You stole all my girlfriends :( -User:towel401

---

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Please note that the dialog on this issue has been moved to a separate discussion page: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 19:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need a source of the quote describing Madge Oberholtzer as apearing to have been "chewed by a cannibal"

• I think I may have it. There is a webpage that appears to contain the Front Page of the Indianapolis News from 16 Nov 1925. The lead article is about the conviction on that day of D. C. Stephenson, and it contains the quote you are looking for. My only hesitation is that this webpage is clearly a reconstruction of the front page in HTML, made by a teacher of US history for his/her class. Is it accurate? I don't know, but it sure looks good. Link: Indianapolis News 16 Nov 1925. — Aetheling (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to update the article counts. --JWSchmidt 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Impeccability. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to create them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other sources you used to add content to Impeccability? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? See WP:CITET for some quick templates to use for citing sources. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am just curious... Billvoltage 02:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adolpho.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you like to contribute to serial killer articles I am trying to organize a task force on this subject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography. If you would be interested in joining contact me. Thanks, Jmm6f488 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come help me build SAY. Foil the deletionists. TCO (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lauren Bessette. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Bessette. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Someone else! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Deborah Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jedediah Chapman 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/Jedediah Chapman 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 good 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Stevens (immigrant) 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/John Stevens (immigrant) 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. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(delivered by mabdul 23:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Someone else,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Since you are among the first who wrote on my talk page in 2002 I want to invite you to the Ten Year Society.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Someone Else! By Wikipedia standards, for many years ago now, you created the Oscar II article, as it seems from the history file. (Well done, by the way) But as you presumably know, has our demands for sources and especially for inline refeerences, been tightened quite a lot since 2002. I'm just wondering if you possibly could make that article up to today's standard of references. I haven't got any litterature on him, except encyclopedical stuff. Thought perhaps you have ? If you don't care about this task at all, then please just ignore this meassage. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your username, it made my day

Aiden LaBonne (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Harry Potter censorship and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Harry Potter censorship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're one of the OGs here at Wikipedia. Since you last edited, people stopped using MySpace and went to Facebook and now Instagram and TikTok, phones went from having buttons to touchscreens, forums were mostly replaced by chat groups, we saw the emergence of AI everywhere, went through a pandemic, etc. etc. etc.. I am very curious if the person who made this account is still around. It has been over 20 years, what happened meanwhile? We might never know... Someone else, if you ever end up reading this, I would appreciate if you could reply below. I'll be checking this page for some time. Cheers. -- some dude in 2024 with the IP 85.243.5.11 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]