User talk:ZayZayEM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello ZayZayEM and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!


Archive1

Contents

[edit] Nova

Thanks for your points on the Talk:Nova (English school in Japan) page. it seems the user User:Malangthon has no idea about copyright on Wikipedia, and seems to be abusive too. Do you know an Admin that can help? Sparkzilla 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Zimmer,

It is clear that the person or persons referring to themselves as SparkZilla have not read the WP policy on copyrighted materials. It would be a good idea to read that policy, review the vast number of articles here on WP that employ copyrighted materials and the conditions under which this is done and then go to the Mainichi pages and read the copyright statement that appears at the bottom on each and every page. Having appraised my self of the copyright laws in Japan and personally enquired of Mainichi policy in 1992, I do know as a matter of fact that the person or persons calling themselves SparkZilla is fabricating the issue of copyright violation and is acting in contradiction to WP Policy. Malangthon 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Zimmer,

I was rereading the history of the NOVA aricle and found your contribution (later deleted) from March, 2005:

  • "As with any business, NOVA's focus is on profit. Correspondingly, NOVA offers wages (ranging from 160,000 to 304,000 yen per month) just sufficient to hire the number of teachers it needs and then uses those teachers as much as it can, as opposed to a government initiative such as the JET_Programme. Many teachers at NOVA do not last for a full year, while others have been working for the company for many years. Some teachers use NOVA just to get a work visa and then leave for a better contract shortly after arrival in Japan. Others use NOVA to find students for private tutoring, a practice that company seeks to limit with its anti-fraternization policy.
  • "NOVA has been the target of unionization initiatives which are difficult to organize given the short-term contracts of its foreign employees. Among its labor complaints are NOVA's over-charging on (optional) employee housing."

Too bad we did not connect back then. I could have given you sources. All of what you said is not only true, but common knowledge. Malangthon 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism, ID and the User:Metzenberg incident

ZayZayEM - I am in the midst of working on this article as we speak. Since you are in Australia, would you let me finish. You may work on it after I go to bed. --Metzenberg 01:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, please back off for a few days.

Did you receive my request that you not edit the article while I am editing it? --Metzenberg 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hi, I am trying to assume good faith and I'll need your help. I saw some reports of your harassment and following around another editor. FYI, WP:STALK#Wikistalking says "Wikistalking has been a subject in at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings (and a peripheral matter in a third)." Please consider this as a friendly warning. Thanks and happy editing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming this is user Metz. He is being paranoid as self absorbed. I came from intelligent design to Jewish reactions to intelligent design. This also led me to check Judaism and evolution and Jewish opposition to evolution all three articles are interlinked, and all appear to have significant flaws in direction and encyclopedic value IMO. As a matter of trying to find more about these subject I have also been involved in editing Natan Slifkin as well. User:Metz has taken these edits and expressions of concern far too personally. IMO he has been stalking me (though not in bad way) as he appears to be checking my edit history and attempting a "call to arms" against my actions--ZayZayEM 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Howdy. I am a "disinterested party" to the problem between you and user Metz -- 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. Yeah, it seems to me like he's being slightly "paranoid, self absorbed, and is taking things too personally". However, I think that you could also be a little more careful not to tease him about it. If you don't want to give him a week to fiddle with his edits, at least give him a couple of days. Discuss your concerns and the "fixes" that you want to make (politely) on Talk before making them. In general, try to de-escalate rather than escalate. (I'm going to drop him a note along these same lines.) Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish reactions to Intelligent Design, Jewish opposition to evolution, and Judaism and evolution

Hi! Wanted to drop you a quick line regarding these articles. While I agree that these articles could be significantly improved and content and sourcing are spotty in some places, want to encourage you to talk about improvements to the article in situations where there is agreement and to avoid jumping in and changing lots of things, getting reversed by other editors, and then repeating the cycle. Wikipedia encourages dialogue and mutual understanding and provides a number of resources to enable users to work things out as well as enforcement tools if there is persistent non-cooperation. I also want to mention one aspect of Wikipedia's philosophy that's relevant to these articles. Unlike many other encyclopedias, Wikipedia interprets its neutral point of view policy to require neutrality in debates between religious and naturalistic points of view, in tone as well as substance. The policy requires covering all notable points of view in a formal, sympathetic tone that avoids judgment. Some of your edits, such as the statement that certain religious viewpoints have been "dismissed" by certain scientists, have been read by some editors as implying a non-neutral editorial stance and suggesting that the article regards these scientists as correct. Similarly, given that the "Jewish creationism" point of view is notable and well-sourced viewpoint, it appears relevant to these articles' subject and hence to belong in them. As a notable viewpoint, the neutral point of view policy requires that it be summarized in a fair, sympathetic way (but without endorsement or undue weight) and presented as a point of view among others. While I agree with your point that these article in their current state may be giving undue weight to certain points of view, a better solution would be to add additional content on underrepresented viewpoints rather than remove existing content. Wikipedia is somewhat indulgent with legitimate new articles and well-intentioned edits and encourages improvement rather than culling, at least until articles have matured. It's also worth remembering that the subject of these articles involves Jewish points of view, undue weight refers to their weight within Judaism and the Jewish community, not their weight in the general society or the scientific community. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my question and comment on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. Would appreciate a reply. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZZ's (not so) final words

Wow. That was exciting.

User:Metzenberg has made it clear on his talk page that my actions have caused him to quit Wikipedia. Though he does mention the possibility of return (it sounds like B movie finale hoping for a sequel): "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."

This isn't what I was hoping for. I was sort of expecting some sort of mature discussion, a look through wikipedia policies, third party comments and perhaps, at the worst, mediation.

Instead I was insulted, repeatedly - I was told I was ignorant of the subject, had no business editing articles outside my interests, and User:Metz even resorted to rather juvenile taunts about my nationality. User:Metz became incraesingly paranoid when I edited related articles in a bid to reconcile content. I added a picture to Natan Slifkin. As a result I was the subject of totally unfounded accusations - that I was tampering with edit logs, was abusing admin privelages (that I don't actually have) and wiki-stalking.

User:Metz tried very hard to rally third-party opinion to his cause. Aside from User:Orangemarlin whowas "done assuming good faith" with someone who assume was me, most of the people he contacted warned him of policies that I was mentioning such as WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR; and even one I wasn't aware of WP:POVFORK. A lot of them criticised both User:Metz' and my own behaviour as being rather innapropriate.

User:Metz appears to have been a good contributor to Wikipedia. He had even been awarded a barnstar for his work to an article (I can't remember which, and at User:Metz' request his userpage has been vaporised). He seemed to be dedicatedto editing pages he was very passionate about. As an editor of articles of which content he was familiar and confident with, he probably hadn't had too many incidents of issues with policy. He appears to have been a bit naive about Wikipedia policies on ownership, who edits articles, Rules on reversions, Civility, and Starting your own articles from scratch.

I am possibly guilty of WP:BITE, an initial failure to Assume good faith, The last word, WP:DISRUPT among other crimes.

Again this is definitely not my preferred resolution of this situation. I hope I've learned from it.--ZayZayEM 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, so it wasn't final

Ok ZayZayEM, where's the kosher kangaroo meat?

ZayZayEM - Calling this statement an ethnic slur is silly. It's a triple entendre.

1. Back in about 1983, there was an advertisement on U.S. television that was a big hit where one of the fast food companies said "where's the beef?" (I was living in Israel at the time, so I don't remember which company. I never saw the advertisement.) 2. Then in the 1984 presidential primaries, Walter Mondale ran an advertisement about the Gary Hart campaign (big on image, short on substance) in which Mondale's campaign said "where's the beef." It was a clever allusion to the earlier advertisement, and it helped Mondale overcome Hart's early lead. (again, I never actually saw the advertisement.) 3. So, "Where's the kosher kangaroo meat?" is simply my version of the famous U.S. campaign slogan from 1984, in an Australian context, with the added meaning that there is no such thing as kosher kangaroo meat ... in other words, your complaints had no substance.

User:Metz tried very hard to rally third-party opinion to his cause.

ZayZayEM. Anybody who wants to can go look at my requests to other Users to come and look at the page. I asked users who I know are familiar with Hebrew language or Jewish philosophy and theology, since they are the best at determining the neutrality and balance of the content. My references to you were as an editor who was being disputatious and contentious, and that was all I said about you. Let teh arbitrators go see for themselves.

One more thing. User:Guettarda is not a party in this dispute. Why is he making a statement at my request for arbitration? He appears so quickly right after you, and in the same room, and supports your early statements with practically the identical language about WP:OWN, I'm guessing he may be your sock puppet, or a friend in your dormitory, or some such thing. I'd like to see his so-called "testimony" removed. Each of us is allowed to make our own statement. User:Guettarda shows up so quickly in the arbitration hearing. I don't see where you messaged him. How did he know this was going on so quickly? Would somebody checkuser and netbock to see if this is another Australian?
ZZ is not responding to any comments until RfA/Mediation is resolved.--ZayZayEM 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for intervention against user ZayZayEM

weeeeeeeeeee...

Arbitration seems to be rejected.

User:Metzenberg has again shown lack of understanding in the way of wiki (this is not an insult, it is an observation).

[edit] Proposal for compromise

I have entered a proposal for compromise at Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. I have stated that if you answer yes to all five questions, then I will withdraw my request for arbitration. --Metzenberg 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is an ultimatum not an attempt at compromise. You have not changed your original offensive position. Simply - I need to get out of your face, permanently, and you know better then me.--ZayZayEM 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi,ZayZayEM. You may want to take a look at it my reaction to User:Metzenberg's proposal for compromise, which I posted to his talk page. My comments about treating all other Wikipedians with respect at all times were directed to him, but may be of interest to you as well. Additionally, while I'd like to see User:Metzenberg interacting with other users with greater politeness and friendliness, I am sympathetic to his desire to see good articles.
Remember, in situations like this, it's often the case that Talk is silver, but silence is golden. Before any post (to a Talk page, I'm not talking here about editing articles), consider carefully whether it will help to de-fuse the situation, or whether it would be better re-phrased or omitted altogether.
Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much better editing style (goes for both of us)

ZayZayEM. I didn't put the citations exactly where you suggested, but I did add some citations to that paragraph. I'm not sure they really were necessary, since the section is just a one paragraph introduction to what is a thoroughly sourced article, but it doesn't hurt. I added the Hirschfield quote as a way to add substance to the previous two sentences. The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership (notice who started the article) is a small but very respected, interdenominational organization, and several of its associates and fellows are very prestigious and internationally known, notably Joseph Telushkin.

Now, as to the general thrust of your arguments that this was a POV essay ... guess what, I agree with you. But it's factually true. Jews are POV on this subject. In the United States, 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. It is extremely hard to find anybody in the Jewish world who is for the Christian concept of intelligent design, although there is one spokesmen for the Haredi community (Avi Shafran) that has said he supports it. I think it's clear though that even Shafran himself, if a scientific proof were discovered for how life began or how man evolved, would embrace the science and reinterpret the Torah.

As I said, Jews tend to be very passionate about certain things, and one of them is not wanting Christian concepts taught to our children. The fact is, there really is only one POV on this one in the Jewish community. As soon as the article is unlocked, I'll add a Shatran quote at the end to represent that opinion. There is another guy (David Klinghoffer) who is basically a paid lobbyist for Discovery Institute. His job is to make it appear that there is Jewish support for ID. So I wouldn't include him as Jewish opinion, although he is Jewish. (I started the Shafran and Klinghoffer articles too. I start a lot of Jewish articles on Wikipedia. Note that Shira and I constantly work on the same articles.)

I do not come here with a feeling that I "own" these articles. In fact, I value having others contribute very much. I hope you can understand now what I mean. There is a danger on Wikipedia of having what was once well sourced and accurate "break down" over time. People move the material in the article around without moving the citation with it. But I hope you understand my perspective. Why would anybody spend long hours writing a neutral, scholarly article to let somebody else butcher it up. Don't most college students hate writing papers. After I write something, I just want to make sure that additions to it are of the same caliber, and that they are accurate and sourced.

Take a look at the Tay-Sachs disease article. I have done a lot of work on it, making it well sourced and well organized. I would say that anything in the article that can be confirmed by a major database like National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which is already referred to in the first citation, doesn't need to be sourced again because it is common knowledge. So you don't need to go sticking any [citation needed] tags all over the place there. Even so, I get annoyed by people having little edit wars over whether children die at age 3 or age 5. The fact is, all both facts are true and can be sourced. In the 1970s, when the disease still presented itself 100 times a year, children died at 2-3. Today, with better palliative care, they make it to 4-5. But there are so few of them now, that nobody would even write a paper about it.

The biggest problem I have with the Tay-Sachs article (it is vandalized all the time, but the vandalism gets fixed very fast), is the fact that people who don't have the background stick non-peer reviewed research in all the time. For example, read on the talk page about the Public Television program about Tuberculosis and Tay Sachs. Since public television is so impoverished, they still show that program, which is just plain out of date. So I am just fighting to keep these articles accurate and keep the bad science, the out-of-date science, pseudo science, and so forth from taking over. I think you and I are fighting pretty much the same battle there, so we shouldn't be wasting time fighting each other over anything.

Now, I know you have a thing against the pseudo-scientists like the Discovery Institute, and you are very POV. Your introduction to the article is too strongly worded, not neutral. I know you think you are doing a favor for science by doing so. But it's not a fight you need to win that way. You may think those people are dangerous, but they really aren't. The ones that are dangerous are the ones that are funded well by somebody with an agenda (the American Petroleum Institute (API), for example), and the ones that have a political agenda, and somehow think it is scientific (for example, try this guy: Gregory Cochran). API creates phony scientific papers, as do other special interest groups, like drug companies. Such materials then get cited as science on Wikipedia. A lot of good Wikipedia editors watch out for their materials.

If this is how you're going to edit from now on, I have no problem with it. You're going a bit heavy maybe with the [citation needed]. A single citation at the end of each paragraph, perhaps to all the relevant material in the paragraph, is better. On the other hand, on Wikipedia, people can separate a sentence from its citation. That's one of the dangers of being too bold in editing, and one of the reasons I urge you now to choose a less confrontational style of editing.

Don't forget that, just because something has a citation, that doesn't mean it is accurate. The citation may be to something that doesn't say what the author thought it said. Or it may be to a bad source, a poor source, a non-neutral source, a source that has no authority. A source that you can use to click through and read the underlying text is the best source. People use citations as a phony device, knowing that nobody will ever really check them. I check out some of those sources too. Look above at the Talk for the Skeptic Magazine artilce. It called itself an "empirical study". People had been arguing about it here for months. I removed it, and gave the reasons why.

Anyhow, enough for now. I think we're starting to talk here. --Metzenberg 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the David Klinghoffer page and categorizing it. Maybe I should send you all my new ones to categorize. David Klinghoffer is coming out with a major new book this summer (in August, I have heard). That's why I am considering writing a wikipedia biography of him, doing some extensive research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metzenberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] please

Hi try to be more objective when you change things on storys like Lindsay Hawker you have done some changes i saw. Just telling you. And the comment from the faimly is true if you looked in the external.,. and their is nothing saying that we cant bring in comment from other people. Their is numours cases of that on wiki.--Matrix17 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Serves the bitch right for going to gooksville" isnt even close to the case that i wrote. so dont compare those two.Thats just wrong--Matrix17 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Strangnet has done proper wiki of the article now anyway and restored soem of the external links you removed so its no worries.--Matrix17 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drop Bear

Hi ZayZayEM, I've watched with some humour the Drop Bear article recently. I think policy should be conformed to despite the obvious widespread temptation to vandalise it as part of the joke the article describes. One thing I thought was a shame was your removal of the image (unless the image itself is a breach of policy, in which case that should be dealt with at the image's page), while I don't think it should be tagged as a real Drop Bear ready to strike unaware yanks, I do think it should remain with the tag of 'an artist’s impression of a Drop Bear'. This image in my opinion adds to the article (which, it must be kept in mind, is about a humorous subject matter). Your thoughts? Alec -(answering machine) 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the image, particularly the advertising which I didn't notice. I agree that the article should not be a joke, which is what I was trying to say above. Alec -(answering machine) 13:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Pesach

ZayZayEM - I have a Passover present for you. You'll like it. A science book. Send me your snail mail address, so I can send it on. My email is my wikiID at Yahoo dot com. Shalom. --Metzenberg 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I can get copies of my brother's book for free. Working with DNA, by Stan Metzenberg.

[edit] Reason for content deletion?

Hey ZayZayEM, I noticed you deleted some additions I made the Allergy page a few days ago. The information I included is intended to be an accesible and helpful treatment in addition to the ones already included. I've noticed that the direction of the article is under discussion; however, I am hoping you might be able to provide an explanation for the deletion. Thanks and hope you had/have a good Passover/Easter. --TinyE 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi ZayZayEM, Thanks for your welcome greeting as well as the solid explanation for deletion of my contribution to the Allergy page. I appreciate the guidance from an experienced Wikipedian and hope to make valuable contributions as I get more "wikipediafied". --TinyE 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/a/y/User_talk%7EZayZayEM_7b64.html"