User talk:ZayZayEM/archive incidents


 * This page is for archiving user talk "incidents" I seem to get entangled with occasionally

Nova: Take one
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)

Judaism, ID and the User:Metzenberg incident
just to begin with...

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)

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)
 * No. See Talk:Jewish_reactions_to_intelligent_design--ZayZayEM 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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 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. 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).

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment
A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As someone whose opinion I respected on the Nova issue, your input either way would be most valued. Talk:Nick_Baker_%28prisoner_in_Japan%29. Thank you. Sparkzilla 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments on the RFC. I wonder if you could expand your opinion to cover claims 2-4 in the RFC disputed text section. I am trying to find an answer to the question about using single sources to support a claim in a BLP. I appreciate your time. Sparkzilla 11:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you could have a look at this summary of the RFC and give me your comments... Sparkzilla 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Hi Zay Zay, I've taken the liberty of removing a post from your page that arguably violated BLP. The person who posted it was earlier today asked to stop spreading this material. I was going to e-mail you a full explanation, but I see you don't have e-mail enabled. By all means e-mail me if you need to know more. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have made a complaint about the removal of my mail to you by SV, and my being banned as a result of sending it to you here -- Sparkzilla talk! 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the deleted edits. Slim Virgin please do not remove these posts they do not violate BLP and express a valid concern about your activities as an admin. --ZayZayEM 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Material removed aginst the advice you gave in RFC
A while back you were kind enough to comment on an RFC regarding some text on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) regarding an op-ed I had written about the case (which at the time was supported by a single source). The disputed text is: ":Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, an English-language publication based in Japan, withdrew his support from Baker's cause in his publication, taking issue with the fact that Baker had visited Japan two months before his arrest. He questioned the actions of the support group and claimed that Iris Baker was 'deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention'." The RFC is here and your responsewas; "Editorial by notable voice is accredited appropriately. WP:UNDUE may apply, but I would rather include this information rather than disinclude - it is portrayed as opinion of one man from one journal, not as fact.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

I took your advice and with the help of other editors I found three secondary sources in UK newspapers that reported on my criticisms of the support group. I feel that having three independently verifiable sources more than satisfies, notability, verifiability and relevance.

However, a few days ago, as part of the removal of a different source, the text was mistakenly removed by User:SlimVirgin (an admin I had been in conflict with before). Rather than go through a lengthy RFC again, I would like to ask for your comments regarding the disputed text. The relevant discussion is just before and through I have done the right thing by taking this to RFC and getting extra sources and I would like your opinion on the current situation. Do you think I need to have another RFC? I appreciate your advice. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:48, 15 July 2007

Sparkzilla forgot to add
My final comments on the matter "I agree with David Lyons that 1) Involved parties should not make attempts to summarise uninvolved party's commentary. 2) In light of the fact that Sparkzilla has a very strong COI regarding the source for these editorial comments - I am far more in favour of exclusion now.

I agree with Sparkzilla on the below issue reagrding claims by Baker should be marked as such.--ZayZayEM 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Your note
ZayZay, there's too much detail to go into here, but Sparkzilla has definitely not applied himself within COI or BLP. He is or was engaged in a real-life campaign against certain individuals, and has tried to drag that campaign onto Wikipedia, with serious legal implications for us. The sources he used are not strong enough sources to support the allegations (they are his own publication, which is a small city guide, and three local classifed-ad papers in the UK, which are simply repeating his claims). Contentious BLP claims need excellent sources, which in this case would mean the mainstream press. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware with the facets of this matter and of Sparkzilla/Devlin's involvement and COI. This matter is not *contentious* and does use several third party semi-independent sources to establish attribution to verifiable and reliable sources. Metropolis is not *small*. Your opinion of Devlin, Baker or Crisscross K.K. is irrelevent. Consensus had been reached. Why are you interfering without gathering consensus yourself?--ZayZayEM 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where has that consensus been reached? Corvus cornix 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * RFC is here. I'm fixing my edits else where referring to consensus being reached. It is important to note that Sparkzilla has been attempting to get consensus. Something SlimVirgin is not doing. Editors involved in the Baker page do not appear to objecting to the comments. Several of the more vocal editors objecting seem more focused on targetting Sparkzilla for COI and Metropolis for WP:V than actual article content and NPOV. --ZayZayEM 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla and SlimVirgin
Your continued encouragement of Sparkzilla to harrass SlimVirgin is not making things any better. Why not back off and let Sparkzilla listen to the vast majority of editors who are objecting to his edits? Corvus cornix 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not encouraging Sparkzilla to harass anyone, if I observe that I will tell him to set back. I am encouraging the editorial community to scrutinize SlimVirgin's actions and not discourage good faith editors with Personal Attacks.--ZayZayEM 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Moulton
I appreciate your participation in helping to reach a consensus that achieves the goal of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting biographies of living persons.

I believe Wikipedia treads on thin ice when it adopts pejorative characterizations, especially in headlines, and especially when there is considerable evidence that the controversial characterization is factually inaccurate and potentially defamatory (to as many as 103 scientists).

To my mind, the safest and most responsible thing to do is to avoid gratuitous negative reframing (e.g. "anti-evolution" or "dissent") and simply say "Controversial Petition". If (as six scientists are on record as saying) that the petition is not "anti-evolution", then it suffices to simply reference the NY Times article, where that ill-chosen adjective appears only in the headline. Let the citation speak for itself and let the onus be on the NY Times to defend the questionable headline. Note that neither the NY Times article itself, nor the website that the article is about use the term "anti-evolution". Six scientists have patiently explained that they are not anti-evolution, nor is the statement that 103 of them signed in 2001.

There is a slightly weaker argument over the "dissent" characterization, but I believe it does a disservice to 103 scientists to apply that label to the statement signed by the first 103 scientists.

Please feel free to E-Mail me if you would like me to explain any of this in more detail.

Moulton 01:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I admire your spunk, holding your ground on WP:BLP and the "Do No Harm" ethos.

As you probably know, James Tour and Rosalind Picard are the most closely related BLP's with respect to the contention over how Wikipedia presents their biographies. If you compare the two biographies, you will see some notable differences in the way they are written. I think Wikipedia should be consistent as well as accurate, professional, and ethical.

I have no idea how to achieve that objective.

Moulton 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to James Tour, I think you are on the right track, but here are some things to take a second look at...

1) The adjective "anti-evolution" still appears in the text. As you know, the sole source for that is one headline in one story and nowhere else in any WP:RS.

2) There is a criterion regarding undue weight that you might want to consider: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As it stands, the contentious section is longer than the biography, yet it's only supported by one story in one newspaper.  The viewpoint of those who wish to portray scientists like Tour or Picard in a negative light is not even a viewpoint originating from a WP:RS.

Moulton 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on "Sources"...

No one objects to reporting what the headline in the NYT said. What is objectionable is elevating that erroneous characterization to the level of fact. When you cite the NYT article, the citation, down in the References, exhibits the disputed headline and identifies the WP:RS that penned it. That suffices to disclose what the NYT said, without elevating it to the status of fact.

Note that Kenneth Chang, whose name also appears in the citation, ends up bearing the burden for the headline, even though he probably never saw the headline, nor approved it.

Many people put their names to something in one context that's perfectly reasonable. And, as you well know, it's not uncommon for a partisan to reframe the statement within a different context. This is a classic way to change the way something is understood. Reframing is a classic feature of three-sentence jokes. The first two sentences of the joke are understood in one context, but the punchline changes the context, so that the first two sentences are now understood in a different light. In a sit-com, the classic response to a reframe barb is, "That's not what I meant," (or body language to that effect).

Consider a stage play like Equus or a novel like Wicked. These are dramas that exemplify reframing, so that by the end, the audience understands the protagonist in a completely different light.

See this version of the James Tour biography for an illuminating example of reframing as it is used more ethically to remove a stigma.

Moulton 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reframing is creating a POV OR. Wikipedia can make no guesses about framing, or reframe ideas. It it is a tertiary resource.--ZayZayEM 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rosalind Picard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis ( t ) 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps WP:3R--ZayZayEM 09:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orthography
No one is two words. Noone is the last name of the singer from Herman's Hermits. Cheers. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Ahhh I see. I will unprotect now, and you can send me a message when you think that the article is ready to be reprotected, and the BLP violating material has been removed. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm? ToT--ZayZayEM 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm serious. Please remove BLP violative material, and then I will re-protect. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you find wrong with that action? Is there something I have missed? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with that action is that it is an abuse of admin privileges, you are not supposed to takea side in a dispute over a page you protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ornis the article is being protected to prevent the inclusion of the material that is under discussion as potentially violating a very important guideline on WP:BLP that protects wikipedia from legal disputes and claims of unreliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs)


 * Pftt. There's no BLP issue. Odd nature 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Our multiple investigations over the last 2 weeks have amply demonstrated this. We do have more references to use to flesh this out. --Filll 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not getting the issue
Are you seriously claiming that saying electrical engineering and affective computing are not related to evolutionary biology is OR and a BLP issue? The statement is true on it's face and your enabling an established internet crank who's been conducting a POV campaign from his blog here. You're not helping. In fact you haven't been in some time. Your stock with the regular editors of these topics has plummeted. Odd nature 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. It's almost like trying to prove that the sun's not yellow, it's chicken.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm...what BLP issue? The statement that "[n]either [her] original field of electrical engineering nor her current field of affective computing is related to evolutionary biology"? There's a question regarding whether it constitutes OR, but I don't follow how this relates to BLP. Guettarda 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on how one's books are selling and how one is selling one's books, I guess. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OR on a BLP is doubly a BLP issue. I'd let this stand on a non-BLP and just contend it. On a BLP, it's important to remove OR, then discuss it. Also you guys are focusing on the wrong part of the sentance.--ZayZayEM 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Originally, the article said (on Picard's bio) that the field of computer science was not related to evolution. At the same time, the parallel sentence on Tour's bio said that his field of organic chemistry was unrelated to evolution.


 * The field of computer science originates with the invention of the modern computer. John von Neumann is generally considered to be the father of the modern stored-program computer.  He is also consider the founder of the branch of mathematics known as game theory.  One of the more interesting monographs that von Neumann wrote is entitled, "On the Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata," in which he gave a benchmark for the smallest automaton capable of self-reproduction.  His benchmark established a metric for the minimum complexity of a computer virus or living system capable of self-reproduction.  Douglas Hofstadter further explored these ideas in his Pulitzer-Prize Winning book, Goedel Escher Bach.  The work of von Neumann and Hofstadter clearly demonstrate a connection between computer science and the complexity of life (which is the thrust of one of the two sentences in the 32-word petition).  Tour's nanocar is not a self-reproducing organic structure, but it's a self-propelled organic structure.  The complexity of a self-propelled system is probably less than the complexity of a self-reproducing system.  To my mind, as a student of von Neumman and Hofstadter (among many other seminal thinkers), the disciplines of the 103 scientists are probably a lot more closely related to questions in evolution than most lay observers might appreciate.  Moulton 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
I disagree with your statement about Intelligent design; however, that is not the point about User:Moulton. His tendentious editing, his violation of privacy in emails, his outright disingenuous commentary are the reasons for his RfC. Picard (not Jean-Luc) signed the DI document, and that's a fact. Not sure what else to write, but I think that many editors have fought on the side of NPOV rather than pushing a pure POV about anything anti-Creationism. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As you are aware I have been lambasted for my behaviour on the Rosalind Picard article. I have found it very hard to discuss anything with the editors involved in that article, namely Fill and Hrafn. They have repeatedly grouped me in with Moulton as a harassing troll without actually attempting to address any concerns with anything beyond a "we're right, you're stupid" attitude. It's not productive as it automatically provokes a retaliatory response in a large percentage of wikipedians, myself included. Just because Moulton is far removed from the point of reason does not mean that editors should be able to get away with saying anything they like on the article. A few editors beyond Moulton, have expressed, that making the link between Picard's irrelevent field and the Dissent's appeal to authority value is OR. These editors have refused to discuss this appropriately, and when suddenly confronted by a move to form consensus, and potentially lose their semi-POV edits, have asked the entire article be deleted. As if that isn't just the slightest bit suss.--ZayZayEM 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The lambasting which you have been subjected to is a shameful effort by the signatories of the Intelligent Design Project to subdue, silence, and intimidate you for daring to challenge them for systematically breaching the standards for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting articles suitable for inclusion in a public encyclopedia worthy of distinction. Moulton 09:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't "group you in with Moulton" -- I do find both you and Moulton to be extremely irritating, but for heavily divergent and unrelated reasons. Moulton is irritating because of his complete disinterest in wikipedia rules and almost-ubiquitous tangential digressions. You on the other hand I find irritating because of your sporadic extreme over-zealousness on the enforcement of some wikipedia rule or other. This might make me wish I could strangle you at times, but does not lead me to term you a "troll". Hrafn42 11:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They have failed in attempting to address any concerns with anything beyond a "we're right, you're stupid" attitude