Hi. I would like to thank you for your advice and participation in my RFA which I have decided to withdraw as I lack overall experience at present. Thanks Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. I quite like it (although I'm not so sure about that VS part). Also I'm actually on Wikipedia every day. I just don't edit that much. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that is no forum. I am trying to report that the eclipse is now underway. How do I report that then ?! 65.173.104.223 09:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I really confused myself ;-) MusiCS 10:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on MAFIAA. I do not think that MAFIAA fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Maybe not notable; but not A7 material - and the deletion would be contested anyway. I request that you consider not re-tagging MAFIAA for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page.

If you really think its a lost cause; take it to the full AfD 206.126.170.20 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, upon viewing the history, it created (and deleted) before. I wasn't aware of that orginally, so there's little point in AfD a second time given that fact. Given that, and that current version probably isn't any better, it might as well be CSD A7, there no point dragging it through a 2nd AfD it won't survive anyway. 206.126.170.20 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have, in fact read said "policy," but the contradictions with other policies leads me to believe it's original synthesis. I didn't find a single reliable source in it. I also suspect that it slanders the 2036 Summer Olympics. See WP:LIBEL. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and watching my back. I can't believe I did that - brain ache from ploughing through about 4000 contribs for two RFA's is my only defence! Better skip over to RC Patrol before I do some real damage..... :) Pedro |  Chat  07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's Wikipedia of the agenda this morning - That's a craking site! Pedro |  Chat  08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism on my RFA. I now know there is room for improvement. I have withdrawn my RFA at (8/7/1). Hope to see ya around. -Flubeca^Talk 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your (perhaps rhetorical) question[1], yes, Enspector does make me think of Norman Spector. I first came across the user name on the Warren Kinsella page. If you are familiar with Kinsella or Spector, you will know that there is long-standing bad blood between the two. As soon as I saw the user name, I thought, "This user is impersonating Norman Spector." Then I looked at his edit history and saw that he has only ever edited two articles, Norman Spector and Warren Kinsella. AverageGuy 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It asked me to cite why that page should stay, and before I got a chance to, you deleted it, in fact, I clicked submit and was sent to the page missing. I don't believe that youshould have deleted the page as soon as you did. It was not up long enough that I should have a chance to explain it, but I suppose that it is good that you decided that this was a valid use of your power.Naota

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Naota (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can probably take a look tomorrow night/morning. I remember reading a thing or two about this awhile back, so I will see what I can dredge up too. IvoShandor 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lucid:

I had forgotten about this exchange with Rockpocket. It took me a minute or two to find your message, as I assumed anything new would be at the bottom of the page. You put it in the obvious place, given the subject, but not given my brain this morning. I have not yet had my second coffee. I am in no hurry about this article, obviously. My agenda here is that I do have a strong bias against companies using Wikipedia as yet another advertising medium. They have everything else; leave Wiki alone. If the gizmo is a reality and is notable, then let's write it up accordingly. Otherwise, I am inclined to treat it as just more stuff being touted, and a candidate for leisurely deletion. Bielle 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I'll take more care in future. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrievousMan0203 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lucid, I noticed you had warned User:Alasdair about an incorrect WP:UAA report. I don't know if this was in reference to the username containing the word 'pee', but in any case, I've started a thread on the UAA talk page here and your comments would be most welcome. All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in any case, there seems to be some disagreement about UAA and your comments are welcome, regardless of the date of your message. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

heyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.176.11 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:D It's the guy who lives next door to the third-degree cousin of science's step-mom's highschool sweetheart and never leaves his flat. Ok, I'm doing it injustice, maybe. —AldeBaer 09:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My IQ is higher than yours, BTW. xoxoxoxo, -- 67.161.150.171 14:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. #12 here and #1 here should answer your question --lucid 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a filthy, filthy lie. Either cite relevant policies, or put in an RfC, or get off my back. – 67.161.150.171 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You have been warned multiple times and shown the exact policy that says this. Just because you disagree with it does not give you an excuse to vandalize Wikipedia. --lucid 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NPA and WP:CIV, which you have broken multiple times --lucid 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you cut this out? I have to see "You have new messages" everytime I log on to wikipedia now. All of my edits were/are good faith. You've cited no wikipedia policies to support the "no fair use images in blp" articles. It feels more like you're harassing me than anything else -- which is not only uncivil, but also a personal attack. Can you either put up or shut up? xoxoxoxo -- 67.161.150.171 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The messages thing is a known bug that happens to IP users. Creating an account and logging in will fix it, you might also want to see WP:WHY. It has nothing to do with harassment, I have no control over when that box shows up or doesn't, and a software bug annoying you is not the same as a user harassing you. Anyway, I have shown you the exact policy that deals with this, that you do not like it is not my problem. --lucid 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in here or here that forbids fair use images in blp articles. I don't want to login and create an account. Posting threatening warnings on my IP's talk page for an non-existent policy feels pretty harassing to me -- especially after I've asked you to stop. -- 67.161.150.171 13:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, yes, there is. Read them again if you must. While you are perfectly welcome to not create an account, you should not complain about the consequences of not doing such. And again, see WP:CIV, repeatedly accusing me of harassing you is very much against it --lucid 13:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, no, there isn't. I've read them three times now. There is absolutely nothing in them forbidding fair use images from blp articles. If there was, you would have quoted it, but there's not. You're gaslighting me, it's wrong, it's uncivil, and it's harassing. Stop it. -- 67.161.150.171 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Loholt, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/loholt.html. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip. I got scolded for removing talk page comments when I first started, and I generally thought it went for ALL. Now the talk page looks way better. Thanks again! -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your speedy tag as unless it is a hoax, that article is not "nonsense". Please be more careful with your use of speedy tags. --Dweller 11:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a hoax? --Dweller 11:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(NB that particular article hasn't previously been created) The article doesn't read as nonsense, and makes enough of a claim for notability for AfD or prod, rather than speedy. --Dweller 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are reasonable. I've userfied it. I'll also keep an eye on the user. --Dweller 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's uncommonky kind of you... thank you! --Dweller 11:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know approximately how far in he makes his statement regarding open source being the only good way to do software on the vid at [2]? I don't really have an hour to spare watching the whole thing (as git isn't really of much interest to me personally), but I would like to confirm the information -- not because I don't believe you, but because I find it interesting to see how much becoming a millionaire has changed his views of the world, despite constantly saying "Oh now it's not going to change me, I swear!". spazure (contribs) (review) 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Conversation concluded on my talk page, positive outcome obtained. Thanks. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A while back you agreed on the Talk:Wii Menu talk page that the firmware updates section should be moved to the Wii page. It was moved, then moved back when a user disagreed on the issue and stated that there was no consensus on Talk:Wii talk page about moving it. If you still feel that the section should be moved, I invite you to say so on the Wii talk page. Thank you. Zomic_13 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was just a message to show that lucid dreaming is sometimes unwanted situation, some people may be unwilling lucid dreamers. There is not any info about this in the article (if there is, sorry for my English.). And since we dont accept any "term of use", you should warn people more "soft"ly :)

thanks for the advice but it would be better if there is any info about lucid dreaming is not always GOOD thing. --88.224.136.157 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You OK? --Dweller 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why? —AldeBaer 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems a new user, Cavern Kowalski (talk · contribs) has reverted the page to the edit that Diversity Group (talk · contribs) made. I suspect it may be a sockpuppet, but s/he has only made one edit so far, that being to the WADL_(TV), so it may be too early to know for sure. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I thought the one before my edit was vandalizing. So I undid it. And I didn't check it. I apologize my fault. Please don't think it is a vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.30.109 (talk) 06:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

== MAFIAA

Hello! I'm sorry, it's not that I don't believe you, but I am wondering where it says that fair use images cannot be used on user pages. I read the page about fair use and didn't see it. Do you think there are exceptions? Just curious about that. Thanks! Capt. Phœbus ^(talk) 03:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lucid. There is a discussion concerning a proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies. Beagel (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that you had nominated the article Sreelakshmi Suresh for deletion earlier. I am making an attempt now, knowing very much that it would fail. May I invite you to make a vote. Austria156 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Great Mall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Mall 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 template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't a friendly place though. If you can tell me of one editor with over 1000 contribs who hasn't been insulted, trolled, flamed, or had some other experience dealing with morons on wikipedia, I might support you -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 07:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)"

Off the top of my head, I don't think I've received any particularly harsh insults. Jimbo once told me to stop trolling, but that's about the worst of it, unless I'm forgetting something. Benjamin (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)