User talk:Kzzl/archive 7.8

=from now on, wack people use this page, cool people use /izl. that's all.= /Dzzl /Nzzl these accounts are. . mostly retired and currently largely deactivated. see user:kzzl/username consolidation. if compelled to leave a message for "dzzl" or "nzzl" specifically, that's fine. You'r still really getting kzzl tho. past dzzl talk is here past nzzl talk is here

kzzl archives: 1 2

hola (regarding article Karl)
what was wrong with "and architect of his reelection campaign" here? I see why the marx thing won't work, but... Yameen? 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It had scare quotes and was thus a sarcastic or non-NPOV comment. There's no point having an edit war in a disambig page and that detail is not necessary in a disambig page anyway -- just talk about it in the main article.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-08 10:02Z 

Image Tagging Image:Lady falling.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Lady falling.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZsinjTalk 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * sweeet. good lookin out. /izl      06:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The bear
Thanks! I love the dancing bear, although I may not put it on my userpage, lest it get deleted. Cheers!  Ban  e  z  15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * right. it's not for any wikipedia mainspace, and one can't upload images to any other space here. there are other spaces and wiki's on th net tho, thankfully. Kzz RzzKnocker 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Daza
The problem is that a link like Decolonization of Africa is pratically useless in a context like this because it could be used to thousand of article, for the genericity of the argument tells us little of the Daza's specific history. I'll try adding a few "see also" to add context.--Aldux 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * k. thanks for th extra linkz on there. I thiynk you'r right I guess I just like to see some link to.... mine was weak, but I knew there should be something. yours are strong.

/izl 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

re: no policy debate on afd
Well it’s just not really the place. Sorry if I sounded cabalistic or something :D But what I really mean is AfD is to discuss whether or not a page deserves to be deleted, not whether to make a change to two out of Wikipedia's three core content policies in order to let a page survive... —porg es (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the idea of any such seachange in policy was seriously being floated thereon. sometimes the best thoughful criticism of policy (whether AfD hounds like it or not) comes from sore authors who's stuff is getting the axe. these policies can have their really retarded moments. The immediate audience is like the worst a rebel could hope for, and his arguments are almost always inspired by a fondness for his own work. but sometimes, good points are made. BUT you'r right. it's not the place. it just often ends up being the place. hehe. Ka- zizzl Mc 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

singular they
Please discuss on subject page. - Yes perhaps it is a lot to wade through, and might involve reading actual books. I have no intention of re-writing all of the previous discussions of myself & others, thanks.Bridesmill 23:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding this edit: Please remain civil and do not make accusations or insults directed towords other users. --InShaneee 02:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * dude or madam- all due respect- pointing out every anon who comments is silly. it's telling the teacher on you. is that civil? Ka- zizzl Mc 03:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Helping the closing admin identify valid posters is courtesy. If you read the voting policies, comments by extremely new users are routinely discounted to prevent vote flooding. Being disrespectful to other users is against policy. --InShaneee 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the link in my userpage kudos to you man! XSpaceyx 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * my pleaʒ. /izl 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Postings on Talk/Discussion pages
What's up with the wikichat? Talk/discussion pages are intended for the discussion of articles, not for expressing personal opinons about subjects (like does this woman understand the words that are coming out of her own mouth?). John Broughton 00:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * it's about the timing. if you weren't watching the news, I see why it would strike outt context. Kɔffeedrinksɔ|you 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still don't understand. Do you think your postings are constructive?  By that, I mean that they lead to an improvement in the articles?  Exactly how would that work, given they are (giving you the benefit of the doubt) so time-sensitive?
 * To me, you seem to be saying that wikichat is okay. I don't see that it is - it pollutes the talk/discussion pages, and encourages others to do the same. John Broughton 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * your point is valid. the pages are indeed for what you say they are for, pollution is bad. I'm not always focusing on the content of a given article at a given moment. some things need to be said. perhaps it'll take a while until the whole truth makes it's way onto the content page. also, plenty of multi-person conversations digress on talk pages. mine (albiet single-person conversation) starts out less sequiter than most people's and you'r right away convinced it's so not constructive? Kɔffeedrinksɔ|you 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do sympathize - there are a lot of stupid people and outrageous things out there in the world, and wikipedia seems a generally sane place. So it's tempting to comment to other editors about things that can't be said in the main article (because that has to be objective and polite and only give the facts and let the reader come to the conclusion that someone is a scumbag, and it's hard to say, objectively, in the article, that someone is stupid or something is outrageous, because you have to find a verifiable objective third party who already said it). Still, the the extent you can restrain yourself, it would be appreciated.  John Broughton 15:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * right on. I'm familiar process-- w/ the facts on the-- yeah. do you have any anchors or famous people you hate or love?''

Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don't do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts don't stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape -talking headz Kɔffeedrinksɔ|you 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization
I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) - 6/4/06 Kzzl, the part you sent me about "US person" sounds good for the article. I didn't know that was a real term. I just thought it was part of sentence. It would probably be better if you put the defination of it inside the article in that same area instead of linking it to a page that doesn't exist, unless you are planning on creating the page for the term too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.30.33 (talk • contribs)

Fetal Pain
something about pennies? what? Adambiswanger1 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * something about academic debate? huh? it's a metaphor. no one wonders if flies feel pain when we kill them, cuz no one knows the motherfly first hand and gestation isn't 9 months. sorry- I should read the article first. some "debates" are about making a generic audience member "feel" something. some are truly academic. CrackityKzz 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Zen Wikimood 07a.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Zen Wikimood 07a.PNG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimood
Wikimood works like this:

Depending on what number you choose, your mood changes. For example, 00 is "Neutral", and -02 is "Depressed". Just insert that template wherever you want the Wikimood to appear. Then change the number any time your 'mood' changes. I hope this helps, happy editing! Prodego talk  13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it up on your userpage for you. Prodego  talk  15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know why that dosen't work. Prodego  talk  16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the problem, your image is affected by the resizing bug, which affects svg and png images. Put simply, the bug causes your image not to work at 180px, the size used in the Wikimood template. Prodego  talk  16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

 * Sorry, I can't help you there. I haven't had much to do with userboxes for several months. Many were substed directly onto userpages to make them less visible to the community as a whole, a small number have not survived at all, and some have been the subject of longrunning debates at TfD and Deletion Review. Of those which didn't survive at all, the majority were probably the result of trolling, although not all. You might like to ask User:Karmafist, who came up with the compromise which has allowed things to settle down, he might have a better memory than I as to where you might find this sort of information. As for the current situation, if you want to say something about yourself on your userpage that might be controversial, you are better off writing a short paragraph of text to explain yourself rather than placing "This user likes to barbeque six-year old children" (as a random example) in a little coloured box! You should also take a look at the ArbCom case on userboxes... Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kennisnet
Not only one stub-sorter, but two! =) Amalas   =^_^=  19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hehe. where are the content-expanders!? McKzzFizzer 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title -> User:SushiGeek/Title
Hi. I notice you used Template:Title for your user and user talk pages. Per discussion on templates for deletion, I've userfied Template:Title at User:SushiGeek/Title. This has been fixed for you. SushiGeek 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The fix was that I moved Template:Title to User:SushiGeek/Title. SushiGeek 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The template was deleted to stop people trying to use it in articlespace. The changes to the template itself help to make it immune to browser customizations (for instance, see how it used to look in the Cologne Blue skin; the new version turns off the title fix in skins other than Monobook (and Classic, in which it's still broken). --ais523 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * can we make something for those of us who want it for userspace? McKzzFizzer 17:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; transcluding has the same effect as  used to have. Reverting your userpage to SushiGeek's edit should display the changed title again. --ais523 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * is the exact deleted content of available anywhere? McKzzFizzer 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SushiGeek/Title&oldid=60310444 --ais523 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Agnostic theism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Agnostic theism, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Agnostic theism. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I think if someone nominates something for deletion
and that article ends up being kept, the nominator should incur some consequence. something like no more nominations for a week or no more nominating a certain type of article or seomthing. I dunno. I guess prosecuters can still prosecute after they lose cases. but the defendant gets something- a settlement, his name cleared, lawyers fees at least. some afD nom's are annoying. k zz* 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to one of the irritations of Wikipedia. Most of us know the frustration of starting an article that we think is interesting or important only to have some (what we feel to be) officious f__l decide that it isn’t encyclopedic and is worthy of an AfD nomination. We can all agree that the Wiki standards for what should be kept are seriously variegated; my current pet peeve is that almost any first-world company warrants retention, but I’ve seen a number of second-world companies dismissed out of hand. I really question some of our AfD standards.


 * But there are certainly some articles that deserve to be culled. And I’m unwilling to be one of those folks who sorts through all the new articles to find the occasional crap. So I’m not enthusiastic about discouraging those folks who will do so.


 * When I had an article nominated as an AfD, I made myself a few guidelines:
 * When I add a new article, I think carefully about how to present it to give in the maximum encyclopedic weight. Just a word or two can make a difference.
 * I craft the new article in my sandbox to make sure it looks pretty good and reads smoothly before I move it onto its new page.
 * I try to make it several paragraphs long (the more substance the better).
 * I find a category for it (lack of categories tends to trigger AfD sweeps).
 * And if I know someone with a similar interest, I recruit them to help add material as soon as it is posted. Articles that have multiple interested folk are less likely to be targeted as AfD.


 * You can continue to fight the battle to Keep Wikipedia Wierd. Watch the AfD page. Look for articles on the AfD page that you think need support and are getting an unbalanced hearing. Support their retention if you think they should be retained.


 * And if someone repeat nominates a page after it has survived one AfD nomination, remember that repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. Contact an administrator for an opinion whether this warrants a speedy keep decision.


 * Probably not what you wanted to hear, and I’m sure there are others who will support your view (a year ago I would have and I'm still a pretty strong inclusionist.) but at Wikipedia we are nothing if not tied up in an incredible pile of consensus based Wiki-policy based on years of fighting through exactly the same arguments again & again & again & again & again & again & again... Not as immediately satisfying as we'd like. Sort of like democracy, not a very good form of government, but better than anything else out there.


 * Hit me at [User talk:Williamborg|home]] if you want to talk more. Williamborg (Bill) 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * your response is thoughtful. thanks. yeah- I hate when a "baby" of mine gets deleted, but that's not even what put me on tilt this time. I'm not enthusiastic about discouraging anyone from sorting through new stuff to discern the unworthy crappy content either. there is plenty. indeed, much culling is needed on the wikipedia scene. I think some people are just haters tho. keeping wikipedia weird is def something I'm into, but it's intellectual dishonesty and information-campaign agendas hiding behind policy that piss me off. I guess 'pedia politics is just like real politics. I have dreams of starting my own wiki. It would satisfy all the itches that wikipedia has been unable to scratch due to (as you said) the way it happens to have evolved. I don't know if it would really be a better wiki, a better process. turns out, you can't just start a wiki, you gott promote it somehow.
 * it's funny that you say a year ago you were slightly more inclusionist. I think process has gotten so gluttonously bureaucratic compared to, say, 2 years ago. keep it wankster. k zz* 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)