Talk:Richard Kyanka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


Wasn't she pregnant before they married? I seem to recall a post about bad chili that they eat together a while before the wedding, and he mentions her the effects the chili will have on their unborn child.Kuralyov

  • Yes. They got married in February and she gave birth in June of the same year. - Thatdog


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)


Both have been removed with the latest revision. Any ideas why? -- Mewcenary 16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Moofwear (revisited)[edit]

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 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)

Comic reference[edit]

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)

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)

It was discussed in the comics forum on Something Awful. However, the search and archive features are down right now as SA moves to new servers.--anon

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

The next step[edit]

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)

[1]? 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)
I did the ref tags just now, by the way. --Doug (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this articles should be merged with the Something Awful article. --Spikelee 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the persona of lowtax is enough for its own article. --GU-la-G

Problem with references[edit]

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)

I believe Lowtax and Megan Austin are split up.

No they are not.

links to other net personalities[edit]

I think some mention should be given to his past relationship with stile.

Tax Evasion[edit]

Lowtax is known to permaban people from the SA forums for mentioning anything about his income. I was one of the people permabanned for this. I believe that his history of tax evasion should be present on this site. Reference—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EloH (talkcontribs) .

EDIT- Don't believe this ASSHOLE- Richard Kyanka is the fucking man. That website is obviously fabricated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Re: "EDIT" It's a government site. Kyanka was in fact wanted for tax evasion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
RE: Well if you look at it, it says that the Tax Warrant was vacated—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Richard Kyanka was arraigned in Thurston County Superior Court on a tax warrant for delinquency. I assume some kind of agreement was struck with the county that allowed him to pay his back taxes, which he did within three months. The ordeal does, however, cast some doubt on his decision to leave the state for purely personal reasons. As a humorous subcontext, it's worth noting the Lowtax got in trouble for paying no tax.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Richard Kyanka's Middle Name[edit]

I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --Stormie 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahha, are you serious. It was like three reverts deep. THAT'S LAME FOLKS! --Liface 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"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)

Merge with Something Awful[edit]

This article must be proofread with people not familiar with Something Awful. I say this because this seems to be written by his fans.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikelee (talkcontribs)

Some stuff from byob[edit]

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 "", 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: 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 (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)

Stop vandalizing this page[edit]

Why are you people reverting my edits? Give me one good reason why the info I'm posting should not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keep It Real (talkcontribs) 15:17, 7 March 2007.

Condensing this article[edit]

Most of the material in this article does not meet Wikipedia:External links. Unless it can be proven that the material has some sort of independent non-trivial coverage, it will be removed shortly. --Keep It Real 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The material must also meet Attribution policy and reliable sources guideline.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep It Real (talkcontribs)


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)

Edit: I agree. --William Graham talk 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Kyanka said he'd email a better picture of himself that I can upload. Luigi30 (Taλk) 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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. --Keep It Real 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

Recent content removal[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Might it not be a presumption of bad faith to invoke WP:POINT at this, er, point? --Jacj 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'll also point out that KIR has openly declared vendetta against Kyanka. DS 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from the Raging Boll fight[edit]

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)

Here are the images 250px 250px—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Real cp3 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

If it's OK, with you, I just made those pictures display at 250px instead of full-size so they don't fill up the page!

I think those pictures are better from a sourcing perspective, since they're from an event far better documented than the current Lowtax-in-a-wig picture (which I'd guess is just taken from an SA front page update by Lowtax himself?). That said, Lowtax isn't the main subject of those photographs and he's not as discernable as in a true portrait photo. Maybe there are some Raging Boll-related photos where he's easier to make out? --Jacj 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, uh, self-published sources?[edit]

Under WP:A we shouldn't be linking to Something Awful as a source for anything about Lowtax's life. So why were Keep it Real's edits reverted? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm doing quite a bit of writing that would otherwise be hard to differentiate from others' visually, I'll use this purple box to contain my comment.

I'll do an independent checking through of the sources myself, making no reference to Keep It Real's contested edits. (This isn't meant to be a judgement on the quality of his edits either way.)

WP:A explicitly states that "self-published material is largely not acceptable", with "two exceptions".

Exception #1 applies to "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves":

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

And exception #2 applies to "Professional self-published sources" from "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise", in which case the source can be used if it "has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications".

Let's see which of the 18 sources in Lowtax's entry are self-published or questionable, and fail to meet these criteria.

1 is a self-published humourous front page update, which isn't "professional research", so it's excluded from exception #2. The source simply documents Lowtax's date of birth, so it's not relevant to his notability, so it's excluded from exception #1. Ergo, 1 fails WP:A.

2 isn't professional research, just an off-the-cuff explanation of where Lowtax found his nickname. It is also, again, not "relevant to his notability", so it fails both exception #1 and #2. Ergo, 2 fails WP:A.

3 isn't professional research (so excluded from exception #2), but it does help establish notability by describing some of SA's history. It's not unduly self-serving or particularly contentious (as far as I know), but it does involve claims about third the parties Gamespy and Planet Quake. So 3 fails exception #1 too. Ergo, 3 fails WP:A.

4 is a broken link. Fails WP:A by default.

5 isn't professional research, just a video recording of a satirical lecture Lowtax gave. So I try the amateur self-published source guidelines: it does help establish notability by showing Lowtax as a public speaker, isn't contentious (it's a primary source), isn't unduly self-serving or critical of third parties (to the best of my knowledge), it's obvious that the video is a recording of Lowtax, and the article doesn't rely exclusively or near-exclusively upon the video as a source. 5 passes WP:A.

6 is a broken link, on a server that doesn't resolve. Fails WP:A.

7 isn't professional research, but a description of a video game easter egg that mentions "Kyanka". No evidence is given to say whether this refers specifically to this Richard Kyanka, someone else, or nobody at all. Nor is a single video game easter egg relevant to the notability of a person. Fails WP:A.

8 is a panel in a comic book not drawn by Kyanka. Although the linked SA thread makes it quite clear that the "Lowtax" reference refers to Kyanka, it doesn't violate any of the guidelines for non-professional-research questionable sources. Passes WP:A.

9 is a self-published column about Kyanka's then-pending bout with Uwe Boll. It's mildly relevant to Kyanka's notability, not really contentious, not unduly self-serving, it's obvious who wrote it, and it's just one source of many in the article. However, it does make claims about the third party Uwe Boll. Fails WP:A.

10 is a web-hosted video of the fight between Uwe Boll and Kyanka. It doesn't fail of the self-published source rules for exception #1. Passes WP:A.

11 is a Wired article, which, although on the Internet, is professionally published. So it's neither a questionable source not a self-published source. It is a secondary source, too. Passes WP:A.

12 is an announcement on the RiffTrax forums, which has no further editorial oversight and so is a questionable source. It ought to be classified as "unduly self-serving", as the purpose of the announcement is to encourage people to purchase copies of the RiffTrax starring Kyanka. Fails WP:A.

13 to 17 are all self-published sources (and so excluded from exception #2), which all simply refer to Lowtax's relationships with significant others and family. As such they're not relevant to his notability, and so are excluded from exception #1. All fail WP:A.

18 is a professionally published item on the website of Entertainment Weekly, which directly supports Kyanka's claim to notability (albeit backhandedly). It is contentious, however, since there's no way to independently verify the assertions from EW about how many votes and emails were sent in regarding Lowtax. So it fails WP:A.

All in all, only sources 5, 8, 10, and 11 pass WP:A. All of the other ought to go, and in the interests of being bold, I'll remove them and the sections of the article dependent upon them. --Jacj 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I say just merge the relevant content to Something Awful. We can mention him and his speeches and his fight there. For similar cases: Eric Bauman and Max Goldberg. --Wafulz 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Jacj has taken WP:A a bit too literally. For example, the conclusion that reference #1 fails WP:A is very confusing. How in the world could a birthdate ever be cited any other way? The only way to ever actually verify a birthdate is by either getting the information from the subject themselves (which is what a secondary source would do), or steal a birth certificate. Honestly, some of the conclusions you have come to are ridiculous. Reference #4 is archived on, which is generally considered a reliable archival service. Your conclusion regarding ref #18 is also confusing — editors have no obligation to independently verify assertions in reliable sources. Ref #7 is unquestionably a reference to this Kyanka. --- RockMFR 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But don't think I agree with the quality of all the sources in the article, nor do I disagree with a merge into Something Awful. I just want to make it clear that the logic used to remove 14 sources from this article was mostly unsound. --- RockMFR 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)