Hello my name is Jeff
|• making coffee|
|• taking pictures|
|• ice cream|
Hi Ian Tillman!
I enjoy taking pictures. Photography is cool.
You can see more stuff on my flickr account.
I also do the Random Camera project, which includes silly pictures like these:
smilespiano barmonkey hugs and friendsshields
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
Is your brother James Tolentino? If so, I went to school with him. -JamesSchwab
Yes, James is my brother. He's doing graphic design in Venice Beach. He also enlightened me on bacon dogs. -JeffTolentino
Nice watermelon picture!
Protip: preview is your friend if you want to make a series of edits on a page —StevenDaubert
"hmmmm, did some fooling around and seems to work if I enter the time as 4:00PM (6 and a half hours later). Shows 4:00PM to when i'm logged in, and 9:30AM when i'm logged out. Noticed different times on other events too." — from the Events Board/Talk page. What is your time zone set to in your user settings (under your name in the upper right)? —PhilipNeustrom
2007-08-25 15:33:40 Thanks for the comment bar, philip. I've been meaning to do that. :) —jefftolentino
2007-09-03 06:43:12 Great picture of Richards bike tunnel —EdHenn
2007-09-04 18:27:58 Thanks for the good editing. Sometimes [[Include(PhotoRequest)]] are left on a page to get a non-copyrighted picture or to get a better picture. —JasonAller
2007-09-05 00:29:50 Heh, I didn't connect the you from this page and the you from the bike rides until just now. I've checked on your page before because I've wondered if you're related to a Leto Tolentino, who also lives in Davis and went to high school with my mom. Are you? —ElisaHough
2007-09-05 11:52:56 Yes, my mom too. She also tells me that you came to my first birthday party. —ElisaHough
2007-09-12 09:42:39 Jeff- thank you for helping— I somehow erased the Events Board and had no idea how to undo this!! —MaryBurke
2007-09-18 22:39:15 Hey, Jeff. Congratulations on such a cool mystery picture. I especially like the metal milk box because it's a relic from Davis's earlier years. —robinlaughlin
2007-09-21 16:59:20 When I went to Sly Park, my buddy and I built the best shelter of anybody, but we didn't get to sleep in it. Did you graduate from DHS? Maybe you should add yourself to Graduates of the Davis Joint Unified School District. —NickSchmalenberger
2007-09-26 00:04:50 Full moon ride tonight at 9 pm, meet in Central Park! Maybe I'll bring pictures of us as kids. —ElisaHough
2007-09-26 20:14:51 Fantastic writing on the Bridges. That was a fun read. —JabberWokky
2007-09-26 21:41:19 Awesome contributions! BTW, I remember your brother from DHS and (I think) Holmes... —Graham.Freeman
2007-09-28 23:57:44 but there's a mathematical proof. shall i tell you or have you work it out? —JessicaRockwell
2007-09-30 10:44:37 xie xie ni —JessicaRockwell
2007-09-30 15:45:04 I love your polaroid mystery pictures! —PhilipNeustrom
2007-10-01 01:01:50 thanks for posting the pics of mass. —PxlAted
2007-10-23 23:52:41 I'm not gonna let some n00b get away with sanitizing an entry. I have little tolerance for this crap in general, actually. I figure if I keep their stuff from being up too long and act quickly, they'll find that it isn't worth their time to trash the wiki and move on. Provides a disincentive to repeat the behavior in the future. Seems to work, with the notable exception of Steve Ostrowski who never got the cluestick. —WilliamLewis
2007-10-25 00:15:59 Hey, Thanks. I did want a better representation of the unit. It was my overall goal. Honestly I am new on here... I mean really it's a public posting site, not a video game or anything. I really didn't want that senseless editing war, but if someone really has the time/energy to waste on trying so badly to get rid of newcomer edits I just felt like playing along with it since I was bored at home anyways. haha.
Anyways, i'm happy somebody understands the idea of treating newcomers well. =) —ThUn
2008-01-03 12:31:23 Nice Featured Page! —JabberWokky
2008-03-29 14:55:57 Hi Jeff! I just came across a comment you left re Zocolo's in Sac. Finally, someone who agrees that it's nothing more than a noisy meat market. I met up with some friends there and that is exactly what I thought. When I shared this with them they got all, "How DARE you!!" —CurlyGirl26
2008-03-30 14:06:36 Last time I was at Zocolo's, I was just angry. To avoid the blowhard-y Zocolo's crowd, I now go to Tres Hermanas or Ernesto's. Both have good Mexi food; less douchebags.
Diet Coke, I know: Lame. I got addicted to it while in college trying to avoid the Freshmen 50 or whatever. I know it's totally gross, but. . .I love it! It's weird that I even drink it because I don't have to worry about calories or watching my weight and all I eat is crap, anyway. I'm trying to quit, though. —CurlyGirl26
2008-08-19 19:58:13 Good guess, Jeff! I never would have known that the photo was taken at Crepeville had I not been there. —CurlyGirl26
2008-10-10 07:05:44 Ok, so google maps approximates the distance from Covell to the dead end at about .17 km. Let's say you're riding on a 26x1.5 tire (around 40-559), which should have a circumference of around 201cm (we could do the roll-out test for better accuracy here). That gives us 84.6 tire revolutions to reach the wall. In the unreasonable 52/11, that's almost 18 pedal revolutions. A more reasonable gear of 42/20 gives 40 pedals. You said 45 which is pretty close. A gear of 42/23 (a bit low maybe, but way more reasonable than 52/11) gives 46 pedals. I'd say you nailed it.
2008-10-16 05:05:37 So you grew up in Davis? I'm wondering if you're related to a Gina I went to school with. —EdHenn
2008-10-16 22:57:49 Don't think I've seen her since dhs... say hi for me! —EdHenn
2008-12-25 11:23:17 Merry Xmas everybody! —jefftolentino
2008-12-25 11:28:43 Merry Christmas! —JabberWokky
2009-05-12 19:11:55 I like the kiss. That's a nice one. —JabberWokky
2009-05-13 22:32:24 hi Jeff! nice photos on your page. it's true, i am a traitor. —IrinaChakraborty
2009-06-03 20:39:46 Love your polaroids! —PhilipNeustrom
2010-01-21 10:40:45 Your office neighbor saying Hi! (at least when I'm around!) —LeeY
2010-02-08 16:36:11 It's a bug in the wiki software. Sorry, didn't mean to clobber your question. —WilliamLewis
2010-03-16 00:04:19 Okay... let me just open the envelope... Aaaaand... the award for best new entry so far in 2010 goes to... Jeff Tolentino! For his work, "Inanimate Objects with Amusing Faces"! —JabberWokky
2010-03-28 10:10:05 Thanks! —WesHardaker
2010-04-02 23:53:34 Thank you! —IDoNotExist
2010-05-11 07:01:51 Hey, how is my suggestion not "do nothing, other than tools"? It is intended to be such, and if it's being misinterpreted, I'd like to fix that. Zero changes on the content and people side, only adding more ways to make the record of changes more open and easy to read. Right now there are a limited set of people who know how and have time to track down the information that is available scattered across several pages. —JabberWokky
2010-05-11 08:13:28 6 is do nothing but one specific change. 7 is do nothing to people's rights to edit the wiki (including making sure everybody appears the same when editing), and allows for unspecified informational changes (the ones I list are tools I have and Jason had, so it's flattening the inequity there), but draws a clear line: all editors from first uncertain edit to burnt out gnome will remain equal when it comes to the actual content. No flagging within content, no rights given or taken due to any automated metric. What Bob can do, Connie can do. 8 is do nothing, including not opening up records so that they are easier to read (which creates inequity in what people can be aware of). 7 is an effort to share opportunity more evenly and explicitly draw a line to protect equal rights to content. —JabberWokky
2010-05-11 08:42:44 Well, there are going to be a bunch of changes, so do nothing is really "keep the interface as similar as possible to what we have now". —JabberWokky
2010-07-08 11:57:04 haha thx, i've been going thru pages with the spellchecker on firefox and just correcting what catches my eye. —JoePomidor
2010-07-20 08:25:32 Explore is huge and very little should be added to it... and that was a great addition, in my opinion! —JabberWokky
2010-07-30 10:08:59 Hi Jeff, Send me an email re: City Commissions and let's see if we can find a time to talk. kemblepope [at] gmail dot com —KemblePope
2010-08-10 21:29:00 A noble effort with XYZ. I hope it gets through. —TomGarberson
2010-08-31 19:40:53 That's awesome, thank you so much, Jeff! —TomGarberson
2010-11-29 23:02:46 Sweet picture! :) —PhilipNeustrom
2010-12-06 08:47:44 Your reply on the RR fence page cracked me up. —TomGarberson
2011-03-13 14:21:59 Thanks for your help on the Bar Taboos page. —Wes-P
2011-04-11 21:55:49 Hi Jeff, thoroughly enjoyed the Random Camera @ the MU! Thanks! —ForestNeel-Grant
2011-05-18 12:22:47 Anybody who creates a Talk page off a Talk page is a dork. Wait...
2011-05-25 15:25:32 Yeah. Not cool. —TomGarberson
2011-08-27 19:20:49 As stupid as it may sound, I think the core wiki greatness is in the kind of stuff just created about the carpet cleaning. —JabberWokky
Doesn't sound stupid to me at all. I agree completely. —cp
2011-09-14 02:39:16 The LoshJawson account is not JoshLawson and has nothing to do with Josh himself. It's a parody account that somebody else is using. On the other point, a few people have emailed or IMed me about banning William this evening, and at least one person hinted at it on the wiki. I think you're the first, however, to mention it openly on the wiki. Most seem to feel he's crossed some kind of line in their mind, but that a ban proposal "probably won't go anywhere". I don't know what that means, but I figured you'd at least like to know you're not alone in being concerned about the treatment of new editors. I even got an "I've been doing this for x years, and am an expert in internet blah blah, and you should ban WilliamLewis" email out of the blue. (It was polite, I'm not trying to mock the email or its intent). I get the idea sometimes that there's a silent audience that watches the active editors: I've sometimes gotten calls from people (usually business owners) who know all kinds of odd details about wiki culture but I've never seen edit or speak up. —JabberWokky
2011-09-19 01:22:41 new owner so you never know! —StevenDaubert
2011-09-23 11:50:20 while I understand the need to inject your flair into that article, the city has it's own term which Scott used correctly. Thanks —StevenDaubert
2011-09-23 14:06:43 it's my fault for giving him the image that has Davis statistics on it, they delineate between Sewer and Water manholes —StevenDaubert
2011-09-30 09:55:25 Jeff, the discussion has been dead for two weeks. Unless you have something else to add, the discussion should be deleted. —WilliamLewis
2011-09-30 11:05:31 Again, you are restoring a dead proposal. Unless you want to continue discussing why I need to be banned, the proposal should be closed. —WilliamLewis
2011-10-01 16:14:51 Me, too. (Of course I'd say that!) Really, discussion over content is disheartening enough. Policy is worse (the ban page would fit in there). Metapolicy (how should we deal with the pages dealing with proposed policy) is even worse. The antidote for me? Go out and take some pictures. The wiki always needs more. One more reason I need to move back to Davis... —WilliamLewis
2011-11-21 17:39:51 That Katehi is more dangerous to the campus community than her alleged health and safety issues is not an opinion. It's a fact. There would have been no hospitalized students if she had not sent in the police. "Some people feel" are weasel-words that should not be applied to facts. —WilliamLewis
2011-11-21 17:40:57 I agree with WL on this one. —CovertProfessor
2011-11-21 17:48:34 Not trying to downplay her actions here, but I think it serves the movement better to be objective in our editing here. Trying to be an adult. —jefftolentino
I contend I am being objective here. Just because something is bitingly critical doesn't mean it isn't true and unbiased. As for what serves the movement better or not, I could not care less. I despise the occupy movement. Capitalism is great, class warfare is Marxist bullshit, and income inequality is not a problem.... a low standard of living across society is. And those are subjective opinions. What isn't is that the university's response has been inept, harmful to students, and has only added fuel to the fire they were trying to extinguish. That should be expressed as clearly as possible to the world.—WilliamLewis
2011-11-21 17:57:07 I believe adults often express strong opinions, especially ones that they can back up with sound reasons, as WL did. —CovertProfessor
2011-11-21 18:08:27 Actually, I agree with Williams message here. Just trying to remove some of the more absolute language. I think it makes the statement stronger. —jefftolentino
2011-11-21 18:13:21 We miss you. Don't you think it's about time to officially rejoin the Davis Wiki community? Forgive us, please. It's the adult thing to do. ;) —ScottMeehleib
2011-11-21 18:14:49 I've missed you too. I've been working on the treatment plant articles. I will upload eventually. —jefftolentino
As in waste water treatment? This sounds strangely fascinating. <3 —WilliamLewis
Probably not so much, but it should improve what's there currently. I really have missed this place. —jefftolentino
2011-11-21 21:15:45 90% of my editing is done on an iPhone. Sucks indeed. —ScottMeehleib
2011-12-06 10:42:49 That seems to get into the whole NPOV issue... besides which, Jeff Wood doesn't seem to disagree with the use of "casually." I guess I'm opposed to deleting a description just because someone doesn't like it. If it's actually inaccurate, sure. If there's a difference of opinion, both opinions can be represented on the page. If it's just that someone doesn't like it... well, I'd say tough patooties. —TomGarberson
It pains me that you're a board member, William. Grow up. —JT
In response to this comment not taking my query seriously and insulting me instead, I deleted this thread with the edit comment, "I wanted an answer, not an insult. *sigh*." Jeff restored the thread with the edit comment "If you want to seriously discuss, say so. Don't delete. We all have opinions :)" If you insist on having this discussion, please answer my original question and drop the insults. How was this edit offensive? How was making it in any way uncivil? —WilliamLewis
Don't know what to tell you William. Publically accusing a police officer of throwing gasoline on innocent protesters is pretty inflammatory (no pun intended). This may be YOUR opinion, but to me its immature and unbecoming of someone who represents and makes organizational decisions for Daviswiki. That is my opinion, William, but you are free to restore your edit to the protest page if you feel it is the right one to make. —JT
I will gently and respectfully suggest to you that you misread it. Tom and I were wondering why you were so upset. It does not say at all what you read it to mean. -jw
For what it's worth, I took the "throws gasoline onto the Occupy UC Davis movement" phrase as non-literal, as in throwing gasoline on the fire. If viewed in that light (also no pun intended), I'd also say it's a fairly accurate statement, in that it brought bajillions of people out and turned Occupy UCD into a major international news story. If interpreted literally, it seems more just... weird... than uncivil. —TomGarberson
As an idiomatic phrase, it is pretty common. Even more common is the related "adding fuel to the fire". Both simply mean to inflame and increase an already dramatic situation, which is what the pepper spraying did. -jw
So you honestly thought I was talking about literal gasoline and not the cliché "throwing gasoline on the fire"? I thought that was a commonly understood phrase. The pepper spray has caused the tents to grow in number, three police officers to be suspended, spawned five investigations, and brought thousands to the quad. The loss of respect the department has suffered is profound. Most importantly, the administration is politically unable to use any police force to clear the quad, their original objective.
As for the Wiki Spot board, I don't speak for the board on here unless otherwise stated. —WilliamLewis
Wow, well that was definitely a poor edit then, especially in light of the recent discussion. Ambiguous and way too easy to take literally. The dude is squirting liquid all over people! It should have at least been thought through a little more. —JT
I got it. Did anybody else take it literally besides Jeff? -M
I don't think anyone could plausibly be misled. The very next words on the page are "UCD Police Pepper Spray Seated Protesters" as the first line in the TOC, which is repeated again in huge lettering down in the first header. The phrase "pepper spray" (or spraying, or sprayed, etc.) is repeated 10 more times in that first section of the narrative. Nowhere is it claimed that gasoline was used on protesters. At worst, the caption claimed that an officer sprayed a movement with gasoline. And in that case, it's nonsensical, but there's hardly a risk of misleading anyone about what happened. —TG
I think it was clear, but I think there might be a better place to note that the pepper spraying poured gasoline on the Occupy UC Davis movement — and the Occupy movement more generally, I think. —CovertProfessor
I don't know what to tell you guys. I know that gasoline was not really thrown on anyone, but there was a lot of loose language tossed around this morning, (I remember a couple jokes about pepper-spraying each other over bad edits for instance). To me it came off as an inappropriate joke edit in the midst of a serious discussion about subjective language on the protest page. The timing and language could have been thought out a little better. I'll concede however, if read in the way William has explained it, it is not offensive. Still its sometimes hard to tell when people are being facetious or not. There was a lot of pointed and snippy language today, and nobody is going to interpret every edit the same way. I've definitely said things which have been called offensive, which I thought were fine. In any event; William, I'm sorry I misunderstood your edit. The way you intended it was not offensive, I just didn't understand it correctly.
2011-12-07 15:51:44 Well said. Thank you. —JabberWokky
2011-12-07 17:03:36 Just a heads up to everybody. I'm stepping back again now. I made my statements and I want to let it go for a while myself. If it not the end of it, so be it. I can give it another try later. Thanks, JW, for the nod. In light of my own bad edits, I want to fix things up again. —jefftolentino
2011-12-07 18:07:26 I didn't see your post until after mine. Don't worry I am going to pull back for now and just let the mmen handle it at meggos suggestion —OliviaY
2011-12-08 20:23:21 My question was whether he meant to delete his comment or not. I believe that is separate from trying to start the conversation up again. —MeggoWaffle
2011-12-09 11:14:45 Yes, I think he should restore it if he didn't mean to delete it. Now, don't take this next part personally. I understand you think you are trying to keep the peace, but honestly, and maybe you don't realize this, it appears as though you are trying to assert authority. Both of your messages have been the equivalent of "well you have every RIGHT to wear that dress, but it makes you look really fat." Maybe he agreed with your post and that's why he deleted it, or maybe he just accidentally did so after the edit conflict. I think he's capable of making the decision on whether to restore his comment without you hinting about how much 'damage' it would do. —MeggoWaffle
2011-12-09 18:34:19 Eh? How did you get to sacwiki during the downtime? They are on the same server... —JabberWokky
2011-12-09 19:01:02 Ah! —JabberWokky
2011-12-11 20:08:33 Hey jeff- the sac test url wasn't supposed to be really passed around yet. The edits made to the site, until the import is finalized, are thrown out every time I do a re-import. But don't worry - I saved that crazy map trace you did of the Sac region on my computer :) —PhilipNeustrom
2011-12-12 08:37:06 Hey, Jeff - the test version was just replaced with a new test version. He emailed me: The only known problem with this import is the "All Pages" tab crashes right now. Aside from that everything should be good. The user information, includes and redirects should all be working now. Take a good look around and let me know if you spot any problems with the import!
(and just to reiterate, don't put anything even sort of important on the test site. I'll blow away the import when I do another import. All important stuff should still go on http://sacwiki.org/ up until the point we do the final import and switch-over) —NicholasBarry
Take a look at the notice I put up on the front page of the test site.
2011-12-12 14:08:03 Hey, FYI, you can indent bullets in Localwiki. You just have to use the Indent button in the toolbar. —NicholasBarry
I also think it would be cool to be able to indent using the TAB key. I've added that to the feature requests already - probably not everyone will think to look for the indent button.
Thank you! Lovin' the new format, but yeah still trying to figure out some of the details. Definitely better than the old markup schemes though. —jefftolentino
2011-12-17 16:27:29 Sure thing. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings - I know you mean well. —MeggoWaffle
2011-12-21 10:19:55 Jeff, thanks for all the great map edits on the new Sacwiki! (Isn't the map fun to play with?) —NicholasBarry
Definitely! The mapping alone makes the whole localwiki upgrade worthwhile! —JT
2011-12-24 17:33:20 I don't mind addressing the issue of opening up the wiki to underrepresented groups, but I'm thinking that that particular entry is somewhat poisoned with antagonistic stances. I'm not being down on the participants, but I think the mood or tone in that particular space isn't ideal for a productive discussion about issues. Gender issues is one reason I support pseudonyms, preferably ones somebody can relate to. My personal concern is the lack of older Davisites (above 60), as they are drastically underrepresented. I'm sure there are several other groups as well as those two. I did try to work with a couple of the homeless to get their views. I used to talk to George Swazo now and then about the wiki and Davis. —JabberWokky
2011-12-26 04:31:55 my words exactly, but I was slightly more vitriolic so I backed off —StevenDaubert
2011-12-26 06:49:22 I figured I'd help him prove his point. Amusingly, I would really like some good, solid anti-Occupy viewpoints represented on the wiki. Whatever that was, was not that. —JabberWokky
2011-12-26 19:29:59 And now we'll see just how well the wiki's messaging system works, if at all... —CovertProfessor
2011-12-26 19:39:35 Oh, I was upset with some of the recent conversation about (not at you). I couldn't believe some people were saying the things that they were saying. I suppose I should put it back.
But then again, I could ask you when your page is coming back. It was always such a nice page.
And yes, we can hope that the editor will see the little yellow flag. —CovertProfessor
2011-12-26 22:50:30 Thanks for your kind comments about my page. I'm behind on some of my restaurant reviews, but hopefully I will get to them soon. As for the Sac Wiki, I see the appeal, but I wouldn't be much help since I don't actually know all that much about the city. I just wanted to create a page for the ice cream place I'd heard about, but when I tried to edit the table I was getting a link that I couldn't delete, and had no way of telling if it was linking the way it should or not (it was for the address, so perhaps this relates to the cool mapping feature you mention). Of course, I could have RTFM, but I've never been very good about doing that. With the Davis Wiki, I could just click Edit and see how it was done. It's pretty rare that I actually had to consult a help page. And there is nothing worse than fighting wysiwyg, trying to figure out how to get it to do what you want it to do, when a clear and unambiguous code will specify exactly what should be done. —CovertProfessor
2012-01-04 20:14:48 No Jeff, they're not the same group. The Quakers, the Friends and The American Friends Service Committee — they're closely related. These Friends are pacifists and it wouldn't be surprising to find some of them participating in the peaceful Friends of the West Pond activities. There's an idea on the Davis Wiki that things can be linked so the surfer, so to speak, will go all over the place. I don't know if there's an appropriate place on the page for the Friends from the Davis Friends Meeting since the surfer is probably expecting that "Friends" are for the West Pond. Perhaps there could be a comment to distinguish a link to the Quaker Friends. —BruceHansen
2012-01-04 21:52:55 I agree with your observation that the crosslink lacked relation and was difficult to understand. Bruce is big on word play - they both have the word 'friend' in the title. I think the page content makes it pretty clear that one group is focused on a pond. —EdWins
2012-01-04 22:32:56 I'm OK with whimsical linking, but this one was potentially confusing (from one group to another, perhaps falsely implying that the groups were connected) and so I deleted the link. I think the whimsical links work well only if it's obvious that they are just for fun. —CovertProfessor
I love whimsical links, but yeah — the idea is to promote discovery, not imply incorrect assertions. I have, while editing, made links and changed or undone them specifically because I was worried they implied something unintended. -jw
2012-01-06 16:37:02 Hey, interested in getting together for a Davis edit party to play around with the new Sacwiki code? Not that it's anything new for you, since you've been working with it for a while now, but it could be fun to get together with some other editors. I just put together a page to suggest this gathering: Edit party to preview Localwiki code. —NicholasBarry
2012-01-09 12:16:20 Oh, don't worry, we're also doing Sacto edit parties, and we'll be promoting those in Sacramento. The Davis edit party (or parties) will be mostly to give Davisites a chance to see what the new site looks/feels like. —NicholasBarry
2012-01-11 10:22:58 Oh, I know. Anytime communication breaks down or is inefficient, tensions raise. I think it's just a typical human reaction to feeling misunderstood/frustrated. I wrote a reply to JW on my page that also works as a reply to you, to explain why I commented. —EdWins
2012-02-07 15:57:54 Jeff, what good is it if the wiki mirrors content found elsewhere? Why not go to the original source? Besides, the text you restored was copied from another website without licensing information. We can't relicense other people's works under creative commons. Oh, and you clobbered the map point and removed an important suggestion that someone bring a USB extension cable to a dead drop. —WilliamLewis
2012-02-23 21:06:09 I'd personally like more deleting and reworking of comments into cohesive prose that respects and collects the combined views, but that's just me. The bit that boggled me in his comment wasn't about deleting — it was (paraphrasing) "I am going to tag all your uses of the word 'delete' anywhere on the wiki with a disclaimer that it does not match my personal meaning of the word".
And on a side topic, I supported the Ban William page because it's important for people to voice problems and point back to them when they reoccur. So watch it with blanket "you guys" statements... I may just have to start posting disclaimers on all your edits. Big pink ones. With bold and all caps. And blinking. Fuzzy, if I can manage that somehow. —JabberWokky
Sorry, sir, not you. —JT
I wouldn't mind more reworking of comments, too. And so, in my original query to EW, I asked if he was going to do this. At first he seemed to suggest that he didn't feel comfortable doing that and the moving comments was only temporary. But then later he admitted that he thought the other comments were irrelevant and so he
deletedEdgared them. As for the deletion of the BW page, one thing that you can say is that it was supported by a community process, however imperfect those are. I'd also point out that there were important differences between that case and this one, but I doubt that you really want to start that whole discussion again (do you?) —CovertProfessor
2012-02-24 07:49:52 Ok, I won't rehash then, either. I'll just say that I'm glad you came back to edit the wiki, as imperfect as the collaboration can be sometimes. —CovertProfessor
2012-02-24 08:20:24 I hope you don't mind my saying so, but it seems clear you're not entirely cool with it. It seems like you're still bitter or upset about it, given that you make some digs about it pretty regularly. I keep my mouth shut because I don't want it to blow up again, but it's frankly a bit frustrating to feel like I'm being demonized for it, along with some other editors, every time a new controversy comes up.
If you're cool with it, please stop trying to make the other side look bad. —TomGarberson
2012-02-24 09:52:11 By not naming names you mean you're just being passive aggressive about it. Well, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But as CP pointed out, there are some of us who feel that what you see as hypocritical is completely different. I don't think there's anyone here who wants to go through all the bullshit again. But if you're trolling and just want to provoke a reaction, keep up the good work. Each time you do it it's a little more frustrating than the last, feeling like I'm being insulted without responding (obviously, since I am responding). —TomGarberson
2012-02-24 10:44:14 You're wrong about why the Ban William Lewis page was deleted. In your mind, obviously I, CP, and others were motivated by censoring your opinion about William. If that were in fact the case, yes, it would be hypocritical to object to EW's removal of others' opinions from the page. But it's not the case. It was a failed ban proposal. It was deleted because it was a failed ban proposal. —TomGarberson
2012-02-24 11:41:14 Ban Josh Lawson. Deleted 6 months before the Ban William Lewis proposal, after it became clear the proposal had failed. There was some important stuff on that page about people using the wiki to try to harm others, but the ban proposal (the topic of the page) failed. JW proposed deletion and I deleted it, because it needed to be cleaned up. If we need to revisit the issue, it'll take about 30 seconds to restore the page. Just like William's ban page.
You're ascribing sinister motives to something that wasn't sinister. You obviously think I'm lying when I tell you what my motive was. That's why I find it insulting. If you want to go on being an ass about it, like I said, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But I want to make sure you're aware that you are being an ass about it.
If there's a conversation that needs to be had about board members, tone, or dealing with new users, let's have that conversation. But that's a different matter and a different page. —TomGarberson
2012-02-24 13:24:25 Come on, man. Don't play that game. You've been calling everyone who disagreed with you on the BW page hypocrites and, implicitly, liars for months. If you're offended by the word "ass" I'll remove it. My point was that you need to look at what you're doing.
I'm tired of the passive aggressive shenanigans. If you think there's an important issue, let's deal with the important issue and clear the air. You obviously have a great deal of animosity towards your fellow editors here, and it's poisoning virtually every conversation you enter. I'd be happy to talk on the phone or in person if you think that might help. But the nonsense needs to stop. —TomGarberson (559) 355-5814
Thanks to whomever just signed me up for prank phone calls. —tg
If that is serious, Tom, I'm sorry. I had nothing to do with that. You have my email, so maybe take the number down. —JT
I was pretty sure it wasn't you off the bat, and Daubert confirmed it pretty quickly. —tg
Hilarity ensues Daubert
2012-02-24 16:04:39 My contribution to the BWL event was mainly to express why I thought that WL should not be banned (at the time, you said you liked my comment) and then to vote that the page should be deleted once it seemed as though the ban proposal had failed. I note that you were the one to finally delete the page, so I find it a bit puzzling that you are still harboring resentment after all of this time. I also think that rules can have exceptions. Don't you? For example, I think comments calling someone a derogatory name should be deleted, and I have consistently supported that exception to the rule. I thought that the BWL page was another exception. You disagreed. We could continue to talk about whether it ought to have been an exception or not, but saying that rules have exceptions (especially when the rules are constantly evolving in light of community discussion) is not inconsistent. —CovertProfessor
2012-02-24 16:47:39 Better to say that, then, than to rehash old wounds and accuse people of being inconsistent. I almost noted the exceptions myself in my original comment to him, but at some point my parentheticals get out of hand, i.e., I was just trying to keep things simple. I can't think of any analogous case where the wiki went along with deleting comments off of a page simply because someone else found them to be "unimportant" and "irrelevant." (Off-topic, yes — but these were not off-topic). —CovertProfessor
2012-02-24 21:16:33 Some Talk pages never disappear. —DonShor
Haha, I know. Never wanted it to go that far, but somehow it did. — JT
2012-03-15 19:32:53 Really? —TomGarberson
2012-03-15 20:15:08 "Kids, you may think your only choices are to swallow your anger or throw it in someone’s face. There's a third option: you can just let it go, and only when you do that is it really gone, and you can move forward." -Ted Mosby
Just watched that episode. Seemed relevant. —TomGarberson
2012-03-15 20:51:00 You didn't make any point at all but thank you for deleting the page. Let's move on... —Users/PeterBoulay
2012-03-15 20:59:46 Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you've edited the wiki since you proposed banning WL the last time. I don't think it's right for you to complain about the way other editors handle things if you're not even going to attempt to help yourself. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but a lot harder to actually get your hands dirty and try to deal with a situation as best as you see fit. You're saying we should try backoff editing, which can be a good solution in many cases, but when all you do is backoff and never edit, you're not really contributing at all, right? I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see you help out when there is a problem, not just criticize about the ways that others have done so.
In this case, I think the reverts were warranted. This isn't just a problem that came up today, but one that has been cropping up for months, so backoff editing wouldn't help, but would just delay the problem. I made one revert myself as a way of backing up TG, to let sritern know that TG was not being a dictator and that sritern's actions on the wiki over these many months were not acceptable to many editors. I still think that was the right thing to do and not a useless action.
2012-03-15 22:07:51 Was bringing up the WL ban again constructive? Was criticizing other editors constructive? It doesn't seem so to me. Constructive might have been to try talking with sritern yourself. I think then you might be in a better position to judge whether things were mishandled. Seriously, things look different when you're actually trying to work things out and you've not made any progress. I can't commit to changing my awful ways (my one revert??) because again, I think that was the right thing to do at the right time, for the reason I stated above. —CovertProfessor
2012-03-15 22:14:46 Jeff, is there something we can do that would help you get over your animosity? You say you want to see constructive editing from other users, but what you're doing is the exact opposite. You're trying to tear down the people you're pissed off at. You're trying over and over and over again. You're semi-covering it up with the passive-aggressiveness, but believe me, it's not fooling anyone.
If you're not willing to work this out, just stop. Seriously. Stop. You've done more to damage the tone and atmosphere of the wiki than any single other editor in the past 6 months or so, and you're still doing it. Unless you can set aside your animosity, by far the most constructive way you can contribute to the wiki is to stop editing. That would be a shame, because you used to be a good editor. But you've been shitting all over the wiki for months and it really, truly needs to stop. —TomGarberson
Tom, I kind of think you're being a bit unfair. I'm trying to address a few things that I think were problems today. There was no good that came out of reverting 15 times in a row, honestly. It was childish on both sides. I do think that WL can be an overly harsh editor, and yeah I honestly believe that aspect of his editing deteriorates DW. I thought I was very patient about it though, seriously waiting a number of years before ever deciding to say anything about it (and to be fair the last time this came up, I did concede that things seemed to have improved). On top of that, any discussion of it has largely been removed from DW. I'll agree, seeing it go really rubbed me the wrong way, especially after I thought I'd been pretty fair about it. Regardless, I simply wanted to point out tonight that I'm seeing the pattern of bad editing continue again. I'm not being passive aggressive about it. In fact, I've been very open tonight that, in my opinion, the edit war this afternoon was a lot of poor editing, from all sides. If that's destructive to say, I'm sorry. I feel like it needed to be noted though. Also, I think the backoff editing approach is a positive one and noted that as well. I've forgotten it myself, but its a good one. I'll honor it now, in fact. You can get the last word in tonight if you like. Before I go though, I'm sorry about your job. That really sucks. Even with all the back and forth between you and I, I really hope you find something again soon. I'm saying that sincerely, sir. Best of luck. —JT
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate the sentiment. But don't you see what you're doing here, over and over and over again? You go on the attack, then when you get called on it, you seem to get hurt and offended. You conclude the episode with magnanimous gestures and a friendly sign-off. Ordinarily, I'd say that all is well, the issue is resolved. But you just keep doing it over and over again. Attack, withdrawal, magnanimity. Go quiet for a few weeks. Attack, withdraw, magnanimity. And every time, you sign off in a way where you explicitly try to be the bigger man, and make anyone who's frustrated with this pattern look bad. I honestly have no idea whether you truly don't realize what you're doing and are stuck in this nasty cycle or whether you're playing some kind of game. Either way, as I expressed last night and the previous time we had this conversation, you're doing more to damage the wiki than any other editor has in recent months. It needs to stop. If there's something I can do to help you with your anger, let's figure out what that is. If there's something others can do, let's talk to them. But this isn't sustainable. It needs to stop. —TG
2012-04-03 17:51:18 Jeff, Brent was attempting to be funny (I think) whereas I was not. Your 'hilarious' comment makes no sense. I don't believe anyone here wishes to engage with your negativity, so please either contribute to the wiki or go back to lurking. —MeggoWaffle
I'm not going to post a LMGTFY link as you did with BL, MW, but if you still don't see what I thought was hilarious, it's that I thought your statement about BL had an element of hypocrisy to it, that's all. Maybe you don't think that was funny, but I still found it pretty amusing. And regarding negativity, when did calling somebody out on a potentially racial or sexist comment become a bad thing? —JT
My question exactly. When did pointing out someone's exercise of white privilege become a bad thing? Oh right, apparently that's reverse racism. Anyway, you aren't worth my time. Have a nice day. -M
Well, thanks for brushing off legitimate concerns then, I guess. Have a nice day too. —JT
Nope, I just don't have time to teach Privilege 101 to people who don't want to hear about it. For those who are interested, they can follow my link on Brent's user page. -M
I don't really appreciate your assumption there, MW. You have no idea of who I am or what my experiences with privilege are. My family has faced is own set of prejudices with regard to inter-racial marriage and skin color. I've been profiled dozens of times, by all types of people, from complete strangers, to teachers, to police officers. Nor, has my life been a free pass. I worked for many years at minimum wage jobs, riding the bus to work, because I didn't have a car. I spent 5 years in community college, so I could save money and work while in school. Three of those years I worked at two of the Los Rios CC learning centers, helping ESL students with English, (a free service to all students, and another minimum wage job for me). I did eventually transfer and finished an engineering program here in Davis, but I paid for it myself, (actually, I'm still paying for it). My parents didn't give me any money, and I didn't get any scholarships because I was half-white or male. Rather, I worked extremely hard and went into fairly substantial debt to get here. Honestly, I resent the fact that you'd assume I need a lecture from you on privilege, but what bothers me even more, is that you're doing so by making full on generalizations about other people based on race and gender, and casting about your sarcasm with your "Let Me Google That For You" link. In my opinion, you're out of line here. Please stop posting to my page. —JT
I appreciate your experiences with oppression, but I'll reiterate that we are all privileged in various ways and most of these ways are invisible - just because you have been discriminated against doesn't mean you don't experience privilege, just as I receive certain unearned benefits based on other aspects of my identity despite being a woman living in a patriarchal society. And you're right, it's not my job to educate you. Thus the LMGTFY link, which was for Brent, who actually asked for an explanation of the phrase. Nobody asked you to click it, did they? Not once did I lecture at you- I simply defended myself against your accusations. And in case you haven't noticed, I have tried to stop posting on your page several times now and you continually try to goad me back into responding by asking questions and then implying that I am brushing you off when I try to disengage. So, go ahead, get your last dig in. You'll get your wish but it was my wish first. Peace. -Megan
2012-04-06 09:57:42 I didn't want to get involved with this wiki fray, but from an outside perspective (note I haven't edited on it at all on the topic matter). I don't think MW's comment came across tactful (I personally had never heard of 'check your privileged' til I saw the google link), I can see the bigger picture concern. If there were a group called "Enslave the Regents" protesting and trying to rein in the Regents of the UC, some people might take issue with the name. I guess what I saw was (from a zoomed out view). Person1: The name is messed up, shouldn't invoke slavery.
Person2: Chill out, who cares it's just a word.
Person1: Dude, check out history.
Person2: (joke about wiki page history)
Person1: Not funny, coming from a guy whose race hasn't been enslaved.
Person2: Don't bring my race into this. <delete convo thread>
I've been reading the back and forth between BL and CP, among others.
Personally, I think BL was a bit overly glib at first. I didn't know what check your privilege meant either, so I can understand that. And I think MW was offended a bit quick, but the issue clearly hits closer to her home than mine, so I can understand that.
I don't actually see it as a 'racist' attack, in the sense of the zoomed out view. Honestly, I lean more towards CP's rational point on BL's page about the issue. However, CP wasn't involved in the original thread. I think both BL and MW are at fault, and not for their standpoints but at their failure in communication. And hey, as others have noted, the wiki tends to be a poor communication medium for debate.
Overall, I am saddened by the back and forth, but I don't want to quibble over who was at fault or initiated it. It doesn't really matter. —EdWins
Yeah, really I think this got a bit over discussed. The original string was a lot of attacking on both sides, and I really didn't like that meggo's comment about being white and male was reverted after its first deletion. I didn't really think it did much good on the page. I was happy to see it go the second time and I thought there was a pretty good effort to rewrite it fairly. The "check your privileges" term was also new to me, btw. The talk page did let MW additional address some issues that she wanted resolved, but I know the continued discussion was wearing on people too. I wish it could have been nicer, but yeah, it is what it is. As far as the accusations about MW being a racist go, I just left a comment with CP about my thoughts on that. I don't really feel comfortable calling her a racist. I do think she stereotyped BL and I do feel like she was making generalizations about him, but the racist label, to me was extreme, and I made an effort to avoid that. —JT
Umm, no you didn't — see my reply to you on my page. Feel free to retract your previous statements at any point. —cp
You're really nit picking here, CP. Fine, I supported BL, who was pretty mad about being stereotyped. He did say she made a "racist statement." Cool. I still don't feel comfortable with the term myself, but I understand BL being upset, and I understand BL seeing some validity in the use of the word "racist". —JT
Not at all. See reply on my page. —cp
2012-04-06 10:03:39 I guess the word 'occupy' has less known, or maybe less publicized, connotations than slavery or enslavement. News has been full of uproar over the last few months over usage of that. in homework, for example. "contained an extra-credit question that read, "A plantation owner had 100 slaves. If three-fifths of them are counted for representation, how many slaves will be counted?" I suppose my summarized conversation above can be repeated for this one, just swap a few words around. If someone were to comment people need to chill and it's just a word in a math problem, other people might be upset. Especially of those from different backgrounds, and I don't see (in such a context) a person as being racist for pointing that out. However, I stand by my comment of 30 seconds ago, I think both people could have, and should have, communicated better. —EdWins
That pretty much sums it up in my view. I think a major contributing factor is that they were also communicating with terms that had very different meanings to each of them and from very different mindsets and philosophical views that caused things to become inflamed very quickly. -jw
2012-04-19 10:38:08 Thanks Jeff. I saw the horribly thought out Featured Page and had a kneejerk "revert it" feeling, and decided not to edit. That was a good path to take to fix the issues and keep the topic. —JabberWokky
2012-06-01 21:01:54 Why are you making it so much harder to reach 17000 pages? *cry* —BrentLaabs
2012-06-01 21:08:25 It does need resolution, but it got... sticky. Threats were made. —CovertProfessor
2012-06-05 11:41:44 Hi Jeff. I don't have time right now to look into the history, but why is a page about the J Street Co-op, a single building on a single lot, called Co-ops (plural) after Angel's request? If the page was a meta-page about the houses across the street — that is, a different page than it has been for years — the idea would make sense. But this remains a page about 234 J Street. Please enlighten me, or (weeks from now) I'll have the time to undo your renaming. (And thanks in advance for a response.) —DougWalter
Thank you again. Now that I know, I'll keep the page, strip the content and post it to "J Street Co-op" and (using my semi-accurate and historical knowledge of the corner) make a new page that talks about the two housing co-ops in three buildings at J and Third. Do not hold your breath waiting; unfortunately, there are a few thing in the way of my editing. —DougWalter
2012-06-06 14:53:51 Quite frankly, I'm really upset at this assumption it has ever or will ever be treated causally, as I agonize over the ethics involved in each decision, and always aim for the maximally open presentation while trying to retain individual privacy for things like mental health issues or Social Security information. It is a very rarely used tool, and is always disclosed to the community when used.
It is not a joking matter to me. It is profoundly serious issue of community and ethics. —JabberWokky
Sorry, I seriously thought you were kidding. —JT
No worries. I want to make it clear it's a serious issue, and it has not been used flippantly (other than one time by mistake, and I fessed up immediately). I would need strong consensus from a wide spectrum of the current active community before I'd feel comfortable doing any sort of routine memory-holing. Succinctly, it removes accountability, and is thus really quite dangerous. It's also the right tool for the job, occasionally. To be fair, there are ways around it, in terms of watching the changelog news feed and such. If it were ever being abused, I think it would be caught by the more observant/anal-retentive folks. I've gotten IMs from William, shocked that I memory-holed something, but it turned out to be a software hiccup, and the changes feed was showing something that hadn't appeared on the wiki itself yet (or some such oddity that pops up now and then). I think once it was Philip, who later noted it. So there are those who watch the watchers... and they are suitably loud1 and idealistic. And again: this applies to Davis Wiki only. wikispot.org has stuff memory-holed all the time because they are a hub of foul spam and abuse, and aren't a real world community in the same way DW is. -jw
2012-06-15 12:23:38 I tend to agree with you re: letting things fizzle out. However, the wiki is as consistent as the people who comprise it: pretty much zero consistency. Nothing wrong with that, as it matches the people of Davis. It does, however, make it laughable that "the wiki" does things, as if it were some monolithic entity or group walking in lockstep. —JabberWokky
2012-11-22 10:48:47 Thank you for your contribution. —TomGarberson
2013-02-26 16:24:15 Thanks Jeff! Not my ideal Monday :) —PhilipNeustrom
2013-02-27 15:47:21 Just an observation: in the last year or so, you seem to have time to criticize other editors, but rarely time to contribute productively to the wiki. That sticks in my craw. I wouldn't mind the criticism if it was coupled with more productive edits. —CovertProfessor
CP, you criticize people all the time! Plus you asked for a input on the matter. Do you just want me to make input that you agree with? —JT
I'll agree with CP here. We rarely see editing from you but you seem to like to raz people. Make a few more edits and I don't think this'd be an issue. —PeteB
Let me repeat what I said. It's not your criticism that I mind. It's that we rarely see anything else from you. I'd like to see the productive edits and then please go ahead and criticize away. —cp
Ok. I find it a little frustrating that I actually did engage the editor and you still made these comments. I also thought my original suggestion on the Steven Kui Talk page was a constructive contribution, even if you didn't agree with it. Steven should have been engaged. An open dialog should be encouraged. I wasn't trying to criticize anyone, I just wanted him to have a fair say in the matter. As far as editing goes, yes, I find editing the wiki to be a little less enjoyable now, and don't edit like I used to. These kinds of interactions ruin it for me actually. Still, if you check my edit history, I think you'll find some constructive edits in there. Anyway, these are my feelings. You don't have to agree with me. (Note: I edited my original comment. Arguing over this is counter-productive.) —JT
We did agree Stephen needed to be engaged.....we asked if you wanted to—bringing that issue into this is the not productive. —PeteB
Thanks Pete. I did say I was working, and that should have been respected. I can't always drop everything for an edit. Second, I did engage the editor even after saying I was busy, and I still got a pointed comment about not contributing constructively. Lastly, I don't really appreciate the implication that all I do is criticize people. My edit history is there for everyone to see, and there's lots of stuff I've added that is good. I know some people have their issues with me, but I still try to do what I think is right. —JT
THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING STEVE. We never asked you to drop everything for an edit and noone disrespected you for working, Jeff. You are creating issues that don't exist. That is what I take issue with—PeteB
2013-02-27 19:29:27 I don't want to fight, either, so I'll make a few last comments to clarify where I am coming from, and then I'm done. First, it didn't bother me that you disagreed with the suggestion that we limit the number of pictures on a page. I'm not 100% sold on the idea myself. What bothered me was your accusation that we were trying to "punish him" or that he was getting "steamrolled." We were in the process of discussing what to do. All you had to do was to state your opinion and your reasons; it was not necessary to make accusations of other editors while doing so. Second, by "reaching out to him," I assumed you meant inviting him to discuss on the Talk page. If you did that, you must have done it by phone, because I don't see where you did it on the wiki. You had time to make all of these edits today, but no time to create his user page (which PeteB did) and invite him to the Talk page, which would have taken all of two minutes. The fact that you weren't in favor of the proposal made you the best person to do it (in addition to the fact that it was your suggestion) because he'd see an invitation from someone who was on his side. And yes, it was a constructive suggestion to reach out to him. I said that right away. Third and finally, I never said that all you do is criticize people. I'll just repeat again what I did in fact say: "...in the last year or so, you seem to have time to criticize other editors, but rarely [note this is different from "never"] time to contribute productively to the wiki."
Ok, one last thing. I also find these conversations draining and off-putting. We all do. But note that productive edits usually don't lead to them. So, conversations like this should not put you off from productive edits. Or, to put the point another way, and say what I'm really trying to say: Jeff, I value your productive edits. I'd like to see more of them. —CovertProfessor
Thanks for the response, CP. Just to answer your point about reaching out, Stephen was actually never invited into the conversation outright. He came in on his own, and after he commented, I made this edit encouraging him to make more creative commons photo contributions, and constructive edits to other pages. It was an attempt to resolve the needs of both parties and it was supported by PeteB. I was a little frustrated that this happened ten minutes before you left me your comment about criticizing people, but that aside, I appreciate that you value the productive edits that I've made. I think we both have the same overarching goals here in that we want a positive, useful environment for users. Thanks again. —JT
I agree. Great information. I hope others will continue this. —DonShor
Absolutely-nice work Jeff. —PeteB
2013-05-09 - Thanks for the comprehensive grocery shopping list. I work for Whole Foods Market and wanted to make sure that I gave you some updated prices from our store. Hit me up at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
I appreciate the feedback, Kristen. I may do an update in the future, but to keep it fair, I'll probably continue the unsolicited approach. Thanks for offering the price updates though. If you'd like to provide some current price information on the Whole Foods Page, I'd totally encourage you to post something. There are some limits on outright advertising (conflicts with the the 501(c) status of Daviswiki), but I think an objective price list would probably be ok, especially if it were staple items. —JT
2013-05-16 19:08:49 I'm trying to figure out in what circumstances you'd use your new Shared IP Address include? —JabberWokky
- 1Did I mention William was one of the people?