Users/GregKuperberg

Describe Users/GregKuperberg here.

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2008-02-17 18:40:39   Welcome to the Wiki. Wow, that was an impressive restructuring of Music Teachers. Thanks for the effort. —JasonAller

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 21:22:06   Thanks for all of your recent edits. Please Remember to Preview, and also to try to not remove links. The edit to Froggy's for example removed the link to The Paragon. —JasonAller

2008-12-05 22:04:11   But the Paragon is a dead link and a dead establishment.

—GregKuperberg

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.

—GregKuperberg

2008-12-05 22:57:58   Capturing history is important to some wiki users. Thus departed businesses and other pages like history. —JasonAller

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.

—GregKuperberg


• 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.

—GregKuperberg


• 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.

—GregKuperberg