|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 140:||Line 140:|
But what about ["Making New Jason Allers To Mess With Wanted Pages"]?! --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]
|E-mail: <tmgarberson AT gmail DOT com>|
Tom Garberson has lived in Davis since 2002, getting a degree in Sociology (it was a BA, but Soc is all about the BS) and a J.D. from King Hall. He currently (intermittently) practices private criminal defense as a contractor for Blackmon & Associates and loves the work. He met his wife, Bekka, through Integrated Studies in 2004, and they got married in 2009. They have an obnoxiously cute cat named Robin.
|Recommended||NOT Recommended||Useful Stuff|
|Great place to live||Worst service on earth||Site Organization|
|Great place to relax||Advertising on the Wiki||To Do|
|Great food||Being a jackass||Includes|
|Great humor||Reading Lost Pets||Help with Macros|
|Great service||(It makes me sad)||Help with Tables|
|Great beer selection|
|Great wiki art|
Things to work on
Velociraptors page - it needs to be done. Anyone with a dinosaur costume want to dress up for a picture to go on the page?
How about A Tour of the Wiki? —bh
Things to think about
"Imagine the Wiki without JabberWokky's calm guidance." — Jason Aller, of Users/JasonAller fame
Kind of scary to think about, wouldn't you say? Am I the only one who thinks the Wiki would pretty quickly begin a downward spiral?
The wiki would definitely be in trouble without JW around to give his wise input and to smooth over troubled situations. The wiki is also in need of more committed editors. —cp
¿ɹɐq ʇuǝɯɯoɔ ʎɯ oʇ pǝuǝddɐɥ ʇɐɥʍ
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2011-03-31 12:55:23 Your count (4) of West Davis restaurants is correct if you do not include The Marketplace—which, being east of 113, it should not be. There is also prepared food (sandwiches/pastries/coffee) available at Stonegate Video and the grocery store. —JudithTruman
2011-03-31 16:10:29 I thought the Happy Thursday at Rominger West Winery was suitable. I've heard of it, and thought of going. Good musical occasion. —BruceHansen
2011-03-31 17:06:04 Thanks, TG! Seems like I missed a controversy or two. :-) —CovertProfessor
2011-03-31 17:58:15 OH NO! I may truly regret the expansion of the page if that happens! —ScottMeehleib
2011-03-31 18:22:16 Did someone say tentacle porn video? Hold on, let me look through my hard drive. —hankim
2011-04-01 09:31:51 The Korean language actually does have an "l" sound while the Japanese language does not, so I am sort of pulling a Wallace. It's okay though, because Japan has persecuted my people for so long. It's like when black people make fun of white people. —hankim
2011-04-01 10:05:04 I would post the entire thing, but pretty sure I'd piss a few people off. —hankim
2011-04-01 16:30:30 Yeah, Mr. Edwards didn't fare too well in the Battle of the Gnomes, I'm afraid. :'( —ScottMeehleib
2011-04-02 17:13:44 Still-her comment looks fishy when she doesn't sign it and is clearly shown as doing "management updates" in the past. I rephrased on her page.—Users/PeterBoulay
2011-04-06 09:32:59 Is there a living room in that den unit? —CovertProfessor
2011-04-06 09:40:37 Yup! Clarified it, thanks. —TomGarberson
2011-04-06 09:52:26 Ah, ok. There wouldn't be much benefit to the extra den without one! —CovertProfessor
2011-04-06 19:23:06 When I was on my non-cutting maintenance diet, I would treat myself to their hot wing entree at least once a week. I miss them so much right now =( —hankim
2011-04-06 23:11:08 I believe your comment on my profile was about what I said on the UCC page. Its quite alright Mr.Garberson. I have forgiven those involved and wish them well. I also hold no ill feelings towards UCC or any of its members. I was doing as I was told and staying out of church till I graduated. But when I found out that another person was put in the same situation I was, I felt I needed to say something. I prayed for many months and rewrote it several times in hopes it would not be seen as an act of revenge. This isn't intended as a personal attack, but just an attempt to help other who might be in the same spot I was in. Thank you very much for your concern. —Dozer
2011-04-07 17:14:45 Mr. Garberson, I appreciate your concern. But I do not want this to turn into gossip. —Dozer
2011-04-14 09:48:24 They have phones in booths now? Finally, now I don't have to lug this cell phone around! —hankim
2011-04-14 19:09:19 Wow! What a fancy site! —TianxiaZhou
2011-04-15 13:00:51 Thank you for fixing my snakes' pictures. I was just researching how to make them a little less gigantic! —DanielleC
2011-04-19 23:38:14 Sorry for the late reply about the calpirg thing! Anyway, I spoke with the current chair, and she sayid that she would handle the situation herself, file my unpledge, and issue a refund check for all the quarters I've been pledged. The only problem is that she never specified a date, and hasn't gotten back to me on this. This may be another losing battle. I'm running out of nice things to do! —Jennyfish
Hey man, I think you have me figured all wrong...If you ever wanna hang out and drink some Kool-Aid, maybe talk about Bruce Lee movies or whatever, you'd see that I'm probably the nicest hardcore conservative you've ever met! I know, we could go out to the range and squeeze a couple off!! Now that's always a blast!! All I have is love in my heart these days and I want to share it with all of you good folks!! Love and kisses, XOXO!! —JoshLawson
2011-04-20 15:22:01 Yeah, the whole thing is effed up, that's for sure. One thing that really gets my goat is that my health insurance more than doubled this year because of, you guessed it, Sutter. (My insurance company offered a non-Sutter version at the old price). Both sides were pointing fingers as to whose fault it was that rates had gone up. Well, now... hmm... assuming these allegations are correct, it seems pretty clear whose fault it is... —CovertProfessor
2011-04-20 21:02:15 I don't think there's a conspiracy, I just think people work hard to maintain their organization's image so I take whatever they say with a dose of skepticism. I also don't know about past allegations about violations of standards not panning out since I'm new here, but I would think if the USDA is anything like the FDA, the number of inspectors/inspections has dropped drastically in the past couple decades so it wouldn't require a conspiracy or even malicious intent for there to be some blind spots in the system. I'm also guessing you're right, animal rights groups might interpret something as violating a standard when the enforcers are a bit more lax. I guess we'll see what comes of it. —MeggoWaffle
2011-04-21 17:51:18 Re Taco Bell, I know there were several things to edit besides my mass. Are you going to turn your comment bar upside down? —BruceHansen
2011-04-22 11:42:32 i see. with that, where is the bar where I can add my own commentary to the talk page? —DavidPlacencia
2011-04-22 12:28:11 mr garberson, doesnt it seem unbalanced that a comment made by a former editor with her own name is taken more seriously than a local business with 7 years history behind it? If you all (career ediotrs) are more concerned with the primacy of your own words rather than what the truth is, then your "community" isn't representative of the very real world from which the Wiki first sprung...i mean, can we not agree there was a REAL tangible world BEFORE the fledgling Wiki was born? I honestly feel most people in this "community" are well meaning and quite accomplished and astute in their oxygen-based worlds. But this Wiki as far as this issue ia concerned, is suffering from a lack of humility and common sense. It seems quite a desparate act to defend words from someone who has left the conversation. I find
it further perplexing that not a one of the editors stood behind a business' right to conduct its work without such a Mar, given
its 7 years on the Wiki without any kind of accusation CLoSe to what was made. I could see if we had a
string of SHady comments in regard to the safety of ladies in Village Cabs. Frankly, I dont see why any business would want to be on the Wiki if they get no consideration for the time and
history they have on its erasable and surreal pages. Did any editor check with Davis PD for any complaints against us ? Has anyone checked DUN & Bradstreet for our fiduciary creditworthiness as a business? No. everyone is myopically worried about how the Wiki should handle this or that. I submit to you kind
sir, that Its quite heavy to my business in this ecomomy. This is my only livelihood. Some of
the drivers as well. Please consider that we had 60,000 hours plus of active service ( 24 hours in operation since 2004) and not one insinuation from our lady riders that we gave them any reason to feel unsafe. My wife was a customer for almost 3 years before we even dated. When we dated, we got engaged 3 weeks afterward. We have many many lady regulars. I really think the Wiki and its career editors should exercise more real-world analysis of accusations whether or not the person gives their REAL NAME. A real name van
have just as much a reason or chance to be untrue or incorrect as a pseudonym or ghost writer can. A business should be given
the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such seriously economic matters. After all, the truth will bear itself out, right? 7 years weighed against lesser years of editorial experience on the accuser's part? I am not too sure this is a balanced appraisal of how long a publication should allow sidelong glances and second thoughts to trump the effects of what may have actually gone on...i mean the story was an Afterthought, the writer didnt seem to think it was crucial enough to report in the "real world". Is Village Cabs history on the wiki indicative or suggestive even
of this behavior by any of its drivers? Nothing to even conjecture. One editor with less history, makes a factless (no day, no descriptions only a business name) writes a
shocking story, and then under criticism (much inappropriate criticism) she leaves
the Wiki. We are taking security of customers even more seriously because of it, but we in no way shape or form acknowledge or accept her story as fact, just as a reminder to us that we habe been to naive to think we wouldnt need to go so far as to have cameras to protect ourselves from stories written without any real world followup or clarification. And now an editor says I am
whitewashing this whole thing by removing the reference to the story. No, I am just removing the doubt from our established reputation as a
trustworthy micro cab company. I think 7 years if hard work gives me the right to take that step.
2011-04-22 12:30:01 thanks for those edit tips btw. im usually driving days so not so much time to learn that stuff —DavidPlacencia
2011-04-22 12:54:00 ...excuse my series of typos... —DavidPlacencia
2011-04-24 21:38:35 That might be better on a different entry, as the core point may be clouded with specifics (on the other hand, it's good there too). It's a VERY good point. Personally, I try to support tact, compassion and a strong voice. That is, express negatives in a manner in which they are not hostile, and be aware that one's actions have consequences for others, so do not speak in a way that needlessly hurts others. After that, speak up and voice your views with as much clarity as possible. Alas, in this particular instance the original story may have met all of those criteria from her perspective (relating a situation in which she saw a victim). —JabberWokky
2011-04-24 22:04:40 I already replied to your fairness point. I'd say that a good example where the wiki community comes into play is technical issues like account names, as they are not an intrinsic part of Davis. Accusations — both because of their source and ramifications — seem to be to be more relevant to the Davis community as a whole than just the subset of the wiki community, and so it is within that larger context that things like fairness should be judged. Or maybe I'm putting too fine a point on it. —JabberWokky
2011-04-25 09:56:53 I know it wasn't your intent, but your comment on VC ends up reading as: 'sweep it under the rug.' 'Something happened, but it got dealt with in some fashion, so in the end the original comment is irrelevant.' If anything, you're advocating, unintentionally, integrating Ashley's comment into the page if there's any mention of security cameras — because what led to cameras being installed in every cab?
To set up an awful analogy, it'd be somewhat like if I said your restaurant had a cook that was rumored/heard to/seen spiting into food or not washing hands...so the restaurant installs cameras in the kitchen. That's nice, and then you can go on to tell your patrons that the food is totally hygienic and trustworthy because hey, we even have cameras and do a background check on our chefs. But...what again led to the cameras? The comment/allegation is completely swept under the rug, when in fact it's actually now much more relevant as a point of history.
X was alleged, so the company changed by doing Y. I honestly think you're overestimating what you're referring to harm that comes out of a mention when put into the proper context on the page (such as the compromise comment and David's followup rebuttal). Having mentioning of X doesn't equate to endorsement of content or admission of guilt to X, and I doubt that many people generally see it that way. Usually, a company/group is lauded for stepping up and doing Y. It's not about Removing all mention of X seems to do it injustice, and it puts a fake spin on Y. It would be an incomplete story with a murky history. I wonder if it'd be worse down the line in a few years (Sigma Chi rumor style? Isn't that the company with the cameras?) to not simply address it up front, in the open and immediately have the rebuttal to squash concerns. —EdWins
2011-04-25 10:03:00 I hate to pick apart tidbits and be a stickler for little things, but just trying to get my point on the "First X, then Y" thing across.
You had written, "On the matter of safety, David is going to install (already has installed?) video cameras in all of the Village cabs. Are we all more or less in agreement that once that's complete, the safety issue is pretty much resolved? It's hard to imagine a man, knowing he's on film, molesting someone. Thus it seems that the safety concern will be largely resolved once the cameras in place. Sure, it's conceivable there's a serial molester who's going to go way out of his way to continue molesting women... but if that's the case, neither the comment nor the video cameras are going to do much about it. On other words, while horrifying, it's not really within the scope of the safety benefit offered by the comment—it's irrelevant."
I think that line makes the restaurant analogy fit a bit better. We should remove all posts with concern or alleged unhygienic practices or spitting into food, because....
"Are we all more or less in agreement that once [camera installation is] complete, the safety issue is pretty much resolved? It's hard to imagine a cook, knowing he's on film, spitting into food. Thus it seems that the safety concern will be largely resolved once the cameras in place. Sure, it's conceivable there's a serial unhygienic jerk who's going to go way out of his way to continue being gross with food... but if that's the case, neither the comment nor the video cameras are going to do much about it. On other words, while horrifying, it's not really within the scope of the safety benefit offered by the comment—it's irrelevant."
And so the original comment about the cook not washing his hands and spitting into the food is wiped. We can write up about Y on the page, but it seems just wrong to completely delete X from the history, whether it's false or not, — when X is the entire reason everything changed. Isn't it? —EdWins
Point well taken. From the perspective of examining why something happened, it's certainly relevant. To my mind, though, that's a relatively minor consideration compared to the magnitude of impact from the second point in the proposal. The extent of the assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion that "this isn't the kind of company I want to do business with" frankly horrifies me. That's what differentiates it from an issue of sanitation (which, from what I've heard, happens in most food establishments): the magnitude of the benefit and the harm. When 99% (or 95%, or whatever you think is reasonable) of the benefit to the community has already been realized once the cameras are installed, there's only very limited continued good emanating from the account. On the flip side, 100% of the harm continues. It's a massively disproportionate effect. And just to be clear, my objection isn't that the business is harmed, but that the business is harmed unjustly because of assumptions necessary to get to that point.
It'd be interesting to know if David has some figures for average numbers of calls before and after the comment. Just based on the fact that multiple drivers have come and said they've been getting fewer calls, it seems like the impact is very real.
Would it alleviate your concern at all if we limited mention of the cameras in the vehicles to a simple factual statement ("All VC taxis have video cameras installed.")? That is, add in a proviso that it can't be used to promote the company here on the wiki, due to the way it came about. —TomGarberson
2011-04-25 13:40:01 i responded on my page, tg —DavidPlacencia
2011-04-25 20:33:48 I see. Does it only update daily? —BruceHansen Oh I see what I was looking forr in the 1's - way below Making New Wanted Pages To Mess With Jason Aller.—bh Also it looks like a wanted page is only listed once per page that it's on.
2011-04-26 09:14:30 They should totally serve breakfast. I won't even care if they don't have a breakfast menu. —hankim