mister flint please enjoy my latest wikipedia edit

I've added a last sentence to the intro, on the page for Achewood, complete with a correctly-formatted attribution to a Salon interview with Chris Onstad.

Wikipedia after I finished wrote:

As Onstad is a food and cooking enthusiast[3], most Achewood strips contain some reference to food or drink.

[SIZE=1]
oh shit this probably should have been a private message[/SIZE]

[SIZE="1"]horse dogg maniac[/SIZE]

Somebody edited it down to "many" instead of "most" but that's bullshit. I considered my wording carefully. It's most, when you get a-countin'.

Are you gonna stand for that shit? Come on, start an edit war already.

Done, and I've opened a Talk section on the matter, if it need be discussed.

[size=1]I was just being a smartass.[/size]

nerds

Undone and re-undone. This is war.

The comic's humor is most often absurdist, generally lacking a set punch line, and sometimes branches into the surreal.[2] The most frequently used font in the strip is Blue Highway, which does not have any italic characters. As Onstad is a food and cooking enthusiast[3], mork Achewood strips contain some reference to food or drink.

i think i'm funny

edit: it would have been funnier, had the edit stuck....i guess i have to get some type of credential?

From the references section of the Achewood Wikipedia page, the Salon.com review of Chris Onstead's cookbook:

...
It's also one of the only strips in any medium to tackle the nuances of the culinary world, riffing off of molecular gastronomy and eggless Sardinian pasta the way most strips work with put-upon wives and clumsy oversize dogs.

The epicurean tendencies of Achewood emerge organically from its author's commanding -- and borderline obsessive -- interest in cookbooks, and his almost militarily perfectionist brand of home cooking.
...

Attention, K-Mart shoppers! There's a Blue Light special on A Life on aisle five! Everyone in this thread needs to go *get one*.

Elspode;561975 wrote:

Attention, K-Mart shoppers!
There's a Blue Light special on A Life on aisle five!
Everyone in this thread needs to go *get one*.

Oh, that's cold, dogg. I would never say anything like that.

I was joking. I edit Wikis on occasion, too. But I freely admit that I have no life.

OK, I am now here.

It's very difficult for me to enjoy a comic by starting "in the middle." So when somebody recommends a webcomic to me, I usually click straight to the archives and read from teh beginning.

I have not gotten Achewood before. But I'm now up to mid-2003, and I am finally feeling the love for this strip.

Hell, I may actually be Roast Beef.

I envy you so much. You are into where Onstad hits stride.

Onstad may actually be one of my favorite authors.



Steve. You can't be Roast Beef.

And why, pray tell, not?

'cuz

Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

The collaborative online encyclopedia Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology from editing the site. The Register reports Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, voted 10 to 0 in favor of the ban, which takes effect immediately.

Wikipedia’s innovative free-encyclopedia draws upon the knowledge of millions of users to create and edit articles on every conceivable topic. Edits appear immediately and do not undergo any formal peer-review process.

Wikipedia officially prohibits use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – but the open format makes enforcing such policies difficult.

According to Wikipedia administrators speaking to The Register:

Multiple editors have been “openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities.”

“The edits coming out of Church of Scientology servers were of the sort that made their organization look better. Up to a point that’s justifiable, when it comes to correcting inaccuracies or removing poorly sourced negative information. There were times when they went beyond that and deleted well sourced information that was unflattering, and there were times when they insulted other editors in a manner that would reflect poorly upon any religion.”

Some see Wikipedia’s decision as a setback to the Utopian goal of Web 2.0 in which every user is allowed to freely contribute.

How do you feel about the ban? Should Wikipedia actively suppress self-serving, misleading or inaccurate information? Or does every voice deserve to be heard?

Self serving? No... all information should be accessible.
Misleading? I suspect people would disagree on what was/is misleading, depending on their view. I'd say don't delete it, just post the opposing point of view. Unless there are so many points of view it can't be done.
Inaccurate? Yes... but there again accuracy can be subjective too.

Undertoad;566803 wrote:

I envy you so much. You are into where Onstad hits stride.

[sniff]

I'm in 2006. I just finished the Great Outdoor Fight.

[sniff] No, it's OK, I just got something in my eye. Damned contacts . . .

[SIZE="1"]oh dang man that is an epic story arc dogg[/SIZE]

I remember reading it in "real time" and feeling the great anticipation every day... wondering where it was gonna go.

That's what I'm feeling now. Onstad is killin' me.

If you love him so much why doncha marry him? Huh? Huh? Huh?

I'm holding out for you, Shawnee darling.

Take a number and get in line. :lol:

I slay me! ;)

69. When is it my turn?