It is called an "ellipsis"! (Don't look directly at it, it will make you go bind... no, that was an eclipse... or something...) (The absurdity of the attack on "...", this pure nonsense, is reminiscent of GrammarVandal's absurdity fighting endlessly against a script.) '''No it is not, please sign your contributions instead of indulging in putdowns. See comment later.''' ---- ''Page started here originally'' DotDotDot is being used a signature by someone using the first person to make assertions which it seems are so well known that there is no need for any explanation. Someone making a contrary statement is treated to a further installment of DotDotDot. *''This has been supported and aggravated by several insults and inaccurate personal attacks.'' ** Funny, you created this page as an attack. ''That is your opinion.'' *** No, to give an identity to someone who was putting me down. I could not attack anyone as I didn't know who it was. The attack came later, see below calling me ''Jonny Boy''. ''Oh geez, "..." (3 periods) is used to end a comment when the reader is supposed to assume or fill in the rest themselves, as the meaning does not need to be said. Example: He died when he jumped into the water, and he could not swim, so... {Obviously, this page was created by someone who's first language is not AmericanEnglish... Gosh, I see lots of people sign their posting with a single period, I wonder what that means (must be another conspiracy)?} '''Please, delete this page when read'''.'' I know perfectly well what you mean by DotDotDot. It is my opinion that in this case you are using it incorrectly to indicate that there is an obvious answer when in fact it is not clear at all, see the comments on TheAdjunct, not from me, which indicate that your opinion is not the only one. I am quite happy to terminate the discussion. -- JohnFletcher *''I will try to remember then, that some people may be more "mentally challenged" in these "..." situations in the future. In the meantime, you can research to your heart's contentment by doing a Google search for: '''grammar, ellipsis''' '' ** This discussion of ellipsis is all a diversion by the anonymous person attempting to distract attention from the evidence below. The whole point of the page was that I was assumed to know the background to the creation of TheAdjunct and if I did not I was not entitled to an opinion as I was not in the know. Hence the nudge nudge, wink wink implied by DotDotDot. It has been frequently asserted but nowhere shown that TheAdjunct was a ruse. Attacking me or anyone else does not prove or disprove the assertion. In any case, once TheAdjunct existed it became used for a variety of purposes. I now know far more than I did about all this and see that there are some probably irreconcilable differences of opinion both here and elsewhere on the wiki. I learned a long time ago that irony is extremely dangerous. I think the example here using ''mentally challenged'' in place of some neutral phrase such as ''lacking information'' is extremely unfortunate and generally offensive, even in jest. I suggest to the writer that they reflect on this. -- JohnFletcher ---- A note on the WikiHistory of this. There is a page called DisregardTheAdjunct which was last edited (currently at least) in 2006. It starts like this: ''TheAdjunct is an intentional sinkhole for content its creators want to delete, but don't have the patience to EditWar away. Like the other SisterSites, it's not adequately integrated with WikiWiki to maintain wiki's ExtremeIntertwingling. So moving pages to the adjunct destroys content coherence and community coherence. Shut it down and move the content back please.'' There is then a lot of discussion. I don't know if the author there is the same as the present author, but clearly the view that TheAdjunct was a cynical creation has been around for a long time. One way to solve it would be to ask EarleMartin. Someone with a cynical view might not believe him if he said it was not true. My guess is that that this answers a question on TheAdjunct and that DisregardTheAdjunct is the ''prophecy'' referred to. I now understand the point of view of people who called for DisregardTheAdjunct, but the few links to it mean that people such as myself who started to use TheAdjunct could do so in ignorance of the background. If the argument is looked at using the data on WikiAtFortyThousand then it is clear that in 2005 and 2006 there was a lot of deletion from C2. There are two periods when page growth became negative. The data for TheAdjunct are not available before September 2006. I remember being surprised how small they were, and they remain small where data is reported. It looks as though TheAdjunct grew quickly when it was first started, but then slowed down. -- JohnFletcher *''Johnny-boy, you need to get a life and keep out of things you do not know. You are the same one that ran amuck a while back yelling that twitter was over-taking Wiki. Delete this nonsense already...'' ** That is insulting and inaccurate. I have not commented on twitter, so that is someone else. This is not the first time I have been accused of something I haven't done. I believe I have explained what the different positions are. I care a lot about the sanity of the discussion on this wiki. Since when is clear wiki history ''nonsense''? If there is an inner track, or other motivations, they are not clear to me. There are people who believe TheAdjunct was a ruse, and correct or not, they are entitled to their opinion. I have been looking for the evidence. If there is more please point it out. It looks as though what I have done is stray into the minefield of the OffTopic debate which must have been around when TheAdjunct was set up, with some people wanting to force some pages onto TheAdjunct. I think that is what is being referred to in: ''keep out of things you do not know''. Pages like AmericanCollegeAthletics carry similar discussions. I don't have a hard line on OffTopic. I do work with others to keep this wiki sensible faced with the current disruptions. Also, whoever did it, DisagreeByDeleting is rude. -- JohnFletcher ***''The nonsense would be the above part about your obsession with your ideas about this "..." conspiracy, you know... You will find, that unless you were actually here in person at the time, the real history of what happened is always wipe...'' *** That would be me commenting that you are using DotDotDot where other people would use a signature. I didn't think it was a conspiracy, just an attempt to put me down as ignorant and therefore not deserving to be allowed an opinion of my own, but not saying who you are. A power ploy. It would be more clever used in a community where everyone knew what you meant because it had been referred to recently. If, as you suggest, much of the debate has been wiped, then some explanation is appropriate so that those not in the know can appreciate your point of view. It sounds as though we are looking at a caldera after most of the volcano has vanished. There can still be some clues in the volcano walls. It has needed some digging to find some clues. What I have found I have referred to above. Having dug into this I have some sympathy for both sides in the argument. I would also have wished to be able to develop discussions of some of the topics which I put onto TheAdjunct believing it to be a place where open discussion was welcome. Somewhere here there is a bitterness. Perhaps we can hope for closure on that. -- JohnFletcher [There have always been participants who believe WardsWiki either is, or should be, open to any content. I suppose at least some of this is based on the mistaken notion that because the door is open and anyone ''can'' come in, that everyone ''should'' come in. Not surprisingly, supporters of this view are typically participants who have posted OffTopic content. Some OffTopic content, like ZeekLand and various "geeky" pages, are well tolerated. Some OffTopic content, like AmericanCollegeAthletics, is and has always been contentious and subject to debate.] [TheAdjunct was not a ruse. It was intended to resolve the debates (like this one!) over OffTopic content. OffTopic content would finally have a proper '''undisputed''' home which would reduce the load on Ward's disk and bandwidth, and it would be clearly distinguished from OnTopic content on WardsWiki whilst remaining freely linkable and accessible as a SisterSite. In principle, that ''should'' have worked and made everyone happy. Unfortunately, I think the combination of opposition from those who think WardsWiki should be open to everything, plus general disinterest in OffTopic content, meant TheAdjunct didn't reach CriticalMass. As such, with Earle being busy, TheAdjunct is undoubtedly a low priority for him. Given the unreasonable opposition to it, it might even be a '''no''' priority for him.] ---- You have a very strange image of me as confused, obsessive, unsympathetic and mentally ill. If you review this page you will find from me expressions of understanding for your position about OffTopic, though not for your position that everyone must agree with your point of view about TheAdjunct. We now also find that TheAdjunct is to be restored. I get from you only abuse. Please reflect on that. I will get on with something else. -- JohnFletcher ''Well, I must say that I do not know what the heck any of this is about. I have been on this Wiki for 11 years, and there has only been one other individual that confounded me to this degree (he was eventually Hard-Banned). I am left scratching my head wondering what will happen if I decide to use "---" or "***" or "___" or " ", etc... literally, but you say that is not the issue. Well, what the heck? I mean you attacked me for a conversation and comments that did not originally involve you. I try to be helpful, and I get all this craziness... I mean, this has been fun, and any time we have entertainment on this Wiki it is a good thing, but, yes... this is all a little bit mind-blowing. But, what the hey, I will roll with it. I know that there are certain cultural differences between UK and USA, but nothing that explains my exchanges with you now. We most certainly must have some real differences in what makes us tick, and why we tick. Don't know what else to say, have been real confused, so just trying to go with it and turn confusion into something, anything... I would give more information on the history of why and how the adjunct came about, but don't want anymore of this type of thing to blow-up, and then you create 100 more nonsense pages that we do not need on Wiki... besides others here dispute what they did/do not see, or were not involved in personally. The ultra-fast history lesson is real easy: lots of edit wars for long time; take-over of Wiki by a dictator; adjunct created; lots of stuff deleted; a little stuff moved to adjunct; lots of people banned; a few people hard-banned; some of us have worked day and night to save Wiki for years; now you are current [there was a lot of wars against spammers, and GV of course (all before DV's SharkBot) then wars about the shark, and on and on...]'' * [I've been here for a long time. Maybe not quite as long as you, Seattle1, but I showed up at the tail end of the RA escapades, so I've seen pretty much everything you described. You seem to have an ''interesting'' view of events. "Take-over of Wiki by a dictator" and "lots of people banned", for example, are pure imagination.] * [By the way, Seattle1, posting an insult and then using a different IP and quoting style to post support for that insult is ''nasty'' and childish behaviour. You should be ashamed of yourself.] ** ''Not necessarily, as it was not him that made that statement (some here have had fun at his expense), as others use this connection and have been involved here. We do stand behind him, and in no way invalidate anything that he has said, but in our own special interests we have put a short temporary gag-order on him concerning this subject. We would like to add, that one thing he left out of the fast-track history lesson, was the fact that scores of users left Wiki for various reasons, and many felt that the situation was no longer a friendly one.'' ** [*sigh* Someone ''really'' needs to grow up.] ** Geez, this whole page is a wreck, and help like this I do not need. DV, think about it for a moment, if I wanted to do something sinister/nasty as you say, why wouldn't I just spoof my IP? I posted what was in the brackets [], but did not post the page link AspergersSyndrome. Now I am done with this page, and wish that the creator would delete it as I had originally asked. I will indeed honor the "gag order" and for me the history trip is closed. There was some fun in it though... ** [We both know you did it. Why not spoof an IP? Maybe you don't know how or maybe you thought re-connecting and getting a new IP would be sufficient to appear to be someone else, or maybe you were angry and didn't think. Or, maybe you thought there would be "some fun in it." Only you know why you did it.] I also have learned a lot in these exchanges, as I said above somewhere, digging in the ruins of the volcano. Thank you for the summary above because I did not know about the time when TheAdjunct came about. I was here before, in the late 1990's and gave up because the data link then was too slow. I must have come back when TheAdjunct was set up. I think if I had seen DisregardTheAdjunct I would have known more. It has few links and I had not seen it until now. I have actually found TheAdjunct a place to express myself and so was sad when it went down. Perhaps I can help with the culture thing by saying that I am a scientist and an engineer and have been getting the bugs out of computer programs for 40 years or so. That gives me an attention to detail and willingness to pursue the evidence and the logic. Let us leave it there and get on with building the wiki. There is plenty of that to be done. -- JohnFletcher ---- Cited as an example of ArguingByDisparagement. NeedsToBeReadAgain for the level of the hostility displayed to an enquirer. ------- This is what a stutterer calls DotNet. ---- I have done this in the past to indicate that the list is not complete, and that items were omitted and can be added (0n the page, or in one's mind) -- DonaldNoyes : '''List Follows''' * Foo * Alpha * Beta * Delta * Gamma * ... ---- It is also used in code examples, either to avoid writing out trivial code, or to indicate "your code goes here" eg. function do_something($something_to_do_it_with=NULL) { if (NULL == $something_to_do_it_with) { echo "I got nothing"; return false; } ... } ---- I use "...." in code, because in C++, "..." is a valid language token. -- JimCoplien CategoryWikiHistory