User:Kncyu38

Toolbox

T O O L B O X Formatting: {{cquote|Text to quote}} • Wikipedia:Citation templates • {{citeweb}} Fighting vandalism: recent changes • recent Talk changes • recent User changes recent Image changes • message grid • WP:AIV • WP:RFPP Article tags: {{advert}} • {{tone}} • {{verify}} • {{Citation needed}} • {{Cleanup}} {{unreferenced}} • {{fact}} {{subst:unsigned|USER|DATE}} • {{Confusing}} • {{Context}} • {{disputed}} • {{TotallyDisputed}} • {{POV}} {{Wikify}} • {{Diagram needed}} • {{Expert}} • {{Hoax}} • {{Importance}} {{Inappropriate person}} • {{Notability}} • {{Inappropriate tone}} • {{Inuse}} {{Intro length}} • {{Not verified}} • {{Noncompliant}} • {{primarysources}} {{original research}} ==References== <references/> {{unreferenced|article}} Deletion: WP:SPEEDY • WP:PROD • WP:AfD Edit count for Kncyu38 • offer another user to the Count of Edits Me @ Meta Me @ Commons all subpages of this page Vandalism increasing among new and IP users. (USA and UK schools) IRC user real96, 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC) ch p

[edit] This user page does not cite its references or sources

Welcome. As you may notice from my history of uncivil POV pushing vandalism, my main interest one of the increasingly diverse things I'm interested in on wikipedia is the references (or a lack thereof) given in articles. While there is an abundance of thoroughly referenced articles, there are surprisingly many articles (and not nearly all of them are stubs) completely lacking in reliable sources. You may call me pedantic, but I'm one of those conservative guys who does not regard some online interview or biased fan page as a reliable source (As a matter of fact I do, but saying that aloud would irrevocably ruin my chances of ever becoming an admin, which is the only thing I'm here for, after all. And, with the history as my witness, I hereby state that should I ever try the show-jumping course, I want you to nail me down to saying that here. If you however fail to do so, I'll have to assume that you didn't even read my user page before opposing me for a total lack of everything (and rightly so), and I will cry myself to sleep for weeks, because your acknowledgment is all I ever wanted.) and I regard giving such "sources" as references for an article as even worse than naming no sources at all. Paying a visit to Cheating in counterstrike* may give you an idea of what I consider to be particularly bad referencing. (* That "article" has been deleted... and I missed it.) (What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday?)

In addition, I believe tagging an article as unreferenced is an effective way of providing users interested in improving the article with an incentive to do so. That's why I like to place the tag on top of the page, so as to productively annoy the people who feel responsible for the article just as much as a lack of reliable sources annoys me, as a reader. After having read about common usage on Template:unreferenced and witnessing several cases of what I perceive as intentional downgrading of the appearance of an article by prominently tagging it on the top, I changed my mind. I now go with what "most suggest" and put the tag in an empty or inadequate references section.

In case the pattern of articles I'm tagging don't make immediate sense to anybody, here's why: I'm tagging articles wherever it seems appropriate as I'm reading along wikipedia (which remains my primary relation to the encyclopedia I'm not so sure about this anymore, either, but it's an opportunity to remind all fellow editors to stay away from their tools every once a while and really just admire the beauty, greatness and diversity of what has already been accomplished). And I may follow links to related pages, as I often do when reading wikipedia and maybe tag those, too. I.e., if any pattern emerges out of my contributions, it's probably going to be determined by two variables: 1) My reading habits and 2) the tendency of some groups of articles to be better referenced than others.

Another thing: I hate to break it down to you, but far too many people, IRL as well as on wikipedia, tend to mistake intrinsic bias for what actually is their own intuitive and genuine reaction towards a rather NPOV presentation of facts. Remember that NPOV does not necessarily mean that some information won't affect you or me or the majority of people in a very emotional way. So, fellow editors, let facts speak for themselves wherever you can and consider your own emotional reaction, because if you don't, you still can't get rid of it and then it may interfere with your ability of fair judgement.

[edit] Criticism

This, of course, is the central section. Feel free to add to it. Just keep in mind that criticism is synonymous with complaint. No compliments here, fan cruft belongs in the introduction.

• I think you mean well, but that you should always pause before you commit any act. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't believe you understand the underlying intent of Wikipedia. I don't believe you understand that it is a comradship, and that everyone here is working for the same goal. I believe that YOU believe what you are doing is good for the project, but it isn't working out that way. I believe that your goal is to get the last word, as made evident on your userpage, but I don't believe you see how detrimental this can be to a community project. I believe you have good intent. I just really hope these things can be worked out. All the best. Kntrabssi 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

This section needs not be referenced.

• I love this.

• For some valuable advice on how to deal with precarious situations, may I refer you to this essay.

• I suppose I am leaning towards deletionism, but that may change.

• Not yet registered and looking for ideas for a username?

• I found a new low favourite place on Wikipedia. Of all 1,712,406 articles, all those interesting policy debates and great projects, this gem is beyond any doubt the place to be. It's simple yet irresistible beauty lies in the inexplicably harmonic flow and exchange of groundbreaking new ideas about history, the reasonable and concise arguments, the spirit of comradeship and the dense intellectual atmosphere. I can't help but congratulate the users who understandably never turn anywhere else. Anyhoo, please tell me of your favourite places (i.e. if anyone ever reads this).

• Interesting list of wikipedia laws.

• This user enjoys juggling. With the very kind and knowledgeable help of User:Alai, I created the {{Juggling-stub}} template.

• This user despises userboxes.

• Your mom. Poop. Burt Reynolds is a fag. – Actually, he isn't, but... you get the picture.

• Hey, my user page has actually been vandalized. What an honour. "Twat". Twats are funny.

• My computer is hunting torrasques in the happy hunting ground, so I'm currently pushing my POV contributing from my partner's notebook.

• WP:DAFT.

• This is the only page where I reserve the right to decide upon linearity and consistency of narration. (I changed my opinion.)