User talk:Andrew Norman

This is the primary way of contacting me. Please don't change anything in the archives, add new comments below.

I respond to comments here, not on the other user's talk page, to keep both sides of a discussion in the same place.

PoetryForEveryone linkspam

It is not spam

It is not spam. PoetryForEveryone 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is spam, and you will be blocked if you continue. Stop immediately. --ajn (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of stopping

It is not spam. Each link goes directly to the author's work plus the translations. There are over 79,000 documents in this archive that took over a year to put together. It is non-commercial and a useful project which betters the art. It is also a lot of work going through here and customizing each of these links. Just saying it is spam does not make it so. PoetryForEveryone 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my edits alone

Leave my edits alone. You have no justification for your actions. PoetryForEveryone 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful edit comments

I'm not getting involved in the spam/PoetryForEveryone issue, but it would help to have more clear edit comments then just revert when removing what on the surface appears to be a useful link.--Prosfilaes 08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"On the surface" is the point. What has actually been going on is that dozens of links have been added to a site which is republishing copyrighted work by living authors. It's linkspam, and I've removed the links (hence the abbreviated edit summaries, or none at all in the case of rollbacks). If people are genuinely interested in poetry, they'll do more than just add links to their own website from an alphabetical list of poets. I might accept this as a genuine mistake if the person who had inserted all the links had any prior history of contributions to Wikipedia. --ajn (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But "on the surface" is the point. If the change is not obvious on the surface, then the edit comment needs to explain it; for instance, something like "Reverting systematic link-spam to pages of poets" people wouldn't have to chase down talk pages to understand why the revert was undertaken.--Prosfilaes 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, that would prevent me from using the rollback function which is intended to make removing this sort of systematic spamming far easier. It doesn't take a huge amount of effort for people to check the talk and contributions pages of User:PoetryForEveryone and myself if they are concerned. --ajn (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so are they too spam?

As the previous poster said, the links are useful. There are not big translation initiatives out there. The project is sponsored by someone in the community and they are just as valid - if not more than any other archive link presently allowed. It is non-commercial, there are not even any banner ads.

None of your points address its being spam or not. There are collection and archive listings all through the poet pages now - so are they too spam? As far as the site ownership - every site is owned by someone, so what. Just because the links are being set at one time does not mean it is spam - it just means that months and months of work are finished and now people can be shown where the useful information is. As far as a .com address - you are really grasping for straws. Clearly you have no interest in poetry, but do not steal away from others informational opportunities you do not understand or care for. You are standing in the way of forward progress - please move. ~Chris PoetryForEveryone 08:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The project scrapes together a collection of in- and out-of-copyright poetry from other sources on the net. Checking a few poets at random, I can't find anything which hasn't been directly copied from plagiarist.com (the same seventeen poems by A. R. Ammons, the same forty by Allen Ginsberg, etc). Computer translation is nothing new, and is especially inappropriate when translating poetry. As far as I can tell the sole purpose of that collection of poems is to provide extra traffic to Bryant McGill's personal website, not to provide anything which isn't already available on the web (and which, in many cases, should not be available). If it's really a valuable resource, other people will link to it in their own time. It isn't, which is why they haven't been. --ajn (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you would say "Computer translation is nothing new," tells me you are ignorant of the project objectives. The purpose is to start building a directory of human translated works. And, there are no links to it yet because it is a new project and you have deleted them. You are a detriment to quality content. I just went through and looked at dozens of poet pages you are so "concerned" about that all point to truly frivolous archives of poetry that are slathered with ads promoting fraudulent poetry contests and deceptive sales materials that rip-off and steal money from unknowing aspiring artists. These sites are there for one purpose, to make the owners money. That is what Wikipedia is doing right now under your poor stewardship; aiding these people. You are helping these theives. Yet, when someone comes along who is trying to do something that could be beneficial, and with no commercial angles you will not allow it. You are simply wrong and are misusing your power. This is my final comment. ~Chris PoetryForEveryone 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Round Midnight

Nice work. I would like to add some good external links, particularly for the lyrics. If you know of any good sites, please add them. A discussion of some of the most popular renditions would also be helpful. --Viriditas 11:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to look up my nerdy database of jazz recordings tonight. Miles Davis is a really obvious one (Newport performance which revitalised his career, and naming his first Columbia album after the tune). But there are hundreds, maybe thousands - I happened to have a few CDs with me at work, and sure enough there are a couple with versions of the tune (Lee Konitz/ Brad Mehldau / Charlie Haden and Susanne Abbeuhl). --ajn (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the most notable are fine. I'm also interested in listing the "best" recordings (and differences between versions, such as tempo) so people can go out and discover the song for themselves. --Viriditas 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 13:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew

Hello, I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid after reading the talk page and the article, I don't see any NPOV problems which spill out into the article. There's a lot of discussion (some of it rather too heated, but generally on the right side of the line), but nothing which requires my assistance as an admin, and although I have a couple of books on the subject which I'll take a look at over the next few days, I'm not really knowledgeable enough in this area to contribute much. Keep talking, try to keep calm, and try to put your side of the case in a clear, concise manner without casting aspersions as to the motives of the "other side". If people have to read through pages and pages of text in which you're accusing them of bias, that isn't going to make them come round to your point of view. --ajn (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion of account

Andrew, I had noticed you had restored the content of my username page after it had been vandalized by a fellow user whom I've come into conflict with, for which I'm very appreciative of your intervention. Please close my account as I'm weary of this negative conduct being directed at me. Thx. Missionary 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Tunnard

I have written the John Tunnard article myself virtually from scratch. All common information such as birthdates dates etc are widely available. I am annoyed that the Edward Bingham article was deleted since I wrote this myself; and I have no copy of it out side of Wikipedia.The ultimatum I was given to state my sources or copyright status etc was given over the Xmas holiday period; and I had no access to a computer at this time. I don't know how to put tags on. The photo of the Edward Bingham pot was taken by me. I am the owner of the pot in the photograph and I have some expertise in the area of Fine Art and ceramics.

Still, it does need explanation why the identical text about Edward Bingham appeared at the The Hysterical Historian weblog, April 10 2005, long before its appearance here on December 10 2005 as Edward Bingham (artist).

Your Leslie Hurry article also needs copyright scrutiny: compare with the British Council biography.

You really must take copyright seriously; repeated violations are eventual grounds for banning. Tearlach 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am annoyed that the Edward Bingham article was deleted since I wrote this myself

No, you didn't. I just contacted Andrew Clarke, maintainer of the Hysterical Historian weblog, and find that he is the author (proof forwarded to afn). He has kindly given permission for its use ...

feel free to use the article under the GNU terms, and change it as much as you like. Our only interest is to promote knowledge about our local history. - Andrew Clarke

...but as he doesn't remember any particular sources, it will all need verification. Tearlach 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Delaney is vandalising the categorical imperative page

The changes recently affected by user Delaney comprise several passages, which were rejected by different user's as pow. Pleas read the talk page of "categorical imperative". The very beginning starts with a pow criticism about a topic that delaney reintroduces.

"Hi, I like your article a lot, however I feel that the part about abortion and animal rights expresses your personal point of view. I agree with this statement: "Only rational and autonomous beings are held to have intrinsic worth under this account, and objects or creatures that are not autonomous are held to have no moral worth at all" From this you conclude that animals and fetus have no intrinsic moral value. But this conclusion may only be drawn, if you knew for sure that animals and fetus are non-rational beings. How do you know? I'm sorry, but you really don't know. For a Kantian philosopher a human being acquires a moral status, once it becomes a rational being having a free will. But, when does this happen? Nobody really knows for sure. In somewhat religious terms, one may ask: When does the soul enter the human body? Kilian Klaiber

This is a problem with writing style. When I wrote the original article, I was saying "according to Kant" almost every third sentence and it was getting tedious. Therefore, I wrote at the top of the article that "[The argument] is outlined here according to the arguments therein." and removed a bunch of the qualifiers. If you can think of a better way to clarify this, I would appreciate it. --malathion talk 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC) I would have to agree about the abortion section. I agree that Kant would probably have followed the line of reasoning you describe, but I don't think that including that section is warranted without citing direct textual support from a work by or about Kant, and I don't personally know of any work arguing that Kant would have held such a position. -BLC"

User malathion is actually Mr. Delayne. Nevertheless a section about abortion was introduced without any textual support or any argument. I consider this to be vandalism.

I would like to add that user Delayne has been criticised numerous times of introducint POW, nevertherless he keeps on reintroducing his personel point of view. I quote the discussion page:

"The discussion took place in the section titled "Criticism section" above. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I see lot of criticisms of the criticism here. It seems that people got tired of arguing with you and left, rather than agreeing. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Many important views are excluded now. Instead, a POV-fork has been created to avoid NPOV. This is forbidden. "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." Ultramarine 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Best regards

Kikl 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is made clear at the top of Talk:Categorical imperative, Delany's source is Christine Korsgaard's book, referenced at the end of the article itself. Adding material to an article which you personally disagree with is not "vandalism". Removing relevant material for which there is no consensus for removal is vandalism. Please don't do it. I'd like you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Vandalism before making this sort of allegation again - to quote the vandalism policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." NPOV doesn't mean you can cut out any opinion you don't like, it means that articles must give space to both sides of a genuine and reasonable disagreement. --ajn (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives