Users/RottenChester

     (Redirected from RottenChester)
InfoInfo
Search:    

Hate the sinner, but love the sin.[wikipedia]Aimee Mann

People always ask me "is it hard to be a woman in rock?" and upon much forced reflection I can only cite two things that make it difficult: (1) repeatedly being asked that question; and (2) finding a clean toilet seat in a dirty rock club. Selfish princesses nationwide feel their asses are far too pristine to touch the seat: consequently they get their piss on the seat. So if you are a "mosquito-assed Mary," consider yourself warned. But I digress.[wikipedia]Neko Case

It's the opposite of hallelujah
It's the opposite of being you
You don't know cause it just
passes right through you
[wikipedia]Jens Lekman

RottenChester's Statistics

Edits  Pages Created  Files Contributed  First Edit Date  Last Edit  Last Page Edited  
1086117212005-06-07 14:13:262014-11-24 09:45:09Tavern at Clover

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments


2005-11-24 17:11:12   Oh, I don't know, Far. Seems rather strict. As long as the user isn't abusing the site - we shouldn't be so stringent. Your UID is a pseudonym as well. —RyDahl


2005-11-25 14:21:03   I don't know RC well enough to vouche for him, but I can say he's sent me several respectful emails inquiring about the rockwiki guidelines. His entries have been great and he's been a valuable addition to our wiki. I would rather he use his real name, though! I don't like to think of our home town as "rotten" :p —MariahBetz


2005-11-25 14:28:56   Ditto on that Mariah. That said, as a pseudonymmer myself, I expect (and think it's reasonable) I'll get a little more scrutney. Things like the E-Baums slander(look at the edit history) have made me a bit more cautious. —FarMcKon


2006-06-15 20:07:01   Hey. When should we get together again for Wiki orgnization? I think the ideas you threw out in that e-mail... —FarMcKon


2006-09-23 08:30:33   Women bathrooms are a self created problem, they don't want to sit on the seat becuase it's dirty, but by not sitting on the seat they make it dirty, oh the irony! —TravisOwens


2007-01-22 08:44:07   It seems like google's geocoding is busted? ([WWW]http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API/browse_thread/thread/662deb930c3d52d8) —PhilipNeustrom


2007-01-22 16:12:23   It was down for a few hours today. As of 4:00 EST, it seems to be fixed. Also, I put in a fix so users won't see an error dump if it happens again. —RottenChester


2007-04-07 14:55:15   The test layout doesn't actually look half bad with the original logo overlaid. —RobertPolyn


2007-04-07 15:11:29   Actually, wait, no. It looks... not so good with the original up over it. —RobertPolyn


2007-04-07 15:20:53   Adam's tweaking the logo. There is the option of making it just text, also. —RottenChester


2007-04-26 19:50:26   yea, i am. not too sure what i'm doing, any suggestions? —MargarethePagel


2007-04-26 19:56:10   Suggestions:

Pick a Rochester-related topic.

Read the Help on Editing page.

Read the Uploading Images page. —RottenChester


2007-05-01 22:57:24   Hahaha...looks like someone's losing patience with the students... —RachelBlumenthal


2007-05-01 23:01:55   Yep - I was trying to think of something as trite as not-so-shiny Starr's list of fav restaurants and a Madonna song popped into my head. —RottenChester


2007-07-15 15:41:58   I noticed the rocwiki creative commons links are to the url: [WWW]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. However, rocwiki has been licensed under a simple cc-by (not sa) forever. I think someone was trying to update the 2.0 links to 3.0 and pasted in the wrong url (I hope. I dislike -sa). If rocwiki is moving to the more restrictive -sa then other areas of the site need updating, such as the edit agreement text. If you move to -sa you will never be able to move back to just simple cc-by. —PhilipNeustrom


2007-07-15 16:43:26   Phil, that was changed in May and nobody objected. It's clearly stated in the Copyrights page. Do you have a reason why sa is a poor license? —RottenChester


2007-07-16 02:52:50   I meant to point out, mostly, that the links in the edit agreement area read "Creative Commons-By license," but that should be "Creative Commons-By-Share-Alike license" (or something to that effect).

As far as Share-Alike, it's a personal choice. I don't like -sa because it makes it more difficult, if not practically impossible, to use the work as a part of other works. Everyone has their own license choice, so simple CC-By is a "universal donor," in my mind. It's especially sad when material can't be used as a part of other exceptional free works, such as wikipedia or some more restrictive CC licensed works, because of the -sa. —PhilipNeustrom


2007-08-07 20:40:44   You make a valid point about demonstrating transparency and about the effectiveness of running this site as equals, but at the same time, the page is now peppered with meta-conversations, which by rights, probably don't belong there. Perhaps we need a To Go Taxi/Talk/Talk page to accommodate this dialog. —DaveMahon


2007-08-08 07:54:44   Talk/Talk might work. Or perhaps Page/Meta. For a while some editors were creating "stubs" with a little yellow notification box. Maybe using the same kind of notifier on a Talk page, point them to a Meta page, might work.

In the past, we've tried to have meta comments on the talk page and regular comments on the page itself. That works except for a few pages where there are tons of comments, like ToGoTaxi. I don't think there's one right answer - I just value transparency over most everything else, since it is the basis for an honest forum.

I think your suggestion on the Etiquette page that meta discussions between 2 editors should happen on their personal pages makes good sense. —RottenChester


2007-10-10 23:47:46   I like the new favicon. —DaveMahon


2007-10-17 17:39:31   Re: Vinyl. Thanks! The description is a little misleading in my opinion. However since we are talking about an opinion, I would rather have my differing view in the comments than wipe it out and replace with my view. (Obviously, no offense to your job on the description. I know you were cleaning up someone else's mess.) —BadFish


2007-11-07 14:50:28   Don't worry about it, I was just suprise that someone would use my photography —AlexTong


2007-11-16 11:50:19   Hey Rotten! I disagree with moving issues like the Northfield one to the Talk page. The reason is it gets buried. I think it is important for anyone using this resource to see that there may be issues with the comments and then they have all aspects at their disposal to draw their own conclusion. Right now, there are several possibly dubious comments about how great people think the Northfield is, but observations on how those comments may be fictitious are on a separate page. I just believe the good, the bad and the ugly should be all together. I understand the need for a certain amount of organization but I think that the interest of openness and getting the full story trumps it. I'd like to keep the main page clean, but getting the full story is more important.

Lemme' know your thoughts, I'll applying to join the Google group soon and hope to attend the meeting on the 25th.

Also: "Baseball has beeen bery, bery gooo to me." -Chico Escuela —BadFish



2007-11-17 13:08:05   Yeah, I know you didn't intend to bury it. I still think there should be some record of it on the front page, maybe a "hey, there was an issue with the comments, we moved the discussion about it over to talk, check it out if you want." Obviously worded differently. I think it would be a good SOP to have a stock comment to let readers know there is stuff on the talk page. I'm on this Wiki almost everyday and I always for get they exist. You do know this is just me discussing the working of the Wiki, not b@tching at you, right?


2007-12-06 21:06:33   Don't be a jerk is now a written rule. —DaveMahon


2007-12-06 23:45:04   on 2007-12-06 20:29:21 rottenchester writes Phil, I suggest you read the Wiki Community/Offenses page a little more carefully, specifically this:

This page is a rough outline of Offenses, and what we do about them. It's not a complete guide, it's not exact wording or arcane magic, so don't go Wiki-Lawyering on this

The unwritten rule of the Wiki is don't be a jerk. You violated it. You can use the talk page I just created to make your case if you think we're being unfair. —RottenChester

You make your rules up as you go along. According to the etiquette page: Users should never edit or remove comments from other users. All members of the wiki community are entitled to express their opinion"

If I wanted your opinion of me, I would tell it to you, in the meantime, go play censor elsewhere. This is a democratic forum—free speech! —MrPhil


2007-12-07 17:47:52   Thank you for your help! I am new to rocwiki, and I was unaware of the policy. —MicheleKemnitzer


2007-12-09 01:05:01   The wiki is fast descending into a legal nightmare and being that it's your name on it, I'd suggest you take some serious action to stop it. —StevenDibelius


2007-12-09 01:12:39   Relax. I bear no ill will, and would like to see the continued success of this group. May I recommend we all take a cooling off, and revisit the issues raised. We are not splitting the atom here. —MrPhil


2007-12-11 22:45:25   Rottenchester

I have really tried to work with you in good faith—but you really do make up the rules as you go along—why indicate its acceptable to post the AUP on the wiki community and then turn around and state it hasn't been accepted by the wiki community. The need for contradiction eludes me.

* Rottenchester:
> One option: There's a whole "Wiki Community" section. You could link
> it from there. —MrPhil


2007-12-13 15:20:12   I was going to add to the mailing list discussion, but my membership is still pending...so while I remember. On the shilling (or whatever it is called) report, The Men's Room wasn't mentioned. All the rave reviews come from editors with only 1 edit. I wouldn't go there anyway since I'm a girl, but just wanted to mention it! —SaraChristine


2008-04-09 16:49:55   Hey nice move today, didn't know you could lock out adds of new users like that, came in handy today for sure —DottieHoffmann


2008-05-23 10:16:08   the juicy facts on Wiki Community/Stats have become moldy :-) —RyanTucker


2008-08-05 11:17:30   Fuuuuuuck. 5GB? Per MONTH? I use more than that *per day* with backups. Gotta make sure I don't accidentally latch onto the neighbor's wireless network; I could have them TOS'd by lunchtime. —RyanTucker


2008-09-25 07:14:22   Hi, you have hereby ADOPTED Rottenchester/Sandbox - I was going to rename/move it under your Rottenchester but did not want to mess up some tests you might be doing. (;>} —BradMandell


2009-08-01 12:48:24   Please take a look at Wiki Community/For Editor Review/Talk - thanks, Brad —BradMandell


2010-04-19 13:48:31   Thanks for the quick response to the Admin Request.

I broke 10,000 edits on April 4 and now have created more than 10% of all the pages on RocWiki and 800+ photos/graphics (:>)


2011-01-21 01:45:33   Having returned to RocWiki to do some additional editing as a Bucket List item during my last few months, I have found myself unfortunately again in dispute with PeteB as well as TippingPoint, your fellow Admins. Request you review The Chicken Coop/Talk for my response to their actions regarding my edits to that page and their positions regarding "ownership" of pages. —BradMandell


2012-03-23 16:46:23   I noticed that you posted a 'cash mob' event. Could you explain to me (and anybody else who wishes to know) how this 'event' differs from regular old advertizing? Who decides what or whom is the recipeint of such 'manna-from-heaven'? And, if it is just a marketing stunt (which I suspect it is), why should it get any space here when any other type of marketing doesn't? —Alex-C