User talk:JZ85/archive

Bias

Hello JZ85, I would like to say something to you concerning your conduct as a referee on the wikipedia and concerning your conduct as a user on the wikipedia in general. I have encountered you personally in situations where you acted bias in your role as a referee and I have encountered you personally trying to get other referees to act bias in your role as a user. I will assume you mean well, but this proves such a complete lack of ethical considerations in you that I think you should resign your function as a referee. You are apparently not capable of making unbiased decisions and you intentionally set out to influence referees who are needed to be unbiased. I hope you will think about your actions seriously because, as said, I do think you mean well. Your theories on what 'good behavior' is simply needs a patch.

So, I hope you will not take this as an insult. I merely mean to say that I want you to seriously reflect on your behavior and to consider how you would feel if you were the mistreated party and a bias referee (who should have been excluded from the initial process for the very reason of being bias) subsequently tries to influence other referees (who then should be excluded from the process for being bias) when you try to find justice because you feel mistreated.

--Faust (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting a smile on my face. I regularly reflect on my behaviour and I am stunned you still don't get how Wiki works: sysops are like cleaners. That means: we clean the wiki from vandalism, articles that are of to low quality and we follow the detailed guidelins in case of troubles with a user. In your case on nl.wiki: you are under the impression that you are the only one who has some knowledge about certain things and are continuously telling other people that they are stupid. That means you will be blocked, as I already explained to you on nl.wiki you are expected to discuss based on arguments and sources. Everybody who runs into a sysop following guidelines and making a decision will scream about bias, very few people are strong enough to admit they were acting in the wrong way.
Coming back to JDF, you are completely unaware of the situation as you were not involved and did not see the complete picture. To qualify yourself as capable to judge the situation and to disqualify somebody is arrogant. Furthermore I would like to point out that you are 'biased' yourself.
JZ85 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JZ85, I am confused about you saying that I am biased because I do not know the history of the situation. That is precisely what unbiased is. Apart from that I would like you to refrain from making further unfounded remarks about my behavior. You clearly do not assume my good intentions, which is against the wikipedia guidelines.

Therefore I would like to say in my defense that I have at no point said that anybody is stupid. I did point out that they lacked a general knowledge on the topics discusses and that I am in the process of obtaining a university degree in philosophy, focus on ethics (of which law is an offshoot...), psycho-analysis and logic. I have also complained that I was unwilling to give the entire content of a few years of philosophical training on a university level as a clarification of my edits. It seems very bias that I was required to do so in the first place. Seeing as the remark I placed was not about my personal situation I can only wonder about the reason you mentioned it here. It seems that you are letting your POV cloud your judgment yet again to me, but I may be mistaken.

My way of argument focuses on first finding the general principle of thought that applies to the 'conflict' at hand (the major premise). Once that has been established sources can be given to clarify (the minor premises). That is what constitutes a thought. However, most users are unwilling to examine their own principles of thought (thereby clearing the way for POV's). That is why no discussion seemed to get even beyond the understanding of the problem at hand. That confused me greatly. Especially because the negation (not mentioning or considering) of the major premise is the logical equivalent of immorality and, if placed in such a context, psychoses. This might show the importance of the mention of the POV above. I will ask you formally here that I want you to stop placing lies about me here, especially since they are adding static to the issue I am addressing above,

To conclude I would like to get back to the issue at hand. By your own statements you admit to being bias. By your own statements you admit to reflect on your immoral behavior and by your own statements you admit to not see your shortcomings in the moral and lawful areas. That is why I think you should resign as a referee.

As I still think that you probably mean well, but are just misguided, I would like to say that you should consider the thought that guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are guides, not rules. The reason that this is important is because a rule does not allow for a reasoning (major premise), but a guideline mandates a reasoning. It is the very separation between morality and immorality (and when applied to the thought process itself between sanity and psychosis).

I hope you do not take my remarks as insults. I know they can be understood as such, but it is not my intent to insult you, only to shake you and wake you up from your dogmatic slumber.

--Faust (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not giving a source since you assume yourself to know something after a few years of university is plain stupid. You are litteraly surrounded with people who already actually have their degrees (some in philosophy) and they also need to give their sources. And yes you are biased because you did not see the entire situation but are directed into a certain understanding of the situation by JDF, that by definition is POV. JZ85 (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JZ85, I am not commenting on the prior situation. That is the very reason why I am not defending a POV. Since you are you are openly admitting that you are defending your POV. Please do reflect on that. Apart from that I have been quoting sources for my contributions all along. When a disagreement was pronounced I first tried to indicate the major premise, as stated above. I will ask you now for the second time not to lie about me here.

--Faust (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faust, I see no lies in my message and frankly I'm done with your stories here on this page. You can try to be smart but better use that in your lectures or somewhere else because I'm not interested. JZ85 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JZ85, I was not trying to be smart. I merely wanted you to reflect on your actions so that you could see your own bias in them. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to do so, even at the length of trying to influence a referee with your POV in this matter, at the cost of giving the user in question a fair chance and limiting his freedom of speech. I am deeply disappointed in you.

I am also disappointed that you will not even acknowledge your lies about me here. I am trying to keep seeing your good intentions, but you are giving me a hard time on that.

I hope our future encounters will will be approached in an unbiased and friendly manner, as I have tried to approach you.

--Faust (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

Time for a treat you deserve! Kind regards and enjoy. You are the best colleague around
MoiraMoira (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool to make life easier for you! Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have the knife for it... don't roast your enemies, but have a good meal for the brains instead. I don't ever doubt your judgement. Lymantria (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Threat Intended

Our colleague Faust has asked me on my talkpage to remove the knife because he feels threatened by it. I feel deeply sorry that he feels that way, but I want to emphasize that I have merely intented to offer a kitchen tool to cut the watermelon in eatable pieces and for no other purposes. Because I know JZ85 to be a very decent person, I am convinced he will never use the knife for unlawful acts but only for food preparation. I hope Faust will feel more at ease now. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure he will. Obviously the whole gallery here of kitchen related things is related to each other and not to Faust. JZ85 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theobald, I would, however, like you to specifiy that the knife should be used on the watermelon so as to remove the double meaning you placed into it, wittingly or unwittingly. --Faust (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Faust, As I am a bit of a poète manqué (see my user page), I am very fond that you have discovered a double meaning in my gesture. Perhaps the napkin can be used not only to clean a mouth after eating, but to stem blood as well? I must say that I cannot wholly deny that there is a possibility that I have intended the double meaning unwittingly. But, alas, if so, ipso facto (because it is 'unwittingly') I cannot possibly say anything sensible about it. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring problems from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki

Hello JZ85, I am mandated to first try and wok this out with you personally on your talk page before invoking a referee. I am assuming we can. I would like to point out that you are transferring 'problems' we had on the nl.wiki to the en.wiki. Examples: 1) In your case on nl.wiki: you are under the impression that you are the only one who has some knowledge about certain things and are continuously telling other people that they are stupid. That means you will be blocked, as I already explained to you on nl.wiki you are expected to discuss based on arguments and sources. Everybody who runs into a sysop following guidelines and making a decision will scream about bias, very few people are strong enough to admit they were acting in the wrong way. 2) Not giving a source since you assume yourself to know something after a few years of university is plain stupid. You are litteraly surrounded with people who already actually have their degrees (some in philosophy) and they also need to give their sources.

Even though you appear to mean well, you are saying so because of (unfounded) issues on the nl.wiki. This is an offense and I would like you to stop doing so. Please do understand that I would rather simply make contributions here and help people along. However, I will not allow you to behave in this manner towards me. --Faust (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ANI

Hi there is currently a thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#JZ85 in which you have been mentioned, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official warning

For the sake of further drama prevention, please try to avoid approaching JanDeFietser from the angle of his troubles on the Dutch Wikipedia, when you are working on this project. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]