Users/BruceHansen

InfoInfo
Search:    
Differences:

version 440 (2012-01-09 23:53:11 by BruceHansen)
←previous edit
version 441 (2012-01-11 11:09:31 by EdWins)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 156: Line 156:
------
''2012-01-11 10:09:31'' [[nbsp]] [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/User_Information?action=diff&version2=62&version1=61 Seriously?] --["Users/EdWins"]

(Just a user in a place on the wiki, where anyone can do just about anything as long as it's related to Davis. Right?)

Users/BruceHansen is a person named Bruce Hansen. ("Users are people too". —jw) BruceHansen is my taxi persona.

Someone claimed that three to five people may have used this user account. That's not true; only one person has.

A lot of people over the years have told me that I look like Bill Clinton. Some call me "Bill". Bobby Kennedy, Jr., when he saw me in Davis, told me that I was a "dead ringer" for him. That was a scary thought.

Secondly, considerable numbers of people have said that I resemble Gary Busey.

The other night an interesting fellow after we had briefly met, was the first to tell me that I reminded him of Noam Chomsky (my cousin).

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

[previous comments deleted]

2011-11-05 17:42:01   apparently at the Domes, they have some volunteer project going on —ndah100


2011-11-06 15:26:09   yeah man I should have written a comment along as well saying why I deleted that part of your user page. Well I deleted it on the fact that i was trying to read it, but the page I tried to access didn't exist, therefore I deleted the sentence so in the future when someone clicked on it, that they wouldn't be outraged. —ndah100


2011-11-07 16:04:52   Thanks for the edits on the Tragic Events pages. They could still use some work, but it's obviously a potentially emotional subject, so I'm reluctant to dig into it too heavily all at once. —TomGarberson


2011-11-08 22:18:06   Yes, peril surely awaits those who forget about history. —CovertProfessor


2011-11-13 00:32:25   India is not located in Davis, and while Monsanto is in Woodland, I don't think they are in Davis either. Is there something about this video that relates to Davis that I'm missing? —JabberWokky


2011-11-13 12:17:00   Monsanto certainly has a great deal of influence in Davis, just as they do in any ag town, or on any campus with an ag program. That said, I still don't see the actual relevance of India suing the main company, as the main company is not based in Davis. Unless you're implying that because something is present in Davis than it is thus relevant, which seems somewhat dubious reasoning to establish relevance. —JabberWokky


2011-11-14 07:08:28   eh well not anymore, the page in question was extremely outdated, and CP gave me somewhat of an overview idea of how to restore a deleted page Thank you for asking though
Btw did you see what happened to the Fara page? It was on the RC yesterday, but it's not there anymore? —ndah100


2011-11-14 07:09:04   Wow never mind i see the page now -.- —ndah100


2011-11-14 18:48:34   apologies for putting up the departed business macro on the Village Cab page. I realized it was hasty after I did it and thats why I removed it a few minutes later. —ChrisDietrich


2011-11-14 18:51:23   Is village cab really a departed business? I see at least 2 cabs per trip I make in town —ndah100


2011-11-16 13:56:14   Could work. Just depends on whether the community got involved. There are a huge number of wikis on Wikispot (I think tens of thousands), including thousands of community wikis. Very, very, very few of those are built up much at all. It's not a matter of size so much as of community interest.

I'm not sure I follow on the suggestion for sub-wikis for Davis. How would that work? What would be the point when we've already got DavisWiki? —TomGarberson


2011-11-18 03:35:43   I deleted the entry because it appears to be a way to try and shield a page you know to be inappropriate by claiming "it's still being built... so just wait for the relevance" in perpetuity. It also is a convenient way to shield the entry and prohibit cooperative editing by claiming that you are working on it, trying to bring it up to a certain standard as a single author, so wait (again, in perpetuity) for the finished result before other people can edit it. Or perhaps you simply don't understand the word "incubate". I deleted it, but feel free to restore it. If it's really as off-base in subject and presentation as it appears to be, other people will also delete it. At some point in that process, you should ponder if it really is relevant, or if you're missing a very significant point regarding that type of entry that you keep creating. A point that many people have tried to convey to you on many occasions. —JabberWokky


2011-11-23 09:11:52   Thanks Bruce! —MeggoWaffle


On my computer, having no space in front of the link looks likeCovertProfessor, but having a space in front of the link looks like CovertProfessor. As a rule, HTML does not show multiple spaces in a row. You must have a very unusual setup if you are seeing multiple spaces. —CovertProfessor


2011-11-25 14:50:03   So you are saying that, in your mind, that Occupy UC Davis and Occupy Davis are the same thing? —JabberWokky


2011-11-25 16:45:27   I'm sorry, I think your computer messed up. Your message to me didn't really make any sense. —JabberWokky


2011-11-28 17:16:16   I don't understand what you're saying in [WWW]this edit. How did she emotionally refer to November 17? What do you mean by "from her past?" How did that reference bring attention to her role in Greek education? —TomGarberson


2011-11-29 14:00:37   While the "no" edit comment may have been rude, how was William's edit illogical? [WWW]Your edit removed a space, making it theQuad, and turned it into a link to a redirect - Quad redirects to The Quad. —TomGarberson


2011-11-29 15:35:08   People are against [wikipedia]pigeonholing, which is why several of the catagories and sub-headers and sub-sub-headers you keep adding keep getting removed. —EdWins


brenton says-thanks sir, for the kind words, i have the same message, i simply despise incorrect delivery.


2011-11-30 07:36:08   I did not propose those changes, I did not make those changes, and I did not agree to those changes. So, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Note that this is not an invitation to discuss the issue further. I have no interest in your wasting my time any further. At least TG did not make a mess of the page or propose a pointless edit. —CovertProfessor


2011-11-30 10:10:56   "Introduction" has no content whatsoever. It's a meaningless header. Using it would be like a newspaper using "Headline" as the headline for a story. Sometimes it's appropriate for formal writing, or for more complex documents where you might have distinctly different sections (for legal documents, we generally have an Introduction section which includes an overview of the argument, followed by an Argument section which gets into each argument in far greater detail). But as a general principle, it's always better to include content in headers (or headlines) than to use content-free headers, unless there's some specific reason to do otherwise. —TomGarberson


2011-11-30 10:38:41   Yeah, that was my impression. Thanks! —TomGarberson


2011-11-30 10:56:00   The title of the article is in the light blue bar. There is no need to repeat it. The typical table of contents for a webpage does not include the title of the work or the first section (as it usually appears after it or next to it). For example, see [wikipedia]Naranath Bhranthan. —JabberWokky


2011-11-30 11:02:43   To be clear: JW is exactly right, there's generally no need for a header at the top of an article. That's what the page title is for in big ol' letters at the top of the page. I used a header at the start there for organizational purposes, since it's kind of an umbrella for different sections below it. On a page that wasn't quite so huge, it wouldn't be necessary. I certainly don't mean to imply that putting redundant headers that repeat the title repeat the title of the page is good. —TomGarberson


2011-11-30 11:25:04   Tom and I are adding a introductory section now, although both of us feel ill-informed to do it justice. —JabberWokky


2011-12-01 16:33:38   As my edit comment suggested, that was an edit by request, not specifically what I think is best. You might want to talk to Tom. He was just looking for a different take on it. —JabberWokky


2011-12-01 22:08:05   The only problem with tweaking photo size too much is that it doesn't work out well on small screens. I usually have my browser window sized somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the width of my screen. With the photo and the TOC at their current size, they stack one on top of the other if I'm at 1/2 width. I've currently got it around 2/3 width and they're OK, but they look strange with the text up there. I dunno... my personal preference, just in terms of aesthetics, was having the photo and TOC at the top with the text just below. But it's not a huge deal. —TomGarberson


2011-12-02 07:19:01   That arrangement of the TOC, photo, and text comes out looking quite nice, at least with my current window size. Thanks! —TomGarberson


2011-12-11 09:11:57   You definitely aren't starting any cab drama on this one. I don't want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. I will say, though, that if the accusations remain, your explanation should remain as well. —TomGarberson


2011-12-11 13:58:49   I just read it again, and I figured I'd say that in my view, responding to accusations is not starting drama. Josh obviously feels strongly enough to step back in and make a statement, and it's perfectly reasonable to make your counter statement. I don't see any drama here (now if it goes on back and forth with no real way of figuring anything out, that's drama). —JabberWokky


2011-12-15 07:33:11   Two things. 1) I think JW's comment was more about your tendency to put things onto a talk page, rather than just on the page directly. It's an extra step of editing. 2) I don't think it's specifically relevant to Davis. A report just released was rather broad, and it applies to the entire country. Right now, it's illegal in California to use the phone while driving unless it's handsfree. Generically relevant, as is "drunk driving isn't allowed." New report says "even hands free phone = bad" - no direct Davis relevance. It's not a law. It's a suggestion. It's a news story, and it's not specifically about Davis. It's only tangentially linked to the topic. When people on the wiki say "Davis relevance" they're not talking about whether the item is somehow connected to the TOPIC. They're talking about what Davis-specific context it has. Tom tried to compromise with you by adding it in with mention of affecting cabs, and I'll leave that alone. But if a news story was just released that said 'maybe .08 is too high of a BAC, drunk driving should be considered .04," it's not worth mentioning on this wiki. It's not Davis specific, it's a news story/report/whatever. If/when, it becomes law, it'll be just as relevant as the current .08 limit. But there's no specific Davis relevance. The issue I take with you adding it to transportation and taxi is it's so generic. In that context, it can be put on multiple pages (some private ambulances use phones. Pickup truck and small moving companies, etc. But we don't need a generic non-Davis news story link put on all these pages mentioning the exact same thing in similar contexts (may be an issue) —- it doesn't tell us anything about these topics IN DAVIS. It's just topically tangentially connected. Its filler and fluff and dilutes the wiki). Does that make sense? I feel like this has come up before. —EdWins


2011-12-25 08:12:58   1 - things must be relevant to Davis. 2 - other people have to agree for collaborative editing. I think we finally nailed down the relevancy issue, but now it's collaborative editing: just because it meets the first criteria (relevancy) doesn't mean others agree that something is noteworthy/worth changing/etc. In this case, William gave his specific reasoning on the talk page. I haven't seen yours, unless it was the catagorical/hierarchal naming convention you prefer. —EdWins


2011-12-25 08:13:45   And yes, a user can so just about anything. So can the other users ;) —EdWins


2011-12-31 17:23:17   I believe Occupy Davis will be trying different sorts of tactics (i.e., not camping out) in 2012. —CovertProfessor


2011-12-31 20:46:20   Soooooo..... Denali and Lassen are National Parks... what makes you think that those streets are named after the mountains rather than the national parks?????? —CovertProfessor


2012-01-02 13:31:07   If you look, you'll see that pages like Facebook, LiveJournal, etc., do have Davis-specific content in them. —CovertProfessor


2012-01-02 13:31:58   Hey, I use Meetup all the time, and love it. In fact, earlier today I posted to my Google Plus: "I got an email from Meetup.com that referred to everybody as Meetuppers. I misread it as Muppeteers, and then Meatpuppets. Meetuppers is not going to work as a coined word for me." Posting the email is probably not the right way to kick off a page about it, however. At the very least, it's probably not released to Creative Commons to do with as you please. As an aside, Meetup is how I met the likes of BillKendrick and other folks from Davis before I even moved there. —JabberWokky


2012-01-02 13:56:17   Just about the only one that is lame is Xanga and that was related to LiveJournal which was quite Davis-specific. Everyone else can see the difference. Oh, and Xanga is a billion times less lame than the worthless copy/paste of an email that was ["Meetup"].—WilliamLewis


2012-01-02 19:07:46   I'm not sure what you mean. I said I like Meetup, and gave you an example of it being active locally, but that email probably isn't legal to use. I'm not sure what that has to do with either glasses or Mouseketeers in your reply. —JabberWokky


2012-01-02 19:57:29   Ah! I understand now. I didn't get the connection between muppeteers and mouseketeers. Heh. —JabberWokky


2012-01-04 14:34:49   Hey Bruce, is Davis Friends Meeting the same group as the Friends of West Pond? I saw the link that you added to the FOWP page, but didn't see a connection between the groups otherwise. —jefftolentino


2012-01-04 22:55:24   I'm asking you to stop linking or classifying subjects based on words rather than meaning because you have proven over an extended period of time that you are incapable of doing this in any useful fashion. Cleaning up your messes is not a good use of editor time. —WilliamLewis


2012-01-06 15:08:23   Bruce, that Yahoo news article had nothing to do with O'Reilly Auto Parts in Davis. —EdWins


2012-01-06 16:02:43   The goal of the wiki is to catalog and capture the essence of what's within Davis, not cross-catalog everything that's even tangentially related. There are hundreds of news articles published daily, about hundreds of topics. Thousands. They don't all deserve mention. In fact, very few do. I can summarize your article with quoting one line from it: "According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, the [California] department [of resources] has launched an ad campaign to encourage owners to be aware of the recommended oil-change interval for their car."

Does that add anything about Davis? No. Does that add anything about O'Reilly Auto Parts? No.

I didn't feel a comment to link to a random news article was worthy or relevant.

In fact, reading the wiki page, the only mention of oil is "For people who change their own oil and filter O'Reilly accepts used motor oil that is not contaminated by water. They don't accept used oil filters." Does that add something about Davis? No. Does that add anything about O'Reilly Auto Parts? Yes, it does.

The only other mention of oil was a comment just left, that basically said "their oil deposit is full, drop them off over at [another business / wiki page]. Is that relevant? Yes, it concerns both businesses.

I feel as if you still don't understand the idea of relevancy and linkage on the wiki, or at least can't see the connection I feel many other people have tried to explain. I'm sorry for censoring you; for me it felt like pulling a weed. —EdWins


2012-01-06 21:44:23   Automobile Repair. Bruce, we've had the relevance conversation many, many times. I think there are a lot of people who've reached the point where they feel like returning to that conversation is a waste of time. It hasn't done any good the last half dozen times. No one's "censoring" you. People are trying to keep content on the wiki relevant. Both relevant to Davis and relevant to whatever page the content is on. —TomGarberson


2012-01-07 12:13:12   [WWW]Why?TomGarberson


2012-01-07 12:37:45   Please stop your pointless reorganizing and addition of useless content. It makes the wiki worse and apparently EVERYONE EXCEPT YOU can see it. —WilliamLewis


2012-01-07 12:51:19   Breaking out pages with little content is worse. Loading more pages to get to the content you want is pointless. The heuristic you should use to create a new page out of a section on a page is if that section crowds out all the other content on the page. This is not a hard and fast rule. —WilliamLewis


2012-01-07 21:45:52   You [WWW]completely removed an auto repair place from the auto repair page. Why? —TomGarberson


2012-01-09 06:32:31   For a second, I almost panicked and thought I actually did. :) —jsbmeb


2012-01-09 18:16:35   That still doesn't fix the fact that the name of the group itself has a grammar error in it. —CovertProfessor


2012-01-09 21:03:45   Not a decade as in the 1920s. There is no 19 to get rid of, thus no '20s. —WilliamLewis


2012-01-11 10:09:31   [WWW]Seriously?EdWins

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.