tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11435180252504380372011-07-30T13:06:22.041-05:00Sit down and read while I brew.Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.comBlogger151100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-91801265277473515652010-03-12T20:43:00.001-06:002010-03-12T20:43:34.060-06:00

Sometime recently a movement of thought started, not just any thought, an extremely ill-conceived and by extension, dangerous thought. The thought is that Wikipedia's article standards, matter less than avoiding from biting the newcomers. It seems as if it could possibly be the most innocent and constructive thought for the site, as anyone can edit right? One may even think that if we

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-90197497116123709912010-01-21T02:15:00.003-06:002010-01-23T02:00:39.179-06:00

It's happened, can you hear the bullets flyin? That's right an outlaw (Rdm2376) was mass murderin (deleting) people (BLPs) per the ol' western law (BLP policy and IAR, and the fact that the articles weren't sourced or watchlisted for 6 months). Well of course the grand sheriff had to come to town (Geni) and stop the cattle theivin. He pulled out his revolver faster than you can say "There goes me

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-9930848295816703792010-01-18T19:42:00.004-06:002010-01-18T19:45:50.158-06:00

Durova has been asking quite a few people from the Wikipedia community to help contribute to the image restoration field. I happily volunteered, ans as I have had some Photoshop experience in the past it didn't seem to hard a task. Durova and I decided on this image to start with: This image is a wonderful example of the early beginnings of the "modern poster" advertisements, that have

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-31242561589222239712009-11-19T02:01:00.000-06:002009-11-19T02:01:09.508-06:00

Well apparently Daniel Brandt thought me important enough to add to his "hive mind". Let's take a look at what he's released: My birthdate, yep I already released that Where I live, odd I think I already released that My full name, oooh this is a fun one, it was my old wikipedia username So all in all Daniel, you haven't really released anything. At least about me. Well he also decided that

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-29293189827262404102009-11-17T03:56:00.001-06:002009-11-17T03:58:20.626-06:00

Well today I can say I'm officially pissed off at Wikipedia Review. This post was the start of it all, Daniel Brandt rushed to the rescue and decided that it would be a great idea to put one of the best non-adult admins on hivemind. This sort of bullshit is what I hate about some people on Wikipedia, yeah let's all talk about how Julian, as an admin, has to administrate over porn, and not say

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-47245182678185621102009-11-15T06:32:00.006-06:002009-11-15T07:20:14.479-06:00

SO APPARENTLY THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA TO PAY A PR FIRM $250,000 FOR 11 MONTHS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CREATE AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN OF BIG ASS BANNERS THAT ARE IN ALL CAPS AND SAY RIDICULOUS THINGS LIKE "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Yeah great move Wikimedia... At least now they've toned them down a bit to where they have a "Donate Now" button and aren't in all CAPS. I

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-40602717227779170612009-10-08T06:37:00.003-05:002009-10-08T07:20:26.673-05:00

Wow, so I'm browsing around Wikipedia and I come across a, wait for it, wait for it... OMG SCANDAL!!! Apparently, the undertow, went to ArbCom with a simple request for his ban to be lifted, there was a general amount of approval of the idea, yet it was never actually acted on, and got pushed into the archives of ArbCom. Well he decided that he would take matters into his own hands, and create a

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-33568158258458199662008-08-27T22:25:00.002-05:002008-08-29T00:56:13.923-05:00

JamieS93's RFA is another show of the failed process called RFA at its worst. Here we have a good editor who just so happens to be under the age of 18 (or to some 21), so therefore according to some users on the site she should not be an admin purely because of her age. The RFA isn't even closed yet and so far I count 10 opposes that mention her age as a reason to oppose, and more that site the

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-8369047441855820372008-07-02T23:02:00.004-05:002008-07-02T23:42:01.042-05:00

Some people believe that Kurt Weber's opposes on RFAs are an allowable part of the process of RFA, I tend to disagree. In the past few years Kurt has been following almost every self-nom and posting an oppose there stating "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!)". Now is this wrong? In my opinion, most of the time this is assuming bad faith

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-25153892518473336212008-06-03T19:51:00.003-05:002008-06-03T20:15:41.027-05:00

As most of the people who have watched the epic drama and insanity of Giggy's RFA agree, the RFA is in need of a major overhaul. So many things happened on that RFA that I'm still wondering about how it all happened in just a few days, the canvassing by the ID group, the nom removal, it ending in a bang with Giggy withdrawing and blanking the RFA (after east718 opposed per personal info being

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-32074160576514501202008-05-31T21:47:00.012-05:002008-06-01T16:18:57.555-05:00

What I have just seen happen is by far one of the most shocking things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Balloonman, someone who I previously had respect for, removed his co-nom of a very good admin candidate and then proceeded to oppose them and said "I ended up noming him because I honestly felt like it would fail". How he could have done what he did I don't know, when so many people put their

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-8558876689378144802008-05-31T13:59:00.003-05:002008-05-31T14:09:36.299-05:00

In my whole time on Wikipedia, the one thing that puzzles me the most is adminbots. First, the way they are used without approval, and who is using them... admins. Second, the fact that only a small percentage of the community actually knows of their presence. The admins who are using the code know that they aren't doing it per policy nor per acceptance among the community. If you bring it up in

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-8187368332622310122008-04-06T17:37:00.005-05:002008-04-06T22:06:44.721-05:00

Today I celebrate 1 year at one of the greatest projects on the web, Wikipedia. In the time I've been there I have seen many great and dumb actions occur, but to me the great actions outweigh the dumb ones on Wikipedia. 1 year ago I was a complete n00b to the site, and I couldn't have messed up more. Now 1 year later I'm an administrator and an experienced contributor to Wikipedia. That is why

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-18086546211754275422008-04-05T22:42:00.006-05:002008-04-16T05:15:31.204-05:00

During a recent MFD of "secret pages" on Wikipedia, I came across this, a comment which I find quite amusing and an idea that I completely disagree with. That comment continued onward into a full slew of comments and rebuttals, with Equazcion never really comprehending what we were saying. To sum up what Equazcion was saying there:The BRC is as useless as Secret Pages.The BRC takes up more

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143518025250438037.post-84155342666057343542008-03-30T07:33:00.004-05:002008-03-31T01:48:19.540-05:00

I've created this blog mainly for random thoughts on Wikipedia and its editors, and also for random comments and edits on wiki that i find amusing. Also every once in awhile I might go off topic, such as politics. I hope to find time to write here often, as I am quite busy on Wikipedia and IRC nowadays.Today my main focus is Ageism on Wikipedia, is it justifiable or should you just look at a

Chet Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02705517023349017868noreply@blogger.com0