This would be funny. Slightly. If Wikipedia were just another website.

Sorry old boy, but it's not funny to me.
Because every day, thousands of schoolchildren use Wikipedia to do their homework and write papers.
While these idiots squabble and snipe at each other, people all over the world are fooled into thinking
that Wikipedia is a "resource" that can be "trusted".

I don't see any warnings on the front page about users called "Dinner for three" and "Lunch for two"
using Wikipedia as a casual wargame, do you?

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Thank you for linking to Kafkaesque's thread! It is an absolute classic, and it is hard to beat this one, but ... if I did not start this one now, I would have never learned about "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Even Kafka wasn't this good.

Actually it could be an interesting exercise, I mean to try to figure out how Kafka would have presented wikipedia. Here's my try:

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was blocked from editing Wikipedia. There was no block message left at his talk page, but when he tried to edit an article he saw this message:

QUOTE

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.
Editing from Josef K. has been disabled by GG for the following reason(s):
anon. only, account creation blocked.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail

At his talk page Josef K. asked for the reasons for his block, but was told to keep quiet for his own good. He did not.
He kept asking what he was blocked for. He was accused in wikilawyering.
He asked what “wikilawyering” means, and his block settings were changed to be with an expiry time of indefinite.
There still was no block notice, but his blocking administrator stated that “indefinite” does not mean “infinite”.
Josef K. asked what he should do for his indefinite block to end. For this question GG removed Josef K. talk page access.
Josef K emailed GG, and very politely asked her to explain what he was blocked for. In an hour he noticed that his e-mail was blocked.

Josef K. emailed to ArbCom to ask what he was blocked for, and to request to be unblocked. In a month he got a response. His unblock request was declined because... it did not address the reasons for the block.
Josef K. emailed to ArbCom one more time. He started his email with the words: "This is Kafkaesque". Members of ArbCom read no more. Now they knew what Josef K. was blocked for.
They all agreed to stamp Josef K. user and talk pages with a puppet template:

QUOTE

This account is a sock puppet of Kafkaesque and has been blocked indefinitely.

I've always thought that if one were to write a story of Wikipedia as a novel, The Good Soldier Svejk would work much better as a model than Kafka (though yes, that works too).


"And so they banned our [name of a now disgraced admin you don't like here]" ...

and you take it from there...

Bah. Kafka?

If you want to scroll through endless pages of text to find out pretty much nothing, you are a Tolstoy fan.

But if you insist on Kafka...

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic nerd."

A close look at {{category|Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx}} showed 143 "alternate usernames" created over the years, many used only 2 days for less than 40 edits. It seemed more like someone who forgot their username and kept creating another username each week. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

blocks are not punative. You can murder Jimbo Wales and so long as you are not going to cause any subsequent problems for Wikipedia you'll still be allowed to edit. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Good policy!

Exept, when somebody tried it, he still was blocked

QUOTE

I believe if we compare with [[:Category:Trafalgar Square|Trafalgar Square]], we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the next time WMF should be asking for donating images of penises. After all there are "around 5 billion times many more" penises on the planet than "the unique Nelson's Column".

I think there are only about 3.5 billion living human penises on Earth. Is he including all humans, dead or alive? Let's dig up Lincoln for the next "Wikipedia Loves Penises" meet-up!

Question: Fæ, you write: "we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." Does it mean that you're suggesting that Commons should host as many images of penises, and naked butts including the ones decorated with chains for that matter, as it gets? After all there are "around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet" than a boring and a very unique Nelson's Column. BTW did you mention this idea in your presentation to the Parliament? This sure would have helped Wikipedia UK to get a status of a charitable organization :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the number of unique penises and unique butts are relative, only "the Parliament bit" is not :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[
Here's my exchange with Commons admin(I believe it is funny, but my Russian sense of humor could be different than the sense of humor of the most people here) Anyway here it is:

It's amusing here. I thought you were starting a gradual reverse spoonerism there and were eventually going to call him muckbutt.

One of the people more expert with more expertise at transplanting things from YouTube might be able to find the Not the Nine O'clock News sketch where famous London landmarks including Nelson's Column and the clock tower of the Houses of Parliament are compared to phalluses.

The thing I've always demanded, and I do mean ''demanded'', is consistency, and there's none here. Gentlemen's parts have been appropriated by the Wiki elite as representing some kind of sanctionable behaviour, but ladies' parts are out of bounds. Does that really make any kind of sense to you? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking non-hypothetically, I don't give a flying fuck. I see no reason why it's permissible to call regular editors "dicks" but not administrators "cunts".

...Fifthly you return to penises. This particular one must be taken in hand at Commons...Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Did you really just write that penises "must be taken in hand at Commons"?? O_o - Alison ❤ 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A nice one, Alison.
And here's my English question about Alison's response: should not have this been "wrote" or "written" versus "write"? Thanks.

Alison's grammar is correct. 'Write' is the proper tense.

Thank you. It is interesting. If I were to say the same thing in Russian, I would have used a past tense. Oh well, I will never learn English

== I hate everyone ==

In case that wasn't obvious. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)