User talk:Kels

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)

I am going nominate you

One of my favourite users (and abusers). Ace^Moderator 00:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

done. Ace^Moderator 00:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

muhahaha, lets take this town. Ace^Moderator 02:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will vote Kels early and often. Blue (is useful) 02:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How many votes do we each get? --Kels (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (but not really here, dammit)

Its a ranking, STV system. Ace^Moderator 02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can safely say I'm as rank as anyone on this wiki. --Kels (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you again

File:Acemodlove.jpg

Vote Ace..for sexy times

File:Modatwork.jpg

Ace moderating

Ace^Moderator 02:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess the big question is, should I install LQT just to piss Human off, or what? --Kels (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Join the collective! And 300px Blue (is useful) 02:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you got my vote toots. No worries. --Kels (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see you back!

Hi Kels, It's great to see you back here again. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 17:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kels (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you Kels. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll jump on the bandwagon and say "hi", too!GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 17:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, everyone's happy to see the back of me....hold on, that's not right. --Kels (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I ought to have welcomed you back before posting goat posters.... it's a little freaky seeing you here, to be honest. sterile^{no new information} 05:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. How they hanging? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely you'll appreciate svg

Respect

As you know I have a lot of respect for you Kels. I'll heed your words. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that's quite a compliment. I only hope I'm worthy of it. --Kels (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You and the old 2007/2008 group I have a lot of time for...Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am part of the original flavour recipe (although I only joined in the last couple of days of RW 1.0, but all technicalities count!). --Kels (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeeeelllllllsssss!

I don't see you around much anymore. :-( How's it hangin'? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not bad these days. I dropped out of college due to burnout, and I've been doing data entry at a bank since. Which isn't really that bad a job. Been getting a lot of overdue dental work done, and generally getting my life together. Oh, and drifting further and further into atheist (with maybe a flavour of sentimental animism but nothing serious) territory. How 'bout you? --Kels (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I finally finished my associates degree (it only took me six years!) and will start working on my bachelors in the fall. Hopefully it'll take only the two years it's supposed to. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the book deletions.

All worth kissing goodbye. Human will probably shit, but they still should probably go. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Eeewww. You don't know where those books have been. Would it be a courtesy to wait a while and see if Human chimes in? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Heck, I'm willing to even wave a kerchief as they sail off into oblivion. Gotta do it with class, right? --Kels (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree... I think it's a little misguided. Is it hurting anything to let them stay here? I'm sure you guys know all about these titles, but not everyone (me) does, so it's actually been a good introduction to these works that I wouldn't otherwise learn about if not for RationalWiki. There is a lot of stuff on this wiki that is 'different' or isn't up to mega-educated folks standards, but isn't that part of what this wiki is all about? Refugee^{talk page} 07:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I, too, strongly disagree. The reasoning you are using for putting those up for deletion is weak at best. Essentially, this is what it looks like from my point of view. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

" it's actually been a good introduction to these works that I wouldn't otherwise learn about if not for RationalWiki." You need to learn what an encyclopedia is. RW is not an encyclopedia. You might want to check out a website called Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

PS&L, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you. I do, of course, know what Wikipedia is, I have contributed there for years, and still believe that sometimes a person just wants to read a shorter article with points not usually made at Wikipedia. That's what one can often find here at Rationalwiki. I tend to say what I feel regardless of the fact that it leaves me open for ridicule, as in this case, however, I could have phrased it better, perhaps like this: "sometimes reading an article here, although it's short, not comprehensive, etc., sparks my interest in the subject and leads me to other pages." What does it hurt the wiki to keep various articles on different topics? I've seen "delete" tags thrown on many articles in the time I've been here (since inception, 2007) and it's almost always due to a personal dislike of someone for the subject, the manner it's written, or the original or contributing authors, in other words, political issues. Thanks for the advice. I know RW is not an encyclopedia. I still disagree with getting rid of pages about books on dystopian societies and/or exploring authoritarianism, and believe that those pages do indeed fit the mission statement. I hope you can have respect for my views, as I do for yours. Refugee^{talk page} 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside from all the rest of the conversation, can I just say here that your first sentence is 100% shitty and uncalled for? Because I'm gonna say it anyway. Seriously, be better than that. --Kels (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you directing that comment to me? I'm assuming so, since you posted it right under my post, although I guess you could be talking about the first sentence PS&L wrote at the top of this section which mentions 'shit' so you might be trying to be funny, not sure which... sometimes I have a hard time recognizing sarcasm or humor, and tend to take everything literally, but if it is directed at me, you should know that PS&L & I talked already on my talk page and we are fine. :-) and you should also be aware that I don't care whatsoever about comments trying to chide me for what I say, or how I say it, so... meh. Refugee^{talk page} 06:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If I want to find out about a book, and roghly how good/bad it is, I google the title followed by "review." That said, though, I wouldn't object to book reviews on RW and Essayspace, with a reviews category to make them findable. Sophie^Wilder 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may weigh in on this discussion, I think that an important distinction that we need to make here is between simple articles summarizing the topic and actual analyses. Let's take 1984 as an example. We don't need an article that simply summarizes the plot and such; PSL rightly points out that such an article would be entirely redundant to Wikipedia's. However, if we have an article that explains how the book is relevant to contemporary political discussion, say with examples of politicians/pundits employing doublethink, or attempting to memory hole something, then that seems to me to be more on-mission, less redundant, and more useful to the readership. If we've got an article on a book and we don't say anything about it that's new or different, then I support deletion. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Total agreement with these last two comments. I would support either of those things happening. What I don't support is cluttering up the place with off-mission stubs, like so much Ed Poor droppings. You want to live-blog reading 1984? Do it in your userspace or essayspace, not in Main. This whole idea of "What does it hurt the wiki to keep various articles on different topics?" to be harmful to the wiki because it just exacerbates a problem that was put forward in the whole Mission discussion, the fact that RW is very poorly curated. I started random articles myself back in the beginning when we had no idea what we wanted the site to become, and I'm not so personally attached to them that I wouldn't support their removal in favour of a better maintained and curated wiki that's actually worth reading. --Kels (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dictionary

Just letting you know that you've been namedropped there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a Tumblr?

I have a Tumblr! Let's be Tumblr buddies! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I do have a Tumblr! It is full of fanstuff and lesbians and the occasional social justice thing and food/tea porn sometimes. --Kels (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

El gusano

It's not actually put in tequila. It's found in mescal, a similar liquor. Or something like that. I'm hardly an expert on the matter, just sharing a bit of trivia--"Shut up, Brx." 03:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not being a drinker of hard liquor, let alone tequila, this is academic to me at best. At worst, I don't care. --Kels (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I miss you.

Yes. You. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)