y not?

I am experiencing a strong urge to shower you with a choice four-letter locution. However, I will contain myself. Just read WP:BITE. Then read it again. And watch how you behave towards our newbies in the future. Newbies contribute most of the material here, and 100% of the future regulars. So if you're here to help build an encyclopedia, please re-evaluate your actions. -- Y not? 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I don't see how I violated WP:BITE, the article was barely coherent. I probably should have done a quick search before requesting speedy delete, but it seemed like a safe bet. You need to remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. "Wildly inappropriate" ? Hardly. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 04:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Lake

I was wondering if you couldn't be a little more vague as to the reasons it shouldn't be in Wikipedia? Read what you wrote me, then tell me what content was in what you wrote? Does what you wrote me meet Wikipedia's standards? Here is a little bit about Lost Lake in Mound. Council elections are won and lost over the issue of will Mound have new boat traffic? City Managers get fired when the dredge goes way over budget. Huge amounts of money get spent on removing old dumps on its shores. Are you saying Lost Lake is un-important?