User talk:Randall Adhemar

September 2015
Fuck off, DVdm. Enjoy that. You are now vandalizing your own investigative materials in an investigation of me, that YOU initiated because I complained of harassment and suppression for month upon month, BY YOU. Does anyone actually listen to these statements? Anyone? Do you look, examine DVDm's behavior when I suggest? The sum of it is, again, many months of deliberate irritation. Now, big D, You delete, you distort, you post irrelevancies. What percentage of time do you spend deliberately pissing on my page? I Don't know what your thing is, don't want to know, don't have anything to do with it. Take it elsewhere. Will no one listen to me, and get this giant cockroach of my back? Aren't you afraid of lawsuits or something? Why is nothing done? I've been under constant and deliberate assault by this human scum for months. And your response is to investigate...me? Why? It's not as though I can have damaged anything--I don't post anything. This giggler reverts and re-reverts, has edit-warred me, constantly attempts to provoke...and constantly participates in my activities though we have no connection whatsoever, and this person's only purpose their is to giggle and distort and make all impossible. Please, now, imagine this continued voice ranting on and on about every misfortune that could befall one via an electronic site used as a social environment and harassment vehicle. Get it off me, get it off me. Anyone? This person is quite possibly one of the biggest assholes I've ever met, and takes glee in it. Can you help me out? Little bit? Anything. There's absolutely no reason the two of us should be interacting in the first place, no positives, so no cost to intervention. In the meantime, you're just giving this person free reign to screw and screw and taunt and, probably very rarely sleep. I FAIL to understand, in ANY WAY, why this malifecint person is allowed to press on my life, for no purpose and against any power, as its soul wreaks of spite and she he. She's stalked and harrassed continually for months. This IS actually illegal, you know. I can't breathe up here. Everything about this investigation that I know of appears to be disingenuous. At first, someone apparently forgot that it's proper to block the user and delay endlessly, so I was able to see much of the portfolio's contents, and found them and their summaries distortions of the truth. LUCKILY, I was able, being in an administrative area, an area for resolutions, to finally seek a mechanism I'd asked about for months, some sort of channel to speak with an arbitrary, or an administrator, or just someone, about harassment and disputes (the IRONY that this person--principled, I have say, but also, in other peoples' business inappropriately, and a great adder of citations...but often at the cost of great knowledge. He interferes with all I do, if he can, which he can, so I can't do anything. Because articles that could become easily much-better sourced in an hour...are by him reverted to crap before I can return with sources for my damned improvements.

As for this 'investigation'--I'm trying to work toward a positive attitude regarding the man initiating it, but, he did just vandalize his own damned evidence (which included a falsehood that, you know, can stay in Vegas, but which was being used with spunk to misportray the compared value of our characters. As for content, this document boasted of making up evidence out of fifty semi-random words, after a few brief glances at the central document. Seriously. And this person (who is just a guy, with no appointed job as my secret police shadow, though he attempts to assume the post. No, really. On this site, one of his missions so far has been the expenditure of effort to 'get at me'. Just what you want, right? A self-appointed police-shadow who will lie to get his philosophical preferences--"we need sources over content" (yes, somewhere the souls of Socrates and Kungfutzu are weeping with the birds tonight) I've deferred to him often--academic fights are ridiculous--just to get him to go away. And sometimes ended up in a room that night looking at an article worse than the version it started with). When I finally got angry for the...30th time--this wasn't scholarship, living, mangling old articles or new to get as many sources in...how could it be legal for him ALWAYS dogging me? Let the greater community set the standards. Damn. They're on board. But...I must have seemed like I would thrash around and find what no one had told me of: that page with 6 resolution mechanisms, he pre-empted me with his dishonest show trial. They parade through my space, half-shares of the truth all over--oh, did I say something angry around this man? Was I incredibly angry...possibly 90-95% he found out I was online and inserted himself in my business? Indeed so, both. So therefore he has quotes. But this "administrative inquiry"--torqued from the beginning--I saw most of his lies. I cannot face my accused, I know not what my charges are. My sins (and heroisms) are paraded before me, then snatched away when I add to the bottom a fuller version or make note of contestation. (Go home. Let me live and learn to adapt in peace to the immense citations standard, the lousy, less mellifluous, not even necessarily more accurate--but more sourced--wikipedia. I miss that honeyed or punchy or good prose, as written of old (like 2008) when I see the articles they had then replaced with articles of literal truth, but written and sounded from crude stone letters in simple sentences. And of course, what person willing to write for citations above accuracy and wisdom would be a person of imagination--what do YOU think is happening to the articles here. It is sad. Passings are sad. But the community will have it so. They. Are. In. Let me get toward writing, as the new is, better prose, I hope--but the community is already policing. I will have no stalker. It's been inappropriate for that to happen. Good. Worst that can happen, right? I have to spend more time writing selfishly. Oh, oh, do ban me, stones and gods. Get me out of here. All the text I have saved. They'll all be (well, not everyone--who are these people who pushed this new wikipedia. How'd they do it? Forcing all those exciting types out. With new people at the top of the triangles) canapes (and those are expensive. ROYALTIES!). Bah. Finish here. One way or another, if you're not done, finish. Parade your harassment of comments and...yeah, lies. Past me. Or not. Finish it, and send me off, or send me a note! There are always nice, helpful people you can find here--hell, so many are doing it for free--to help me get back a workable revision of the Leon Nieman (the assassin) article. But....no. Limbo. No decision is made, no one comments to any effect--just that guy loving every minute of it--fine, let him. But Seers of the Investigatory Committee, Bring us TRUTH! Soon! (that's a revision, I need a source?) But...nothing. Fine. Nasty way to do things, you ask me, all this. And dishonest. And I left blind, and mad, and in a rage Randall Adhemar (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Randall Adhemar (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC) (NOW, not September)

Oh, and, you-the-unnamed! Call 69.200 a stalker! Honestly. Stalker. What'd I do? I remembered...some article. One I'd worked on before, that you did your thing to. I remembered and went back. What'd I do? Revert the previous version and copy the text? OR I left it unreverted. I bet I did up...3 articles? Bah. Someone had to hit a button...maybe 3, even more times to restore the new orthodox.Randall Adhemar (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not used the talk page plus much of the material you added is simply too trivial for the introduction. --Neil N  talk to me 03:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Calculus. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 02:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:NeilN. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion? What? There must be some mistake--I'd never do that. -CHECK with that Sam Sailor--find what the hell happened. What...or WHY would I have deleted from a talk page. How accidentally?Randall Adhemar (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC) R.A.Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I WILL tell you how we got here--an encyclopedia without a 'verifiable' citation policy?   I...that's it. Got nothin'. No common source citation.

November 2015
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mangonel, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On DvDM: Please note the above, sirs and madams. You have to do nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, but check the record, to see that this post was pure theater--my efforts to speak with him were extensive. He never said anything but the least possible, to...make talking stop. I refused. His hand lay so heavy across everything, that I constantly reasoned, out of irritation, or just to object. But he already knew, well before, I believe, exactly my main position: '''exactly and only that I NOT talk to him, or have ANY further interaction with him. And that, beyond not wanting to converse, I considered his actions unambiguous harassment and demanded its cessation'''--all this is for the crowd, folks, for you. A very rare attempt to a bit of ass-covering. He thinks it will make him look good, because I will refuse his generous overture--whereas, in reality, you will recall, he initially complained of numerous times I'd covered his page in 'walls of text'. Not long ago, he threatened my with "talk page harassment", to which my response was roughly that he'd spend months rapidly reverting all, or nearly all, of my content--that mangonel page had many hours spent on it, and I named the sources that came to my head that would easily justify all my work that he had reverted. I can't remember any response. Possibly some lazy sophistry (forgive me, please: I understand the principle of presuming good will, but with THIS PARTICULAR PERSON, our interactions have been quite extensive, the dishonesty quite clear innumerable times, the refusal to acknowledge my constant objections to his constant interference--that's been a long, extensive, unpleasant experience by me. In a way, I very unfortunately know this person, or a portion of him or her, one deliberately callous and, well, I've been driven to enough anger by him to say things that look silly the next day. But that next day, as all days, I prefer politeness, and am in touch with reality--I presume he enjoys wielding power over people (she refuses to even claim to have interests in articles I'm involved in), I would guess by singling out and, well, 'harassing' (I don't want to be dramatic, or I'd use different terms), until such folk blow their tops and appear unreasonable. Yes, of course that's speculation. But...well, from my point of view, I've seen enough to see this is not a normally motivated person--and That's a guess, mind you, I feel all I can say for certain are that there is deception, that she probably doesn't mind if targets know it--oh, I only know that what this person does is wrong, and, I feel, done at least partly in ill will. Bah. This should be enough, I feel

ON DISHONESTY--he claims I mentioned experts as though to disqualify him (no, not here, though I suspect his intentions, lack of mention of my repeated demands his harassment cease), whereas you can easily check the passage and see it's a frustrated request, with many reasons offered, for why on earth he has inserted himself into my life, our only previous interaction having been a stupid edit-war. I was new, then, I'd never do that now--but I wish someone had pointed me desire to talk to him, since he made minimal effort to conceal that he was disingenuous.''' I mean, some effort, just not, like, a lot--I've been given such a laughable number of excuses, which were never anything more than pro forma words to make like he had responded meaningfully. His cover is blown for me. You don't need to waste that time. Just go back, to his earliest suppressions of my content, where he doesn't care enough to even find the relevant issue, but spits out words as I described before, and indicates something about them (bland phrases, unremarkable and with little content, not at all primary or major points of my piece, not even sure the assembled phrases, so unremarkable they fade completely from memory except for the strong impression they gave that he was, for reasons I could only speculate about, justifying reversion with unobjectionable phrases that had no importance to what I'd written. Calculated to confuse? Lazy? Who knows, I can only speculate. His early technique used garbage justifications quite obviously--please just go to the records and check for yourself. Not in the calculus sections, harassments thereafter. And on dishonesty, well, above, again? Why would he post such an offer when he'd so frequently made extensive effort to say little, little as possible, despite exasperated surprise of the mix of refusal, brevity of word, and contentlessness. Neither of us were in doubt as to our respective positions at the time of his comment. I refused to speak with my harasser, until he removed more content (which was often), at which point something had to be done. Talking, what else did I have? Wasn't always walls of text, either--yet, if he was sincere in the above offer (we both knew he wasn't), why did he constantly refuse to speak with me at other times, instead claiming "talk page harassment"? At one point, earlier, my efforts to speak with this person WERE EXTENSIVE! Anyone judging the relations between the two of us, I don't ask cynicism, just a good thorough investigation without any content sneakily removed (sorry, don't know if that's possible). His entire shtick, that show of respect and reason conspicuous in its absence quite often in the smaller venues, its a display, to remind you. And there's been very little of it done, outside the very different tone he took when he decided to give a verifiably distorted account of our affairs (look at the records, should you doubt). What's sad to me about all this, is that there are several flexibly variable venues of mediation, arbitration, etc. that I would have jumped to initiated, with great relief, long ago. And I DID ask about things--but no one told me. I asked more than once, no one pointed me in the right direction--there's that page, with five, six, options, that I only was able to find by clicking on the administrative action category that DmDv had initiated against me. THAT ALONE is how I found out that mediation was available and, that failing, arbitration. I clicked on mediation, as I recall, but that just got folded into the administrative action. Don't fall for this. Please? Gah. I should have fought this, earlier (I don't need anyone banned, but the idea that he managed to get placed as accuser in MY inquiry? Well, there's nothing remarkable--he knew the system, I didn't, and he knew I didn't). As for -not- fighting, like I say below, MEDIC. I figured he'd leave off eventually, if he saw he couldn't push me to give, shut down (I was a combat medic in a war-zone, for 362 days in 2005). Obviously I can get quite angry--I've been in angry shouting matches in ambulances, but there's no ill will afterward...plus, partly the shouting is just because of the noise most of the time. Now, this is different--very nearly ALL of your content reverted for a number of months, the interactions gradually seeming more and more obviously a game or some such--sure, that can produce some ugly emotion--but it's not pressure, not to me. It's my belief that 'administrative action' was sought in this case, because I was starting to experiment with different approaches, and kept the pressure of objection squarely on his page. Mr or Ms DmDv realized I wasn't going to go away, and, in fact, was very slowly learning about this project's system. Now, all that's just a guess, but he'd been doing the same stuff a very long time, quite the same way--the change was in my varied behavior, obviously exploring his rat trap for a way out. I'm sorry if this seems very cynical, lacking in appropriate optimism. It's just one person. I'm no cynic, by any means--but I'm confident in this particular judgment, I'm afraid to say. If my anger makes you skeptical, please just check the records, as I keep requesting. To be sure is unfortunately cumbersome, because it's the accumulation of detail over a long period that makes bad faith obvious. It is all there to be seen.
 * Wait, let me make it easier--I'm sorry for this length of text. This gentleman/woman has told me that "all new content must be sourced". Yet this isn't true. My own case has been made invisible, but I recall well the presentation of my quote regarding the 'three sources' rule of scholarship, i.e. if one finds oneself easily finding three (or about three--the question is whether it's commonly sanctioned and accepted knowledge. Scholars explain the principle by saying 'if you can find three things'. After one rescension, I noted that scholars use this "if it's found three places, no citation is required" principle. I was told be DmDv that encyclopedias have a 'higher standard'. But that's BS. The exact same rule is listed in Wikipedia's materials on sourcing, the rule carrying the same name: verafiability. Something one can find easily in several separate sources on the subject doesn't need explicit sourcing. It needs not be verified; rather, it's clearly "verifiable". Same exact rule. My statement contains the same rule as wikipedia's (yes, I added the number 3, it's nothing more than a consensus average number commonly used to explain the principle. The response, about wikipedia's higher standard, how, then, is that not a lie? I'm sure some conceptual acrobatics could get around certainty on that accusation, but...that does not look good. Seems to me I was misled directly in order to improperly justify antisocial behavior and keep me from reverting me edits back in without worrying. That rule IS indeed a wikipedia rule, I just read it in a manual here--and any history or English professor I ever knew would confirm it's the precise rule they follow, and which I mentioned! And was told didn't fly here.
 * How many more do you need? Later, records will show I queried with skepticism about the need for citation over the Leon Czolghosz statement, concerning his legacy, and lied to the same way, reversion maintained. No longer. That bit, all of it would easily come back "verifiable"! Bully! But really, "damn!" The falsehoods are SO many, now.

Keep in mind please, that this fellow is: either removing others' contributions while in a state of ignorance himself, or doesn't care about the rules and is just, lying to support power trips.

Time to throw the case out, judge. No? It's your call, of course. The profuse detail is turning into 'specific and rather damning' detail, in my own perception. I mean how are you going to...ban me, as regards any of this, and be right? I can't see the whole case, of course, but I'd certainly be curious as to the reason for remaining hesitation. Thanks all for your time. Randall Adhemar (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

++++++++ Yeah, Mangonel as is, is an unsourced and grossly inaccurate article (that's...not a mangonel in that picture; human pulling can't add materially to the stored kinetic energy of such an engine, anyway; it's overly complicated, late, experimental, and your picture. Oh, right. But I need a source to say any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.228.170 (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC) RA: It was an archived page in an odd format, a tiny box, and I can't recall if there was no room to sign properly or, yes, that was it--the text is originally shrunken because the comment was too long. There was no room for a long signing punctuation. But this was done quite recently--you see, my ability to comment is so suppressed, that, poking around and finding a small, archived box in some search in a diagram that recognizes Mangonels, I didn't think twice before punctuating the box with an appropriate comment. My joy was great at the opportunity to add any content of interest.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, all this stuff looks fine to me. Plus no one ever gave him a proper guide. Nonono. Why you not talking bout how, why you NEVER mention just how much, in any of these places, by the way, how MUCH Randall Adhemar passionately hated DvDM. He woulda had him dead. and couldn't stand the dude's attitude, his rescensions, anything? And that it's incredibly weird that DvDm continued to flounge around Randall. Randall never had a nice word. About Dvdm. Said alot of not very nice ones He hated the sourcing standards, too, but he offered a bunch of times to do all the sourcing anyone wanted, if they'd just help him get rid of DvDm. I mean, he hated DvDm much, much more. Why didn't anyone help him with that? 3rd party mediation, something. What on earth was Dvdm ever doing around him. Randall thought the guy was scum. Said so, asked for help. I know that because I'm Adhemar.Randall Adhemar (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC) "Thank you". Right. Disingenuous politeness is unbecoming. You have said your required piece--for an investigation you initiated complaining that I objected to your uniform suppression of perhaps 97% of my material since many months. So, seriously. Under the present sensitive circumstances, stay out. A kind user gave me a few tips--one rule, two prominent statements contrary to the truth. I make it clear again, HERE. For the THIRD TIME, I regard your speech, your interference in my affairs, intended interaction of any kind, as harassment--mostly because it invariably is. Absent yourself, sir, under all circumstances, save those unambiguously required by wikipedia rules. Absent yourself. You are not welcome here, nor ever have been. Your statement from November we both knew then and now was dishonest--you spend too large a percentage of your time avoiding any meaningful discussion with me, then and now. And my regard of your presence on my page or reverting posts you often lack knowledge of, and lack rules-justification for--all action by you poking weirdly into my life (we don't know each other, nor have encyclopedic matters in common) was well known by then to be considered harassment. All right then. Begone. Stay gone. I have a strong urge to finish and punctuate these statements with 'please' then 'thank you', I note, out of general courtesy. That emphatically applies in no way to your harassing behavior, note its absence, or don't DVdm. Do not return to defend yourself here. Should you desire to comment in defense, do not communicate it to me. This Conversation terminated.Randall Adhemar (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Shocked and unexpected.Randall Adhemar (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

NottNott (or anyone) I certainly understand your position, but your details, with respect, are not correct, grossly not so. Ask me about three months of unexplained, overbearing, generally weird stalking and harassment some time. Can't say anything for certain but that she or he enjoys control and shadenfreude--never had that constant tap tap of psychological pressure, since I took this username. And SHE showed up. Instantly knew I wanted to have as little to do with him as possible. I've never had any occasion to deal with this before, any such behavior. I feel I have a pretty good mark on said person now, but no irresponsible details that might not be true will be speculated. I accidentally found out...what an ANI is--when seeking protection from this ANI. Could I be wrong? Somehow? I don't know. Gut, the memory, progressing over months to that constant pressure of psychological horror, tells me it's very unlikely.

It's very sad to me that the only person willing to take notice of any of this (I'm sorry for the comments on your board, and deeply sorry if they somehow turn out to be inaccurate, me mistaken; now I'm thinking over the garbage wiseassery she adds to documents, best to hang onto doubt, but very difficult here) is you, who seem a decent person. And that you feel the appropriate action you feel is to block me. I understand. The pit of my stomache, not so much. An ANI. Fox in the henhouse. You realize people with antipersonal personality disorder are, by their nature, excellent at hiding that trait. Yeah, well, this isn't a kind and friendly ANI. Check on it. You think I'm insane, fine. But have someone check on it. I've watched the switch, and lived a reality, then seen the way s/he describes it on paper, and the way he or she presents differently to me compared to a proper Wikipedia official. Get someone qualified to CHECK ON IT, please. Whatever you think of me. (my only request the whole time being here is that this person stop stalking me. It's been pending. Yeah. Only thing I've asked. Knowing that, this person makes a deliberate choice of interacting with me AS MUCH as could be humanly possible; sends something to my 'talk' page, as frequently as possible. Gives no humanization, but merely tap-tap-tap. And it's impossible for you to believe any of this. By the way, war medic, treated mental health. I really hope I'm wrong, but. You're unable to listen, any of you, aren't you. Damn. APD is 'sociopath' (which is an outdated, crap term). I don't say she is or isn't, I say CHECK IT OUT. And this is a person, an ANI, who has NEVER done anything but drive me a metaphorical nuts by both presence, actions, everything. But sure, why listen to me. I'm new. And about to be banned, one would assume. Never know.

Don't like to give up, but, hey, my life sure gets easier, then. What about the next person?Randall Adhemar (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Randall Adhemar (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

ANi notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Randal Adhemar revisited, personal attack and refusal to provide sources. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So noted, and that I am, as per norm, blocked from the discussion. Right then, off with you.Randall Adhemar (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your privileges to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)