Users/GregKuperberg developed and maintains Mathematics ArXiv front.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2008-11-01 20:24:57 I took MAT 21B from you in Winter 2006. It's nice to see you make such substantial contributions to the wiki. If I remember correctly, you had a really awesome recumbent. Still riding it? —WilliamLewis
2008-11-01 20:26:34 I have a different recumbent now which is even more awesome. Anyway thanks for your interest. If you can help with the Bicycle Hazards page, that would be great. —GregKuperberg
2008-11-04 14:37:27 There are a couple ways to fix it, but the best way would involve using the [[Address()]] macro so the points you're highlighting in the entry map automatically via Google Maps and the upcoming new mapping system. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2008-12-05 22:04:11 But the Paragon is a dead link and a dead establishment.
2008-12-05 22:41:11 The only reason the link was "dead" is that no one has yet created a page for the Paragon. There is an entire page devoted to listing all of the wanted pages on the wiki. —JasonAller
2008-12-05 22:51:35 Is it important to create a page for a bar that's been gone for five years? I'm not understanding this.
2008-12-06 15:00:00 In general, the wiki is a resource about Davis, a town that includes many many years worth of people, places and things that no longer exist. Some editors are slowly working through adding historical entries devoted to things from decades (or just years) ago. There's plenty of room. —JabberWokky
2008-12-06 15:13:32 Okay, capturing history is important. But a better system would be to use searches to see what to link when you make a new page, than to keep a lot of dead links.
As for preview, the "quick edit" feature is much easier for me when I edit long pages. But it has no preview feature.
Creating dead links adds the subject to Wanted Pages, where editors can go to find things to write about. The problem that Jason is talking about regarding preview is that lots of quick edits makes it very difficult for others to review your edits and see what you have done. It's up to you, of course, and editing is preferable to not editing... it's just that it fills up the Recent Changes entry with loads of little changes that are hard to follow. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2008-12-06 15:41:36 1) If you remove the last dead link to something, does it then disappear from the wanted page?
2) I would be quite happy to preview and even happier to notate some of my changes. But this is really more difficult to do in the WikiSpot software than it is in MediaWiki. Although even then, I'm never going to be all that great with these practices, because I have an ingrained habit of fiddling with text.
We've been bugging PhilipNeustrom for a comment bar for quick edits since the feature came out. I think it is part of his conspiracy to get more coders onboard Project Sycamore. He might just figure we might want it so badly that someone will break down and write the patch. —wl
1) Yes. 2) There's a different ebb and flow with Wiki Spot than with MediaWiki. Sort of like how the conventions and traditions between Wikipedia and Davis Wiki are radically different (primary sources are encouraged, well written creative writing is celebrated, POV is aggregated, not neutral etc). One of the things that dwiki gnomes tend to do is sit on Recent Changes and watch to assist and expand new topics. Personally, I don't care much about the Preview thing, but I know others do, and that's why. If you always edited with quick edits every day from now on, that would fine by me... it just bugs some editors. It really isn't that big a deal1. I can attest that I'm waiting until you're completely finished (at least for awhile) with the edits on Tragic Events so I can go back and see what you did. —jw
2008-12-06 15:34:43 By the way, don't feel anybody is picking on you or telling you you're wrong. We're just trying to work with you. Y'know — the whole "editors working together". The wiki has various tools and traditions that have evolved over the years. Now that you're editing so much (which is appreciated!), you're just now part of the incessant editor back and forth. Looking back on the comments you have gotten, I just didn't want you thinking everybody is being down on you. The comments you've gotten are intended to be practical feedback about how things have worked out and how most other editors work together. So don't feel shy about explaining your rationale or asking "why do people do it this way?". Often (like with the Wanted Pages entry), there are wiki tools that have shaped how people edit so that other editors can collaborate with them. We're all just working together. Once again, thanks for jumping in with all the editing! —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2008-12-14 12:26:13 The formatting on the tragic events page is rather hard to read at the moment. Maybe the descriptions could be indented? —IDoNotExist
2008-12-14 13:01:12 Greg, I saw your comment on Tragic Events and agree about the short forms versus full names. When I start playing with the page again, I'll adjust as needed. —DavidRobinson
2008-12-14 18:58:50 Greg, Although civil dates in this country are given in the form of month, day, and year, the genealogical convention is to go from the smallest increment to the largest—day, month, and year. That is the style accepted by the NEHGS and the NGS. I didn't change any event dates on the Tragic Events page from the conventional format, since that's what most people expect and are used to, just the birth and death dates. I take it you found that problematical? —DavidRobinson
Just to toss it out, a common date form used on the wiki is the International Standard Date, or greatest to least: 2008-12-14. You'll note all comments are stamped with them. There are several benefits (unambiguity, as there is no common Y-d-m use, sortability, accepted standard, ability to drop or increase precision, a la 2008-12), but the classic drawback is like that of metric units — it is less common than the classic form. It does appear to be gaining popularity as we have increasingly international communication. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2008-12-14 20:52:38 I don't feel strongly about "January 7, 1980" versus "7 January 1980". My suggestion is the former because (1) it's easier for me to read, not entirely sure why; and (2) it's a standard (not necessarily the standard) for Wikipedia biographies, at least for biographies of Americans. The format "1980-01-07" is really significantly more difficult to read and I don't see that it makes sense in the main text, even though it isn't too bad in the comments section.
What I do care about rather more is to have a shorter title for each entry in Tragic Events. But maybe we're all in agreement on that one.
2010-06-25 11:19:24 The part about the salary was not very crude but actually neutral and it described how others are paid more. Why delete it? —hankim
2010-06-25 11:38:32 Hey, Greg... I created Linda Katehi/Talk to discuss the content on the entry about Ms. Katehi. I'm not sure why removing the historical note makes sense (presumably it will fade in prominence as she does more as a chancellor and that is added to her entry). —JabberWokky
2010-08-01 00:27:04 used as a pun no doubt? Marketplace ups died... it's a bit early brah —StevenDaubert
2010-12-05 17:12:03 On your easement comment, I'm not sure if you were being witty/cynical/funny or that you really don't know what an easement is. So bear with me. A crossing is a physical thing. An easement is a legal right to be on someone else's property. There are a couple of different ways that a lawyer could argue that the public has an easement on UP's property and that the UP does not have a right to block them. —JimStewart
2011-01-11 18:59:48 Law != real world
you stick to your guns on the fence issue so tightly that I think your just trolling... —StevenDaubert
2011-12-30 02:08:11 That set of entries is probably the most rearranged on the wiki. —JabberWokky
2011-12-30 07:51:03 I'm impressed with your commitment to those pages. Have you considered using table formating to better line up the 'month' 'day' 'year' 'name' columns? Aesthetically, it'd look nice/clean. An example:
2011-12-30 09:22:31 Yeah, that makes more sense spacing wise. The above example looks a bit odd! Two columns would look like this.
Could probably copy everything to a word document, and do a few 'replace all.'
* to ||
[h to ||[h
] to ]||
should cover placing the formatting for each line, I think, pretty quickly.
I made it a two-column table. It was a good suggestion. —GregKuperberg
2012-06-01 20:44:01 Little Freudian slip there. :-) —CovertProfessor
2012-06-02 09:56:25 What you have for SG now is fine. —CovertProfessor
2012-06-07 17:19:16 Yes on both counts. Perhaps chime in on the Talk page so that your view is more widely known. —CovertProfessor
I would otherwise be happy do it, but I have just been stirring too many pots lately. —GregKuperberg
I can empathize. —cp
2012-06-13 20:59:44 It's fishy to me too, but it's a better tactic then making new troll accounts and vandalizing the wiki out of spite. I'm willing to let it slide. —ES
I don't see much difference between what X the unknown is doing and vandalizing the wiki out of spite. Okay, instead of vandalizing out of spite, he/she is whitewashing it in favor of a local business. —GregKuperberg
Whitewashing a business page is bad, and to my understanding the original edits to the business page were fixed by other wiki editors, which is what drew personX's attention in anger. Whitewashing a user page is lame, but it's never been a wiki stance to have people "prove" their username, and we've generally given people free reign with their own userpage (as opposed to a business or public person page). At this point, to my count, the business page is edited to wiki standards, and personX simply deleted comments from their userpage. That's what I meant by letting it slide, overall it's about as good of a win as we can get — unless we become punitive out of our own spite and try to force them to unveil their real life identify. clarifi -ES
I don't feel strongly about the issue, but my advice is that there is a difference between anonymity and fabrication, and especially impersonation of other people. PersonX says, "oh I'm L. Wolk who's 90 years old", but people will still think that it's Lois Wolk unless they know to check. But either personX will continue to create trouble, or not. —GregKuperberg
I agree with everything that ES says, but one point of clarification: the edit that originally received the most ire was when I restored a complaint about the business that had been summarily deleted by jimi without any discussion. I am still not happy with that deletion, but I seem to be alone in that, so I have not pursued the matter further. As for LWolk being mistaken for Lois Wolk, that is why I put the explicit note on the page that LWolk was not Lois Wolk. Or perhaps you are worried that people will not click through to the user page? —CovertProfessor
Obviously not everyone will click. And, if the whole thing is a fabrication, then I don't think that X the unknown picked the name "LWolk" out of sheer coincidence. It just looks like a lot of shenanigans, and I have the feeling that eventually the DavisWiki regulars will get tired of it. But if not, then not, as I said, I don't care all that much. Frankly there are other pages on DavisWiki that are rather worse than this case, because of an echo chamber of tendentious opinion. —GregKuperberg
One interesting historical note though: Even in the days before clicking on links, people found ways to brazenly hide the truth in plain sight. For instance, have you ever heard of an "anti-bank"?
2012-06-15 08:35:50 The LWolk account is gone, and there is nothing to indicate that the W in ScarlettW is a Wolk. Time to move on. —CovertProfessor
No, the user explicitly referred to himself/herself as "Scarlett Wolk", and claimed that "L. Wolk" is her mother. —GregKuperberg
I kinda agree with CP here, we should let the SW/LW stuff fizzle out. The comments you left on the SW page could perpetuate an already drawn-out argument. Would it be ok if I removed the latest one? —JT
The account LWolk was disabled for certain well-founded reasons. If the account ScarlettW were also disabled for the same reasons, then after that it could make sense to remove my comment. —GregKuperberg
Kinda beating a dead horse though, yeah? —JT
Look, I don't feel at all in charge of DavisWiki and in the end, you guys can do what you want. However, I am involved with another major user-driven web site, and there the policy is that when users become abusers, their accounts are disabled. As in, all of them. No good evidence has surfaced that "LWolk" and "ScarlettW" aren't simply the same troublemaker, someone closely associated with Bowerbird and Dunaway.
There is another dubious aspect to this as well. A number of DavisWiki users are clearly eager to speak truth to power, especially corporate power, if that power happens to be the university or Union Pacific or US Bank. But if it's a local business that didn't land on the wrong side of ideology, then there is a sentiment is to compromise to keep everyone happy. It doesn't look good. —GregKuperberg
Ok, well I don't care really. If you're up to fighting it, go for it. —JT
- 1Disclaimer: The size of the deal may vary by editor, I am not responsible if somebody else considers it a big deal