User talk:Someone else

Clean slate: previous contents in history

---

Re Lung: very clear, thanks! AxelBoldt 18:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Cheers for the correction on Robert Edwin Lee! --snoyes 04:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I guess my concern is his suddenly rewriting the article to claim that immunity doesn't exist - I saw a Discover article some time ago about the apparently immune African prostitues, were they all just lucky? In particular, they have been cited as evidence for natural selection among humans, so I can't help wondering if anyone objecting to their existence is a creationist. -- Pakaran 05:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think at last count, 43 of them were still lucky. It make sense to talk about "relative susceptibility" rather than "immunity", which is too absolute-sounding. -- Someone else 06:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 quotes vs. italics 2 not trolling 3 Poll: New York City 4 Osiris - Dionysus 5 Article Licensing 6 Image:ErikXIVtree.png

quotes vs. italics

I guess i forgot how plays were written. Am I right in my other thinking?

• novels, "short stories"
• movies, "television shows"

Kingturtle 10:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! That info should be on Wikipedia:Manual of Style in easy to read form, no? Kingturtle 11:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

not trolling

• We've had this discussion about five times before. We've had votes. Bringing it up on VfD again without trying to get a consensus first is pretty close to trolling, though I regret using such a word to describe the actions of Someone else. Martin 18:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Martin, the problem can't be cured by a fragmented approach. And a return to discussion after more and more redirects get added is not fairly assessed as trolling. -- Someone else 19:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Two more redirects, I believe. The productive approach would be to get a consensus on Talk:AKFD/redirect on those two redirects, which should be easy, and then list those two redirects here. Relisting the whole kit-and-caboodle is not going to be productive, I fear. Martin 19:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I'm just being unnecessarilly frightened. I've removed this from VfD, because it probably wasn't being very productive. Martin 19:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How is it going to be more productive here than it was on VfD? -- Someone else 19:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Fewer people will see it, and you can delete it when read. Some folks get perturbed when I just delete their writings, so now I often move to user talk: instead for them to deal with as they will. Martin 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So you want fewer people to see it? why? -- Someone else 20:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because I think I wasn't being productive, so if fewer people see it then it will waste less of other people's time. Also, as I noted, I think I may have been unnecessarilly frightened. On the other hand, if you believe it is productive, by all means return it to VfD. Martin 20:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how you can have been frightened. Is the deletion of the network of AKFD redirects frightening? Nonetheless, I agree that the most productive thing would be to let a few other people express their opinions. -- Someone else 20:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm frightened at the kicking of sleeping dogs. Martin 23:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dogs should be trained not to lie in the way. This one's blocking the doorway having puppies. I'm frightened that the unwatched pot will boil over. -- Someone else 00:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From Talk:AKFD/November 2003, I can't tell what people are thinking about deleting the original article. I don't think the redirects issue can be solved until that is decided. If the article goes, there is no point having redirects to it. Do you think the consensus on the original article was to delete it? Angela 16:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the old votes on redirects are void because people were voting about redirecting to an article that existed, but now it doesn't exist (except as a redirect). However, Martin says this would be a mistake, and I can see his point. He suggests contacting those who previously voted to keep one or more of the redirects to ask them if, with the article having no independant existence, they would like to change their vote, or else re-affirm it. I've already wasted too much time on this silly article, so I'll leave it up to you if you want to do that. Votes should be made at Talk:AKFD/redirect. Angela 17:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you - I thought I'd voted several times on this issue already but that seems not to be good enough for some people :( Secretlondon 19:47, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get to say "Martin decided", given that I just expressed my opinion to Angela, when she asked me. Still, maybe I should just be grateful that I have such power. Martin 21:12, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I certainly anticipated you'd raise a fuss if she deleted the pages that were voted on. Was I wrong? -- Someone else 21:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've previously expressed my deep respect for Angela's decision-making abilities in this area, and her wisdom in determining when there is rough consensus for deletion. Where Angela decides to delete an article that was listed on VfD, I rarely have cause to even question her judgement, let alone the desire to raise a fuss. Martin 22:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Angela's decision-making ability was not in question. -- Someone else 22:21, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is Someone else gone from Wikipedia? That's disheartening. john 08:02, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it is, if that's so. If you're lurking out there, Someone, come back! --Camembert (who would put this in a poetic way if capable...)

I wonde if Someone else would be kind and check what I wrote on Folkung? Hope your are still there...Long time no hear? Dan Koehl 15:53, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Poll: New York City

You expressed interest in the name of the New York City article on its Talk page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thank you. --Lowellian 00:01, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Someone Else hasn't posted since last November, sadly

Osiris - Dionysus

Hello.

Could you help fix the Osiris-Dionysus article? I have noticed you using that talk page. The article should contain information from Osiris and Dionysus though with respect to Mystery religions rather than earlier legends.

I would prefer it not to include Historicity of Jesus as that doesn't seem very relevant to much more than a small summary and then a link to Historicity of Jesus which (now) contains that information (I am currently slowly editing that page, so it looks a bit of a mess at the moment).

The Osiris and Dionysus pages will need to have a link back to the Osiris-Dionysus page as will Attis etc.

Google may be a good place to look for content.

The Osiris-Dionysus page will need to be linked to from Life-death-rebirth deity as well.

Duplication on any of those pages will need to be removed, and replaced with a short summary linking to the Osiris-Dionysus page.

Thanks.CheeseDreams 19:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 17:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Image:ErikXIVtree.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ErikXIVtree.png. I notice it currently doesn't have a specific image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, bdesham 00:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)