User talk:Metzenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I'll read this once in a while.

Hi!

[edit] Nice job

Hello (Preferred Salutation) Metzenberg. Nice job in the Pathogenesis section of Tay-Sachs Disease. I had thrown in a bunch of mutation types just to give the reader a sense of all the crazy goings-on in that region of Chromosome 15, but your recent breakdown showing which mutations lead to which effects in which populations is a major clarification. You manage to take a few obscure factoids and, putting it through the filter of your solid technical knowledge and talent for clear phrasing, you call out a deeper-than-usual understanding of these complicated bio-molecular events even in the average Wikipedia reader, whose intensity of concentration cannot be expected to always rise to the necessary level in topics like this. This sort of touch is badly needed throughout the project... JDG 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UC

I saw your message regarding UC in Ashkenazic populations. I agree with all the facts you stated, but the wording in that paragraph of Ashkenazi Jews does not appear to limit the list to only diseases linked to known genes (as opposed to statistically correlated with Ashkenazic background, like UC). I'll defer to you to clarify the criteria for that list in the article. Zyqqh 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Blick Art Materials

I have proposed Dick Blick Art Materials for deletion due to concern that the company fails criteria for inclusion set out in WP:CORP. If you believe it does meet any criterion contained therein, please add such info the article and remove the deletion notice. Otherwise, after five days, an administrator may delete the article. Sorry about that. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend, Crazy Russian. I am not the person that created the article in the first place. I only corrected information in the article. I do think that the source of art materials is important, since art is a unique cultural part of our civilization and society, and the company is the largest supplier of fine art materials (as opposed to school crayons, craft supplies, etc.) in the world. --Metzenberg 06:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women of the Wall Article

Hi!

Some people thought that your article only presented WOW's take on things and said this was inconsistent with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. We have a number of Haredi editors here in Wikipedia who take the opposing viewpoint. Some additional content has been added. To help with the article and address their concerns, I've reorganized it into a "just the facts" introduction followed by separate sections summarizing WOW and Haredi arguments. Would you be so kind as to review the article and see if it correctly describes the subject? You might want to pay particular attention to the WOW arguments section to make sure that it accurately describes key WOW positions. Feel free to improve, but please provide sources and footnotes for any added content. There's a discussion going on on the Talk section for the article, feel free to add your views. All the best, --Shirahadasha 00:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I have been vacationing from Wikipedia for a few weeks. I am happy to have a look. I agree that my background and point of view are likely to make me take WOW's point of view. --Metzenberg 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on in Talk:Role of women in Judaism that you might find interesting. User:Shykee in particular has been rather vigorously presenting a claim that the Haredi viewpoint is the only legitimate Jewish one. Best wishes, --Shirahadasha 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Hope this finds you well. I looked at the Women Of The Wall article again, and in its current state it does contain a certain amount of material on Halakhic controversy, although sociological aspects of the controversy are more fully covered. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haldane's dilemma

Gooday, allow me to introduce myself. I'm Graham a theoretical physicist from Australia just wanted to say gooday coz you've made some intelligent comments on the Haldane article. But moreover to encourage you to help edit the page coz you seem to be well versed on the topic with a mind for neutrility. Freezbee gave it a go but said "Don't flame me if im wrong" so I was reluctant to do so. But a lot of cleanup work is needed - Graham

[edit] Kevin Barrett

It's good. If anyone removes this notice - as they have the right to do with or without explanation - you may then take it to AfD, by applying {{subst:afd1}} to the article and following instructions that appear. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has removed the tag yet. If/when they do, insert {{subst:afd1}} into the top and of the article, and follow the instructions, namely, click on the redlink to the discussion page and add {{subst:afd2|pg=Kevin Barrett|text=REASON FOR DELETION}} ~~~~ to the deletion discussion page, and then list it for deletion by clicking the "log" link and adding {{subst:afd3|pg=Kevin Barrett}} to the bottom of the list. You can do it. I'll make sure you've done it correctly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, stirred up a can of worms with this nomination! If you can judge a crackpot by his followers..... Anyway, you probably are already doing this, but I just wanted to advise you to keep a close eye on your userpage for the next few days. A lot of these anon users that are showing up pretty obviously do not have the best of intentions, and might take out their frustration on the AfD nom's page. Cheers! -- H·G (words/works) 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect syntax

In reply to the question in your edit summary, the correct syntax for a redirect is

#REDIRECT [[target]]

I've fixed it for you; however, the target you specified does not seem to exist. Could you please edit the page to point to the correct target, or tag it with {{db-redirnone}} to delete it if there is no target to aim it at? --ais523 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That was fast. I was actually in the process of creating the page. I just did. Thank you for your help. --Metzenberg 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Just noticed you hadn't been welcomed. So here it is:

Welcome!

Hello, Metzenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --ais523 12:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures on Pigment

They are relevant to the pigment topic. I don't think all those pictures should have been removed, and nothing in the edit summary or the talk page said why they were. Could you please explain? Green caterpillar 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pigment

Happy to help! It is the collaboration of the week, after all (though that doesn't seem to be generating much interest), and its a topic I find interesting.

The citation format I'm using is called the inline "cite.php" format. You can read more about the <ref> </ref> format at WP:CITE, with guidelines about when to use it, where to put the citations, etc. You can read more about the auto-formatting part at WP:CITET which are 'templates' for different types of citation. I like them, because you just 'plug and chug' the information in, as much or as little as you happen to have, and then it formats things appropriately automagically. If formatting styles change, or someone adds more information to the reference, it takes care of itself. Should be both backward compatible, and future-proof. I just recently learned how it all works myself, it makes life much easier!

Tyrian purple, as well as cochineal red, facinate me greatly, because they are instances in history where a pigment has been as valuable as any precious metal. In our world of synthetic dyes and pigments, we are accustomed to bright, vibrant colors. But imagine that you are a Spanish soldier, never having seen red cloth more vibrant than a burnt ochre color, and all of a sudden you are swarmed by Aztec warriors bedecked in swaths of vibrant fire red. What an intense experience, to see a new color for the first time. And of course, what a valuable resource, to hog for oneself and sell at exorbitant prices to the wealthy aristocrats of europe, hungry for new ways to impress the masses. Quite a ramble, but something I'm interested in. I'd like to add a brief section about cochineal as well, along the lines of the Tyrian purple section.

I'll work on some color model stuff, maybe a section with the approximate colors of some famous pigments, and then an explanation of why they look the color they do, and why they don't look that way on the monitor, persay. I'll see what I can come up with. Phidauex 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, things are looking good. I approve of your last rounds of editing. Articles often get an odd sort of disjointed feel as people add paragraphs one at a time, without a consistent flow. It gets even worse when people start adding single sentences. It takes some serious editing to rearrange things to recreate the sense of a 'single work of writing', as opposed to many individuals adding tiny bits to the pile. It reads quite well, now.
I had been intending to put some more time into the article last night, but a terrible storm dropped branches on top of cars, felled a tree against our building, interuppted our power, and otherwise disrupted any attempts to edit on wikipedia. ;) I'll see what I can do today. Phidauex 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
A barnstar for you, for making a great article out of Pigment during its collaboration week. Outriggr 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Pigment

I took a look at pigments, and it was so thorough by now that I wouldn't be of much real use!

However, given our geographic proximity, you'd be welcome to come to a boardgame night sometime if you'd like, I sometimes host them as often as twice a month:) (Though right now it's a bit sporadic)

Ashi_Starshade

[edit] Dorothy Healey

Dorothy Healey died on August 6, 2006. --Anthony5429 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tay Sachs

The anonymous editor hasn't edited in almost 2 weeks; let's see if they keep re-inserting the material. And welcome back! :-) Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fredrisser.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fredrisser.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming talk pages

The person who copied the long passage on intelligence quotients into the Talk page of the Ashkenazi Jews article stuck it in a bunch of other places too. Is it appropriate to simply remove it from the Talk page? The talk page is too long, and full of irrelevancy as it is. Is there a way to archive that discussion and start over? Who can do that? I really commend you for your constant revisions on this and several other pages I am interested in. --Metzenberg 06:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If the data was spammed (no precise definition, but I'd say more than three pages) you can remove it; I'd suggest leaving it on the two or three most relevant pages (and indicating in your edit summary for removal at least one place you are leaving it).
Archiving is actually pretty easy; just be conscious not to archive discussions that have had activity in the last few weeks. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. I'm about to call it a night; if you have further questions, put them here, I'll look tomorrow. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

You have a picture of Rabbi Gordon Tucker on this site. How do you know him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.33.121.181 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Pardon me for taking so long in answering you. I haven't logged in here for a while. Rabbi Tucker and I were both participants in the first Israel Ride in 2003, a week-long fundraising bicycle ride from the Tel Aviv/Jerusalem area to Eilat, in support of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. Also, since he is a leading rabbi in Conservative Judaism (I belong to an affiliated synagogue) I hear about him constantly. --Metzenberg 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry's Artarama

Hello - I saw your message on Talk:Jerry's Artarama regarding speedy deletion of the article. You said:

“ I am actually one of the principals with a competitor of Jerry's Artarama. Based on what other companies (and entities) are now featured with some kind of an article on Wikipedia, I would say that this one belongs. I estimate that Jerry's has 30-40M in annual sales, including its subsidiary catalog ASW Express and several company owned stores. They are certainly one of the leading suppliers of fine art materials in the United States. The market for fine art materials is tiny, of course, but this company has a nationwide impact. Jerry's is the sole importer of some products into the United States. It does appear to me that this wikipedia author had never created a login on wikipedia before creating the article, which does make it look like advertising. I would recuse myself from contributing to the article because of my involvement with a competing company. I recommend moving this one out of speedy deletion to let more people comment on it. ”

In most cases, deletion debates of articles about companies are about notability, and most end up at AfD, with a full 5 day discussion. However, there has been a recent drive to remove articles that both have no reliable sources (other than the company's own website) and are written as an advertisement. In such a case, the article falls within the new CSD criteria G11, "Blatant advertising." With this particular article, the tone was quite spammy, and no 3rd-party reliable sources were provided, if I recall correctly.

If proper sources can be found, and the tone of the article written more appropriately, and in fact the company does meet notability criteria, the article can always be recreated. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashkenazi Intelligence Page nominated for deletion

As a courtesy, I am notifying you, the good-faith creator of the Ashkenazi intelligence page, that it has been nominated for deletion. A discussion about the deletion has been created at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_intelligence. Organ123 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O.J. a "movement"?

As far as I know Orthodox Judaism is not really well-described as a "movement", or even a denomination. It is simply the direct, unbroken continuation of the Pharisaic system from 2 millennia ago into the present day. Noogster 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish denominations

Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were both editing Jewish denominations at the same time and I unintentionally "over-wrote" one or two of your edits. I went back and replaced them, and I'll leave the article alone for now. But I wanted to apologize. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any "great" commentators off the top of my head, but have you thought about Joseph Telushkin or Dennis Prager? Prager is a columnist, so it should be easy to find his thoughts about the subject. Telushkin is a rabbi, and several of his books have been best-sellers, but I'm not sure whether he's specifically written about assimilation. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop removing deletion templates from your own work

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, some body tagged the article within about 30 seconds after I created it in the first place, before I even had a chance to explain the rationale for the article on its talk page. --Metzenberg 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page, let me first say I am sorry that I have offended you. Such was not my intent. As you pointed out, I am relatively new here and just started patrolling new pages in earnest, and I am still finding a comfort level with that.

That being said, I am having trouble understanding how anybody could believe that this is not appropriate for speedy deletion. It consisted of three stubs, four sources and the title words repeated. I know I tagged the article only seven minutes (not 30 seconds) after it was created, but I'm sure you've seen plenty of articles that are left by editors in the condition of this one. How am I to know whether or not a particular editor understands that such articles should be expanded, and how am I to know that you are still working on an article? Patrolling new pages is hard work, even with the available utilities, but patrolling day or week old pages is much harder.

Many editors develop their articles in notepad or /sandbox before bringing them live, and while it may be a matter of preference, that certainly prevents you from losing time dealing with aggravating deletion tags and prevents others from wasting time trying to figure out whether you are coming back to finish what you started. Incidentally, if you look at the history, you will see that it was almost a full hour before the article had any content, aside from sources and tags. Content was not added until I and another editor marked it for deletion a total of three times. You were obviously around as you kept removing the deletion tags, but content was the last thing to happen. It might have been easier for you to write it that way in this instance, but it's counterintuitive to me to expect content to be added last.

Anyway, since you were expanding the article, there was no problem, because it should survive the speedy (as it did), and if you didn't get to it in time, you could always recreate it in proper form later.

Finally, totally aside from the issue whether the article was deletionworthy, you should know as an experienced editor that we are not to remove deletion tags from our own work. The proper procedure is to add a {{hangon}}, explain on the talk page, and wait for another editor to make the call. I respectfully request that you adhere to this procedure so as not to take up the time of others in monitoring and re-inserting templates. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But seriously? First of all, I've never had a speedy deletion tag put on what I was doing. Never. I mean it. So I was not even familiar with the wikipedia procedure. In over a year here, I've never even seen that tag. I write, but I don't do admin or edit. I do appreciate those who do a lot of admin duties. Now, not to be testy necessarily, but what I am suggesting is, since you're brand new at this, look at the history of edits that a person has done, and you can generally see right away whether the writer/editor is somebody who makes serious contributions, adds new articles on almost a daily basis, etc.
When something is deletion-worthy, it probably comes from somebody who has never been here before, is doing it for the first time, etc. Note also that I was busy linking that article up correctly, so that creationism materials would link to it, and not to the Judaism and evolution page. And I had a very substantial list of sources, scholarly sources at that, on the article already, the very first time I clicked save. Come on, wasn't it obvious who I was, what I was doing, and why I was doing it?
Anyhow. Cheers and thank you for your hard work on administration. I know it's a war out there. What I do do is, a lot of article fixing that tries to keep scholarly articles serious. I try to keep the occasional zealot for some form of creationism, messianism, fringe theories, etc. from filling good pages up with unsupportable and unvarifiable garbage. So I know it's a war. Thank you. --Metzenberg 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I just have been reviewing your talk page. Usually when we work on a new page, we set it up on a user talk page and ask for help from various contributors, then move it. Much easier that way.Orangemarlin 16:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials

Hi. I hope you don't mind if I steal the idea, and some of the language, from the "Credentials" section of your User page. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! I notice that everybody is busy responding to the credentials business right now. --Metzenberg 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish opposition to evolution

Took a very brief look at the article. Don't know much about the subject, but it seems to me the introductory paragraph to an article on any subject should focus on and describe the subject. This article seems to begin with opposing views. It seems to me that one should simply describe the subject sympathetically -- quotes from opponents or sources used by opponents have no place -- and criticism should be reserved to further down in the article. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these views depends a lot on which methods one believes are appropriate to attaining knowledge, which is one of the principle areas of disagreement between Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism, and perhaps something should be said about that -- without implying either side is correct from either a scientific or traditional POV -- by way of background. --Shirahadasha 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. I looked at this article (as well as the one on intelligent design) just now, and aside from a couple of minor editing changes, I think my main comment would be that it felt in both cases as if I were jumping into the middle of a discussion, without a proper introduction (a general and dispassionate overview of the topic).

I'm not really sure that simply reporting partisan material from both/all opposing sides of an issue meets the Wikipedia NPOV ideal. I think it might be better here to use expository prose summarizing each position, with plenty of references and a small number of quotes to back it up.

Additionally, in the evolution article, it may be necessary to decide between the two terms Haredi and ultra-Orthodox — both of which are currently used in the text, but without any clear indication to a non-knowledgeable reader that they basically mean the same thing. No matter which term is used, I'm sure some people will object, but I tend to think it might be better to use "ultra-Orthodox" (since this term is more widely understood by the world in general), and perhaps qualify it — on first reference only — with a parenthesized "(Haredi)".

I hope the above helps. In case it matters, please be aware that although I do have a fair amount of familiarity with Judaism, I am not a Jew (I'm a Mormon). Richwales 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thirteen Principles of Faith

Not sure I understand what's meant by a "creed" here. Could you point me to the section on the talk page or identify the editor(s) requesting changes and help me understand what changes are being requested? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, a creed is what Catholics and the Christian church have, a specific statement of beliefs that determines what is heretical. My question is, is there or has there been a "demand" for one in some segment of Orthodox, as the article suggests? --Metzenberg 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to talk page

Thanks for your message (letter?). You may have jumped to a few too many conclusions.

I am a young adult. Wikipedia is now more of a learning process for me (as you can tell, I haven't been doing a lot of editing lately). I will not be doing a lot of editing for a while, or else it would only be a half-baked job.

I do not actively promote Messianic Judaism (most of it, anyway) because it is easily apparent when you study it and trace its origins, that it generally really is just some form of Christianity with a Jewish veneer, whereas with the Netzarim (in Ra'anana) you see an accurate and total historical reconstruction of the practices and beliefs of the 1st-century followers of rYb"Y, who lived and taught within the fully observant legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community only as part of Beit Hillel, and opposed any/all Hellenic/Christian redactions epitomized after the takeover of 135 CE by Romans after the Kokhba revolt and the formalized theology that followed in the 4th century. It's becoming rather apparent which one is genuine and entirely based on the best University-level scholarship and which is the faker. They start with Teimani (aka Yemenite) halakha and build from that point because the Jews of Yemen have the most pristine, non-assimilated tradition of any existing major group going all the way back to Har Sinai. And the Netzarim are the only counter-missionaries who can actually be effective, because their arguments to bring back Jews to the Torah are based on scientific soundness (i.e. electricity ≠ fire, rMb"M over rMb"N) the verifiable and factual 1st-century Jew and the earliest extant/reconstructible accounts of him (Matityahu ha-Leivi's being authoritative), and not on the white-robed counterfeit that is being imagined.

I'm not even sure about your gun and trailer comments. I am not the violent type at all. The Tana"kh says that all the ways of Torah are peace. I have no plans of moving from Kentucky (I'll eventually move to Louisville because of its Orthodox synagogue and it is a fine city).

So thanks for your comments, Metzenberg. Let's not have too many of them again or else it will seem like I am some kind of user with an axe to grind, whereas I'm not. Noogster 05:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natan Slifkin, evolution

Hi,

I'm sorry, but the only thing I know about Slifkin is what I read in Moment Magazine. I was doing a search (for the magazine) and came across the Slifkin article, which had a broken Wikilink, so I fixed it. I'm afraid I can't help. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Jewish opposition to evolution and its History and Talk pages, I think you should read WP:OWN and take a few days off from editing the article. It seems to me that you are overly possessive, reverting reasonable edits along with contentious ones and making editorial comments such as "fine, the monkey goes." I agree with ZayZayEM on some points: (a) articles should start with declarative statements that summarize the content of the article, not quotations from Rambam; (b) the picture of Sefer Iggorot Moshe is unnecessary and because it doesn't "contribute significantly" to the article, it isn't fair use.
If I came across this article, I would probably have tagged it {{essay-entry}}. It doesn't have the tone one expects to find in an encyclopedia article. The anecdote about Rabbi Feinstein, as cute as it is, is roughly 1/6 of the length of the article (1/2 of a screen on my monitor, in an article that is 3 screens long). Is the story that significant to the subject of "Jewish opposition to evolution"?
Please consider taking a step back for a few days, and let some editors who don't feel as personally invested as you do review and edit the article. In the end, you may be very happy with the resulting article, even if it isn't exactly the one you set out to write. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Malik. What this editor is doing is a pattern of edits that, taken as a whole, appear to have no purpose other than to be contentious and create strife. If you look at his contributions, you can see that his last RfC was two days ago. I have never been involved in one, myself. I think that speaks for itself. I don't want to waste my time working on wikipedia dealing with somebody whose purpose here is merely to pick fights. --Metzenberg 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution and Slifkin

It has come to my attention that there are just some pages which will be ruled by certain lords of superediting. While this pessimistic view of Wikipedia and some of its contributing members may not bode well for a contributing members of Wikipedia like myself, I feel that it is an objecive perspective. For many articles, it has been my experience that no matter how much effort I put in or how many times I provide my input, there is someone else there waiting to make it vanish. Now, I must mention that I find this to be true only when it comes to articles that serve as an emotional outlet for their contributors and editors - namely, those associated with religion and politics. While I first began here on Wikipedia editing all sorts of articles on Judaism, and even some on Christianity (as they relate to Judaism), I quickly found that some of the most controversial topics were quite controversial because there seemed to be people who were waiting at their computers to "fix" whatever someone else added or removed back to what they wanted the article to say. I forget exactly...ah, yes...I think the subject that really tipped me off was when someone complained that I was changing too many "converted to Judaism" to "tried to convert to Judaism," or something along those lines. I simple explained that, according to Judaism, a convert is not considered to have converted unless he or she intends to thereafter follow the rules, and these people in the articles (mostly celebrities) are clearly not following the rules. Well, you can imagine how quickly they shot back with POV and "unencyclopedic" and "how about putting a link to your homepage with the information you'd like to convey...and other such arguments against my additions. Now, while my edits might not have been the best, this and other situations like it certainly taught me a lesson. When I first saw the tallis article, I thought that it was entirely written from a conservative/reform perspective, and so I overhauled it and added nice photos, removing the ridiculous ones already there. While it stayed for a while, a few months later had it overhauled by someone else, triple in size, and with 15 new photos about women who can weave a custom tallis while you wait somewhere in Jerusalem. What has this got to do with you and your question for me? I find that controversial issues will never be solved, because, I speak for myself when I say this, others are more determined that I am. So, as a dental student, I primarily stick to articles on dentistry. Sometimes, I will work on other things, including Judaism, but I will make sure I stay away from those things being monitored by the aforementioned evil supereditors. Thusly, I will not help you, but only because I feel that I cannot help you. Sorry. Please reply on my page. Kol tuv. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I merely glanced over the two articles that you wrote...I did not study them well, as it was nearly 2 in the morning when I checked them out (I am 4 hours behind UTC). Anything I said about POV issues was a clear reference to what I assumed you were complaining about in terms of other people ruthlessly editing the articles you sent to me. I neither knew that you were the original author nor that they were fledgeling articles. For this I apologize, for I meant not to assert that your contributions were outside the realm of Wikipedia policy.
I will look them both over and see what I can do to help you. I apologize again for any misunderstanding. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha...I would not say that I have a thorough enough understanding of the Talmud or the Rambam to properly support your arguments by quoting from here or there. Pretty much all I know about in this arena is my earlier years of education (which has sown a very negative light on all of this), my later years of education scientific background of a YU bio major and 3¾ years of dental school (which has resown my mind with a very skeptical view of the whole "negative light" thing), my reading of Slifkin's Challenge of Creation, (which has further made me skeptical of the negativity that I have now come to sense as almost ubiquitous in Orthodox Jewish educational and media outlets) and finally, my discussions about this book with Rabbi David Pahmer from YU, an individual with a tremendously broad scope of halachic and secular knowledge, almost famous in YU for knowing at least something about everything, if not almost everything about everything. All in all, I believe three things to be true:

  • People want to obtain information on how science and Torah can co-exist. Whoever says that people are not interested is misinformed, and thus their completely opinions on the matter are significantly weakened from before they even open their mouths on the subject.
  • The rabbis who banned these books are all following what they might believe is the proper path. I do not believe that they are intentionally being absurd, but thier intentions do not match their actions at all. I believe that most of the signatory rabbis are holding to their positions for political reasons, such as, "If Rabbi X bans it, I must ban it too," without really addressing the issues. This is because, as explained to me by Rabbi Pahmer, they don't really have only a very foggy notion of wha the issues are. They are not scientists but fail to admit that they know nothing other than the Torah. It's almost like asking a poseik whether or not you can kasher a microwave, but the rabbi has never heard of a microwave, doesn't want to read into what exactly a microwave is, and is working on the assumtion that a microwave is quite similar to a convection oven, because they think they have heard the term before. However, the obvious difference between the two is that this misinformed rabbi would be lenient in regards to the microwave, whereas the man misinformed rabbis in our situation are being stringent in regards to the Torah's view of science.
  • We do not have to follow or agree with anything a rabbi says if he is not our rabbi. Now, this sentence should not be taken out of context. It exists in a context of an individual who possesses a close relationship with a specific halachic authority who he or she deems competant. Within this definition, as Rabbi Pahmer explained to me, is that you agree that this rabbi will only make statements of halachic leniency and stringency based on fact and reality, and not on politics. For example, there is a notable rabbi from YU who was approached by a congregant who asked how he should handle his son who really enjoys Barney the dinosaur. The rabbi responded that there are no issues involved, as long as he realizes that dinosaurs, of course, never existed. Never existed? Yes, that's what this rabbi thinks. Rabbi Pahmer asserted that, while all we are required to do is believe that this rabbi actually thinks that dinosaurs never existed; we do not have to believe that they never actually existed. So, do I believe that these rabbis involved in the Slifkin affair are misguided and acting irrationally? Yes. But do I believe that they believe that they are themselves misguided and acting irrationally? No, I think that they believe they are 100% in the right, and that we are all crazy modernists who want to overthrow the Jewish traditions as they have existed for thousands of years and they want to protect it from us. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

I will do it as soon as i can-acctually i know alot about the creationist movements (im A brain and behavior M.A student (i.e Nuerobiliogy+Psychology) so i also can undersdant the scientific side. I just need some time to do it-and then i will answer you.. by the way, on which side are you (i.e Evolutionist or I.D/Creationist)-dont be a shame to tell..--Gilisa 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your msg

Thanks. I'd love to help, but I feel that I can learn from there more than contribute. I have put those articles on my watchlist. Shalom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for assistance

Hi. I'd like to help, but I'm not really sure what I can do, since I'm not an admin. If his editing behaviour seems unreasonable to you, it's not clear to me that he would respond any more reasonably to me than he is doing to you. Maybe the best thing to do at this point would be to request formal mediation or arbitration. Richwales 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you need help here, but I disagree that you need my help. I suggested several relevant WikiProjects, none of which had been approached about the matter; you could also approach individuals who are associated with those projects; you could ask for informal mediation (which will take a few weeks to arrive, but I really don't see any urgency to this; it's OK for us to have a bad article for a few weeks). I've been trying to avoid being heavily pulled into more and more controversies in areas where I have only a marginal interest, since I'm really not giving Wikipedia the time I used to. I made my remarks on the talk pages of the two articles you initially brought to my attention, but I'm not willing to wade in here up to my neck. - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation requires that the parties to the potential mediation both be willing to mediate. In other words, you need his agreement to mediate. As far as I know, you and I have no disagreement between us requiring mediation. If he isn't willing to accept mediation, then let's discuss how else you might proceed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish reactions to Intelligent Design

I am inclined to agree that this article has some POV and encyclopedicness issues, although it's not bad for a starter article. Haredi viewpoints are seriously underepresented -- they are talked about rather than having Haredi thinkers quoted -- and they are not represented sympathetically. I think the place where's the biggest potential for a problem is the coverage of the Modern Orthodox conference. It reads like journalism (See WP:NOT#NEWS). The comments about the uproar in the conference and the reactions of students from a nearby high school do strike me as being unencyclopedic. Imagine for a moment the shoe on the other foot, and an article on Conservative Halakha interlaced with lots of detail about uproar at meetings of the CJLS or the reactions of high school students to what committee members said. It could be perceived as disrespectful or even demeaning to the Conservative movement. Finally, rather than quoting potentially off-hand remarks at conferences (together with audience reactions), it might be better to bring more input from considered, thought-out scholarly monographs and autographs. I'd also suggest a title with more gravitas, e.g. Jewish philosophy and Intelligent Design. It would be better, on the whole, to aim to present in-depth thought rather than journalistic-style "reactions." That said it's far from a terrible article. But given some of the approaches taken, particularly the way more traditionalist/skeptical of scientism views are presented, I think there may be some legitimate cause for beefs here. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find myself inclined to agree with what I regard as User:ZayZayEM's best point, that an article in the Miami Herald called "Jews Clash Over Intelligent Design" just isn't a really good source for presenting the viewpoints of Orthodox Jewish thinkers in any sort of thoughtful or considered way, and having this as the only source for significant parts of this coverage does seem to represent a weakness that could use some strengthening. User:ZayZayEM appears to have taken umbrage at the way two pieces of this part were sourced and seems to have thought that the referencing obscured that multiple parts of the content were really coming from this one article. I don't think there was any obscuring or any such thing intended, but I do agree with the basic point that this source, with its in-the-moment news approach and emphasis on "clash", might not be the best source to use to present a major philosophical viewpoint in a thoughtful way, for reasons of both style and substance, and seems to be being overused. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism and evolution and Jewish opposition to evolution

I may not agree with User:ZayZayEM on everything, but I am inclined to agree that Jewish opposition to evolution is a POV fork of Judaism and evolution and I also agree that Judaism and evolution is the more NPOV title and hence Jewish opposition to evolution should be merged into it. ZayZayEM's simply right on this one. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the arguments that Jewish reactions to Intelligent Design should also be merged, but the arguments, although a little strongly made, generally seem plausible and legit arguments, right or wrong, rather than any sort of disruptive activity. I understand the edit history may show a different story. --Shirahadasha 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jewish opposition to evolution is being presented badly or in a POV way. The problem I see is that having a separate article devoted to a specific POV in a controversy represents a WP:POVFORK. I don't see why Haredi opposition to evolution can't be presented in the more general article. I realize in many cases I've argued that different denominational approaches to religious issues represent distinct subjects deserving distinct articles. Here, however, I think they aren't. In general, I think that a denomination's approaches to distinctly religious subjects represesnts a subject within that denomination rather than a point of view about something external (So, for example, Conservative Halakha is a subject intrinsic to Conservative Judaism rather than a mere Conservative point of view on a subject external to Conservative Judaism). Here, however, we are dealing with a religious denomination's perspective on a secular subject that comes from outside the denomination. For this reason, I believe that Haredi Judaism's view of evolution is simply a POV about evolution, not a distinct subject intrinsic to Haredi Judaism. Accordingly, I believe it belongs with the other POVs and doesn't deserve a separate article. It's OK to have a separate article on Jewish POVs, but WP:POVFORK prohibits a separate article on only POVs that are opposed. --Shirahadasha 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did not delete sourced material

this is the edit I made before you claimed I deleted sourced material. Please get your facts straight and WP:AGF. If sourced material is deleted by an editor you are fully in your right to return it to the article. Just as you were perfectly just to restore my impeteous delete of Anti-Defamation League content. Please calm down and be sensible about things.--ZayZayEM 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you did it, but you've altered the logs. I had to copy that text back in. There is an edit that is missing from the list. You must know somebody who is an admin. --Metzenberg 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. you are paranoid. What's happened here is I've edited an article at the same time as you. My edit went through before yours. You should have been supplied with an edit conflict message. Please reinsert said material, I'm not going to fight sourced content. Cease attacks on me. This accusation is the most serious you have made, and if allegations of this serious nature continue I am likely to consider taking appropriate action. --ZayZayEM 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
i'll be reading up on the sitch, plz keep calm. frummer

[edit] When you work on an article

... one way to avoid edit conflicts is to put {{inuse}} at the top. Click to see its usage. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primelinary Reply

Hello, I have read one of the articles you sent me.I must said that i did it very fast and without getting into its full meanings.For now i have only one comment which refers to the content of the article : i think that the real question is not wheter the I.D or the Evolution theories are false one (i.e you cite the fact that 83% of the Jewish doctors are against I.D (as far as i can recall it is above the average precent in the non-Jewish doctors population ) -but how can it be realted to the views of the Judiasm as a relligion agains or in favor of the I.D? More, i am an Israeli Jew , and although i have family in the USA and in other westren countries,like many (or even the vast majority) other Israeli Jews,i can tell you that i have reform relativies - for my self im from an orthodox heritage (so they were) . i.e most of the peopole in israel define themselves as orthodox Jews at different levels of practising (its ranged from peopole which are fully practising to peopole who visit the synagogue once in a year ) ,while most of the Jews in the USA define themselvs as conservative or reformic .In Israel ,about 23-26% define themselv as totlay secular (although they are celebrating the holly days) Jews and if they ever repent and become relligious they are very mostly became orthodox.

there is abig debate at Israel about wheter the reformic movment could be considerd as a part of judiasm .Historicly it is a movment that was esthblished as a catalyst for the assimilation of Jews with in the german non Jewish population and it not obliged to any immutable law which the Bible state ( i.e they dont keep the sabat , they make intermarrige between Jews and non -Jews which didnt convert and etc) . So, many Jews consider the reforms to be a new social stream with in the Jewish peopole but not with in the Jewish tradition (there are also reforms who see it in that manner.More,part of the reforms dont even belive in God, so its hard to me to make a connection between them and relligious aspects) and any way the reforms dont represent the classical view of the Jewish faith.

Best --Gilisa 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts with other editors

Howdy. I am a "disinterested party" to the problem between you and user ZayZayEM -- I don't know either of you, haven't edited the articles that you two have been working on (to the best of my knowledge), I'm not particularly interested in these topics, etc. I think that he's being too quick on the draw in changing your edits, and that he should take things a little slower and discuss with you more, but try to stay cool. You guys can probably work things out by yourselves, or with a little informal assistance from other Wikipedians, instead of people starting to talk about formal accusations of obstructionism and/or stalking. In general, try to de-escalate rather than escalate. (I also dropped him a note along these same lines.) Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 15:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Took a look at the recent edit history and agree that User:ZayZayEM, while not intending to disrupt the article, is being a bit too quick to simply delete edits perceived as disagreeable and is adding edits which, while sourced, appear worded so as to imply that Wikipedia is endorsing them, are sometimes too strongly worded for appropriate Wikipedia tone, and generally appear partisan. While as stated above I agree with some of this user's assessments about previous versions of articles and agree that this users citations to policy have been justified -- this user is clearly not a vandal -- I agree that this is not a good way to address them Best, --Shirahadasha 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZayZayEM is a stalker

I believe that User:ZayZayEM is a stalker. He clearly knows too much about Wikipedia to have simply arrived here a few weeks ago, as his edit record implies. I believe that he likely has other identities on wikipedia, and is probably an administrator. He has surely used other identities in the past. I thank those who have looked into this for me (a few of you). The problem is, you can't really understand what is going on as anything but what it is.

It is stalking!

With that, I now realize that I was naive to use my real name and real identity on Wikipedia. The wonderful thing about the Internet is, you can disapper and get a new identity in a few seconds. That's what I am planning to do. Goodbye everybody.

--Metzenberg 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Metzenberg: Please keep in mind that "disappearing and getting a new identity" overlaps to some extent with sockpuppetry, which practice is strongly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. I am not accusing you of anything untoward myself -- I am strongly sympathetic to the desire to maintain privacy and avoid hassles -- but other Wikipedians might. My continued best wishes to you in all your Wikipedian, other online, and offline endeavors. -- Writtenonsand 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Ummm. I'm not new to wikipedia. Please look at my extensive history of wiki-edits going back three years. Please look at my really early involvement in the fledgeling WP:ACOTW. Please read my user page. I am not stalking you. I am following these four interelated articles very closely because certain aspects of their style are worrying me. I have expressed my concerns only to be rebuked and insulted repeatedly by you. You are being reported for making defamatory personal attacks. I warned you about this.--ZayZayEM 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Metzeberg! I'm wondering if it just might be possible that you could be over-reacting a bit to this situation. I looked atZayZayEM's edit history and it does show a relatively small number of edits spread over a three-year period. Under these circumstances I don't see any inherent problem or reason for concern with having more familiarity than the edit count alone might show. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to maybe take a short break, perhaps respond to the comments left here and on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design, keep cool, and see how things develop. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

I have reverted your addition to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration because it blanked a large portion of the page. If you would like to readd it, the text can be found in page history. Picaroon 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I readded it. The format looks okay. Picaroon 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. This is my first experience doing this, and I didn't know how to do it. --Metzenberg 02:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Have there been any previous attempts at dispute resolution? If not, the arbitrators might tell you to try some of the other things listed at WP:DR. Picaroon 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN

"(ZayZayEM, out of courtesy, since I have just authored a large section, would you leave my version alone while we are in the dispute resolution process?)"

User:Metz - this is particularly where I need to say you seem to think you own articles.

I have not changed any actual content of the article in question (particularly because we are in arbitration now).

I have modified the aethetics and clarity of the article. Pictures shouldn't be placed all together in one article/section. Staggering is much more pleasing to the eye (IMHO), captions should be clear, and above all they should be placed nested in the relevant text if posible.

This is a wiki. It needs to be in an editable format. Placing all images together affects the ability of other editors to cohesively edit your work and retain readability. As it stands the image of Slifkin's book i actually nowhere near the section about Natan Slifkin. This doen't make any sense. Images should be placed in the relevant sections.--ZayZayEM 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr

I am an uninvolved party who tried to contribute to the article. I merely added my observations to the RFAr apge. Guettarda 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimatum is not a compromise

Please note that arbitration has been rejected under basis of premature.

Offering me an ultimatum is not an attempt at compromise.

You show absolutely no regard for following wiki-policy. You attack your opponents maliciously and act as if your own ways are innerrant and that any move my by yourself is some great act of matyrdom.

Please apply for official mediation I have made it very clear I am open to this. I think it will be very helpful for both of us to get third party input on this matter so that we don't make the same mistakes again.

I am not dignifying your ultimatum with a response.--ZayZayEM 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Hi again, Metzenberg. I was disappointed in the "proposal for compromise" which you posted to Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. While I do generally agree with your concerns about the creation and editing of good-quality Wikipedia content, your tone and manner of discussing these concerns with User:ZayZayEM struck me as impolite and inappropriate here. You are a Wikipedia editor. User:ZayZayEM is a Wikipedia editor. The two of you have identical rights and obligations. IMHO, if you attempt to dictate to him what he should or should not do (or if you request that he agree to your wishes in these matters), you overstep the bounds of Wiki-politeness.
- Requesting that another Wikipedia editor "leave these pages and not edit further" is IMHO inappropriate.
- Requesting that he "respect the opinions of those who actually author the material ... instead of acting without their permission " violates basic Wikipedia norms. Any Wikipedia user who edits an article "actually authors the material" and no Wikipedia editor (non-admin) has the right to grant or withhold permission to edit. Every Wikipedia editor sometimes finds it stressful to work under these conditions, however, these are the ground rules of the Wikipedia concept. Every edit of a Wikipedia page contains the clear notice: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." We need to focus on NPOV and good cites.
- Stating that if "User:ZayZayEM answers yes to all of the questions, then ... I will respectfully work with [him and various other users]" is IMHO inappropriate. You, and all Wikipedia users, have a basic obligation to work respectfully with all other Wikipedia users, at all times. (Even in the event of disputes, all Wikipedia users must attempt to resolve these disputes respectfully.)
Once again: I am very sympathetic to your desires to see good content on Wikipedia, and I wish you the best. -- Writtenonsand 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Hi Metzenberg: It would be nice to give other editors some sense of your interests, or anything else that you wish, if you would add something to your user page here at User:Metzenberg. Thanks a lot. IZAK 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi again, good start! IZAK 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

I just want to say a few things to Metzenberg about some independent observations about the various Judaism and Evolution (or creationism) articles. First, I think you've done a great job in getting the articles going. These articles were needed, because the various "jewish" sections of some of the more Christian-oriented articles on these subjects were either highly POV, inaccurate, and in some cases worthless. I ended up deleting some sections because I was frustrated with the edits.

ZZM's edits showed a high level of POV and, in a few cases, a total lack of knowledge of Judaism. His non-understanding of all things Judaica (not knowing the ADL is almost laughable) is not all that critical. He could have contributed to just the science (or in the case of ID, lack of science) of the articles. He seems to take some pleasure in chasing your edits and is getting emotional about it.

That all being said, I think you have done yourself a disservice through this process. First of all, I am defending your articles from the various attempts by ZZM to delete or merge these articles. But you do not own them, and you are giving every indication that you think you do own them. There are many editors who will help out. Guettarda is a great editor, I've worked with him on several Evolution and Creation articles, and although I don't agree with every single thing he's written, I'm at about 95% agreement. He loves to edit these articles, and he strives hard to put in a NPOV. He's one of maybe 30 or 40 editors I've seen on here that could help you out. But you can be offputting if you get so defensive about the articles that we aren't enjoying the process.

In addition, even though ZZM is acting very immature, your reaction to him is not helpful. We had a user who kept charging me with sockpuppetry (when in fact that user was a sockpuppet). I went through the appropriate level of administrator involvement, and that user is now banned. Even though he ticked me off, and I might have used less than kind words at times, I think everyone stayed level headed. You need to do the same.

You are a great editor who has given some invaluable contributions to Wikipedia. But, just because you are Jewish and obviously quite intelligent, those credentials alone don't give you any rights over anyone else, including someone like ZZM.

I am considering giving input on your arb case. However, I don't really have time to dig up all of the diffs to support what I need to say. I'm going to try to do so tomorrow. You really need to chill out however, because I am afraid either you will be blocked from editing certain articles (along with ZZM, I would hope) or you will get frustrated and refuse to participate (not very mature if you did that). If ZZM puts in arbitrary and inflammatory edits, then revert them. It doesn't take but 5 seconds to revert an edit. If it appears an edit war is starting (never mind, one already has), others will get involved.

I'm fighting right-wing creationists on the main articles, so I haven't devoted much time to your article. I will soon. I'm neither an expert on Judaism nor an expert on Evolution (or the polar opposite creationism), nor do I play these experts on TV. I am Jewish, and I have a solid biological science background, but there are much smarter people on here (yourself included) that have contributed some really good "stuff". Don't blow it by letting ZZM get under your skin. I'm not sure what ZZM's motives are, but they're not very healthy to the article. But your reaction needs some tempering.

Please take my suggestions with good faith. I am on your side. But don't embarrass your supporters, it won't be a good thing.

Orangemarlin 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Orange, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.
I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. ZZM is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product. He constantly quotes Wikipeida policies to me. If I want to make a change, I am violating WP:XXXX, he tells me every time. I understand there is a Wikipedia policy that says "ignore all rules" WP:IAR and another that says, don't be a WP:DICK.
Of course, the one thing ZZM clains over and over is that his right to do whatever he wants, and for me this behavior is very disruptive, is justified by WP:OWN, that I don't own it. He's can't hold off for a few hours when I ask him, so that I can finish something. Doesn't this violate WP:DICK? But seriously, WP:OWN is just an excuse for endless circular edit wars, because the answer to I don't own it is that he also doesn't own it. But that brings up one more thing.
You really need to chill out however, because I am afraid either you will be blocked from editing certain articles (along with ZZM, I would hope) or you will get frustrated and refuse to participate (not very mature if you did that).
You say, "not very mature if you did that"? Pardon me, but one thing that I do own is my own life, my own time, and my own abilities. Right now, the article Judaism and evolution is a polished and sourced article from the heading "Jewish opposition to Darwinian evolution" on down. Above that heading, the article is a mess of unsourced quotations, mostly. Those quotations are generally correct, and do give a good sense of what mainstream Jewish opinion is on evolution. But turning what is there now (and all the other material that is available) into a real article is going to be a lot of work. Of course, somebody else could do that work, and somebody else will eventually come along who wants to. But am I "not mature" if I don't want to? No, my life is my life!
Based on my experience with ZayZayEM, who has followed me from one article into several others already, I don't want to work on it. I've got to have a life, celebrate Pesach, visit my aging parents, and more. I'm willing to work on this material if I don't have to deal with ZayZayEM. I welcome the participation of people like you, Shira, Jay, jmabel, IZAK, and others who follow reasonable editing patterns, use Talk pages, and so forth.
I've tried to talk several of my friends into becoming Wikipedia editors. They are people who could make huge contributions. I know that if any of them ran into ZayZayEM, that would be the end of their contribution to Wikipedia.
Do you understand my contention that following a person from one article into another and yet another, is a form of stalking, and that it makes me extremely uncomfortable, even if the fellow is halfway around the world? That's why I asked to have my User page sanitized last week. (All old entries to it were erased.) I used to have personal information about my family on that page. --Metzenberg 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not following you. These articles are all interlinked. I looked at all these articles in an attempt to expand my knowledge. I found what I saw to be problems and pointed them out. Please do not take edits personally. I am trying to help improve these articles. I would be very interested to hear Orangemarlin's NPOV complaints about my edits. I will admit that I have followed you to Combatants for Peace. I have edited that article. Like I edit most articles I visit. Let me know if any of those edits have been inflammatory.--ZayZayEM 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM. I just looked. In fact, you did a good job there. No problems at all. You have to understand that I am too old to be on MySpace or the social networking sites that your generation uses, and having somebody look that way at what I am doing, and seeming to follow me around, just creeped me out. It was when you started doing things to the Natan Slifkin article that I really got upset about it. Now I realize that it is more taken for granted for you. Well, I didn't even look at what you had written.
I'm not naive about databases. I started a large, commercial website which has far outgrown my being involved in its day-to-day management, but I know what database tables and logs look like. I did not know anything about how Wikipedia was run before this incident. All that I did was write, and largely in a solitary way too. Can you see now how it felt to me to suddenly have somebody in my face every ten minutes while I was trying to write.
I actually have to say, thanks for stopping by here and reading this. I am starting to feel better about you. --Metzenberg 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it content or conduct

> I think this is more an issue of content than conduct.

It is impossible for me to work on this with ZayZayEM's style of editing by edit war. Will you have a look at Judaism and evolution, where I am working now? --Metzenberg 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a conduct issue, then please take this to WP:AN/I rather than to me. I've already said that I don't want to go deeply into this, and there are over 1000 other administrators, many of them far more actively in the role than I am these days. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Revocation of defamatory statements

I am glad we are now capable of civil discussion.

In the course of the alst few days you have made serious accusations about my editing behaviour (such as abusing admin powers, log tampering, trolling, wikistalking, collusion with User:Guettarda). I was currently in course of applying for Intervention against you in regards to these (IMHO) serious (and baseless) accusations when I read your most recent comment.

I would like you to remove all (or as many as you can) such "spammed" accusations of trolling and wiki-stalking removed from wikipedia. Some can be found utilising this google search.[1]. You may either strikeout, delete or add a disclaimer. I am not concerned so much with material on User:Talk pages. But certainly such accusations on public forums Wikipedia:Village Pump need to be taken. Please be aware such things are still saved in wiki-archives.

I don't want to irk you with more policy, but please keep in mind Assume good faith (and bad faith), Keeping your cool, Ownership of articles, Being nice, and other users, new or not are going to Be Bold so don't Bite them. I'll try and rememberto apply tehse rules to myself a bit more, and also keep in mind to Ignore them too.

I hope we can collaborate properly from now on. I really need to get back to my uni work.

Sorry for being a pain in the ass.--ZayZayEM 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


ZayZayEM. Like I said, I am feeling much better. Will you edit differently? The things I said about Talk pages, not deleting, giving people some space and time to finish something, are all important. Fact of the matter is, most of these policies go a lot of different ways. For example, as I said above to User:OrangeMarlin, the answer to WP:OWN is WP:OWN, which is to say, an endless circle of edits and retailiations.
Will you remember that some of the people you edit with in here are more than twice your age, and are not used to the confrontational editing style you were using. We are also not used to have other people seem to be tracking after us on social networking sites, because we have never used them. When people do that to us, it seems very threatening. I am willing to put statements and cross outs and explanations next to things if you will do the same. We can put them there together. I'm willing to, if your prepared to say that you'll do things differently, if we are really meeting in the middle on this. Is that a deal? --Metzenberg 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah circular reasoning sucks. the best approach I'm starting tos ee is not to directly revert changes. Try and change reversions if a revert war seemse imminent. That way a compromise can be met. Like here.[2]--ZayZayEM 04:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


ZayZayEM. What I'd like to do with you is write a brief joint statement that we have resolved our differences, and write over all the instances where these things occurred. We can delete them, substituting the new joint statement, and then wikisign at those places. I think the statement should be a brief sentence or two from each of us about why we were feeling what we did, and what we learned about the other one.
There is just one more thing that would really mean a lot to me ZayZayEM. I'm a lot older than you, and I don't need anybody to tell me this necessarily, but I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge the quality of the work I am giving for free to the public domain. There are not a lot of people that write clean, accurate, scholarly, sourced articles for nothing, and then give them out to be possibly butchered by others. Those articles are hard to write, and not a lot of people can write them. I just don't want to be hindered while I am writing. I try to give to the public domain in very good form. There is no reason to get in my face while I am doing it.
Remember that there are a lot of people who could be excellent writers for wikipedia, but would find confrontational editing very intimidating. The best writers tend to be 50-70 years old, have a lot of experience in their fields, have a lot of work experience. Many are recent retirees and empty nesters. You have to remember that an "in the face" style online editing is not their thing. Don't scare the best writers away from Wikipedia. I've been trying hard to convince several friends of mine to write here.
Now what I say about delete does not apply the same way to the "hippie cures for allergy" and that kind of thing. I realize you just have to delete sometimes. There is too much of that crap. But you should still explain the delete on the talk page. It is actually of value to the next editor, and some readers know to look at Talk pages. It will help them recognize it the next time it is posted. Once it has been explained once, it doesn't have to be explained again ever. --Metzenberg 04:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organised Jews

I agreewith your comments on people inserting a lot of non-peer reviewed literature into medical articles. Take a wander of Allergy, perhaps you can help me keep it clean, it too is a target for well meaning hippies and snake oil trolls.

Back again to My concerns about essay-style editing on your behalf "the Jewish people are extremely well organized. We don't agree on a lot of things, but when we agree on something, we really agree on it." - this comment seems to me to very POV. I don't really care how many people agree on it (I even agree on it too some extant). It's just not a "real" fact. It's certainly disputed - maybe not so much in Jewish community, but definitely outside it, and although we are dealing with the Jewish community's opinions, their opinions aren't the only ones that matter in formulating an article about thos opinions. (does that make sense?) Simply put Jewish organisations aren't proof that Jews are organised.

Japan likes to pride itself on national unity on opinion and ideas. They are defnitely very organised about how they present themselves to the world, and certainly a majority of Japanese vocal opinion supports the diea they are - but it's just not true in factual sense. I can't help sense but see a similar fallacy being generated in respect to Jews.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Jews, it is the Holocaust that caused this organizational psychology. The Anti-Defamation League, which we were talking about earlier, is getting to be a pain in the neck about it to me. Always pushing that fear agenda.
There is a lot that Jews disagree on too. Just some things are very straight-forward. You would have a really hard time finding Jews who are for intelligent design. --Metzenberg 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Again blaming the Holocaust seems to be presenting a POV. It should be presented as a majority opinion, not fact. I don't think we will reach agreement over this. I have been noticing a recent surge in Jewsih anti-Zionist organisations. Such as Combatants for Peace and there was some organisation attempting to set up in Australia, something like Australian Jews Against Israel or something.--ZayZayEM 04:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
About the Holocaust, I am just making an observation. I can see your point that building an essay style article with quotations is POV. But many things in this world are true, and yet they are not a collection of neutral facts.
Combattants for Peace is not an anti-Zionist organization. The Jewish members and Palestinian members both want a two-state solution. I have spent a lot of time in Isreal, and I know many Israelis. I also have a close Palestinian friend. Most people I know no longer have the six weeks mandatory military service every year. That stops at age 40. I consider myself a "qualified" supporter of Combatants for Peace and Peace Now. I also consider myself a Zionist. If you look at the picture at Peace Now, of a woman next to a Kibbutz swimming pool wearing a Peace Now T-shirt (words in Hebrew), I took that photo. She is the wife of a friend of mine. She loves the picture ... loves being the poster child on Wikipedia for a lonely cause.
You would be amazed at this, but much of the hasidic world is actually anti-Zionist. Each of the hasidic sects is different. They believe that establishing the state of Israel was premature because the Messiah hasn't shown up yet. But some of them are anti-Zionist, yet very right wing pro-Israel when it comes to voting.
One of the articles I have worked on a bit is Jewish denominations. It explains briefly the anti-Zionist phenomenon. --Metzenberg 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
A majority in Israel would accept a two-state solution with securtiy. Every poll in recent years has shown that. The problem is security. --Metzenberg 04:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chareidi rabbis

Hmm...it's something I heard from Rabbi David Pahmer from YU. However, I'm absolutely sure it's not his chiddush! If you read through Slifkin's Challenge of Creation, perhaps you'll be able to find something of this nature at the end of section 1 where he'd be tying everything together before getting into sections 2 & 3 regarding the actual basis he has for explaining creation and evolution the way he does. If you have any contacts at YU, you might be able to get someone to check out the YU library for articles and/or journals written and published in things like Traditions or Contemporary Halchic Issues by Rabbi J. David Bleich or Rabbi Lamm. Secondly, I was wondering if you'd consider altering your signature by clicking on "my preferences" up on top after you sign in. This way, you can have a link to your talk page without someone having to first visit your user page and then click on your talk page. You can "borrow" my format (which I borrowed from someone else), or borrow anyone else's format...check out article talkpages for good ideas, and then just copy it right off the edit page and switch it to your user name. Kol tuv. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for deletion - Former Jews

Do you mind looking at nominated CfD Former Jews. As I'm understanding it "Jew" is also an ethnicity, so while people can renounce Judaism, they can't renounce being Jewish by heritage.--ZayZayEM 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia a few days. One thing I gotta say is, having something like that up for deletion right during Passover is a heck of a time, because this is the time of year that everybody who is Jewish is busy first cleaning their home, then preparing for guests, preparing big seders, traveling. This is the big Jewish holiday season, this weekend and the next few days. This afternoon is just a quick stopover here at Wikipedia. I think maybe a good response to that whole deletion debate is, put it off for a few weeks.
Also, you are entirely correct about Jewish being a religion, an ethnic category, a culture, and a lot of other things all at once. --Metzenberg 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a phrase used for radical Communists born Jewish. They were called "Non-Jewish Jews". That seems to be a much better term than "Self-hatrng Jews" since many antisemitic Jews no longer have a Jewish view of "self". A totally assimilated Jew may be Halakhically Jewish but in terns of self view, behavior, values is anything but "Jewish".Emesz 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comments

I'd like to offer a couple of quick responses to your post to User:ZayZayEM at User_talk:ZayZayEM#Much_better_editing_style_.28goes_for_both_of_us.29

First of all, I'm very glad to see that things are going better.

Additionally:

-You wrote: "You're going a bit heavy maybe with the [citation needed]." -- I am also a "heavy [citation needed]-er" (although obviously there's such a thing as overdoing it). I think that, overall, the problem of under-citing on Wikipedia is probably at least a hundred times worse than the problem of over-citing.
Wikipedia:Citing sources suggests citing "when you add content", "when you verify content", and "material that is likely to be challenged." I think that covers quite a lot! Wikipedia:Attribution actually says that "Any unsourced material may be removed," and that "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." I personally think that a zero-tolerance application of this would be far too extreme, but that's what it says in the policy.
-You wrote: "Don't forget that, just because something has a citation, that doesn't mean it is accurate." -- Absolutely! But Wikipedia's policy, odd as it may seem, is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." At WP:NOTTRUTH#Doesn.27t_Wikipedia_care_about_truth.3F: "Wikipedians, as such, should not claim expertise; we cannot decide the truth in any field. But we can follow the consensus of experts. In some subjects, this consensus is likely to be the truth; in others, it is the best information available. Where experts disagree, all we can do is accurately report the debate, with the strengths and weaknesses of all sides." Again, personally, I want the truth and nothing but, but this is Wikipedia's policy.

Again, glad to see that things are going better, and best wishes. -- Writtenonsand 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no offence

You don't get my postal address. That's nice, but creepy. Happy Passover.--ZayZayEM 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

I've looked at the articles. The discussion is more "sociological" and political than what it ought to be: legitimate and necessary scientific controversy. If the issue was purely scientific I would advocate a course/lessons on "alternate views of cosmology". One example of an alternate view is a an intelligently designed "framework" designed to evolve within certain constraints and rules. Computer science includes a "genetic programming" and "artificial life" model, which are somewhat similar to intelligent design and can be rigorously and scientifically analyzed. Most if not all of the theologians, priests and rabbis mentioned in the articles are not familiar with man created systems (another example of intelligent design ...) sufficiently large and complex to sustain themselves thru long cycles of "evolution" or mutation. The systems and mental models most of us are familiar with to date have no capability to evolve. It is certainly not true that certain models of intelligent design with built-in evolutionary capability can't be studied scientifically. Computer science/technology is rapidly advancing and one important use of almost limitless computation/communication "energy" is likely to be "creation" of imaginary "worlds" where today's elementary avatar populated community "world" games are primitive precursors. Today's "virtual worlds" and its avatars are still limited and unable to evolve, yet that is certain to change over time - probably the next few decades. One would think that this model alone justifies including "intelligent design" in science education, rather than the current limited and "fundamentalist" view which excludes other than Big Bang etc. actual and potential designs. On the other hand, there is the important social and political issue of having in public schools (at all levels) a religion free environment, which served America well over time. Also, unfortunately, as soon as religion enters a school it tends to bring with it dogmatic views, which are difficult to filter and which tend to rapidly flavor discussion to become unscientific. Much wisdom is required to resolve the conflicting aims of encouraging healthy skepticism in science, including scepticism about certain aspects of science, having scientific rigor devoid of religion and ideology and avoiding divisive religious atmosphere in schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emesz (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Not sure I am following you, why this message is for me? Are you asking me something? --Metzenberg 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design#Protection still needed?: Please respond. The person you were in a dispute with wants it lifted. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/User_talk%7EMetzenberg_713c.html"