Talk:Richard Kyanka

message: I note that Moofwear was delinked from the article, but it still exists in the Links section.  Do we want to remove it from there as well?
:Leave the external link in. I only delinked the wikilink as a site selling a few shirts is not worthy of having an article written for it.--DooMDrat 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moofwear 

message: Both have been removed with the latest revision.  Any ideas why? -- Mewcenary 16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason was given, so I went to revert the edit. They've been deleted it seems. I looked through Images For Deletion, and could find nothing in the history related to the images.--DooMDrat 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm relatively new.  Is there an easy way for us to get the images back, or do we now need to find an alternative source?  (If any...) -- Mewcenary 18:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Perhaps someone else will sort it out. It's nearly 5am and I need to sleep.--DooMDrat 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I spotted three different links to areas of Lowtax's business: Moofwear (clothing line), AwfulVideo (media), and City Name Sports Team (clothing line).  Is it really necessary to provide a link to each of these?  All of them are linked off of SomethingAwful.com anyway.  Keeping them in seems spammy and unencylopedic.  I've removed the links and await your comment.
:While calling them spammy may be a little harsh, according to the external links style guide those links do not merit inclusion as they solely exist to sell Something Awful related merchandise. R Calvete 10:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moofwear (revisited) 

message: A character named "Lowtax" appeared in the comic Smallville #11 (based on the show of the same name). As Lowtax was an odd name for an evil South American cat-man, posters on Something Awful speculated that the comic could have been written by a fan of the site.
This was recently added to the article. Can someone provide a source?--Drat (Talk) 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Over a year later, the source has been added. Bow before me, for I am slow and easily bored. Technogeek 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I remember the exact thread, I'll be able to find it later and I think it was in GBS --Liface 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: New servers? Interesting. I noticed recently that SA no longer shows the ZIPA logo.--Drat (Talk) 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic reference 

message: We got all our sources cited, the next step should be making them look pretty with footnotes. Also, we need to get a picture of Lowtax. --Liface 21:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Actually, I don't know where any pictures of him looking sensible exist. Even Yale used that one. --Doug (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the ref tags just now, by the way. --Doug (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The next step

message: The references don't seem to be linked properly (reference 5 links to reference 4 etc.). I'm not entirely sure how I'd fix it, I only make super minor edits on WP.
:I'm not quite sure why this is happening. The first reference seems to link to 0. --Liface 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with references

message: I think some mention should be given to his past relationship with stile.
*what's stile? NorphTehDwarf 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to other net personalities 

message: I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --Stormie 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahha, are you serious. It was like three reverts deep. THAT'S LAME FOLKS! --Liface 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "At least the anon editors insisting on the insertion of the middle name provided good verifiable sources." Sources that nevertheless appear to be an attempt to defame Kyanka in possible violation of WP:BLP. --Rubber cat 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Kyanka's Middle Name 

message: Lowtax posted the below on the SA forums in Byob on Dec 26 2006. The person referenced is a psycho named RYAN LORD but I think the reference probably should stay. I mean a fact is a fact even if some wikipedia admin wants to kiss Lowtax's ass. Lowtax doesn't even care.
Dear Lowtax
I'm an admin on Wikipedia, and we're having a small problem with our "Richard Kyanka" article.
An anonymous user with the IP "24.17.214.110", who is pretty clearly someone permabanned (my guess - the guy who posted nudes of his girlfriend and then threw a shitfit when he couldn't get people to stop passing them around and now runs a blog accusing you of being a cult leader), is editing the article.
Specifically, he's adding that your middle name is "Charles"... and, to prove this, he's linking it to the Thurston County Superior Court Case Summary. Court documents. I don't think you want those so prominently featured in your article (especially since he also posted in the talk page that you were Wanted for Tax Evasion).
He's been chastised for this, but argues that he is merely acting in accordance with Wikipedia's official policy on Verifiability, and that it cannot possibly be defamatory since it's a Government Document:
24.17.214.110 posted:
Your loyalty to Kyanka, while admirable, is entirely misplaced. A government website can't be called "defamatory" because it doesn't meet any of the burdens of that definition. The fact that Kyanka's tax problems have come to light as a result of their posting doesn't in itself make the reference derogatory or libelous in any way and should be kept as a result. Since there was a call for a reference on his middle name, and because that reference meets all of Wikipedia's requirements as such, means that it should be kept where it is. Lastly, your status as a member of his forums should preclude you from making any judgement on this as your bias demonstrates a lack of objectivity
And at least on the question of verifiability, he's technically right. Scum, but right.
As a solution, would it be possible to include your middle name in a front-page update or something?
Thank you; please convey my best wishes to Lauren, Megan, and your dogs and cats whose names I don't know.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.60.1 (talk) 26 December 2006
:That is retarded, and I don't see why the tax information should not be documented. --Afed 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stuff from byob 

message: I think the image should be removed.  It's not a good likeness, unencyclopedic, looks stupid, and it was uploaded by the same person who had spent time trying to evade a block in order to keep his version of the article up (see the edits by Keep It Real above). JuJube 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I agree. --William Graham talk 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyanka said he'd email a better picture of himself that I can upload. Luigi30 (Taλk) 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Is there any reason why he's given the nickname "Lowtax"?  Anything added to the article would certainly justify it being included in the lead sentence.  --Brandon Dilbeck 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a reason. You can find it in the previous edit before my revision. I removed it because it's a primary source.--Keep It Real 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a misunderstanding. The article should not be a primary source, but it's allowed to refer to primary sources. DS 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. See examples of primary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution --Keep It Real 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the thing you just quoted, we have "Articles that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". It doesn't take specialist knowledge to determine things like where his nickname comes from. I've made further comments below. --Wafulz 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lowtax" 

message: This article does need to be pruned, especially considering it's mostly primary sources and forum threads, but outright removal of content isn't the answer. A better solution would be to keep the content and rewrite it to eliminate fluff, unreliable material, and speculation. Also, there appears to be some sort of idea that this biography has to chronicle his personal life- it doesn't have to, particularly since the only sources appear to be his personal ramblings and forum posts, which is really walking a fine line with original research. There are also privacy and personal content concerns with regards to WP:BLP, not to mention that the notability of every facet of his biography (is it entirely necessary to know what high school he went to or what year of college he dropped out?). I think the "personal life" bit should be limited to "he has a wife and daughter and lives in wherever."
Again, I'm not advocating outright blanking sections, particularly since Keep It Real has made no attempt to discuss rewriting the content and has only made removals since I've made this edit- however, I do think the article needs a bit of a rewrite. --Wafulz 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But therein lies the rub. Even if the article is rewritten, the majority of the sources it relies upon will be (1) self-published, and/or (2) close to Kyanka. That's why removing sections of the entry is the most effective way to deal with the problem, since it's the only way to eliminate the assertions that rely upon unacceptable sources, and so make the entry consistent with policy. As far as I can see this must be why Keep It Real was doing what he did, although he didn't articulate it very well. --Jacj 10:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a better idea to look for sources first rather than removing information altogether. The least he could do is post the information he finds unsuitable on the talk page. Anyway, his removals are largely a WP:POINT type of thing. He's also removing things like links to speech videos that are properly licensed, which doesn't make much sense. --Wafulz 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened here is I made reasonable edits to this page, in order to make it follow Wikipedia policy. I did NOT remove links to his speech videos. If you look at my revision, the speechs are the subject of the first paragraph of "endeavors". What happened is Luigi30 posted a thread about my revisions on the SA forums, and BYOB showed up en masse to revert my edits, and mob rule prevailed.--Mr Real cp3 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I disgree about looking for sources rather than removing content. The truth is Kyanka is a very minor celebrity, and there has not been a great deal of external coverage of him.--Mr Real cp3 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Might it not be a presumption of bad faith to invoke WP:POINT at this, er, point? --Jacj 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume good faith, but the timing of his edits say otherwise. As soon as someone pointed out WP:EL (in regards to the criticism section on the Something Awful article), he started bringing it up to have everything removed. When WP:BLP was brought here, he cited it to get everything removed. When WP:ATT and WP:RS were brought up, he cited them to have everything removed. There was a pretty clear pattern of him taking guidelines and policies out of context just so he could remove material. Funny enough, he didn't actually remove any material until I made this edit and this edit. It's this kind of stuff that leads me to believe he's really just pushing his point of view and being disruptive in a "tit-for-tat" editing manner.--Wafulz 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, I see where you're coming from. I'd thought that KIR had just been ignorant of those policies until other people had pointed them out. --Jacj 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also point out that KIR has openly declared vendetta against Kyanka. DS 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent content removal

message: I have several pictures from Kyanka's fight with Uwe Boll that I can add to this article. I think these pictures would be more appropriate than the current one, because Raging Boll recieved external coverage and is mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any objections?--Mr Real cp3 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the images  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Real cp3 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures from the Raging Boll fight 

message: May 11, 1976 seems widely accepted online as Kyanka's birth date, but I can't find a source for this that isn't either (1) http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2828 (which is the subject of a reliability dispute in recent edit summaries), or (2) possible citeogenesis, as (1) has been used in this article since 2006.  There are, however, plenty of WP:RS out there saying he died at age 45.   would you be open to listing a birth year of 1976 based on such a source, even if an exact date can't be cited?  Also, does this sequence of edits constitute a violation of WP:3RR?      DefaultFree (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate and 3RR 

message: Clarify the unsubstantiated nature of the report of Richard Kyank's death. Considering that the report is not reflected in any sources of official records or public data. 88.98.216.101 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

text: We can't source a negative. We have positive sources saying he died; you need positive sources saying he hasn't. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: mation post on the forum, a forum known for facilitating internet hoaxes in the past.ource 137.220.69.1 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please change the information on tense and death to clarify this claim is in dispute because of the unverifiable natureof the source 137.220.69.1 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in dispute. A random IP disputing it does not make it disputed. The article linked says Motherboard confirmed it with the police department. So you need either to show that they are lying, or are otherwise not trustworthy. You have not attempted to do this. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024