see public page: Ronald Payne


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2007-03-06 14:26:04   Rather than just deleting that paragraph, you might do better to join the discussion about it at ["Steve Ostrowski/Talk"]. Presenting an argument (or in this case, a supporting argument, since there are already other people against it) would likely be far more productive and likely to achieve results than simply being stubborn.jw

2007-03-06 13:58:39   Ron, if you could call me, I'd appreciate it. I'm not exactly a "political enemy", as I've been out of college for many many years, never attended any school in California, and I only care about trying to get things on this wiki moving smoothly and open communication lines. I've been calling Steve for the past day, and he has mentioned his cell battery was dead. If you could let him know that I'm still trying to talk to him, it would be appreciated. Thank you. 615 517-6900. — Evan "JabberWokky Edwards

2007-10-10 21:01:23   That's weird, Steve tells me his phone has been good all day. I don't consider anyone an enemy. —RonPayne

2007-10-10 21:02:15   I just called him and he picked up. —RonPayne

2007-10-10 21:03:15   That comment was from some time ago, look at the edit history for the page. I just added the comment macro to the page while trying to figure out a comment to you. —JasonAller

2007-10-10 21:03:46   Oh, I see. My bad. —RonPayne

2007-10-10 21:42:42   It would be in your best interest when drafting a serious document to not release an un-reviewed and incomplete copy to the wiki. The ["Eric Friedman Recall"] is an example of how not to use the wiki. You can't collect signatures here so it doesn't make sense to create the page unless your desire is to make Eric look bad. All this will accomplish is to increase the level of negativity both surrounding ASUCD and on the wiki. Please don't. —JasonAller

2007-10-10 21:46:04   Steve thought it was news and since he is about to give the final product to IAC within a few days he wanted some input. But Senate candidates post their profiles but they can't collect signatures either. —RonPayne

2007-10-11 01:14:31   Hello Ronald. Two things. Firstly, Steven is banished from this community for a reason. I may disagree with banishment in general, because I am idealist and optimistic; however, he was banned for his own brand of ass-hatterytm and in keeping with this, you are committing the same offense and thus should receive the same kind of treatment. That is to say, if you continue these actions, I will see to it that you are banished as well, though probably not on such a permanent basis as Steven was given a few warnings. Secondly, the page that we are disputing, it is wholly irrelevant to Davis, the community, and really any matter of ASUCD history, noting that Steve, yourself, and anyone else involved is simply earning the further dislike of the current members of the internal affairs commission as well as the ASUCD, so for the sake of your continued welcome in this and other communities, I suggest that you cease and desist these actions both on this website and additionally in the ASUCD. (I honestly care more about the former, you can make an ass of yourself there all you want). —DavidPoole

2007-10-30 19:32:32   Either Ron is cloned or someone else is using Ron's account. I just spoke with Ron on campus, he was not using any computers. lol —GregWebb

  • I haven't seen Greg Webb all day. I didn't speak with him. Lol. —RonPayne

2007-10-30 19:37:39   I edited a portion of your comment because I felt it was deliberately trying to get around it by cheating, so to say (which doesn't usually rank high on American values). I think other people would agree, but we can wait and see what the talkpage says. I left a lengthy comment there, took me a few minutes to type it. But maliciously trying to expose someone is against wiki history and norms, and I doubt people will let you do it to try to strong-arm someone. —EdWins

2007-11-05 21:17:27   Do you know who painted all that graffiti on campus today? —JasonAller

2007-11-05 21:49:56   Why are you asking me? —RonPayne

2007-11-05 21:52:08   Because I want to know. —JasonAller

2007-11-05 22:00:24   If I know something I will call the UCPD or DPD. —RonPayne

  • Wait, are you trying to say I was involved in this? —RonPayne
    • Wow, you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my question. —JasonAller
    • You are only asking me, on the whole wiki. —RonPayne

2007-11-06 06:27:52   I understand your passion regarding the USA entry, but constantly reverting is counterproductive. It's like repeatedly screaming at a prospective romantic partner that they should go out with you. If you have a good argument for keeping the entry long, make it. USA says that they are interested in politics... but there are very few political concessions or proposals made by most members when they've edited the wiki. You're dealing with a bunch of people. If you have a good position, argue it. If you examine the situation and honestly don't have a good argument against it, let the other edit go through. I certainly don't agree with many of the edits that happen on the wiki, and I could probably strongarm them into place just by sheer persistence... and that applies to everybody else who is a regular editor. However, there are some edits worth fighting for (by pleading your case), some that aren't (so you grumble at the monitor and move on), and some where it simply isn't going to happen the way you envision it should. Often in the third case you can examine the goals of all opposing arguments and come up with a new edit that satisfies everybody's intent. Being social and conceding — even for a matter of hours, while you make your argument as to why an edit is wrong — gets you much farther than an anti-social tug 'o war on the revert button. —JabberWokky

2007-11-06 14:29:58   I don't see a whole lot of reverts on my part, maybe it was someone else. —RonPayne

2007-11-15 04:15:36   Slowly you are growing that case title into a coded transmission, aren't you? When it is "Court Case 42-43-44-47-51-53-54-57-62-71-74-79-82-88-94-95-96-102-114-119-126", the Red Horde attacks? —JabberWokky

2007-11-16 14:27:14   What? Andrew Kim didn't file to win an office? ;) Thanks for the catch. —JabberWokky

2007-11-16 14:34:54   It seems kind of harsh to put the word "fail" on all of the loser pages. Perhaps "didn't win" or "lost." You wouldn't say a School Board candidate "failed" to win a seat. —RonPayne

  • Actually, that is exactly what I said. It is a pretty common phrasing referring to an attempt to gain office (well, a failed attempt to gain office), and the word "failed" doesn't imply anything other than that the attempt did not succeed. Nor does the word "gain" in "gain office" mean that they are associated in any way with a laundry detergent. Jimmy Carter failed to be elected in his second term. It's not exactly outrageous or uncommon wording. —JabberWokky

2007-11-17 11:30:20   I just wanted to say thanks for keeping us updated on who Steve talks to and what he thinks about stuff. —EdWins

2008-06-14 08:27:15   Can you update the Gamma Alpha Upsilon page? If it never bloomed, just note that. —JasonAller