User talk:Kzzl/archive1

Common acceptance of the word "animal" already excludes "human", no need to inject an off-topic perspective into the article at sexual attraction by changing "animal" to "non-human animal". I have changed it back. KeyStroke 15:48, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Don't post nonsense to Wikipedia. RickK 05:33, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Threats are also unacceptable, and can lead to being blocked from editing. RickK 05:51, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Last warning. If you create Kzzl or any other nonsense one more time, you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. RickK 05:59, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

sir- kzzl is my name. you can't create an entry called rickk? and what do you do sit around and watch for misbehaving? I get kicked outta the visit everyday club if I displease you? see Nonsense

Just so you're aware, I know you're the same user as User:64.12.116.195 and similar IPs. Rather than block you pre-emptively, I'll give you one last chance to shape up or ship out. -- Hadal 06:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dude, I think you just blew it with your rant. I think it's only fair to tell you that this isn't a blog page and "open content" doesn't mean you can paste just anything here. Take a peek at my user page and the pages of some of the others here and check out their contributions, OK? If you want to continue here, color inside the lines. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 23:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page:

See my standard welcome greeting:

I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! You seem to be off to a great start, making numerous good contributions. If you have not yet registered a user name, I encourage you to do so, because while editing anonymously is great, anonymous users sometimes don't get to experience the full community aspect of Wikipedia. Registering a user name will give you an identity on Wikipedia and allow you to do several things anonymous users can't, such as vote in polls, set preferences, and upload images.

You may wish to review some or all of the following pages to aid you in your editing:

Again, welcome, and thanks for contributing. Hope to see you around. blankfaze | (беседа!)

Also see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There is no master of The West Wing article. Anyone can contribute to it. I have noticed, however that you made one particularly poor taste edit to it, which I removed. However, the majority of your edits seem to be okay. So, if you're here to contribute positively and constructively to Wikipedia, I encourage you to do so. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm vocal about users putting anything they wish on their own pages, but creating a list of "people who've been mean to me" could possibly burn potential bridges before they can even be built. Mike H 23:55, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I saw you editing your page, with the section "people who've been mean to me" coming up under the edit summary in Recent Changes. I've only seen West Wing a few times, so I'll see what you did and get back to you. Mike H 00:07, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Look, some of us are trying to help. PLEASE don't post these bizarre little articles of yours. You seem like a smart guy. Don't blow it by screwing around and getting banned. - Lucky 6.9 02:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's my answer to the question you left on my talk page. Hope this helps. It's always much more pleasant to try and deal with someone who is at least making an effort, however misguided:

Call it a learning curve, not a fuck-up. You did a no-no by posting copyrighted material from another website. I think the admins are keeping an eye on you, so be careful that you don't get banned. Best way to do that is to browse around some of the articles on the site, maybe via the "random page" link on the left side of the page. That'll give you a better idea of what this is all about. You seem to have a knack for pop culture...why not concentrate on a subject you like by either creating or expanding an article? - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was mean to you by giving you a second (actually, more like a fourth) chance, eh? I've already blocked you under two IP addresses, but I did not block your username because you seemed to have smartened up. However, you've now committed a copyright violation and you've chosen to continue your personal attack on another user [1]. While the former can be excused as a mistake, the latter is unacceptable; if I see one more bad edit from you, it'll be your last. I strongly suggest you take Lucky's sagely advice to heart. -- Hadal 03:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Hadal. Kzzl, here's a copy of my answer to your latest question:

Best thing to do for now is to assume that just about anything you cut and paste from the internet belongs to someone else unless they've expressly given permission to use the text, image or whatever. I think there's a form letter here on the site that you can e-mail to whomever you wish asking for clearance to use the info. It's tricky, though. The wigwag article I wrote had some photos that I'd received permission to use...and I still couldn't use them. They belonged to other parties. All but one of the photos were taken by the person that granted permission in the first place. One's mine. Anyway, if you go to the bottom of any page, it talks about the "GNU" license and what constitutes fair use. Good luck! - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right-wing conspiracy stub

Now you're getting the idea! Nice little stub, well-written and has a link to a corresponding article to boot. I did a couple of minor appearance tweaks and a couple of wikis. Take a look. - Lucky 6.9 18:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense

I warned you that I would block you if you insisted on creating nonsense. Last warning. Rick K 23:55, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects

I see you've been trying to make several redirects to articles, but you have it all wrong. The correct way is to place the following:

#redirect [[article title]]

on both the edit text and the summary. Thanks. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:29, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Question for you on Talk:Ben Folds Five -- Tim Starling 03:18, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

BLocking. It looks like I blocked an Id that you were using that Michael, who is a hard-banned user, was also using yesterday. If you log in, you won't have that problem. Michael is not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any circumstances, and it looks as if you stumbled onto the same ID. It will go away after 25 hours, but if you log in, you won't be blocked. Rick K 18:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wictionary

The fact that wiktionary needs a lot of work is not grounds for putting dictionary defintions on wikipedia. Wikipedia needed a lot of work in it's early days too. Wictionary will grow as more more people work on it. theresa knott 19:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ish

I've undeleted Ish after discussions indicate that several admins all agreed that it didn't qualify as a speedy deletion. Policy requires that it be listed on Wikipedia:VfD after that, so don't be surprised when it gets that tag and appears there. If you want this to be in the encyclopedia, I recommend that you add some description of how it came about, the use to avoid censorship and similar. Otherwise it's going to be deleted according to normal process as a dictionary definition. In short: do make it an article or it'll be gone again in five days. Don't take this action by me as support or opposition to the presence of it - it's just following process. As theresa knott noted, if you do want it to be simply a dictionary definition, Wictionary is the best place for it. Jamesday 00:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As required by policy, I'll be listing this on Wikipedia:VfD in a few minutes. Jamesday 19:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Less than objective articles

If you see a less than objective article which you don't want to edit directly, one way to approach it is to write your concerns on the talk page for the article to see whether others agree with you. Use an edit comment for the talk which makes it clear to anyone who is watching the page that you're asking for opinions about a proposed change. Jamesday 19:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Handbags

Hi Kzzl. Thanks for you message about deletion on my talk page. I always knew that it would be a difficult article to keep. It is real and verifiable, but not important in the grand scheme of things. By attempting to keep it, I was trying to highlight concerns about m:systematic bias - because of the background of people who edit at Wikipedia we have lots of information about computer games and fictional characters but less on companies, particular non-Western ones. I suspect if the company had been on Middle-earth instead of Hong Kong island we would've kept it! :)

Looking at your talk page it seems like you've had a few run-ins with some of our admins in your early days. I hope that that's all settled down and you appreciate that they're all just trying to create the best encyclopedia there is. Hope you enjoy doing that too. Pcb21| Pete 09:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User subpage

You put {{delete}} at User:Kzzl/message to meddler. Do you really want this page to be deleted? --Merovingian✍Talk 22:12, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Personal attacks can get you banned from editing. Rick K 04:50, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

editing your user page

I was reverting what appeared to be vandalism of your user page. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject still active?

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 07:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are 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:

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:

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 what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Category:Nonsense slang

Hi - I see you've added some subpages off your user page into category:Nonsense slang. Reading your user page, I assume you created these as subpages of your user page rather than as wikipedia articles to keep them from being deleted. Do you think you could recategorize what you've put in category:Nonsense slang into category:Kzzl pages (or perhaps category:Kzzl's nonsense slang which could be a subcategory of Kzzl pages)? I suggest this since I suspect there might eventually be a category for nonsense slang with articles from the wikipedia article namespace, and categories themselves only have a single namespace which is nearly exclusively used for articles (and categories) in the main wikipedia article namespace. Please let me know what you think about this. -- Rick Block 16:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orwellian

Thanks, unlooked for, random praise always good to get. I certainly think the word is important to include and so do the other people, including you, who have created it or saved it from redirection. The word is far mor important than other -ians such as Shakesperian because Orwellian means much more than simply writing in Orwell's style. It seems important to me to state that Orwell probably would not have liked many of the uses that the word is put to but I can understand why people may regard this as POV especially if they have just linked to the article and the article itself criticises people for promiscious use of the term. MeltBanana 14:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WordSmithery

Dear Kzzl,

The WordSmithery that can be known is not WordSmithery. (With apologies to Tao). - RedWordSmith 14:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)