Dot Dot Dot

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. 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
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

[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 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
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

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

EditText of this page (last edited October 1, 2014) or FindPage with title or text search