User talk:Dzzl/archive91100

==

dzznograhpics

91100?

Were you referring to 91100 (number) when you asked me for help in developing a number article?

The truth is, there doesn't seem to be anything interesting about this multiple of 911. It's not even listed in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. 91100 is a run-of-the-mill squarefull, abundant, minimally polygonal number.

It's not a Fibonacci number. It's not part of a Ruth-Aaron pair. It's probably neither highly totient and certainly is not highly cototient. It's not a Friedman number, it's not a Harshad number.

So this number lacks interesting mathematical properties and seems to have just one mildly interesting cultural property. I'm sorry, but if this went to Votes for Deletion, I'd have to vote delete. PrimeFan 22:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yo dzzl

uh - I saw what you did on u.s. and I think something should be said. so often people revert something extreme w/o considering- "should something be said"? It's cool. I think that's how revertism works. it kinda supposes that concerned parties will return and work at it- hopefully not in an edit war style re-revert fashion. so anyway, I said su-um to those nzz. it's kinda funny how a revert characterizes an edit as more rebellious. I still trust reverters when I never should. I gotta watch pages more often. oh well. I hate overly avid reverters. later, stzzl. Yameen? 05:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"userfy"

hello. what is "userfy"? Kzzlfy 04:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Voting_shorthands. --fvw * 04:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I figured out how to set the templates up step by step. how does one set up a template linked to a category under one's user page? McVonn 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a category as it's only for your page anyway, no need to clutter up the template namespace. You can include subpages of your userpage just like you include templates, make sure to specify the entire name, including the user: part. --fvw * 04:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:User dz

There's a list at Wikipedia:Babel, which at least covers languages with Wikipedias, I think. If you don't feel like reading, just change the code to something four letters or longer, since the language codes only go up to three letters. J.K. 06:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The official list of codes seems to be here. Have fun. J.K. 06:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hola

JK said it was cool to use dzl lang code. [1]. I'm going to bed for tonite. I'll be back tomorrow evening or the next day. McVonn 06:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that was a miscommunication or he was mistaken, you have to put it as a subpage of your user page. --fvw * 07:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Language Codes

There are actually quite a few unused three letter codes in ISO 639 It just is that the range from qaa to qtz is reserved for made up codes. I suggested qdz because it was in the range for made up codes and you had originally used the last two letters dz as the language code. Caerwine 03:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dz

Anyone can nominate anything in Wikipedia for deletion (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which I just finished working on). However, nominations that are clearly in bad faith are usually speedy delisted. What matters is not who nominates it, but the type of discussion it receives. If it would have been in bad faith, someone would have caught it. I don't know Patrick Lucas, but looking at his contributions, he doesn't seem like a vandal. He might not be online right now, so that could be why he hasn't replied to your message. Assume good faith. I don't think he nominated it to spite you, but moving your template to user space will solve any and all problems. --Tito xd 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that things in the template namespace are designed to be used by many users, and there's not a day in TFD that a template is nominated as "unused" when a few pages are using it. It is an issue of template namespace clutter. We're trying to stop it in its tracks. Have you thought what would happen if everyone created a template which seems like a good idea for them, but no one uses it? Eventually, there would be a point where things that are really needed can't be added without moving other stuff around.

Userfying isn't a bad thing. You can templatize an user page by typing it between the {{ }} like for any other template. See my Status templates: {{User:Titoxd/StatusActive}} and {{User:Titoxd/StatusBusy}}. If you type {{User:Titoxd/StatusActive|[[User:Dzzl|]]|~~~~~}} as it appears, you get:

User:Titoxd/StatusActive

And no one knows it isn't a template. --Tito xd 05:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yay

You are hereby officially promoted to the Department of Redundancy Department. R adiant _>|< 08:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what cool features you want, but please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a group of people working on writing one. While I don't think anybody has been singling out your stuff to get it deleted, it is reasonable to assume that if you add nonsense, personal jokes or other non-encyclopediality anywhere else than in your userspace (that is, anything starting with User:Dzzl/) or in the Sandbox, then someone will notice it and put it up for deletion. And that includes any and all templates and categories. R adiant _>|< 14:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

let me know what the question is

Hi - I responded on my talk page (I hate fragmented discussions). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Replied again, see User_talk:Rick_Block#vanity_and_categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Re: anon users

hi. what do you make of anonymous users who don't seem to be ignorant of how wikipedia works who go around making seemingly decent edits, garnering praise and whatnot? I ask cuz you and I have each had a run-in w/ one. they irk me but I gott say- I'v made an anon edit or two in my life. I don't imagine wikipedia establishment is in love w/ this phenomenon. lemme know if you hav any feelings on about this. thankz, Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh —

Having anon users is a big part of Wikipedia philosophy: anyone is supposed to be able to edit, as we don't want to make it difficult to edit this encyclopedia. Looking around, I've found a page on this, Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing. That said, having a user name makes it easy to communicate with a user, and automatically raises the level of trust in the eyes of other editors. A hard-to-verify edit, like the changing of a date in an article, is likely to regarded as probable sneaky vandalism if done by an anon user, yet more likely to be treated as good faith if the user is logged in.

If you're interested, many users put a note on the talk pages of valuable anon users suggesting that they create an account. I've got a template, for instance, at User:Asbestos/Anon, and I know there's a ready-made one around somewhere.

As a completely off-topic aside, there's been some discussion recently on signatures which don't correlate to the user's username. While there's no policy against it, it usually makes it easier if they do correlate (for instance, do I call you Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh or Dzzl?). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alrighty, cool. I suspected this one anon user of having a poiltical agenda that's not obvious unless you look closely. This person already received a suggestion to create an account but didn't seem interested. and this person didn't seem new to wikipedia so- o well.

dzzyology.

The signature is just a nickname. I think it's just long and not English so it stands out and confuses. What's this discussion about correlated names you speak of? sure it's confusing to use anything notably different from your username. that's what I like about it. following normative impulses can be so boring, sometimes, don't you think? Ished-out amounts of Vonn-ness 03:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anagram

In case you're not watching the page, I replied to your comment at Talk:Anagram. paul klenk ^talk 00:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've already weighed in with two solutions to the challenge. Where are you? Are you up for this, or not? :-) 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail. I think the issues will be addressed with some time and discussion' I am not worried about it. Meanwhile I suggest you address subjects in which you have both interest and expertise; you will bring much more value to them, and the articles will be better for your contributions.

Talk to you later,

paul klenk ^talk