Talk:Intheway1

From Alumnislambook

18:33, 1 March 2008 Zaglossus wrote:

Posted: "Pro-Union Republican with a taste for Mannerchoirs, extraordinarily bad PBS musical specials, personal outrage, and an abundantly unnatural affection for typewriters and J. P. Donleavy. Former Navy Seal (?) and occasional wooden poet."

Deleted, with respose: "The rest of the entry initially posted here was erroneous."

Then fix the bias, or improve the facts!

Pro-Union Republican (Yes)

taste for Mannerchoirs (Joke about old debate on Mencken's German bias. Including "participation in Mannerchoirs" was a joke then, too.)

extraordinarily bad PBS musical specials (i.e. Imposters/Impostors)

personal outrage (obviously proved)

unnatural affection for typewriters (public consternation that his ISP declined to allow him to list the brand name of his typewriter on his profile, as a series of the letters formed a profanity)

and J. P. Donleavy (publicly stated favorite novel as The Ginger Man, by J. P. Donleavy)

Former Navy Seal [N.B. -->] (?) (or was it SWCC? Something like that. Decades pass, memories fade. Hence this stated attempt at an aid to memories, rather than strictly historical catalog.)

occasional wooden poet (heavy-handed attempt at a lighthearted rhyme about [malls, was it?])

23:44, 1 March 2008 205.188.116.76 wrote:

Then fix the bias, or improve the facts! There are really few facts to "improve."

Pro-Union Republican (Yes)
taste for Mannerchoirs (Joke about old debate on Mencken's German bias. Including "participation in Mannerchoirs" was a joke then, too.) 'Then the "fact" is that Mencken is one of my literary idols. That doesn't mean I share all his tastes.'''Your "joke" was inaccurate and clumsy.'''' If you hadn't told me it was a joke I would have missed it completely.
extraordinarily bad PBS musical specials (i.e. Imposters/Impostors) 'The "facts" are' that I work for recording artists, and that some of them appear on PBS. I have no "taste" for the specials. I guess that "extraordinarily bad" stuff was just you being clever.
personal outrage (obviously proved) ''Public stupidity amazes me more than outrages me. You amaze me. The reason for that is obviously proved.''''
'unnatural affection for typewriters (public consternation that his ISP declined to allow him to list the brand name of his typewriter on his profile, as a series of the letters formed a profanity) Atwater Kent was a brand of radio, not a typewriter.
and J. P. Donleavy (publicly stated favorite novel as The Ginger Man, by J. P. Donleavy) Nope. Not even close.
Former Navy Seal [N.B. -->] (?) (or was it SWCC? Something like that. Decades pass, memories fade. Hence this stated attempt at an aid to memories, rather than strictly historical catalog.) 'Well, that explains it! Here's a hint for future work along these lines. Guess first, than post. If you are going to intentionally post inaccurate crap, you should have said so and I would have let you swim in your own delusions without pointing out how mistaken you are.
occasional wooden poet (heavy-handed attempt at a lighthearted rhyme about [malls, was it?]) One poem is hardly "occasional." That one was a parody of Chesterton's Lepanto,posted as a response to a comment by Redclay. You obviously missed the point and the parody. You continue to amaze me.

Since you've made it clear that this little exercize, as not intended as''''a "strictly historical catalog," has no relation to who or what I actually am outside your fevered memory, this is where I leave the sandbox.

03:34, 2 March 2008 Zaglossus wrote:

Zaglossus responds:

Glad to see you are feeling fit, Intheway1!

Amazingly, you appear to pretend to be oblivious what the words "Alumni SlamBook," attached to every page title and URL on this wiki, might refer to, which seems disingenuous of you, at best. More amazingly (and disingenuously), even though there are only two public pointers to this wiki, both being identical, and both pointing to the same Community Portal page, you somehow failed to read the description given for this wiki on that page, which in rather plain language states: "...this is not intended as a strictly historical undertaking, and should be thought of more as a memory aid. The greater the quantity of opinion, speculation, inference, half-remembered accusation, long-forgotten bile, bravado, and raw self-praise these sections contain, the more likely they are to spark a fond recollection."

This being a community wiki where anyone is free to contribute or edit, of course that above quoted sentiment and the wiki product are free flowing, and mark only the starting point from which a project only a few days old may progress. Clearly, however, as the majority of the events so far discussed took place almost a decade ago and the majority of the individuals so far named are long gone, a certain amount of preliminary feeling about will be necessary in order to even place a GivenName to a ScreenName, or a posting style to a half-remembered alias, let alone concrete details and the arcana of many thousands of mostly forgettable and better forgotten MessageBoard postings.

Additionally, as is the inherent case of any wiki project, incorrect recollections and facts are par for the course-- the utter egregiousness of which are most often the impetus that drives the editors to find a more sustainable truth. And still... How strange (amazing, really!) that you take such umbrage that an individual you have never met or interacted with personally has any recollection whatsoever of postings you made nine or ten years ago, let alone that these memories have been misremembered, or even exaggerated for drama or comedic effect.

In fact, even more amazingly, you petulantly complain that my original loose outline bears "no relation to who or what I actually am." As though, as an avowed Intheway1 scholar, that has been my stated goal for the past eight years, and you are insulted that I have done no better in that time! I can only apologize that my memory for the trivia of a slight pastime of mine ten years ago has not lived up to your grand expectations. No doubt those who have committed themselves more fully to the study of the Holy Writ of Intheway1 will soon arrive and help clean up the disgrace of misremembering a typewriter brand name for a radio brand name.

To those of a less amazingly narcissistically literal nature, however, the original comments I put up would have seemed like the fairly sincere compliments of memory they were:

I always thought your categorization of AmnonTamar as a "Fecal Muralist" was funny, remembered it, and quoted it (albeit in a smart-ass way).

I thought your pro-union Republicanism was an interesting tic, and recalled it favorably.

I happen to like Mencken as well, and was referencing a common interest through an (honestly, barely remembered) scuffle. I recall your frothing over the obviously ridiculous "Mannerchoir participation" slight more than anything else.

The "fact" that you do not enjoy my "jokes" and teasing was hardly forgotten, and surely one of the impetus for my phrasing choices.

I recalled the Imposters/Impostors legislative effort (which I thought worthy) enough to be clever about it. (It seems that is the way I do things.) Yet anyone, including yourself, might easily and simply just type into the little box the things they wanted to be remembered for, instead of whining and wanting to get confrontational about how I have chosen to express my memories.

What, is your opinion of Donleavy's Ginger Man, then? I certainly recall taunting you about having an anal sex fixation based on your comments-- not only because of the taunts, but because that also happens to be one of my own favorite modern novels, and I know its contents extremely well.

How odd you have not spoken so ferociously about the dozens of other pages added to this wiki covered with similar "(?)" -- obvious indicators of a half-memory which hopefully another, better informed reader might fill in. You certainly do take the suggestion you might have been a Navy SEAL as though it were an insult. I halfway recall QJWIN625 saying something about you having been Special Ops, but perhaps he was wrong, or he was lying, or I have misremembered the entire conversation. The powers of the wiki edit button lie right before you, should you choose to clarify your military record. Yet instead you choose to gripe, rather than shake off your trasgic disappointment and contribute the "facts" about "who or what I actually am" it seems the whole world is aching to know.

I did recall your poem (obviously) as it seemed to be a genuine (if, amazingly, over-literal) effort at parody. What would have made you happier, were I to swoon? I did think it wooden, but "An Effort" (as I stated at the time) worth mentioning.

This is perhaps not the place to offer a complete description of how memories can cascade, one from another, but an apt demonstration of this unexpected cascading even arises in the composition of this reply, as I have suddenly recalled, in one of your lists, your claiming Elvis Costello's Beyond Belief as your favorite song of that moment-- a song among my favorites, as well.

These unexpected remembrances, true or distorted by time, happen to be my personal interest in starting this project, as the real life events surrounding my participation in the ChatRoom and MessageBoard were among my fondest and most treasured. When I found Elu's post via a Google search for the echidna I am interested in, and saw the various ScreenNames still floating around in loose affiliation, this brought back some unexpectedly interesting and pleasant memories not in any way connected.

The advantages of adding others' memory and experiences to your own, as this wiki hopes to do, may, then, offer some stimulation or new insight to one's memory. For example, in reading your comments here, I realize how strange it is that I had forgotten what a dick you can be.

16:46, 2 March 2008 205.188.116.76 wrote:

Glad to see you are feeling fit, Intheway1!

Amazingly, you appear to pretend to be oblivious what the words "Alumni SlamBook," attached to every page title and URL on this wiki, might refer to, which seems disingenuous of you, at best.

'I have no idea what the words mean. From the content, it appears that "Alumni SlamBook" is shorthand for "Zaglossus Wants You To Think He's Clever, and Will Say Anything In The Effort."

More amazingly (and disingenuously), even though there are only two public pointers to this wiki, both being identical, and both pointing to the same Community Portal page, you somehow failed to read the description given for this wiki on that page, which in rather plain language states: "...this is not intended as a strictly historical undertaking, and should be thought of more as a memory aid. The greater the quantity of opinion, speculation, inference, half-remembered accusation, long-forgotten bile, bravado, and raw self-praise these sections contain, the more likely they are to spark a fond recollection."

Y'ou just left off "as delusional as that recollection might be."

But you're not happy with my edit. Why am I not "free to contribute?" Is it because I've pointed out your "free flowing" memories are bogus? I guess I should have waited longer to correct you. Maybe the passage of more time would have made your comments more accurate.

Clearly, however, as the majority of the events so far discussed took place almost a decade ago and the majority of the individuals so far named are long gone, a certain amount of preliminary feeling about will be necessary in order to even place a GivenName to a ScreenName, or a posting style to a half-remembered alias, let alone concrete details and the arcana of many thousands of mostly forgettable and better forgotten MessageBoard postings.

'Ah, so by starting with bad information, we will eventually get to the good stuff. That makes sense. Too bad you don't seem to apply that reasoning to my corrections, but instead take them as insulting you instead of addressing them as corrections.

Additionally, as is the inherent case of any wiki project, incorrect recollections and facts are par for the course

You're breaking par. In fact, you're the Tiger Woods of faulty memories.

-- the utter egregiousness of which are most often the impetus that drives the editors to find a more sustainable truth.

'So why not accept my corrections of your "egregiousness?" Despite your offhand attempt to make this whole dog's mess of a project seem like an informal time-filler, you seem to have a hell of a lot invested in the accuracy of your recollections. Otherwise, why pick a fight with me just because I tell you that you've got things '''wrong? I seem to have hit a sore spot, and it appears to be a large one.

And still... How strange (amazing, really!) that you take such umbrage that an individual you have never met or interacted with personally has any recollection whatsoever of postings you made nine or ten years ago, let alone that these memories have been misremembered, or even exaggerated for drama or comedic effect.

'Not umbrage. Amazement that someone I have never met or interacted with has such detailed, if completely false, recollections of me after a decade, and has decided to post them as if they had some relevance today. Are you that starved for attention? (You don't have to answer that, the answer is "obviously proved.")''''

In fact, even more amazingly, you petulantly complain that my original loose outline bears "no relation to who or what I actually am."

'You got nearly everything your "remember" about me wrong. I think that was pretty straightforward. Your pained''''''attribu''''tion of petulance to me belies your new attempts to pass this effort to look clever as something offhand. Your attempts to pass your comments off as exaggerations for "drama or comedic effect" is just a sad commentary on what you think constitutes "drama or comedic effect." You just aren't good at it.

As though, as an avowed Intheway1 scholar, that has been my stated goal for the past eight years, and you are insulted that I have done no better in that time! I can only apologize that my memory for the trivia of a slight pastime of mine ten years ago has not lived up to your grand expectations. No doubt those who have committed themselves more fully to the study of the Holy Writ of Intheway1 will soon arrive and help clean up the disgrace of misremembering a typewriter brand name for a radio brand name.

You are no better at sarcasm than you are at "drama or comedic effect."

To those of a less amazingly narcissistically literal nature

Still playing to the gallery, hey? Do you think they will love you more now?

, however, the original comments I put up would have seemed like the fairly sincere compliments of memory they were:

I always thought your categorization of AmnonTamar AmnonTamar as a "Fecal Muralist" was funny, remembered it, and quoted it (albeit in a smart-ass way).

Defining yourself as "smart-ass" doesn't mean you were successful. You listed "Fecal Muralist" as a "suspected alias." You were wrong.

I thought your pro-union Republicanism was an interesting tic, and recalled it favorably.

I happen to like Mencken as well, and was referencing a common interest through an (honestly, barely remembered) scuffle. I recall your frothing over the obviously ridiculous "Mannerchoir''participation" slight more than anything else.

I don't recall every discussing Mannerchoir participation with you or anyone else. You are making this up to make you look clever. You are not succeeding.

The "fact" that you do not enjoy my "jokes" and teasing was hardly forgotten, and surely one of the impetus for my phrasing choices.

Thanks for putting the word joke in quotes. You have a much higher regard for your sense of humor than I do. Get over it.

I recalled the Imposters/Impostors legislative effort (which I thought worthy) enough to be clever about it
It didn't work. You're better off if you let other people describe you as clever. Just keep reciting "Objects in mirror are less impressive than they appear." Self-ascribed cleverness is rarely up to the reviews. (And if other people actually told you that you were clever, you wouldn't be so desperate as to post all this crap, now would you?)
'
(It seems that is the way I do things.)
It's time to try something new. You're not really good at this approach.
- Yet anyone, including yourself, might easily and simply just type into the little box the things they wanted to be remembered for, instead of whining and wanting to get confrontational about how I have chosen to express my memories.

'You're right. They're your memories. They're just incorrect. You appear unable to accept that. Your limitations are not my fault.''''

What, is your opinion of Donleavy's Ginger Man, then?
It's a good book.
I certainly recall taunting you about having an anal sex fixation based on your comments-- not only because of the taunts, but because that also happens to be one of my own favorite modern novels, and I know its contents extremely well.

This supposed taunting never took place. You're completely delusional on this one.

How odd you have not spoken so ferociously about the dozens of other pages added to this wiki covered with similar "(?)" -- obvious indicators of a half-memory which hopefully another, better informed reader might fill in.
'I bet this means something in the original language. There is only one other (?) you misremembered about me. It is in the "memo'''ry" about my "occasional" poetry. I addressed that by pointing out that one poem doesn't make it "occasional."
- - You certainly do take the suggestion you might have been a Navy SEAL as though it were an insult.
No. I take it as a misstatement, which is what it is. You take my correction as an insult. Why is that?
- I halfway recall QJWIN625 saying something about you having been Special Ops, but perhaps he was wrong, or he was lying, or I have misremembered the entire conversation.
'The last one is a g'''ood guess. Tony and I traded CIA conspiracy-nut trivia on the Shelf once or twice. I realize now we shouldn't have done that in your presence because it allowed you to build fantasies about me. One of us might have made a reference to Navy Seals in those conversations. A reference to Navy Seals does not require being one. I find it a little troubling that your memories of me include details of conversations you weren't even involved in.'
- The powers of the wiki edit button lie right before you, should you choose to clarify your military record.
- 'I did '''that. I said your conclusion was wrong. Instead of accepting my edit, you appear intent on justify your original error. Why is that?
- Yet instead you choose to gripe, rather than shake off your trasgic disappointment and contribute the "facts" about "who or what I actually am" it seems the whole world is aching to know.

'Ah, so actually using that edit button to correct you is nothing more than a "gripe." With one exception, you got everything wrong about me, but somehow you STILL want credit and applause for the depth and breadth of your inaccuracies, and you are offended that I would point out your mistakes. You still amaze me.

I did recall your poem (obviously) as it seemed to be a genuine (if, amazingly, over-literal) effort at parody. What would have made you happier, were I to swoon? I did think it wooden, but "An Effort" (as I stated at the time) worth mentioning.

'I co''''rrected your attribution of my single stab at poetry as "occasional." You got that wrong. I realize I overstated my case by trying to provide you with context for my Lepanto parody. In the future I will try to limit myself to just saying you are wrong, as providing evidence of your error just seems to make you more unhappy.'

'Wow. You appear to have a vast storehouse of memories about what I said in a chatroom ten years ago. That's '''creepy.

These unexpected remembrances, true or distorted by time,

Take Door #2

happen to be my personal interest in starting this project, as the real life events surrounding my participation in the ChatRoom and MessageBoard were among my fondest and most treasured. When I found Elu's post via a Google search for the echidna I am interested in, and saw the various ScreenNames still floating around in loose affiliation, this brought back some unexpectedly interesting and pleasant memories not in any way connected.

And, in my case, not in any way connected to what actually occurred. Not that that's of any concern to you. After all, I'm just "griping" that you were wrong.

The advantages of adding others' memory and experiences to your own, as this wiki hopes to do, may, then, offer some stimulation or new insight to one's memory.

'But when I attempt to "stimulate" your memory by pointing out that your memories are false, you get upset. Why is that? Is it because you'''' turn out to be not nearly as clever as you thought you were? I would think you would be used to that kind of epiphany by now.

For example, in reading your comments here, I realize how strange it is that I had forgotten what a dick you can be.

'As I said, you got almost everything about me wrong. Your attempts to justify your initial statements shows that you aren't as interested in contributing to an actual history as you are in drawing attention to yourself. '''Your opinion of me doesn't really concern me. Your chronic misstatement of history to make you look smarter ten years later is really your problem, and it is not my fault. If pointing that out makes me a dick to you, so be it.

'W''''hen I finally remembered you from the Shelf, it appears you are still the self-inflating whiner craving chatroom love and respect that you were back then. If you think this inventory of your delusional memories of other posters is going to get you what you think you finally deserve, go for it. If it requires making you a bigger player than you really were, go for that, too. You're just off to a bad start.

'''''''''''I recall a statement I would sometimes finish a Shelf comment with when I came across something as silly as this project. It's worth reviving here:

What a maroon!

Entry cleaned up and responses separated to preserve lost continuity and isolate 205.188.116.76 's formatting errors. See [Talk:Intheway1 history] for confirmation of original preservation.

21:29, 2 March 2008 Zaglossus wrote:

Zaglossus responds to 205.188.116.76:

Christ but you're a big girl's blouse!

An important first point, despite your:

"But you're not happy with my edit. Why am I not 'free to contribute?' "

As you can see, and the "article history" verifies, no one has touched your edit, and you (and anyone else) are obviously free to contribute or edit whatever you wish-- I created this wiki on a free service, and do not own it. The initial entries I made surely have a bias towards my own recollections, since I made them. I assume that Verbqueen, Orbweaver, AforAllie, and the other anonymous editors (like yourself) have not been working off of sworn affidavits or notarized chat logs, either.

What you have (typically) failed to notice (or perhaps not understood the English of-- as in "Alumni SlamBook") is that all the above posts have taken place on the "Discussion" page of the Intheway1 article. As seems necessary to explain to you, this is where discussion of edits occurs, so you can hardly be justified in your complaint that that very thing is taking place in the place appointed.

"You listed "Fecal Muralist" as a 'suspected alias.' "

Absolutely false, as looking at the Intheway1 page (and checking the history page) will confirm. It says: "Long suspected as a Fecal Muralist; not proved." Please note the article (a, not the), and the fact that the term "Fecal Muralist" does not link to a ScreenName "Fecal Muralist," there has been no entry under that name, and I am unaware that there is, or ever was, anyone who posted under that name. As explained above, this was a funny line you dropped a long time ago.

"I don't recall every discussing Mannerchoir participation with you or anyone else. You are making this up to make you look clever."

You're wrong, not that it matters. We once went around a bit about Mencken's pro-German sympathies. He was a Mannerchoir enthusiast.

"Thanks for putting the word joke in quotes. "

Goodness, I wouldn't want to spoil your glory. You did it, in your first response on this page.

"This supposed taunting never took place. You're completely delusional on this one."

Absolute bullshit. You're wrong. Thinking back, I now recall that it wasn't that you listed The Ginger Man as your favorite novel, but that in reply to a nonsense question something along the lines of "What fictional character would you want to be" you replied, "Sebastian Dangerfield."

Replying to one of your later complaints about people making accusations about other posters that were made of whole cloth, I jokingly quoted that post, quoted the small poem that ends the chapter detailing Dangerfield's anal conquest of the Catholic woman, and implied that, based on the information given, might we be justified in claiming you to have a predilection for that form of congress. You replied that, at least that was based on something you'd actually written.

"I did that. I said your conclusion was wrong. Instead of accepting my edit, you appear intent on justify your original error. Why is that?"

Again the point, no one has touched your edit, and, despite your bitching, you have yet to submit into that article all of the delightful and interesting facts about yourself everyone has forgotten.

As you apparently cannot see, however, whatever the details and joking presentation, every one of these recollections was based on a genuine occurrence, and none were made with anything but good humor.

"Ah, so by starting with bad information, we will eventually get to the good stuff. That makes sense. "

Indeed so. From a faulty recollection about a typewriter brand name, we have now the priceless information that it was Atwater Kent radio which contained the censored profanity. Also, that your sour lack of humor, and ability to take the silliest "errors," see some sort of sinister "attack" and spin into a meltdown was not just a memory.

"'Wow. You appear to have a vast storehouse of memories about what I said in a chatroom ten years ago. That's creepy."

Was it a ChatRoom or a MessageBoard, 205.188.116.76? I say it was a MessageBoard, as it was presented in the manner of a List. (Please do be precise.) I suppose you ought to discuss this same creepy retention with those who have so far contributed productively to this wiki, whose knowledge of ScreenNames and events seems to be extraordinary-- even more so since it appears to span an entire decade, and not just those few years when I was around.

Indeed, so that perhaps you might understand the underlying concept of a wiki, it is these very contributors who will be responsible for whatever form this wiki takes. I created it out of nostalgic curiosity, but if I had the answers to these questions I would hardly be in need of anyone else's participation-- I would just rub my chin thoughtfully, and raise my finger to the air in an expression of recollection.

As it is, I have been astounded by the long-forgotten names that have been dredged up so far, and am curious as to what information someone might be able to attach to them. If you are so deeply concerned that some of this information might be erroneous, biased, or "funny," then perhaps you ought to cease looking at it, or contribute so prolifically and accurately that it begins to reflect your reality.

In either case, why not edit like an adult, instead of a little boy who looks at a the outlines of sketch of himself, sees an irregular oval for the head, and starts to cry that, "That doesn't look like me!"

22:46, 2 March 2008 205.188.116.76 wrote:

You posted erroneous information about me based on some delusional memories. I deleted the erroneous stuff. This upset you enough to attempt to justify the original post. You failed, dismally. You were not only incorrect about me, your fantasies were incorrect,too.

Since then you have done nothing but demonstrate that you haven't grown in the ten years since I found you to be one of the dullest, most self-important people I have ever encountered, and one who so badly needed the attention of people on line that he would do almost anything to catch their eye. This entire project (which I see you are still taking credit for on the main page), is really just you wanting to be noticed.

You're tedious. It's why I know you and I never talked about Ginger Man. You were boring then, you're boring now. I didn't waste time with you then, and I'm finished wasting time with you now.

The lack of personal development is sad, but it isn't my fault just because I corrected your errors about me. I'm sure there are people who think you are swell. I bet some of them even would like being the focus of your fantasies.

It has come as something of a surprise to find out that, over that time, I have played such a central role in your fantasy life that you have constructed conversations with me that never took place and ornamented with your retroactive wit and charm other discussions that did take place, but that you were not even a part of.

That's creepy. Very creepy. Inventing a conversation in which you have to assert you know my favorite book, which you cleary have wrong, so you can work anal sex into the conversation is extraordinarily creepy.

After all your excuses and justifications, your "factual" comments about me remain nothing but products of your own imagination..

Feel free to protest some more. I'm sure that somebody somewhere gives a shit that you think you remember things about me and doesn't care that you made them up so that you could seem clever to yourself

You're on your own. I'm so glad I'm not you.

19:24, 2 March 2008

Zaglossus responds to 205.188.116.76:

Seems as if your memories are so unfailingly precise you really ought to go to work editing the Zaglossus page-- as well as the rest of the wiki-- rather than repeatedly saying you're going to quit posting to the Talk:Intheway1 page.

(22:10, 2 March 2008) 71.165.254.91 writes:

-- 71.165 says: Coming to this with my own recollections, prejudices and agendas I cannot but offer the observation that Fredoodles is not aging gracefully. Is there an over-the-counter treatment for Senile Overwroughtness? My personaly belief is that Kirasawa was onto something about points of view, and that our brains are wikis when it comes to how we treat our personal histories; sometimes we rewrite intentionally and sometimes faulty organic processes cause the editing. If nothing else, we are provided with an anecdotal proof. We had to pay to be on the Shelf and we were entitled to get our money's worth. This site does not have that excuse; if you're not feeling an emotion that requires exhiliration when you read what's going on here, by all means, hie thee to a nunnery.

15:11, 6 March 2008 Zaglossus writes:

NOTICE: (05:01, 6 March 2008) IP 64.12.116.76 vandalized this page by removing all content.

Short of libelous or illegal content, such deletions are counter wiki etiquette. Deletions may occur where suitable justification is offered, but anonymous censoring without adequate explanations are not permitted, and are generally thought to be the work of the mentally unstable.

64.12.116.76 is a dynamically assigned IP from AOL, and therefore cannot be blocked. Future unwarranted vandalization of this or other pages will unfortunately result in the page's content being protected from editing by anonymous users, and the IP and timestamp of the vandal being given their ISP, with a complaint.

Users may view the deleted content by clicking the "history" tab at the top of this page, or visiting this [hyperlink]. Users may then "compare selected versions" by clicking on the so-labeled button at the bottom of that page.

As seen on those pages, users may easily "Undo" unfortunate or bogus editing action, and should quickly avail themselves of this power, when vandalization is apparent.

12:11, 7 March 2008 Intheway1 writes:

I have created an account so that there can be no question about who is doing what to this entry.

I am the one who deleted erroneous information from this entry.

I am no longer anonymous. Anonymous editing of erroneous informationis less of a sign of mental instability than the insistence that the erroneous information is somehow correct.

The deletions were simply because the information was wrong. There is enough wrong information on the Internet already. Wiki is a site that is based on the bizarre
premise that the last editor of an entry is always the smartest. Deleting incorrect information about me is the only means I have of countering that.

Defensive claims of "etiquette" to the contrary, anonymously or not, I have the right to delete delusional fantasies about what I may or may not have done ten years ago. I exercised that right and I will continue to do so.

09 March 2008 Zaglossus responds:

Sorry Intheway1, no bullying tolerated here. You made some edits to correct what you believed were errors, and no one touched them. Then you returned and deleted the contents of the Intheway1 page entirely, with its (what can only be presumed to be) correct information. You also deleted all the contents of the Talk:Intheway1 page, where the edits were discussed. This is vandalism, and this is the only page this wiki has had any trouble with.

Both the Intheway1 and the Talk:Intheway1 pages are returned to their previous states (such as they were) and locked from further edits. If there are any objections, talk to the other administrators, Orbweaver and Verbqueen, who have the power to unlock the pages.

Retrieved from "http://alumnislambook.wiki-site.com/index.php/Talk:Intheway1"

Talk:Intheway1

From Alumnislambook

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox