Hello there Cprompt, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! -- maveric149
I'm looking forward to the dir/p of your cranial hard drive. ;-) --KQ
Thanks for the welcome, and for the useful links! =) I do plan on submitting some more articles when I have the time. I've submitted an article already on the band Jimmy Eat World, Peyronie disease, and I've added some more information to others. Once again, thanks for the welcome, and I look forward to entrenching myself (in a good way!) in the Wikipedia community. -- cprompt
You wanted to read this: -- Brandon Vedas-- Vera Cruz
Regarding osteopathy: "Wholistic" is an alternate spelling -- I've seen it popping up around the place a bit. It's a recent invention, not in any dictionary AFAIK. I find it amusing -- a kind of redundant added connotation, just in case you don't know what "holistic" means. I agree with your alteration of this silly, recently made-up word. -- Tim Starling 02:27 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be listed by Merriam-Webster's as a variant of holistic. (M-W is a fairly liberal dictionary.) Just added it to Wiktionary. Thanks for the heads up! -- cprompt
It appears that The Cunctator has done some changes (yet again) to the naming conventions on slogans page, which Ed Poor is not happy over. I might be worth revisiting the page to recast your vote so that there is no doubt. The basic issue is dealt with near the bottom of the issue, though yet again The Cunctator is disputing something or other, as he is becoming famous for. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:31 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
You are now a sysop. Please add yourself to the wikipedia:Administrators page. -- Uncle Ed
Lir/Vera/Dietary/Susan/Adam, like terrorists, cannot be negotiated with. This twice-banned user probably knows that he’s trying to add historically incorrect information. He/she’s just trying to engage in edit wars and endless deliberation over these incorrect changes for the sake of annoying people. Don’t be naïve; his attempts at seeming reasonable are just his/her trap. 172
We all fell for it one by one and were conned. You could fill this page with a list of people with bad experiences from this twice banned troll. Believe me, you don't want that experience. This troll is a vandalistic head wrecker who just screws up articles. Now that he admitted inadvertently to what he all know (that Susan is Dietary), and we all know that she is Adam/Vera/bridget everything he touches is being reverted, pending a ban, preferably a permanent one. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:38 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
We don't need to try to reason with Adam, we only need to discourage him from returning. He has been banned twice and Jimbo Wales, who owns this site, has told him to stay away. -- Zoe
Im aware James was Scottish. At the time I was under attack by Jtdirl and 172 and uanble to fix the problem. Jtdirl and 172 are to blame for that, I was trying to work on the article. Dietary Fiber
oh the classic SM/DF response. That was only one of a range of clumsy stupid errors added into the article. For example, we put the first title held by a monarch first. James was James VI of Scotland long before he became James I of England. So everyone agreed that that was the order they should be in. But in typical SM/DF style it was decided, 'screw everyone else's agreement, I am going to unilaterally change it. (Like Adam tried to screw up naming conventions, and even when voted down still ignored the decision and did it Adam's way, leaving everyone else to rename articles and clear up the mess by returning things to the agreed formula.
Second, there was a long long long debate about when to describe a modern monarch as British. It was agreed to apply it to after 1707. But Adam decided to ignore the long debate and do it his way, his way on the naming of election pages (who cares if everyone else uses a totally different system and votes down his suggestion!), his way on referring to peers, his way on using the word British, on how to describe James VI/I, his way now on the History of the Soviet Union, his way on how names on a list should appear (the different way to everyone else's, he unilaterally changing lists to suit what he wanted, even when everyone else screamed 'what the hell are you doing'. Other people put a lot of work into getting a consensus. Adam ignores the consensus and does it the way he wants. And gets miffed when people end up undoing his garbled stuff and return things to the agreed way.
Yes there has been an improvement, cp. DF was actually nice to work with for about 4 days, then suddenly became an ogre on idolatory and various other pages. The immediate reaction was 'oh God, here we go again'. Even Mav let out a sigh about DF's behaviour, and Mav doesn't normally do that. Most of us are fed up trying to explain to SM/DF where they are wrong, only to be ignored and blatently untrue rubbish dumped into articles. So we aren't been called rascists and nazis, big deal! SM/DF's behaviour is still way of the mark. It is as if Adam goes onto wiki with the basic approach of 'now where can I cause grief today?'. And we have all had enough of it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:15 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
I wish I could. The best I can do is to point you to this -- http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-February/009040.html -- Zoe
The above link presented by Zoe ends this debate. 172
I was literally cracking up when Lir/Vera posted this comment: "Its a good thing the above link has nothing to do with me. Dietary Fiber"
The comedic timing made for very good irony.
Hah. Between them sometimes, DF/SM are like a perverted Laurel and Hardy.
Thanks for starting banana slug!! Kingturtle 09:26 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for putting me right on user 203. I wouldn't want to accuse anyone falsely. It's just that they seemed to be picking up where the other person left off, on matters relating to the English Civil War. Deb 19:14 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the user thought to be Adam/Bridget/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber. One thing about Adam is that he uses any means he can to get onto wiki. If he could access a New Zealand IP I have no doubt he would use it. Usually Adam's work can usually be recognised by the pages he visits and the nature of the edits he does; anything by 172 is usually his target. It is also recognisable by his approach; start small rows that erupt into fullscale edit wars, with Adam putting on the act of looking for consensus, then when voted down ignoring the views of everyone else and rewriting things his way anyway. With some of his earlier identities it was generally found that the only way to deal with this behaviour was for a policy of automatic reversion. Usually that policy is not followed for a period to see if this time he has changed his behaviour. So far, though later members of Adam's family weren't as offensive as before, they still by about the third week hit levels that were way beyond what is generally acceptable and practiced by other people. Eventually, if he continues triggering off pointless edit wars, adding in dodgy information alongside good stuff and trying unilaterally to change agreed naming conventions worked out by many wikipedians over a long debate (a standard Adam action) a policy of immediate reversion is followed, with anything he does being instantly reverted no matter how good the edit. In my six months on wiki, I've only seen immediate reversions applied on a handful of people; Michael and his later creations, DW and his creations, and Adam's various versions. All are multiple banned users, with a history of causing chaos and of repeating the worst elements of their behaviour each time they come on pretending to be another person.
Hopefully Adam will have learned his lesson or will come back as a completely reformed character. But then that was the hope after Lir, after Bridget, after Vera, but so far Adam has come back only marginally less destructive than the last time each time. And usually, after a period of reasonably good behaviour (at least by his standards) he then gets progressively worse and worse, as the Dietary Fiber experience showed. People immediately recognised DF as Adam R, but for a couple of days were elated with the thought "finally he has changed". Then he went back to his old ways, leading to a collective sigh of "oh shit. No he hasn't", hence the major battle a few of us had with him under his DF and SM personas. It probably looked very strange to someone who had not had the Adam experience for months, but it has been found to be the only way to deal with him. When a wholescale policy of automatic reversion happens, Adam usually makes some mistake that gives the game away. This time it was SM claiming to have started a page DF actually did. Once he is caught out, Jimbo then bans him. It is like a ritual at this stage. We all tried the 'be constructive' route, the 'be nice' route, the 'offer advice' route, the 'we want to listen to you' route and got burned again and again. In the last six months there has been only 3 cases like that; Michael, who adds in garbage, DW who ignores naming conventions, deletes important information and threatens legal action, and Adam. Hopefully we have seen the last of Adam R, but going by past experiences that is unlikely. BTW, that is why Zoe, 172 and I were so rude to him. We don't act that way 99% of the time. But with Adam's people and DW's creations (Black Widow and Olga Bityerkokoff) the rudeness is a deliberate policy and generally recognised as such, to force the issue and get them to break cover by making a mistake, which once they do that establishes in black and white what people are already 99.9% sure of, that they are a multiple banned user, who can then be banned again. If they are left alone, they simply make life hell for a lot of people and drive away new people over a longer period, before eventually slipping up and getting banned anyway. ÉÍREman
PS - sorry for taking up so much space, but it is worth you knowing the background to all of this. ÉÍREman
You’re taking my comments out of context. I wasn’t objecting to the criticism, but the nature and tone of the criticism. I was also objecting to being blamed for all of the article’s shortcomings. If it’s not concise, I shouldn’t be faulted since I was weaving new content with content that was already there. Some redundancy is inevitable whenever new content is being combined with old content. And it’s usually corrected over time.
It would’ve been better to reword some sentences rather than making a blanket criticism of my writing style, research quality, and quality of analysis (which is pretty much reflective of the consensus of most Soviet specialists). It was also problematic that only content pertaining to the NEP was criticized as a basis for an offhand criticism of the entire article. As you can see, the article is much improved after I began making substantial contributions to it, being really the first to write a detailed chronicle and analysis of the ACS system and its fall (critical of any understanding of Soviet history). So why should my contributions be faulted as sub par?
It’s also quite evident in the talk pages that I was despertaly begging for collaboration from the beginning. I haven’t really been able to find it. I’ve just been encountering blanket critisms for problems for which I’m not really responsible. How about collaboration in editing and adding content, not just in the form of criticism? 172
Maybe, but I was mentioned by name. 172
You referred to the Summer Triangle as a right triangle but the drawings I am looking at show more of an isoceles triangle. Pizza Puzzle
The xyzzy feature in minesweeper was removed in Win98 but reappeared in Win2k according to The Jargon File. -- Paddu 14:50 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your endorsement! I really appreciate it! Poor Yorick 22:52 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely- 戴眩sv 23:24, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Hello there Cprompt, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! -- maveric149
I'm looking forward to the dir/p of your cranial hard drive. ;-) --KQ
Thanks for the welcome, and for the useful links! =) I do plan on submitting some more articles when I have the time. I've submitted an article already on the band Jimmy Eat World, Peyronie disease, and I've added some more information to others. Once again, thanks for the welcome, and I look forward to entrenching myself (in a good way!) in the Wikipedia community. -- cprompt
You wanted to read this: -- Brandon Vedas-- Vera Cruz
Regarding osteopathy: "Wholistic" is an alternate spelling -- I've seen it popping up around the place a bit. It's a recent invention, not in any dictionary AFAIK. I find it amusing -- a kind of redundant added connotation, just in case you don't know what "holistic" means. I agree with your alteration of this silly, recently made-up word. -- Tim Starling 02:27 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be listed by Merriam-Webster's as a variant of holistic. (M-W is a fairly liberal dictionary.) Just added it to Wiktionary. Thanks for the heads up! -- cprompt
It appears that The Cunctator has done some changes (yet again) to the naming conventions on slogans page, which Ed Poor is not happy over. I might be worth revisiting the page to recast your vote so that there is no doubt. The basic issue is dealt with near the bottom of the issue, though yet again The Cunctator is disputing something or other, as he is becoming famous for. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:31 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
You are now a sysop. Please add yourself to the wikipedia:Administrators page. -- Uncle Ed
Lir/Vera/Dietary/Susan/Adam, like terrorists, cannot be negotiated with. This twice-banned user probably knows that he’s trying to add historically incorrect information. He/she’s just trying to engage in edit wars and endless deliberation over these incorrect changes for the sake of annoying people. Don’t be naïve; his attempts at seeming reasonable are just his/her trap. 172
We all fell for it one by one and were conned. You could fill this page with a list of people with bad experiences from this twice banned troll. Believe me, you don't want that experience. This troll is a vandalistic head wrecker who just screws up articles. Now that he admitted inadvertently to what he all know (that Susan is Dietary), and we all know that she is Adam/Vera/bridget everything he touches is being reverted, pending a ban, preferably a permanent one. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:38 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
We don't need to try to reason with Adam, we only need to discourage him from returning. He has been banned twice and Jimbo Wales, who owns this site, has told him to stay away. -- Zoe
Im aware James was Scottish. At the time I was under attack by Jtdirl and 172 and uanble to fix the problem. Jtdirl and 172 are to blame for that, I was trying to work on the article. Dietary Fiber
oh the classic SM/DF response. That was only one of a range of clumsy stupid errors added into the article. For example, we put the first title held by a monarch first. James was James VI of Scotland long before he became James I of England. So everyone agreed that that was the order they should be in. But in typical SM/DF style it was decided, 'screw everyone else's agreement, I am going to unilaterally change it. (Like Adam tried to screw up naming conventions, and even when voted down still ignored the decision and did it Adam's way, leaving everyone else to rename articles and clear up the mess by returning things to the agreed formula.
Second, there was a long long long debate about when to describe a modern monarch as British. It was agreed to apply it to after 1707. But Adam decided to ignore the long debate and do it his way, his way on the naming of election pages (who cares if everyone else uses a totally different system and votes down his suggestion!), his way on referring to peers, his way on using the word British, on how to describe James VI/I, his way now on the History of the Soviet Union, his way on how names on a list should appear (the different way to everyone else's, he unilaterally changing lists to suit what he wanted, even when everyone else screamed 'what the hell are you doing'. Other people put a lot of work into getting a consensus. Adam ignores the consensus and does it the way he wants. And gets miffed when people end up undoing his garbled stuff and return things to the agreed way.
Yes there has been an improvement, cp. DF was actually nice to work with for about 4 days, then suddenly became an ogre on idolatory and various other pages. The immediate reaction was 'oh God, here we go again'. Even Mav let out a sigh about DF's behaviour, and Mav doesn't normally do that. Most of us are fed up trying to explain to SM/DF where they are wrong, only to be ignored and blatently untrue rubbish dumped into articles. So we aren't been called rascists and nazis, big deal! SM/DF's behaviour is still way of the mark. It is as if Adam goes onto wiki with the basic approach of 'now where can I cause grief today?'. And we have all had enough of it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:15 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
I wish I could. The best I can do is to point you to this -- http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-February/009040.html -- Zoe
The above link presented by Zoe ends this debate. 172
I was literally cracking up when Lir/Vera posted this comment: "Its a good thing the above link has nothing to do with me. Dietary Fiber"
The comedic timing made for very good irony.
Hah. Between them sometimes, DF/SM are like a perverted Laurel and Hardy.
Thanks for starting banana slug!! Kingturtle 09:26 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for putting me right on user 203. I wouldn't want to accuse anyone falsely. It's just that they seemed to be picking up where the other person left off, on matters relating to the English Civil War. Deb 19:14 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the user thought to be Adam/Bridget/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber. One thing about Adam is that he uses any means he can to get onto wiki. If he could access a New Zealand IP I have no doubt he would use it. Usually Adam's work can usually be recognised by the pages he visits and the nature of the edits he does; anything by 172 is usually his target. It is also recognisable by his approach; start small rows that erupt into fullscale edit wars, with Adam putting on the act of looking for consensus, then when voted down ignoring the views of everyone else and rewriting things his way anyway. With some of his earlier identities it was generally found that the only way to deal with this behaviour was for a policy of automatic reversion. Usually that policy is not followed for a period to see if this time he has changed his behaviour. So far, though later members of Adam's family weren't as offensive as before, they still by about the third week hit levels that were way beyond what is generally acceptable and practiced by other people. Eventually, if he continues triggering off pointless edit wars, adding in dodgy information alongside good stuff and trying unilaterally to change agreed naming conventions worked out by many wikipedians over a long debate (a standard Adam action) a policy of immediate reversion is followed, with anything he does being instantly reverted no matter how good the edit. In my six months on wiki, I've only seen immediate reversions applied on a handful of people; Michael and his later creations, DW and his creations, and Adam's various versions. All are multiple banned users, with a history of causing chaos and of repeating the worst elements of their behaviour each time they come on pretending to be another person.
Hopefully Adam will have learned his lesson or will come back as a completely reformed character. But then that was the hope after Lir, after Bridget, after Vera, but so far Adam has come back only marginally less destructive than the last time each time. And usually, after a period of reasonably good behaviour (at least by his standards) he then gets progressively worse and worse, as the Dietary Fiber experience showed. People immediately recognised DF as Adam R, but for a couple of days were elated with the thought "finally he has changed". Then he went back to his old ways, leading to a collective sigh of "oh shit. No he hasn't", hence the major battle a few of us had with him under his DF and SM personas. It probably looked very strange to someone who had not had the Adam experience for months, but it has been found to be the only way to deal with him. When a wholescale policy of automatic reversion happens, Adam usually makes some mistake that gives the game away. This time it was SM claiming to have started a page DF actually did. Once he is caught out, Jimbo then bans him. It is like a ritual at this stage. We all tried the 'be constructive' route, the 'be nice' route, the 'offer advice' route, the 'we want to listen to you' route and got burned again and again. In the last six months there has been only 3 cases like that; Michael, who adds in garbage, DW who ignores naming conventions, deletes important information and threatens legal action, and Adam. Hopefully we have seen the last of Adam R, but going by past experiences that is unlikely. BTW, that is why Zoe, 172 and I were so rude to him. We don't act that way 99% of the time. But with Adam's people and DW's creations (Black Widow and Olga Bityerkokoff) the rudeness is a deliberate policy and generally recognised as such, to force the issue and get them to break cover by making a mistake, which once they do that establishes in black and white what people are already 99.9% sure of, that they are a multiple banned user, who can then be banned again. If they are left alone, they simply make life hell for a lot of people and drive away new people over a longer period, before eventually slipping up and getting banned anyway. ÉÍREman
PS - sorry for taking up so much space, but it is worth you knowing the background to all of this. ÉÍREman
You’re taking my comments out of context. I wasn’t objecting to the criticism, but the nature and tone of the criticism. I was also objecting to being blamed for all of the article’s shortcomings. If it’s not concise, I shouldn’t be faulted since I was weaving new content with content that was already there. Some redundancy is inevitable whenever new content is being combined with old content. And it’s usually corrected over time.
It would’ve been better to reword some sentences rather than making a blanket criticism of my writing style, research quality, and quality of analysis (which is pretty much reflective of the consensus of most Soviet specialists). It was also problematic that only content pertaining to the NEP was criticized as a basis for an offhand criticism of the entire article. As you can see, the article is much improved after I began making substantial contributions to it, being really the first to write a detailed chronicle and analysis of the ACS system and its fall (critical of any understanding of Soviet history). So why should my contributions be faulted as sub par?
It’s also quite evident in the talk pages that I was despertaly begging for collaboration from the beginning. I haven’t really been able to find it. I’ve just been encountering blanket critisms for problems for which I’m not really responsible. How about collaboration in editing and adding content, not just in the form of criticism? 172
Maybe, but I was mentioned by name. 172
You referred to the Summer Triangle as a right triangle but the drawings I am looking at show more of an isoceles triangle. Pizza Puzzle
The xyzzy feature in minesweeper was removed in Win98 but reappeared in Win2k according to The Jargon File. -- Paddu 14:50 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your endorsement! I really appreciate it! Poor Yorick 22:52 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely- 戴眩sv 23:24, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)