User talk:Zenwhat/Last archive

Please move your comments to the bottom of the page or thread. Thank you.

Unblocked

This account has been unblocked for the following reasons:

1. No futher abusive activity since the final warning was given earlier today.
2. Significant disagreement on ANI as to whether an indef block was appropriate at all.
3. Failure to issue proper escalating warnings, failure to WP:AFG, and a little WP:BITE

All of that said...

You're on probation

You have to understand now that your sillyness on-wiki, and your primary use of Wikipedia socially and for meta-discussions (talk space, wikipedia space, user space) and not article space, are considered controversial and objectionable.

None of the topic areas you have edited are by themselves problematic. And minor use of humor (anywhere other than article space) incidental to making a legitimate point somewhere is acceptable use of the encyclopedia project as well.

However

You are advised to consider our core policies and your interactions here. If you're primarily trying to joke around, this probably is not a good place to do so. If you want to help build the encyclopedia, you need to do so more clearly and with less "other stuff".

If you edit in a disruptive manner, interject inappropriate humor, especially into article space, you will be warned again and/or blocked for increasing amounts of time for significant disruption. You can expect your next significant disruption to come with a 24 to 48 hr block, and further disruption to roughly double the duration of the blocks.

Welcome to edit constructively

Now that you're warned and aware of what the situation is -

I sincerely hope that you scale back the "other stuff" and get re-engaged with the encyclopedia project. We don't need single-minded article-edit only focused people. But we do need that to be the point of why you're here. I think and hope that you can do that.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see you around

I know this place can be insanely frustrating sometimes, but I hope to still see you around. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Take some time to clear your head and then get back here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of wikipedia

I had a question: Why are you interested in criticizing Wikipedia? Thanks. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has great potential to either:

• Contribute to human knowledge
• Contribute to human ignorance

What we do has the potential to change that. If Wikipedia fails, it will end up like television or the internet, where it contributes to human stupidity. If Wikipedia succeeds, it could be like a grand library, where it contributes to human knowledge.

This overall could have a substantial impact on world events, on whether one nation goes to war, on what economic policies nations are implemented (which affects human lives in a meaningful way, affecting their survival and quality-of-life), what politicians get elected, and more broadly, on how people love one another or hate eachother out of ignorance, and so on.

If Wikipedia is abused, misinformation will be spread. This ignorance, on a grand scale, can lead to things like war, tyrants rising to power, and violent crime. If Wikipedia succeeds, information will spread all across the world. This knowledge, on a grand scale, could lead to world peace and all of the idealistic goals the Foundation had when they started Wikipedia.

For more, see: M:Wikipedia and why it matters. Here is a chart that basically summarizes why Wikipedia is so important:

Imagine, for instance, what it would be like if the articles on Islam claimed that Islam supports terrorism and violence. It would have a cultural impact, too, because people unfortunately tend to believe what the read on Wikipedia is true.

You see this a lot in the Middle East, for instance, with the internet. Outside of the west, many people across the world have this false notion that if somebody uploads something to the internet, it must be true. That's really bad. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. Historically and universally all around the earth, always people were misinformed, always those who had power (money today) brainwashed people. So, I wouldn't worry myself much about that. It has been this way and it will be that way forever (my point of view). Wikipedia can improve it in many aspects and that's why it has upset many people. But since I have a pessimistic view regarding the capability of wikipedia to really do anything afterall, I personally would not worry much about failure or success of wikipedia my friend. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1 week block

That you are still posting and at the same timing proclaim to be retired is bizarre enough. But to post a "whistleblower" thread to the village pump right after you have been unblocked, only to delete it again, together with the comments from other people[1], when you kinda made a fool of yourself there, is simple disruption. Your post to the village pump is also distinctly at odds with your claim that "I publish essays on meta and edit Wikipedia for the sake of contributing to Veropedia. That's all."[2]. Since it seems fairly obvious that you don't get it, you have now been blocked for one week. Fram (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block. What was wrong with village pump post? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the removal of the post, together with the comments by others, which was wrong. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fram, I should not have posted that thread because I did so with anger. It did not violate any particular policy, but after re-considering my actions, I decided to remove it because I thought it might encourage unnecessary arguing and I wished to remove it to prevent any such disruption. You accuse me of disruptive editing in that thread, yet you simultaneously restore it? That is confusing. Now that you have restored it and blocked me, preventing me from removing it, you are encouraging disruption by restoring edits solely to humiliate me.

Then, in the process of notifying me that I am blocked, you follow this up with a personal attack, "you kinda made a fool of yourself."

I do not mind if you wish to block me for violating policy when I do violate policy, but please do not attack me personally when you are notifying me. I only decided, just a while ago, to focus on meta and Veropedia, so it's not particularly contradictory to post one thread in WP:VPP.

Normally, I would just let this block go, because it's true that I am quitting and being kept out of here for a week is not a hindrance. However, I think it is important that my thread in WP:VPP be either removed or archived, to prevent there from being any flame-wars. Your actions -- calling my thread disruptive, but then restoring it, and then blocking me for creating this thread -- seems indefensible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed the comments from others, and that is unacceptable (and disruptive). I did not claim that the thread itself was disruptive, I only remarked that it is bizarre to make a claim (of only posting to contribute to Veropedia) and directly contradict it through your actions. I'll strike through the "made a fool" part, since you object to it. It was my interpretation of your reason for removing the thread, which I should have left out. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed comments from others, because it was part of the same thread. I should not have ever created the thread to begin with. Do you disagree? What purpose does the thread serve right now? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fram: I forgive you for your personal attack and I respect you greatly for admitting it. Can you do please do the same for me? Since I admit that creating that thread was stupid. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I just noticed: Sarcasticidealist just archived it. [3] I probably should've done that instead of removing it. Sorry. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the reasons for blocking you are becoming more silly by the moment, seriously removing a thread that may be disruptive is a completely new reason for blocking to me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, either you get unblocked or not. In either case, I strongly advise you to get some sleep and come back fresh tomorrow. The world will look different :) --Be happy!! (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it was disruptive, he should be blocked for creating it. The user was retired, right of a previous block, on probatio, and claiming that he would only edit Wikipedia to contribute to Veropedia. Then he posts a potentially disruptive thread, and removes it together with the comments from other people one hour later, for reasosn I will not speculate on. This week block may help him to keep his resolutions and to keep him out of trouble. (He just removed your comment here as well, but that may have been accidental...) Fram (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fram, his comments about being retired and only wanting to contribute to Veropedia have nothing to do, whatsoever, with his unblock. Considering many of us believe the original block was bad all together, that it was "right after a previous block" doesn't means anything. This block helps no one. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the block request. It doesn't particularly matter to me if I'm blocked, because I'm still waiting to get my account on Veropedia and I need some time off from Wikipedia anyway. This second block is clearly unjustified, but arguing with Fram doesn't seem like it will accomplish anything, so I encourage everyone to just let it go.

Aminz, thank you for defending me. We disagree completely about Islam, but you still defend me. That is noble.

Also, Aminz, I have a confession to make: You kept asking me so many questions about my past accounts and stuff like that, so I started thinking, "Does this guy think I some kind of Zionist or something, because I edited the Orthodox Judaism article and criticized Islam a few times?" I saw the essay about pornography on your user page and began to assume you were some kind of radical Muslim. When you kept asking questions, I was almost tempted to respond with some rude remark, like, "Yes! I'm with the Zionist cabal!" Fortunately, I did not and I'm glad I didn't, because you seem like a genuinely good person, even if I disagree entirely with your religion. I'm sorry for that assumption of bad faith and I hope that other people don't judge you in the same way I did.

There's a good chance, Aminz, that people may misunderstand you if they see your contributions, your name, and your user page. There's a very good chance they may think you're some kind of POV-pusher, as I did. But that clearly can't be true, because if it was, right now you'd be encouraging people to block me. The fact that you aren't is very respectable.

If anyone ever accuses you of pushing a POV on articles related to Islam, let me know and I will defend you: I really dislike Islam, but it's even worse for good people to be mistreated. Also, if you ever need help with articles on Islam, let me know. I am critical of Islam, but it's true that there are a lot of anti-Islamic bigots on Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Zenwhat, Thank you for kind words. I realized the block was unjustified and so complained about it. To be critical of Islam is essentially fine in wikipedia if you use reliable sources in your presentations, and like any other topic, it is not fine if one does not use reliable sources. But nothing of that sort was the reason for your block here as far as I am aware. Also, I was completely unaware that the pornography section on my userpage may be seen in the light you described: There was a time I was addicted to watching porn images and the section is a summary of my later realizations about the harms of what I was doing. But thanks so much for the feedback. I didn't possibly know how people may look at it.

I hope you get unblocked and stay here (which is not inconsistent with having an account on Veropedia). Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. First, while the terms of Georgewilliamherbert's probation do preclude the use of Wikipedia primarily for meta-discussion, and Zenwhat did post a meta-discussion post. But he later removed it. It should be apparent that the removal of the post was an indication that Zenwhat regretted the post or at least realised it would cause disruption; or that, instead of immediately blocking Zenwhat, he should at least be engaged on his talk page. By removing his post he has, at the very least, proved himself somewhat reasonable and sensitive to the terms of probation.
• Zenwhat is already on a short leash, and realises that now. He also realised that posting the thread was disruptive, and in his realisation removed the thread. And now we are blocking him for his actions upon realisation, as opposed to reinstating the thread, archiving it and counseling Zenwhat? Ridiculous. --Iamunknown 15:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is just a case of someone wanting him blocked and using the terms of his probation as an excuse. Georgewilliamherbert's stipulations do not prevent Zenwhat from meta-discussion. Georgewilliamherbert only pointed out that Zenwhat's meta-discussion are considered controversial and objectionable. He didn't outright say "don't post meta-discussion". The Village Pump post was not in violation of the probation terms nor was it disrupting. In fact, many users were engaged in the conversation. He does have the right to remove something, especially since he felt he put it there in the first place out of anger. He even have the best possible edit summary for his removal. This block as well is foul. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed that the block is dumb - there's nothing preventative about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. We don't block editors for trying to make things right. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the above I have undone the block. While there is certainly a need to have some kind of probation as above, this kind of enforcement of it doesn't seem to do it justice. I'd much rather see how this travels and it seems a number of people are in agreement. Orderinchaos 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIARM

um, user:Zenwhat, if you decide to return from retirement, then *Welcome back*. And thankyou for

• Learn something
• Think harder

Would you have any particular disagreement with the following dot-point, from "What IAR does not mean"?

• "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors.

Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I stated that in WP:WIARRM. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You made me smile

Hi Zenwhat. I understand why certain admins were up in arms over you, but I enjoyed all your posts. While some of your jokes were, frankly, kind of mean (this one was classic), they were consistently amusing and frequently thought-provoking.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I threads

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zenwhat are currently open, where your conduct is being discussed. The block, or blocks, have been lifted. It is your decision as to whether you weigh in to these threads or not, so why don't you? Newbyguesses - Talk 09:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no point. Anything I've said about it has already been said. Anything more I could say would be a distraction. If they are going to block me indefinitely, they are going to do it based on what they feel I've done. What I say right now can't change that.

Often, rhetoric is subtly considered a virtue in Wikipedia. The argument that this is a virtue is found in:

• Wikipedia:The Truth
• M:How to win an argument

It is implied that there is no truth, but at the same time winning arguments is somehow important. It is not important, just as rules are unimportant. Only improving Wikipedia is important.

Rhetoric is evil. Even if I had the ability to passionately, eloquently argue in my defense, taking advantage of the biases of others through effective rhetoric, that would be wrong.

By engaging in the argument, I am wasting my time and theirs, not to mention encouraging the likelihood that I will be banned. By doing nothing about it, I gain a great deal and my defense is impeccable. See Wu wei.

A person should not be concerned with winning arguments, but simply practice the truth. I said what I believe is the truth. If they do not believe me and I am banned, then I lose the argument and lose my account, but they lose something far greater.

And no, that far greater thing isn't me! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen White Men Can't Jump? Woody Harrelson's character's criticism of Wesley Snipes' character applies to you here - "you'd rather look good losing than win". -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Given my tendency to argue, that is doubtful. I know I am not acting egotistically right now, because I care a great deal about Wikipedia and would like to stay. If I thought that arguing on and on would achieve that, I would do it. It won't. The community has no regard for the value of the individual and they will judge me, based on their own biases, regardless of what I say and do. You have an unshakeable faith in the community, which cannot be changed by anything I say or do. The result is that you are more willing to speculate that I am acting out of bad faith (even now, accusing me of acting egotistically) rather than genuinely. In psychology, this is known as the fundamental attribution error.

Eventually, one of two things will happen:

• 1) Wikipedia failure will shatter your faith.
• 2) Wikipedia success will reveal my stupidity.

In a few years, it will go one way or the other. It doesn't matter what we say here, The Truth will slap one of us in the face, eventually.

That's all I'll say on it, GT. You aren't reasonable, so there is nothing I can do. Attempts at trying to edit Wikipedia by force are obviously futile, so if attempts at reasoning fail, editing Wikipedia is itself futile.

On your talkpage, I put forth a fairly logical dilemma. You responded...

with an irrelevant, misleading ad-hominem:

I thought you retired.

and a Two wrongs make a right fallacy:

You're still not replying to the substantive issue I've raised.

And refused to answer the question I asked.

I will answer your question, though: You asked, "by what mechanism - does the person who's right win? You've got no answer."

There is no mechanism. That is the right answer and it is why WP:IAR exists. Since existence precedes essence, what constitutes the "right mechanism" precedes and transcends any words we could use to describe it. The right mechanism, then, is not a set of propositions to be believed, "The X mechanism," but a state-of-mind which leads to a particular action. That state-of-mind is clear thinking, critical thinking, objectivity, calmness, and lack of bias. That particular action is "improving Wikipedia." If you have the right state-of-mind and attempt to improve Wikipedia, the rules are totally irrelevant.

What you essentially say is, "Consensus is correct because we have agreed on it. And we have agreed on it, because it is correct."

For a technical treatment of this topic, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the semantic theory of truth, and Heidegger's hermeneutics.

We are not machines and the wiki-process is not a fixed, static system, where all users are just mindless automatons in the perfectly functioning system. We are dynamic, diverse human beings who have the equal potential to either hijack the wiki-process out of stupidity or take advantage of the wiki-process for the benefit of human knowledge. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never once suspected you of bad faith. You claim that I speculate you are acting out of bad faith. That is simply incorrect, as I have never made such speculation.

When you summarize my position as "Consensus is correct because we have agreed on it. And we have agreed on it, because it is correct," you are dead wrong. That is not, and never has been my position.

Your "answer" to my question is equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "I can't hear you". You say there is no mechanism, which is why IAR exists - and you're correct, as far as that goes - but you seem to be pretending that practical considerations of how you make it happen are somehow irrelevant, as opposed to all-important.

Now, your pinpointing of my "fallacies" is funny, because I wasn't offering those as an argument at all. I seriously thought you had retired. Am I not allowed to make remarks that don't fit into a syllogistic response to what was just said to me? "Two wrongs make a right," my foot. I didn't claim that I was justified in not responding to your question because you hadn't responded to mine. That would be a stupid fallacy indeed. I was just saying that you hadn't responded to my point.

I was ignoring your question, because it's predicated on numerous misunderstandings and not a reasonable question at all. The two choices you offered are incoherent. "Descriptive policy" is not in any way equivalent with, "the person who is right never loses". In fact, the person who is right sometimes does lose, in the short run, because she's too tunnel-visioned to talk with other people and get her idea implemented. Damn shame when that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBacchus (talk • contribs)

Practical considerations are important. But that's something to be discussed on policy pages, not something that should infect WP:IAR or WP:WIARM and policy pages themselves should include WP:IAR, which they do not. WP:CONSENSUS is mechanistic in precisely the way described because of the flowchart on the front page.

My claim of retirement remains true because I see discussion on talkpages, discussions on the noticeboards, and discussions on policy as futile as attempts at editing the mainspace, so I avoid all three.

As the saying goes, "A bell only makes a noise when it is struck." Had you not come to me, I would not have sought you out and brought up WP:WIARM. You came to me, I responded, and you then use the fact that I did not ignore you as evidence that my claim of retirement is contradictory.

You accused me of ignoring your question while simultaneously ignoring my question. Per WP:IAR, you are free to ignore anything I say. However, should I have ignored you and thus been consistent in my claim of retirement or should I have answered your question sooner?

In any case, I have a new question for you, though: If a person is tunnel-visioned and doesn't believe in talking with others, are they "the person who is right"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: Please also note that the terms of my retirement include doing work for Veropedia. I'll be editing the mainspace very soon. But, of course, any changes I make will immediately be wiped out. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a new question for you, though: If a person is tunnel-visioned and doesn't believe in talking with others, are they "the person who is right"?

yeah, could be.

indenting helps a bit, but not a lot. Forgive and forget, my friend. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Talk 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbyguesses, why do you assume that I hold resentment? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ZW, I do not assume that. I am sad that you think so. I forgive and forget, my good friend, merely giving some good advice to myself (since it appears there is none I have for you) —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That depends. They might be right about some edit, but they're wrong about how to behave.

Oh, and it's not "per IAR" that I'm free to ignore everything you say. It's per my being alive.

As to whether the reality of practical considerations should be included on WIARM or another such page, I suppose we'll agree to disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Newby: AGF, AAGF, AAAGF, AAAAGF, AAAAAGF, AAAAAAGF, ... etc.

GTBacchus: Is it possible for the person who is right about the edit and right about how to behave to lose?

There is no such thing as "agreeing to disagree." More properly, "We disagree, but agree that further discussion is pointless."

If we both come to this conclusion, which of our edits should go up? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "should", because there is no final authority to enforce a should. The question is which edit will go up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So why then, for practial reasons, do you ask me who should have the power in this formal system? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only asked you that to point out that it is irresponsible to talk about IAR without addressing practical considerations. I've never asked who should have the power, and I've never claimed there's a formal system. I've stated repeatedly that there is no formal system; there's just a wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So then why do you say there should be no shoulds? Should be no shoulds? The wiki is not a formal system? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I barely know what we're arguing about right now. I haven't found anything you've said to be very coherent, but you seem to like arguing with me. It's certainly true that the wiki is not a formal system. That's part of what "Ignore all rules" means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy arguing with myself. I suggest you do it, too.

For now, this discussion is going nowhere, so we are done for now. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you here to improve Wikipedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you here to accuse me of bad faith? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm asking an honest question because I'm curious about the answer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you curious, honestly? Hasn't this question been asked before and has my answer in the past been somehow insufficient? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the question ever that I know of as to whether you wish to contribute positively to WP. You did reply to an Admin who asked you on this page (I think it was RyanP.) that you considered article space a waste of time. (It's in the page history, since you've archived it.) I would appreciate an answer, an honest one, stated in such a way that it indicates a reasonable level of respect for a sincere question, if you can manage that, thanks. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW replies to RyanPostlethwaite 4:01 Feb7 2008 Newbyguesses - Talk 12:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have answered this question before and yes, Ryan asked it himself. You pulled out the words "article space is a waste of time," without following the context in which I said that. At the time, I said that I devoted myself towards checking WP:FTN, WP:RSN, WP:ANI, and editing the various policy pages because the main space is a waste of time, as it's always a stalemate with trolls. Editing the mainspace is always one step forward, three steps back. I focused on WP:RSN, WP:FTN, and WP:ANI to address that. It turns out, though, that focusing even on WP:RSN, WP:FTN, and WP:ANI is pointless, too, hence the reason I now focus on writing essays and contributing to Veropedia.

I wanted Wikipedia to succeed, but now "success" and "failure" are irrelevant, because failure is inevitable as no one will acknowledge it, no one will do anything to stop it. So, all I can do is find a quiet corner of meta to speak the truth while helping Veropedia scoop up the encyclopedia on top of a garbage pile.

Not only Ryan asked this question. Others asked it as well. It was also likely addressed in the ANI discussion about me, which is why it puzzles me for you to ask me again. So, it is not a question at all, said out of curiousity. It is a blatant accusation, phrased in the form of a question.

You ask me if I want to improve Wikipedia. If the answer is yes, you would not believe me even if I told you, else you would've never asked the question. If the answer is no, then I will say, "Yes," regardless, to deceive you. And if I refuse to answer the question, what you will interpret that as is obvious. So what is the value of this question?

You assume bad faith, but are afraid to admit it to yourself. You do not trust me and you do not want an answer to the question. You want me to either avoid answering the question and slip up rhetorically, so that you can say, "A-HA! Here is the evidence of bad faith, confirming the suspicions which I never had!" and either say, "Ah-ha! He said no! He doesn't want to help Wikipedia!" or "He refused to answer the question! He's a troll! A-ha!" And if I say yes, you won't believe me.

Or perhaps you will pretend to believe me if I say yes, but you will follow up with, "So why then don't you edit the mainspace? Why then do you (diff, diff, diff, diff)?"

I cannot manage to create an answer you would regard as honest because The Truth is that I am honest. But the only answer you would accept as "honest" would have to be self-incriminating.

Now, leave me alone.

As, I said above, "we are done for now." Now, we are definitely done and I will definitely not respond to any further accusations here.

Or not. I can never be certain about what I am going to do. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"So, it is not a question at all, said out of curiousity. It is a blatant accusation, phrased in the form of a question." False. I have no doubts as to your good faith. The fact that the question was answered before does not mean that the answer hasn't changed. I wondered whether you're still here to improve the project, given your announcement of "retiring". Lots of people might take that word to indicate a cessation of productive activity, on account of that being the word's definition.

"If the answer is yes, you would not believe me even if I told you, else you would've never asked the question." False. If you answer "yes" then I will believe you, and I'll try to use that as common ground on which to build understanding. You might try being less arrogant, and not assuming that you can tell me what I mean. You tend to be wrong about me, I've noticed.

"Or perhaps you will pretend to believe me if I say yes, but you will follow up with, "So why then don't you edit the mainspace? Why then do you (diff, diff, diff, diff)?"" Wrong again. I would most like an honest conversation, in which we attempt to understand each other. I am beginning to despair of that ever happening.

"You assume bad faith, but are afraid to admit it to yourself. You do not trust me and you do not want an answer to the question." False. What I would most like is honest dialogue. I'm getting a bunch of static instead.

"I cannot manage to create an answer you would regard as honest because The Truth is that I am honest. But the only answer you would accept as "honest" would have to be self-incriminating." False. If you say something to my face, then I will accept it as honest. You may hold me to that. I will never doubt your good faith, because it is a fundamental belief of mine that human being are incapable of bad faith. You are a human being, therefore, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat, you have insulted me again here. You have not answered the question. I deserve better treatment, and you must become aware of the hurt you are causing needlessly to others and yourself. Goodnight! Newbyguesses - Talk 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone brings you a gift and you do not accept it, to whom does the gift belong?

Please see this essay.

If I have hurt your feelings, though, tell me: What can I do to make it up to you?

And are my feelings relevant? Is the fact that the community has hurt me important? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your feelings are relevant and if the community has hurt you then that is relevant as well. But you should not expect much compassion from a community that cannot understand you because you are speaking a different language. I think I understand you better than Newbyguesses does. (E.g. I find your last long answer perfectly sensible and satisfactory, except for the inflammatory asides that apparently you can't resist.) But we are still worlds apart. A lot of people can feel compassion for vertebrates and birds, but not for fish, because they don't communicate their pain in a way that we can understand. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think eating meat is completely immoral. It seems particularly absurd that lambs, cows, pigs, and so on, should be raised in a closed environment, often in factory-like conditions, filled with disease, either by cold, calculating businessmen or ignorant farmers who don't even stop to consider that breaking a chicken's neck with your bare hands might actually be unethical. These animals live horrible lives, they are mistreated, and ultimately, they are slaughtered brutally, without much of a good reason.

Despite this, I eat meat anyway, because it's delicious.

About this whole situation, Kim's remarks here are 100% correct. [4] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: 99% correct. I am a great contributor. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Being guided by our ego again, are we? Wasn't there some Buddhist wisdom about that? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Kim, you know I'm joking. However:

A joke is a very serious thing.

— Winston Churchill

.

You know what I mean, even though my words are totally incoherent.

I've noted, repeatedly, how I let my impetuousness get the best of me. If I say "But Kim, you also ..." or "But Wikipedia is also ..." I am being foolish. This is true.

But Kim, you also... And Wikipedia is also... ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You fool! :-P

The difference between us is that you open your mouth too quickly, and thus prove to people that it is so ;-)

I strongly recommend taking a wikibreak right now. Talk with me first before editing again, kay?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature article production rate.

Not sure if you are still reading this page, but if you are you might find this tidbit interesting; Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-28/Dispatches Taemyr (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)