Current UC Davis undergrad, entered Fall 2016. A lover of DavisWiki!



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

2019-06-06 21:51:09   Hey... ummm... I'm going to go with Sam. The Davis Wiki is biased. It should be biased! It is intended to reflect the community of Davis, and thus aims to Accumulate Points of View. This is in contrast to, say, Wikipedia, which aims at a Neutral Point of View. If the town loves frogs and serial billboards, that bias is part of the town community itself. That said, one sided is not the same as having bias... so edit the entry and *add* your point of view, retaining the previous point of view as well. Over time, like a boulder in the wind, the entry is shaped by the environment around it and reflects the cumulative Multiple Points of View of the community. See and and go forth and edit that entry! 

And shhh... don't tell anybody, but that smooth boulder tends not to have any super sharp points of extreme bias, and usually eventually reflects the "neutral" of the Davis community itself. :)

            — Evan "JabberWokky" Edwards (814) 889-8845, [email protected]

2019-07-07 13:40:18   Hey you’re at UC Davis, so you got brains. Please read what JabberWokky states. —ConstantiaOomen

2019-07-08 16:00:56   So, why the all renewing, redirecting etc etc of the page? Now you have obscured who's the real writer and in the end, the article name is still the same. I think this is kind of rude towards the original writer. —ConstantiaOomen

2019-07-08 18:06:57  


"2019-07-08 17:05:39 So, why all the deleting of my edits on the page? Now you have obscured my opinions and in the end, the article name is still the same. I think this is kind of rude towards me.

>>> Excuse me? I haven't edited your comment, everything is still there, I just rephrased your juvenile style at the beginning of the article, you know, the demeanor of repeating yourself about "bias".

When you rename a page you redirect the original page. That's all. I don't care about obscuring the original writer.

>>> So, why did you? You are just adding to the confusion. The title of the page was just fine, and you did nothing than rename it to exactly the same, which I define as strange behavior.

It's good that you put their byline in there, because it's important that people know who wrote it originally. I wouldn't want to be held responsible for all the grammar, vocabulary, and spelling mistakes made in the original. —fruitpunchsam

>>> Well, I have to admit I like the style of the original writer much better than yours. And if you see mistakes, please correct them, and then we'll see who's really mistaking. You or him. " —ConstantiaOomen

2019-07-12 23:22:23   The one being rude is you. You edit everything away, even my small contribution. You just scream louder, so that my small contribution becomes pointless. You are making this page ugly. Good luck and goodbye. Go play in the Sandbox. —ConstantiaOomen

2019-07-12 23:57:23   PS: your Wiki name is something that doesn't help your "case". Alone for that reason, I would prefer Atanas Spasov, since he makes contributions in all openness under his own name. The article looked good to me, but then came you, renamed the thing, made it "untraceable", and you started yelling and screaming in capitals and with a lot of "!!!"which is damaging the look of the page, esthetically, I mean. So, please, introduce yourself properly, full name, then maybe I can take you a little more seriously. We have an editor who calls himself JabberWokky, and that is great and cool, because! he is giving his real name too. I personally don't like people who don't even have the decency to introduce themselves properly. —ConstantiaOomen