User talk:Lcarscad

Testing....[edit]

I wondered how long my own birthday would last on here! I was edited by a fellow librarian! within 2 minutes... Doh! :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiona Jane Murray (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism from my userpage yesterday. Take care! --Ann Stouter 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business as Mission[edit]

Just for future reference, WP:COI isn't really a valid reason for a speedy deletion. The fact that the author apparently considers his diatribe copyrighted is though.--Isotope23 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - I originally leaned toward copyright, but then changes. I appreciate it. Lcarscad 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micky80 Persistent sockpuppet fabricating hoax article[edit]

See User_talk:NawlinWiki#Lenny09_sockpuppet_for_Gerry2009.3F This "Sid the Cat" article has been deleted once already as nonsense. In it's first incarnation, it was copied and edited from the legitimate "Shaun the Sheep" article. To bad I can't see that history anymore. --Lexein 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your help and guidance. Yours sincerely, Goldie777 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please write back[edit]

Hi--

I notice that you still have not yet written back to me on my talk page. Please do so as soon as possible. Thanks!

Bookdrop 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the revert on my talkpage... looks like he's onto our evil plan, mwa ha ha! :)--Isotope23 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McEwan[edit]

I've removed the speedy tag from this, as it obviously asserts notability (has written four books, writes for a notable magazine etc.) If you still think it should be deleted you can take it to AfD, but I suggest you do a bit of Googling first - the subject seems quite notable to me. Best Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to establish notability to avoid an A7 speedy - it just has to make some claim to notability. A7 is supposed to be for vanity articles which offer no hint of importance whatsoever ("John Doe is a student at Smalltown High School. He likes baseball and playstation") - not articles where it's not immediately obvious whether the subject passes WP:BIO. The latter type shouldn't be speedied as they can often be improved with a bit of searching - in this case a cursory Google brings up quite a few sources, including reviews of his novels in mainstream newspapers, which make him notable enough for me at least. Best Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I'm still figuring it out. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acex23 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mankoff meets the standards of notability as a professor[edit]

I am still in the process of editing this page (along with other contributors), but you should be aware that as a professor, Jennifer Mankoff clearly meets the standards of notability.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillianrh (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:

I made a note on the article's talk page about her notability. Sorry about not signing. I figured since the sinebot does it automatically, it was all under control. I'll be sure to sign in the future. Gillianrh (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Good To Me[edit]

Dear Lcarscad, That sounds very fair and reasonable to me - I like the 'consensus' feeling to Wikipedia. (Although I have often gone to W for information, I never knew how it worked until I got the idea of putting in my own website as a link.) I see your perspective, and still feel my website brings something unique - something that happens differently from the flow of Wikipedia, a comprehensive simplicity that also involves easier access to the flow of direct experience. I will check back about once per week . . . I am hoping it will show up on my talk page, if there evolves a consensus for my link to be added? Again, if possible, I would like to link from all three topics - mysticism, spirituality, and comparative religion. (This is regarding the Heart of the Mystic link I wanted to place.) Your thoroughness and conscientiousness is highly appreciated. VirginiaLouVirginiaLou (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Thought ...[edit]

Hello again Lcarscad, I just thought of something else - if it does turn out that my link is deemed suitable for those three Wikipedia articles, is it appropriate for me to ask you to just go ahead and append it? I still find the navigating a bit cumbersome - password, how to post messages, and so forth . . . if so, then I will just go on and leave it to you...VirginiaVirginiaLou (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to you, then...[edit]

Okay, much appreciated...I will go on to other things, won't bother to check back...enjoyed this 'inside look' at the workings of Wikipedia. Best regards, VirginiaVirginiaLou (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

when I changed the name of the heading to "Facts" it was only because the things there WERE facts and not trivia. Please leave me alone, because I was just fixing a typo. BACK OFF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snazzgurl12 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GARRH![edit]

stop it please. That section is NOT trivia, it is just assorted facts. Trivia is questions. I am going to label it "fun facts" this time, so please do not change it again, because having it called trivia just looks retarted. Snazzgurl12 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...[edit]

I'm sorry that I come across as rude, but trivia is questions, not facts. Please just keep it that way, because trivia is a discouraged wikipedia section. If another editor changes it, then I'll just deal with them, but please please just keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snazzgurl12 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Regards to "Using the Sandbox"[edit]

I am allergic to sand. If you would want me to seriously be injured and/or paralyzed, I will use the sandbox. I was just trying to have some fun. But from now on, I will make completely constructive edits. After all, wikipedia is pretty much the coolest thing ever. I hope you can forgive me. You're really a cool person. I mean, a really cool person. Maybe, just maybe, the coolest person I have ever known on my approximate 20 minute lifetime on Wik-"totally awesome"-ipedia. :) Happy Funtime (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Happy Funtime[reply]

look before you edit..[edit]

The reverts by me are correct, you've just reverted back to vandalized page. *cheers* to the quality acts at wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booker Tee (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (D)runk(A)ss(S)hot(G)lass[edit]

He's off your back now. What Drunkassshotglass said about that whole "WikiGestäpo" really insulted the both of us.

Take action against all enemies!

Publib[edit]

Hello there. I've replied on my talk page. – Toon ^(talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization and collation[edit]

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful Edits and Harassment[edit]

Dude, Your recent edits to the Thomas Bollier, Colby College, and Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry pages have been highly unhelpful and border on vandalism. This concerns me; it seems like you have nothing else to do with your life and have been tracking my edits. Your actions could be considered cyber harassment, a federal offense in the United States. If you could stop tracking my edits and learn something about the subjects your are editing, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. --Basicallymadness (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Thomas Bollier performed brain surgery on one of my good friends, I think I can qualm your fears about his existence. He actually wrote me a letter, a medium of communication that cannot be cited, today alerting to me to his new position as editor-in-chief at Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. I thought, as a concerned citizen of wikipedia, that I would edit their page. In the coming weeks, I am positively certain that the Journal will post his appointment on their website. Honestly, you do not know anything about either Thomas Bollier or the journal, so you are not qualified to edit these pages. I have quite extensive knowledge of both articles, so I will continue to act as a guardian of their pages. --Basicallymadness (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpine Symphony.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpine Symphony.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]