User:KnatLouie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is currently back online, but still SICK OFF other users repeatedly deleting or deliberately questioning his work.

Contents

[edit] About Me

I'm quite a novice at this wiki-stuff, but I try to follow the guidelines, wherever I can. This can be a most tiresome thing to do, and most often I just ignore them, and hope my additions will go un-noticed by picky editors or delete-bots.

I'm a 26 year old male, located in Denmark.

[edit] Sites Created

- I probably created or massively updated a few more sites, but it's gonna take too much time to look 'em up.

[edit] Thoughts on Wiki

This is a very good site, which isn't always perfect for seeking information, but usually is a good basis for knowledge. I've used this site for many things over the years, and I've tried to add important information when I see it. Kudos to the site, and the idea that anybody can add anything (original concept, that is - before all these ridiculous rules began to ruin the site).

The delete-happy, process-obsessed Wikifascists are one of the worst things about this site, and I have had MANY good updates deleted for no apparent good reasons other than "the wiki-rules says so" and then a link to the rules, which feature ENDLESS paragraphs of words that are impossible to chew through... So I've decided to cut down on my adding anything to this site, because it be probably just be deleted AGAIN. I do however have a few darlings that I try to keep nice on wiki, although it's very hard with all the rapid deletion happening over and over again.

I previously had a list of attentive administrators (or common users) that paid a lot of attention to my work, but since their pals found it offensive, I have removed it again. I didn't want the list to be an "attack", but some people obviously thought so, and (as always) my work was ruined yet again.

But apart from the annoying deletists that always ruins hours of work from others, this place is pretty cool!

Please use my TALK page when contacting me, thanks :o)

And if you're an editor, angry at my contributions because they don't add-up to your 30 second google-search, please read this: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

If you do not like my Userpage, please read this: (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#What_to_do_if_you_find_someone_else.27s_user_page_being_used_inappropriately

[edit] List of the most attentive administrators*

at·ten·tive (adjective)

  • 1. Giving care or attention; watchful: attentive to detail.
  • 2. Marked by or offering devoted and assiduous attention to the pleasure or comfort of others. See Synonyms at thoughtful.
  • 3. Expressing affectionate interest through close observation and gallant gestures: He played the attentive suitor, complete with roses and bonbons.

Usernames, in no particular order:

  • All Hallow's Wraith
  • Sidatio
  • Irishguy
  • Wknight94
  • Caknuck
  • EVula
  • Lucasbfr
  • Swatjester
  • ThuranX
  • Ace_Class_Shadow
  • Barrylb
  • RexNL

[edit] Most annoying thing about Wikipedia

Once a Wikipedia article is deleted that you can't get at the history. A lot of people, including myself, put a lot of effort into maintaining that list. Now because of the Wikipedia zealots, all the information appears to be lost forever. Thus I changed the title of this blog entry from Wikipedia internalizing to Wikipedia sucks! This is no longer a community project, it's a bureaucratic black-hole.

- I thought Wikipedia was a good idea to begin with, but after getting several of my contributions deleted - I see absolutely no reason to give away a minute more of my time to assist this sinking ship.

[edit] Deleted Projects

  • Wikifascist: A person (especially administrators) on Wikipedia who goes strictly by the book, ALWAYS, no exceptions. Only his interpretations of the rules are the truth. No discussion.
  • Shit blister: A bizarre sexual act, where people inject feces in their skin, and later "pop" them. This article was deleted less than 5 minutes after it was re-created.
  • deletist: A person who never adds anything to the site, but constantly deletes other people's hard work, giving only vague and cryptic reasons for doing so.
  • Various pictures, links to other sites, and TRUE information that is deleted for no obvious reason other than the typical "copyright infringement"-statement.. (which is total BS, as most companies would LOVE all the free advertising the internet can give)

If you find any of the remaining pictures I've bothered to upload, and you wanna tag it for deletion because of a poorly written "rationale", and if you wanna change the copyright, then DO IT YOURSELF! I've had enough of wikipedia's bureaucratic B.S., so I'm not gonna bother doing anything with photographs on this site anymore.

I just found this picture, which illustrated the problem with wikipedia: Why bother finding a great picture (with POSSIBLE copyright), when you can take a paparazzi snapshot with a mobile-phone yourself, like this, for free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:James_White_cropped.jpg - Yes, I know. It's a great picture, I'm sure nobody will sue us now. KnatLouie (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, before you delete anything, look here: [1]

[edit] Awesome discussion about Wikipedias "image"-problem

disputed fair use blah blah fucking blah

I keep getting aggravating messages on my talk page about disputed fair use rationales which tell me to go to something called the "image description page" to defend my upload against the Wikipedia Bureacrat Brigade. Where is that? Sorry if missed something but I don't really feel like reading ten pages of terribly-written and unhelpful instructions so that Wikipedia can keep a picture of someone kicking the Silver Surfer. --Halloween jack (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please avoid using personal attacks in your edits, even in an edit summary such as this one or to a bot. As for your images, the bot cited the exact problem that was wrong with them on the image page: WP:NFCC#10c requires that the exact name of the article that you are using the non-free image in be included with the fair-use rational. The two that have not been deleted lack this, and you simply need to add them (plain text or links, it doesn't matter, as long as you include any parenthesis disambiguation with it). Correct this in both images, and you can then remove the warning and satisfy the requirements. --MASEM 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I got one of those a couple of months ago for an album cover image I had uploaded for an article about the album. Upon seeing it, I went to the help pages it referred to and did everything it said I needed to do to bring the image and the fair use rationale up to speed. The image got deleted anyway. After that experience, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to satisfy the copyright bureaucrats on Wikipedia. If it's important to someone else, let them puzzle out the system. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear you on that one. Even if your image had passed muster at this point and not been deleted, someone would have come along later and created a whole new set of restrictions for you to overcome. That has happened me more than once, so I have given up fighting. It's too bad people spend so much time putting down other's efforts rather than working to improve Wikipedia. Epolk (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Epolk, there is not "someone" - there are many, even hundreds of people who create these guidelines. The only someone who can unanimously enforce standards is Jimbo Wales. The rest come from consensus from verified and respected Wikipedians. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) You guys just don't understand the complex legal principles at work here. If we don't replace those images, Marvel Comics will take a break from their busy schedule to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for having the audacity to give them free advertising. This is also why all professional-quality promotional pictures of movie stars have to be replaced with a shitty cameraphone pic of the same celebrity getting off a plane at 4am in Hoboken. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a common way of looking at things, and if the images were solely used on Wikipedia, then there wouldn't be any real problems, but we try to provide all the images on the project under a free licence so users can do anything they like with an image, such as putting it on a T-Shirt in their store and selling them for profit. If we don't use free images whenever possible, then people wouldn't be able to do stuff like that with our content, and that's what we're here to do. Nick (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; providing a content-rich encyclopedia should certainly take a backseat to supporting the industry of those guys who try to sell me ill-fitting Gildan t-shirts when I go to the outlet mall.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, in 6 months someone will just decide to change all the rules again. Just worry about getting the words right; there'll be no images at all on Wikipedia before long. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You mean no *copyrighted* images, right? (Some Wikipedias ban all copyrighted images - that doesn't mean all images are banned - one can still upload GDFL and public domain stuff) - There are some new restrictions but I don't think that the English Wikipedia will completely do away with fair use images. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- And then Some Wikipedias ban all images they don't like. And text. And links. And entire pages. For no other reasons than "it's copyright-infringement" (like any company even cares) or "this is nonsense" (because THEY think so) - and then the site is deleted, never to be retrieved again. Just like this post will be. Along with other posts stating the same issues.KnatLouie (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)