Users/DavidRobinson

David Robinson is a local character. He was born in 1950 ¹ and is still alive in 2009. Acquaintances describe him as looking something like an elderly and etiolatediUgo Tognazzi, when they describe him at all. (Ugo Tognazzi was born in 1922, by the way, and died in 1990, for those who like those year links. He has been a member of the City of Davis Tree Commission since September 1986, served several years as a trustee of Explorit, and is the current president of Tree Davis.

When he isn't involved in his daily rounds of drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils, he can be found training for the California International Marathon, which he has run ² twice and will never be up to again (because he is chronically injured and enfeebled, currently with a torn meniscus), working on any number of genealogy projects, especially those involving families of York County, Maine (he is the host of the USGenWeb Wells, ME site) and New Englanders who made their way to California, or staring into the sky because something shiny caught his attention.

You can get a glimpse of his genealogy database, although information about living people has, for the most part, been privatized.

He is a regular visitor to BloodSource, letting them drain his precious bodily fluids ³ at least 24 times a year, but he only goes to get away from people hounding him, to watch one of their excellent selection of DVDs (thanks, Cindy!), and eat the tasty snacks ⁴ offered at the end of the session.

He posts very occasional musings and snapshots at his abused trees blog and finds the Davis Wiki fascinating, although he doesn't think that everything needs a link, despite a tendency to that among its diligent editors.

DavidRobinson's Statistics

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2008-10-24 15:33:11   Howdy, David. Is Bob Cordrey not known as "Bob"? If not, then the entry should probably be renamed. Also, why did you remove the year links? —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards

2008-11-21 07:37:41   Yeah, there has been some discussion about using a redirector for Aggie and SacBee links. I had moved the West Nile to a second paragraph because I thought it was a bit harsh to jump into her being infected as the first notable thing... the Co-op officership was at least as notable, and I figured it should have gone first. —JabberWokky

2008-12-09 19:12:18   No need for the sarcasm — you could just ask the editors. The issue was discussed a bit back and forth. The UC biography and his in memorandum entry lists the other year. —JabberWokky

2008-12-09 19:14:16   Specifically, you should probably take it up with the University of California Digital History Archives. —JabberWokky

2008-12-09 20:28:42   Tree abuse blog is an awesome idea, keep at it

—StevenDaubert

2008-12-10 07:06:41   I added the footnote after Elle corrected the birthdate (I had used the In memorandum UCDHA entry to fill out the entry a bit after Elle created it). It was more of a simple notice that there was another date floating around on documents from reputable sources (the UC System bio info), not disputing the one now listed. Since the UC System got their info from somebody or some other document, it's possible there are other sources with that one year later date out there, so I just let it go at that simple notice (the footnote is now nearly as long as the actual entry at this point, and the discussion regarding it quite outweighs the entry). It is, of course, also with the realm of reason that all the SS info and birth records are wrong; pre-world war documents are sometimes a fudged a few years off to make the person eligible for serving in the armed forces. Forgery and lying in testimony for the good of the country, &c, &c. I tend to doubt it, as that would have switched him from 21 to 22 at the start of WWI, which seems a bit pointless. The most obvious answer is probably the truth: somebody who was tasked with writing his bio knew he was X years old in year Y, subtracted X from Y and got his birth year. Either they figured it wrong or his birthday occurring late in the year caused them to get the incorrect birth year. No biggie, and the simple "Some sources cite the year as 1893" seemed to cover the whole situation and be non-commital enough to cover the low probability cases. —JabberWokky

2008-12-12 20:34:23   Now that's some good use of footnotes. Thanks for sprucing up the history topics! That's been an interest of mine for quite awhile. —JabberWokky

2009-05-11 08:42:26   You're probably right. They do already exist on another GVCC page, though deeply embedded. The purpose here is to make them readily available to anyone finding the link on the "Recovering From Spiritual Abuse" page under "Articles/Letters Written By Former Members" section. —RichLindvall

^{5 6}

2009-06-06 11:31:53   David, Joe said that "NPOV is not the policy." However, I agree with you in this case. Just because something is in the entry doesn't warrant it staying there forever. A lot of editors fear that people try to make everything more neutral, but I think it has to be balanced with the reviews/comments. If many people commented on a specific issue, I think it should be mentioned in the entry, negative or positive, and this tends to be what we see. This is not the case for Fuzio, and thus I agree with your edit taking that out (I dislike people adding single things/experiences to the entry), but it is quite noteworthy for the UPS Store (The Marketplace) for example. —EdWins

2009-06-06 12:39:12   You and Joe are the "powers that be" when it comes to finding an acceptable compromise regarding content. Also, just to echo Ed's comment, you misread what Joe said — there is not an NPOV requirement. In fact, a writeup full of character and opinion is often seen as a good thing: the wiki is not a business listings site, it is a reflection of the community of Davis, and I doubt you are saying that nobody in Davis has any strong opinions. Exactly where "character" steps over the line to "jackassery" is something up to all editors to decide together. —JabberWokky

2009-06-07 03:18:59   all i'm saying is, you didnt have a problem with the phrasing up until someone associated with the restaurant deleted commentary that was integrated into the body. Why don't you remove the non-associated commentary from Jusco, or a plethora of others? it wasnt like i was adding new stuff, i was just replacing that which was removed. —JoePomidor

2009-06-07 03:20:41   by the way, as i said, the dwiki is NOT npov. NOT. thus, commentary can be integrated into the main body. —JoePomidor

2009-06-16 08:55:09   You can call it a "rule" if you like, but I reverted it because we're humans, capable of using reason and common sense to know when it's sensible to bend rules. —TheAmazingLarry