Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 709:
===Self-indictment, with a few clumsy sobstory excuses.===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani#Arbcom_submission_here.2C_since_it_is_far_too_long.2C_and_I_am_far_too_exhausted_to_waste_my_last_weeks_on_vacation_reading_thousands_of_diffs I've placed my evidence, also against myself, on my own talk page here] since, despite struggling for a week, I cannot bring myself to do what is required of me, and mount a case against anyone. I prefer to just give the thinnest of sketches as to how I perceived things over the past 11 months. I apologize to arbitration. My knowledge of rules, my grasp of diff theory, everything on wikipedia, is empirical, and in my experience one very rarely gets a comprehensive picture from diffs, unless someone is willing to riff back and forward for context, or read whole archives, which would be a form of cruelty here. I should add, though it is a partisan, subjective comment, that the attempt here to make us into an indistinguishable POV tagteaming duo is unfair to him. He thoroughly revised my version of the article, invariably with a severe eye on WP:NPOV, as befits his professional training, and he even went at times out of pocket to purchase and send me rare books on the subject so I could form my own independent idea of some recondite aspects of the subject. He is a passionate Shakespearean scholar, yes, but, despite a lapse or two, deserves nothing like the halo of suspicious thrown about him repeatedly,
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||