Users/EdWins

InfoInfo
Search:    
Differences:

version 384 (2011-08-08 05:54:23 by TomGarberson)
←previous edit
version 385 (2011-08-08 10:28:11 by TomGarberson)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 72: Line 72:
------
''2011-08-08 11:28:11'' [[nbsp]] I like the mirrors better on the gunmetal one, but overall I like the white better. It just looks really sharp with the color contrast. Plus, white doesn't show dirt as much :) --["Users/TomGarberson"]

Ed graduated from UCD in 2006. He lived in Davis and somewhat in Sacramento from '02 to '08.

He is now happily engaged! He actually first met his fiancee in the dorms. She was also in the Malcolm Hall penthouse, just three doors down. It took a while before they began dating (and if you do the math, quite a while longer to get engaged), but their time dating is what really made them love Davis. Tried to go everywhere and to see everything. They stayed in Davis after graduation for about a year until Ed got a "real" job in Palo Alto, so she moved closer to hers in Midtown Sacramento. In late 2008, they moved (very, very reluctantly) to Los Angeles.

He's now in graduate school at UCLA, but they both miss Davis a lot. Really, really miss it.

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments


2011-03-21 10:04:00  You wrote exactly what I was thinking. But fuck, I don't want to get involved in this shit. Thanks. —wikiuser, commenting via Facebook.


2011-03-21 10:10:36   Very good call on the Village Cab page... I've been staying out of it, not really paying much attention, but it was odd that given the number of longtimers in that forum I was surprised at the results, especially that Ashley was effectively chased off the wiki. —JoePomidor


2011-03-21 10:30:55   Damn skippy. —JabberWokky


2011-03-21 10:57:07   I was also uncomfortable with the results of the Village Cab fiasco and hope that we as the editing community can come to find a better way to handle future incidents as they arise. —Wes-P


2011-03-21 13:30:30   Yes. What you missed was that I was being sardonic. —DonShor


2011-03-21 13:32:37   Great minds think alike (ie Village Cab/Talk) —Users/PeterBoulay


2011-03-21 13:34:09   This place definitely needs emoticons. But I'm not sure what a sardonic one would look like. Maybe a Groucho Marx face? —DonShor


2011-03-22 11:41:15   Maybe I'm not seeing the right thing, I don't see his response as appalling. He just reacted like any business owner would to something that seems (from his perspective) to be incorrect. There wasn't any namecalling or outright denial. Just concern about the whole affair, both the incident and/or the potential for slander. What about it did you find particularly bad? —OliviaY


2011-03-22 11:43:11   I found some of the followups to be far worse. —OliviaY


2011-03-27 15:08:19   I agree in general, but I think that when somebody goes into a public or semi-public space (like a restaurant), and they act in a certain way, they are as notable as the employee who went into that same space. It's sort of like photographs — you can't take photos through somebody's home window, but you can take a photo of them in a park or on the sidewalk. There's no expectation of privacy, as they are in public. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't other concerns... I'm only speaking of when somebody does something in public, they have no expectation of privacy: they can assume people are going to witness and (depending on how notable the action is) repeat what they have seen. Beyond that, of course, there are a whole slew of other concerns ranging from compassionate tact (when to "not see" something), to polite honesty (not over-sensationalizing an event without regard to the effects). Wrestling with those latter issues are why I removed my name from a position. —JabberWokky


2011-03-28 15:29:09   I'd rather try to be courteous to all. I don't think calling either an apartment manager, a roommate or a complete stranger a "huge bitch" is particularly helpful or useful. I think if the same person pees on the same a wall every single morning at 3am sharp, it's notable, regardless how they get their income. It's odd. After that, for pretty much every other case, it's simply tactless to point out: if some poor person is stuck and really has to go, don't take a photo of them. It's crass. I'm just saying that their employment status should have nothing to do with the decision if something should be posted or not... there are other criteria, of course, but that shouldn't really be one. You're right, of course: it does make it much easier to attach to a topic, but that's just a quirk of how the wiki is structured. That doesn't imply that anybody not representing a commercial act is automatically immune to the same level of observation (and hopefully the same level of tact when relating the story!). (And, like you, this is a quickie ramble... I have to call someone in 1 minute). —JabberWokky


2011-04-22 17:37:19   Yeah, I'm not really advocating it, just throwing it out there as a discussion point. I do think there's some merit to limiting casual things that can have a profound impact on businesses... somehow. I just don't know that that's the best way. The idea that a one-time, casual comment is permanently published here and permanently damages the subject of the comment—bet it a person, a business, or whatever—is a little disturbing, when the person leaving it doesn't even think it's serious enough to warrant further action. —TomGarberson


2011-04-27 11:16:19   One neat thing about his role in Doctor Who is... (highlight to read the fairly light casting spoiler that is moot in the first 10 minutes of the first episode with him)

that, being a time travel story, his character is old in some scenes and young in others. Mark Sheppard's father, W. Morgan Sheppard (also an actor), plays the older version of the character.


2011-05-02 09:24:31   Congratulations!! —CovertProfessor


2011-05-02 09:29:52   That's fantastic, congratulations! —TomGarberson


2011-05-17 08:01:50   I was giving it until this morning, not wanting to jump on it so that somebody else (who isn't perpetually following the wiki) had a chance to integrate it. Nicely done, in my opinion. Simply stated, linked and informational. When my "todo" alarm went off, I flipped to the wiki and you had done it 6 seconds before. Heh. —JabberWokky


2011-05-17 10:19:19   Agreed, very well done on the Cafe Med. issue. —TomGarberson


2011-05-17 15:51:38   Heh... yeah, I think you're right. It certainly slipped under my radar. —TomGarberson


2011-05-22 19:55:18   Thanks —TomGarberson


2011-06-05 09:44:22   If only it weren't in LA! ;-) —CovertProfessor


2011-06-06 10:25:10   Good idea on the wikipedia link from the WEF page, but I'm not even sure where to link it there. I guess under unique things to see? —TomGarberson


2011-06-07 12:30:46   Arugh. I corrected it, got edit conflict, and picked the WRONG ONE to restore. Hehehe. —JabberWokky


2011-06-09 09:35:48   :) —TomGarberson


2011-07-06 09:28:07   My only issue is that I have grave questions about the facts, almost all of which are derived from a source that has been shown to be far from reliable. Steve Ostrowski had this same problem — he started inventing things that didn't actually exist and writing about them. Eventually people caught on. I agree that the wiki should document Davis. There are two problems: I don't think that it can really be done at the moment that everybody is screaming (thus my comment to CP that I thought the situation was too heated to do a good writeup), but more importantly, I don't know that the things actually being written reflect what is actually in Davis. At the bare minimum a business called "Craft of Fo' Paws" operated out of ACE Hardware, and should be on the wiki for that. As a side note, many other people (including the people who worked there) have noted that Phil had nothing to do with that business. It's all the other stuff that's highly suspect — and could all be absolutely real. I'm not saying it is fiction... I'm saying it's really tough to tell when trust starts to flag. —JabberWokky


2011-07-06 09:56:27   In reply to your comment: Keep in mind that I don't see a deletion as a permanent act. It's more of a "well, this version sucks. Kill it." Then there's room to start over, hopefully in a better way. Deletion, to me, is just an edit tool. A fairly radical one, sure, but not final — nothing is. —JabberWokky


2011-07-06 12:31:06   What I found offensive wasn't the existence of a page about CoFP, it was the way people were behaving. As I stated in my comment, I agree that some sort of page is warranted. An F-You to everyone else's input (and the F-You, I Quit in response) wasn't warranted. It's not at all unusual for a page documenting a contentious issue to be temporarily deleted, or reduced to a [[Stop]], until tempers cool down and/or a decision is made. Making the case to people that they're considering the wrong issues before flipping the revert-bird to the community (something CP admonished me about just a couple days before, in a situation where there wasn't even a weight of opinion to the contrary) won't destroy the Wiki. —TomGarberson


2011-07-15 11:17:15   Yeah. I caught today's Slashdot link to the story. I'm leery of touching the entry too, but we both know it should be in there. It also really hammers in why the security is there to protect the monkeys from people, especially sick people, and how they react as an institution when accidents happen. It's very interesting scientifically in several different ways, even if it caused the death of the monkeys (alas, things that are "scientifically interesting" and help advance medicine are often tragic). I was also trying to figure out if that particular population was active in a long term research project and how the intended research was handled once the monkeys became infected. —JabberWokky


2011-08-04 11:27:02   And cab drivers? Actually, I have a theory regarding this phase of the wiki, but I need to write it all out. It's actually kind of positive when you look at the *types* of problems we're having. —JabberWokky


2011-08-08 06:54:23   True, it is an assumption. I started out with "The second one, if remotely untrue, is completely libelous" and the guy came back and deleted it. I took that to be a likely admission that it was a lie, but it's true there are other possible explanations. —TomGarberson


2011-08-08 11:28:11   I like the mirrors better on the gunmetal one, but overall I like the white better. It just looks really sharp with the color contrast. Plus, white doesn't show dirt as much :) —TomGarberson

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