Clearing out some self-important schoolteacher stuff |
→The Kafka Award: new section |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:::i'll go ahead and take that off of all of them, if it offends. nothing but the utmost respect to all of you. i, too, have no real world link to any of this, but noticed the inconsistencies and was intrigued. once again, sorry for the 'gang' remark, i guess with things like [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?ref=opinion this] now being reported, the ring isn't as 'neutral' as i intended. [[User:untwirl|<font color="green">untwirl</font>]]([[User talk:Untwirl#top|talk]]) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::i'll go ahead and take that off of all of them, if it offends. nothing but the utmost respect to all of you. i, too, have no real world link to any of this, but noticed the inconsistencies and was intrigued. once again, sorry for the 'gang' remark, i guess with things like [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?ref=opinion this] now being reported, the ring isn't as 'neutral' as i intended. [[User:untwirl|<font color="green">untwirl</font>]]([[User talk:Untwirl#top|talk]]) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Oh sorry, my attempts at mock outrage fail me again! I should make use of winking emoticons more often I guess, but I just have a natural aversion to them. I actually quite liked the allusion to disgraced Communist cliques (not the suggestion that I might be part of one as such, but the allusion to the concept at least). I have a huge backlog of discounted books I bought a while ago, and will no doubt be spending the hour to thirty minutes or so a day I used to sometimes spend on fruitless discussions and being reverted here, and occasionally expressing some exasperation with the more bizarre goings on, to better effect starting up on them (or getting out more, now it's summer). As I noted on MM's page, if all those efforts were for nothing in terms of ultimate content, it doesn't make that much difference if any of us are now no longer allowed to make them. Although as noted, at least (thanks mainly to MM) at least the background research and evidence is there, and on the record. I was minded to hang around here and continue to contribute sometimes to pages on other areas that interest me, and that I know something about (journalism, wine, film, politics more generally etc - topics that have, since I started here, been far more what I wished to focus on anyway, and if one strips out the futile talk page debates, mostly about I-P content, are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nickhh&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 clearly] what I ''have'' focused on here most of the time), but the latest farce on the Independent page has finally sapped what waning enthusiasm remained. Cheers as well, --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh#top|talk]]) 09:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
::::Oh sorry, my attempts at mock outrage fail me again! I should make use of winking emoticons more often I guess, but I just have a natural aversion to them. I actually quite liked the allusion to disgraced Communist cliques (not the suggestion that I might be part of one as such, but the allusion to the concept at least). I have a huge backlog of discounted books I bought a while ago, and will no doubt be spending the hour to thirty minutes or so a day I used to sometimes spend on fruitless discussions and being reverted here, and occasionally expressing some exasperation with the more bizarre goings on, to better effect starting up on them (or getting out more, now it's summer). As I noted on MM's page, if all those efforts were for nothing in terms of ultimate content, it doesn't make that much difference if any of us are now no longer allowed to make them. Although as noted, at least (thanks mainly to MM) at least the background research and evidence is there, and on the record. I was minded to hang around here and continue to contribute sometimes to pages on other areas that interest me, and that I know something about (journalism, wine, film, politics more generally etc - topics that have, since I started here, been far more what I wished to focus on anyway, and if one strips out the futile talk page debates, mostly about I-P content, are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nickhh&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 clearly] what I ''have'' focused on here most of the time), but the latest farce on the Independent page has finally sapped what waning enthusiasm remained. Cheers as well, --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh#top|talk]]) 09:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The Kafka Award == |
|||
[[File:Kafka.jpg|thumb|160px|left|<span style="font-family: Franklin Gothic Bk; font-size: 10pt"> Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.<br>[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 22:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)</span>]] |
Revision as of 22:59, 15 May 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Arbitrator questions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop
Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/{{{1}}}]], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlamDiego←T 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
arb case
Based on the evidence I saw, I think you are right. However, have been involved in a previous case, I think the some of the heads are to get to the real problem makers, the partisan edit warriors. In a previous case, I have been 'reminded' or something like that, suddenly inserted at the last minute after most arbs had already voted without a single ref presented for what I supposedly had done wrong. I have asked multiple times for those refs, and never received them. As for the why, I have my suspicion, but won't voice that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Celebration cancelled
OK, no round of wiki-beer for us. I thought a majority was needed for the proposals to pass, but apparently you got thrown in the same ditch as the rest of us. Sorry for dragging you into this. Unless the guidelines amnesty is granted (and I don't have extremely high hopes), I will probably not volunteer much more of my precious time to this ungrateful project. Are you going to apply? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Consolation barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For hours of fruitless effort trying to protect Wikipedia from nationalist bias. Although you have been sanctioned unfairly, your thoughtful arguments and dogged research have given the community a strong background of information to draw on when denouncing future attempts to portray ideology as fact. untwirl(talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
- Cheers, at least I get some recognition for being a (fairly casual) editor who did nonetheless try occasionally to deal with some of the more egregious POV pushing that permeates this place, as well as a whacking from ArbCom for my sins when they hoovered everyone up in one go. Although I'm not too sure I want to be part of a "gang" at all ... --Nickhh (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- My fault Nickhh. for introducing the gang of five. I never assumed we were anything but a bunch of individuals, but since we were being treated as a block of 'pro-Palestinians' I thought the variation on 'gang of four' put in the dock in China decades ago a kind of bad joke. I apologize. The same goes, not to repeat myself, for Pedrito, G-Dett and anyone else offended. You've always struck me as one of the most amenable blokes around here. Oh well, let's take the sanctions as an inadvertent gift. Wiki may be, in the end, somewhat poorer(or richer, we'll see). We will perhaps richer in terms of quality of life and time liberated. After all, it was more of a duty than a pleasure. I'm reading about 200 pages more a day than I would had I tried to stay on and edit two or three lines or key words of wiki over the same timespan! Best Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- i'll go ahead and take that off of all of them, if it offends. nothing but the utmost respect to all of you. i, too, have no real world link to any of this, but noticed the inconsistencies and was intrigued. once again, sorry for the 'gang' remark, i guess with things like this now being reported, the ring isn't as 'neutral' as i intended. untwirl(talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, my attempts at mock outrage fail me again! I should make use of winking emoticons more often I guess, but I just have a natural aversion to them. I actually quite liked the allusion to disgraced Communist cliques (not the suggestion that I might be part of one as such, but the allusion to the concept at least). I have a huge backlog of discounted books I bought a while ago, and will no doubt be spending the hour to thirty minutes or so a day I used to sometimes spend on fruitless discussions and being reverted here, and occasionally expressing some exasperation with the more bizarre goings on, to better effect starting up on them (or getting out more, now it's summer). As I noted on MM's page, if all those efforts were for nothing in terms of ultimate content, it doesn't make that much difference if any of us are now no longer allowed to make them. Although as noted, at least (thanks mainly to MM) at least the background research and evidence is there, and on the record. I was minded to hang around here and continue to contribute sometimes to pages on other areas that interest me, and that I know something about (journalism, wine, film, politics more generally etc - topics that have, since I started here, been far more what I wished to focus on anyway, and if one strips out the futile talk page debates, mostly about I-P content, are clearly what I have focused on here most of the time), but the latest farce on the Independent page has finally sapped what waning enthusiasm remained. Cheers as well, --Nickhh (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- i'll go ahead and take that off of all of them, if it offends. nothing but the utmost respect to all of you. i, too, have no real world link to any of this, but noticed the inconsistencies and was intrigued. once again, sorry for the 'gang' remark, i guess with things like this now being reported, the ring isn't as 'neutral' as i intended. untwirl(talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- My fault Nickhh. for introducing the gang of five. I never assumed we were anything but a bunch of individuals, but since we were being treated as a block of 'pro-Palestinians' I thought the variation on 'gang of four' put in the dock in China decades ago a kind of bad joke. I apologize. The same goes, not to repeat myself, for Pedrito, G-Dett and anyone else offended. You've always struck me as one of the most amenable blokes around here. Oh well, let's take the sanctions as an inadvertent gift. Wiki may be, in the end, somewhat poorer(or richer, we'll see). We will perhaps richer in terms of quality of life and time liberated. After all, it was more of a duty than a pleasure. I'm reading about 200 pages more a day than I would had I tried to stay on and edit two or three lines or key words of wiki over the same timespan! Best Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)