User talk:KOJV/Archive

welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, KOJV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

This recent edit ( diff ) to Talk:Towel Day was removed. Have a look at Wikipedia:Civility and keep it friendly ;). ∴ here…♠ 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was being rude, but that was all. My post contained nothing personal against anyone since I was addressing a certain group of wikipedians, not anyone personally.

The thing is, all these suckers sitting around like goons all day long working solemnly to remove good articles for no good reason... they make me sick. All this bullshit about reliable source, when all they've got is the internet, which is user-editable down to the byte and not reliable for Jack Shitt.

If CNN News were to throw a towel party and have a huge article about it on their web... would Towel Day become noteable then? Or WTF does it take? CNN news reporters are just people, just users like you and me. "Just humans" as Agent Jones would've said.

Look at the AfD listings in general and tell me it doesn't disgust you with all this effort and knowledge going the drain every fucking day.

BULLSHIT! --KOJV 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the cursing.. but I doubt it will get you far with this community. You should know that forking the project is legal and not really discouraged, and you can feel free to start your own without the reliable source requirements. The spanish language project did it in 2002 ( Enciclopedia_Libre ). This is an ancient problem which may be used to criticize anything from religion to physics, how do you know what you read is true? I encourage you to provide ideas at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources. Stick around, it's clear you could be an asset to the encyclopedia ;). ∴ here…♠ 06:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're obviously right. Pessimism gets you way further on the Wikipedia than cursing. As someone wrote on some AfD discussion page... it would be easier if you guys just listed the articles you wanna keep.

I do have my own mediawiki where no articles will ever be deleted upon user jugdemental disorders, so yes, I understood the concept alright. But this one is the biggest with the highest page ranking and it makes me sick to my stomach that these stupid people are wasting resources because the time and effort others put in isn't "noteable" or "reliable" - while, as I mentioned in the post you deleted, there is no such thing as a reliable online source (you can NEVER know what you read is true, on wikipedia nor CNN nor a paper encyclopedia) and if Towel Day, some boxer who won a championship title, and all kinds of stuff in between isn't notable, then wtf is?

About Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources the people there are all morons. Just look at the first über geek post. "Any newspaper is reliable source". Mmmkay. So if the fastest tabloid says George Bush is marrying a monkey, it has to be true? Btw, Towel Day has been featured in several paper printed newspapers...

For your last comment, I thank you. --KOJV 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I am commenting here because your language is causing your discussion to show up in the vandalism filter. Saying "the people there are all morons," comes realy close to violoting Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your arguments are good, however. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they're all morons is nowhere close to making personal attacks. I'm attacking a group, a huge group at that. Personal attacks are aimed against individuals, I don't aim at individuals, I'm aiming at 42% of the globe's entire population - you know, the fucked up losers with negative IQ that go "booh, shut it down" about every single thing they ever encounter. But thanks for your input. --KOJV 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I also think there are social, political, and policy related improvements to be made with wikipedia all the way to the top. See my user page for links, etc. As you say, this sites owns much traffic at the moment, so it is worth sticking around to contribute. Watch some of the policy pages and read a few years worth of archives, and I'll be you'll find everything you're complaining about already discussed 5 times. Help change the rules and make it better... ∴ here…♠ 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change things around here? Please teach me. Thanks. --KOJV 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, cite a few of those print newspapers metionting Towel Day and end the valid discussion as to whether or not it is Wikipedia:Notability. This is not an appropriate site for an article about each of the keys on my keyring, so we have guidelines, which you can change. ∴ here…♠ 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got scans of two newspapers, links to five articles in major media and one interview in National Public Radio, Los Angeles. My members can contribute with a dozen other media highlights of Towel Day. The problem is, these articles doesn't tell you Jack Shitt about publicity or notability. Take Paris Hilton for example, she's all over the news - all over the world. For going to jail. Does that make her notable? Surely not. --KOJV 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Ms Hilton is not so much a reflection on her value as a person, but the fact that countless millions of column inches are spent tracking her every vapid move. It doesn't matter that you, or I, or here considers her to be a vacuous waste of space, but that a significant proportion of the western, eastern, and no doubt polar, world's population, sees fit to buy newspapers, magazines and TV shows that talk about her favourite colour, what she ate for breakfast, and when she last farted. Insofar as Towel Day is concerned, if the news articles are more than just trivial blog drivel, they would confer notability, inasmuch as they show that anybody outside the Douglas Adams fan universe actually cares. - Tiswas^(t) 09:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Towel_Day[edit]

Personal attacks aside, it's not for you to make assumptions about anything I do outside of Wikipedia. I'm sure you recognise the irony inherent in making an edit in Wikipedia to point this out. Regarding the article, I had expressed concern that notability had not been established in the article - I have not put the article to AfD at any stage.- Tiswas^(t) 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiswas is wonderful in bothering to stick around and follow a conversation before sending to AfD. This type of care can often save the entire AfD process... Thanks Tiswas. ∴ here…♠ 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure you spend your time outside of Wikipedia being a kind, gentle and althrough wonderful and optimistic character. What you do online is what a keyboard and screen does to good people. It's good questioning stuff, but I was actually more referring to the goons voting "delete" on the AfD pages all day long. --KOJV 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was, unambiguously, a personal attack. If your intent was to refer to "goons voting 'delete'", you may perhaps have acquitted yourself better by stating something along those lines, rather than making any assumptions about fellow editors ex-wikikpedia existence. That being said, your recent additions to the Towel Day article do establish that anybody cares about the day, and that it is notable enough for inclusion. The references, however, would benefit from being worked into the prose of the article, and not left as an indiscriminate list - Tiswas^(t) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix the listing of news articles in whatever way you feel being appropriate. --KOJV 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change[edit]

(from above) Help change the rules and make it better... ∴ here…♠ 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I change things around here? Please teach me. Thanks. --KOJV 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like to begin? There are plenty of wikipedia community pages which are constantly changing based on talk page discussions. Category:Wikipedia_administration should get you started. ∴ here…♠ 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to begin with putting an end to this AfD madness. Good work is going down the drain every day because people vote Delete rather than trying to do something about the sourcelist or whatever it takes to fix the articles up. Ignorance is running the AfD votings; "I've never heard of the guy/event/place so the hell with it".

Are you saying I should go for becoming an administrator? :S --KOJV 09:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an administrator will not aid your cause much, if at all. Admins are not able to influence policy any more than non-admins, nor do their comments at WP:AfD carry more weight. AfD is a very necessary process which helps reduce original research and articles about trivial things not suited for inclusion in the project. I was also disturbed by the AfD process upon arriving to the project, but have since found that it functions relatively well in practice. I would encourage you to participate in the AfD discussions occasionally, but also ingnore them and work as you desire fixing real articles up. Some articles, like say Blue stain on my pants, really should be deleted, but where to draw the line is hard to decide. Participate at Wikipedia:Notability and help influence that guideline. As always, feel free to ask any questions ;). Stick around and I expect you will find there is much more to this project than AfD. ∴ here…♠ 08:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin of my own wiki, I get to decide everything. That's comfy.

Of course AfD is needed, but it's heavily abused. The point of an online encyclopedia is for people being able to lookup nearly anything. It's not limited in size like a printed book, so why pretend there's not enough space for articles upon not so notable subjects? Of course there shouldn't be articles about the stains on your clothes, but I can't see a reason for deleting articles on real people and real events because there wasn't enough mileage of news articles about it. Surely not while the wiki article is scientific and all. --KOJV 23:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty who share your view, and even a few who would probably keep notes about clothing stains ;). See m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians and Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians for moral support and past discussion toward change. ∴ here…♠ 06:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now some kind of "member" of that association. Thanks. --KOJV 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ;). Now go help influence the mob at WP:AfD. Be nice... ∴ here…♠ 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No use. I'll just be telling them all to go to hell and that will just increase their will to delete everything. --KOJV 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]