User talk:John Gardner

Hi, I reverted your last three posts on the Seth_Abramson article page. I reverted your first two because personal attacks against living persons are not acceptable within wikipedia articles. I reverted the last one because it was a question about the editing of the article, and this should be done on the Seth_Abramson discussion page. Or, if you are confused about how wikipedia works, you could read "about wikipedia." It's linked to in the "interaction" box on the left of your screen. You might want to read through the archives of the Seth_Abramson discussion page in fact. You seem to be worried that Abramson created this page himself, which seems to be untrue. That issue was cleared up on the discussion page some time ago. Please stop making inappropriate edits to this article. Thanks.Bedefan (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its true that John Gardner needs to post on the discussion page but I do not recall the issue of who created the page (admittedly) I have not re-read the discussion page) was ever resolved. This page is clearly self promotional and resume like and posted and continually added to by Seth Abramson. User John Gardner should post on the discussion page and refrain from personal attacks but I stand with him/her on the fact that Mr Abramson is self promoting himself. --Agrofe (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I somehow made a personal attack on Mr. Abramson I offer ahundred apologies. That was NOT my intent. My intent was to incorporate verification of the mateial posted. We ALL know that the world is inhabited by hundreds or thousands of very fine poets, whose accomplishments equal if not far exceed his. Let the reader beware. No harm in that. But it should be clearly stated that such posts are done by the author or in this case someone who worked with the author not in a poetic environment but a legal one. I am impressed by his many accomplishments and I am sure he is rightly proud of them, but this is like someone starting a poetry magazine and then publishing himself and claiming he is well published author. It just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. I simply think without infringing on his right to post his biograpghy, that people understand that it was not posted based on some objective criteria and merit but subjectively by the author himself. That changes everything for the reader and the reader should be made aware of these things.John Gardner (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John Gardner


 * Agrofe, looking at the archives your concern has been previously addressed. This entry was not created by the subject.  Even if as alleged by "John Gardner" it was posted by someone known to the subject it would only be the one millionth time that's happened on WP (especially among writers).  I don't know if "John Gardner" has used WP before.  This account's history shows that the only purpose for the account has been to vandalize this "Seth Abramson" entry-- three instances of vandalism under WP protocol, all reverted.  Sounds like grudge rather than well intentioned clarification to me.  If "John Gardner" wants to comment on this account he should a. read the WP guidelines for editing, b. read the archives for this entry, which answer his questions re: WP:NOT (notability), c. understand that this article was a unanimous "keep"-- albeit a weak keep on an AfD vote, d. understand that since the article was created dozens of WP editors have worked on it (which "John Gardner" appears not to know because "John Gardner" doesn't know how to look up the WP history for an entry apparently), and e. understand that since the unanimous keep AfD vote the subject of the article has won one of the ten largest cash awards in American poetry, the Wood Prize, appeared in Best New Poets 2008, and been cited by numerous additional media.  Readers of contemporary poetry will also know that his name appeared on the cover of Poetry and that his blog is extremely popular and is often discussed in the poetry community.  The Wood Prize alone puts the subject in the same category, as to that Prize as 4 Pulitzer Prize winners and 1 U.S. Poet Laureate.  I agree that there are many more well known poets than this one.  "John Gardner" should start entries for them, instead of vandalizing this one.  "John Gardner" should also do a., b., c., d., and e. before posting again.216.26.97.159 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS to "John Gardner": WP:Anti-Vandalism Project requires 2 warnings to a vandal before the account is referred to WP to be blocked. "John Gardner" has already has the required 2 warnings and should consider thisthe third.  If "John Gardner" wants to discuss this entry he can do it here or under the discussion tab for the entry, not in the entry. WP:NPV does not allow for users to post 'disclaimers' casting doubt on the origin (2 years ago apparently) of an article. "John Gardner" should read WP:NPV to understand what is considered acceptable material for an entry-- ie nothing editorial. OTOH "John Gardner" may well be blocked by WP by then.216.26.97.159 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Here is the policy: "Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change"

THIS discussion shows there is a concensus for a change. YOU are in the minority. I am placing the disclaimer back. Do what you think is best and so will I.John Gardner (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me further add: (from your own policy)A cornerstone principle of the wiki model upon which Wikipedia is founded is that anyone can edit – users are highly suggested to be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and to ignore any rules that prevent them from collaborating with the community to improve the encyclopedia. However, as in any project where people dedicate large portions of one's time, the tricky problem arises that some long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority over less prolific editors – known as a vested contributor.

Our prolific contributors are the most valuable piece of this project, and deserve recognition and commendation from the community. However, the existence of vested contributors can often lead to grave problems that are detrimental to the community. Double standards of conduct may develop, disillusioning and demoralizing users who have not been blessed. Vested contributors may be backed by other members of the community, sometimes growing into a clique of affiliated editors who tend to mutually reinforce each other – the oft-maligned "cabal." Sadly, a prevalence of this attitude can lead to a breakdown in the growth and development of the project.

I view your sad comments as a demonstration of this. We will proceed apace with our effort to have disclaimers placed on transparent, self-rightous and obvious self promotions such as this. Thank you.

Also This: (from the policy)Sometimes editors will undo a change to an article, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". This is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection.

Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles.

I suggest you stand down friend. You have no legs to stand on.John Gardner (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And lastly friend, I suggest that you are being somewhat paranoid in your behavior. I am here because I just began here. I have just started. So hold your horses, pal. I'm just starting here with this obvious self-serving entry. I am sure I will find others.

Here by the way are a list yof YOUR entries:

latest | earliest) View (newer 20) (older 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

19:10, 19 August 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:John Gardner ‎ 18:30, 19 August 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:John Gardner ‎ 18:28, 19 August 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:John Gardner ‎ 18:15, 19 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Seth Abramson ‎ (Reverted 3rd instance of vandalism by same account (") 18:13, 19 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Seth Abramson ‎ (Undid revision 308805805 by John Gardner (talk))

The ONLY place you've posted is HERE. Hence YOU seem obsessed with ME or perhaps you are the author or the author's boyfriend or girlfriend whatever the case may be. Please feel free to share that with us and stop making unfounded and hypocritical accusations.John Gardner (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) And by the way, who hasn't been in Poetry? You are most likely an associate of this person who entered this. I find that behavior disgusting and childish.John Gardner (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John I'm not going to get into wars of words w/ you. I posted a response to you on my user page. I am abiding by WP:AGF and proposing a solution for your concerns. As you've seen, in the last 2 minutes 2 separate registered users of WP- not me-have reverted your comments and warned you about your behavior. This was not my doing- as you can see on my user page I decided to engage instead. I hope you'll consider my proposal or someone higher up at WP (not me) will indeed block your IP address.  Just trying to avoid that for you.216.26.97.159 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that your comment about someone "warning" me was wrong. I never saw anyone warning me except perhaps you. Be that as it may. The issue is and remains whether the information comes from a subjective or objective source. Clearly we have established that it comes from the former. Hence the disclaimer.John Gardner (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this certainly has been a snarky adventure. I think this person's credibility has already be diminished because of his self-promotion. I have a hard time imagining how it couldn't have been. This "vanity posting" is fairly transparent to most. Without the disclaimer they appear to be fradulent. It reminds me of those protestors who go to health care reform town meeting and shout. Evn if you did agree with them, knowing where they came from diminishes their credibility. So it goes. And just for the record, no one in our entire English department at the university I teach at has ever heard of this guy. I told them to check out wikapedia and that they could get all the information they needed from the horse's mouth (or thereabouts) Thank you. John Gardner (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

The following are policies and rules promulgated by wikapedia. I believe that this entry violates a majority of these rules and regulations:

I am adding the following wikapedia policy statements that I believe this particular entry violates inclding 216's changes since they are apparently an interested party. Coul you clarify how this entry does not violate these various polcies? Thank you.

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

Autobiography For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates. Examples of these types of material include: Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles that you have a close personal connection with, especially when the edits may be seen as controversial. If this is the case for you, you are advised to use place template on the article's talk page to suggest changes rather than making them directly. Editors browsing Category:Requested edits will notice your request and respond to it.John Gardner (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)John Gardner (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

THINKING ABOUT THE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY IN POSTINGS AND VANITY ENTRIES

I have thought about this a great deal, and have no dog in this fight.

Wikapedia is not used by most colleges or universities as a research source so engaging in “vanity entries” like this Seth Abramson entry, posted primarily by him in his own self-interest, is not of any consequence.

I am satisfied that the process is flawed and that most people realize it is flawed. Hence since no one uses it what is my beef? None.

I am satisfied that those people I am most concerned about (students and other English faculty) can see the obvious self-promotion that is attached to this entry. I is of no consequence to them and it is therefore of no consequence to me. None of those people will be using wikapedia as a source nor will they be reading or studying this person or his work.

I am satisfied that the trust I place in people’s ability to comprehend and identify on their own obvious biases and subjectivity is well placed.

The need of a disclaimer is not necessary a least based on those who read this exchange and saw this entry. They were able to see the transparent endeavor to vanity post. They didn’t need me to tell them and they certainly didn’t need a disclaimer on the entry. It was obvious.

My effort to include a disclaimer was misplaced. There is no need for it.

As an example, one needs little prompting or for that matter any disclaimer when one sees someone expousing hatred for the health care reform. It is easy enough to identify them as the fringe element. I believe the same holds true in this instance.

Most people have a firm grasp of the obvious. They don’t need me interfering.

But thank you for the opportunity to find out exactly how wikapedia works. It was a learning process for me and one I can use in the classroom.

Thank you.John Gardner (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Seth (216.26.97.159), please don't talk to me unless I tlk to you. Thanks!--Agrofe (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)" Priceless!John Gardner (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

HERE IS THE GEOGRAPHIC ADDRESS OF IP 216.26.97.159

SOURCE: www.ipligence.com/geolocation

This IP address is 216.26.97.159 City: Madison, Wisconsin Country United States

nOW WOULDANYONE LIKE TO SPECULATE AS TO WHO IS GOING TO SCHOOL IN MADISON WISCONSIN?John Gardner (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Seth Abramson has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Seth (216.26.97.159), please don't talk to me unless I tlk to you. Thanks!--Agrofe (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SEVERAL RESPONSES TO THIS WHOLE SORDID AFFAIR OF VANITY ENTRIES
IP address 216. etc. located in Madison, Wisconsin, who claims NOT to be the Abramson fellow despite the fact that is where he is going to school and despite the fact the I can't imagine anyone but him taking such a military stance about all this has made several posting elsewhere. I was going to respond in a lengthy follow-up but instead I think it will suffice to apply two quotes from other sources to sum up my feelings about this whole sordid affair of VANITY ENTRIES. The first comes from Congressman Barney Frank who said, "ARGUING WITH YOU IS LIKE ARGUING WITH MY DINING ROOM TABLE." and from the person who was able to track down the IP address to Madison, Wisconsin, "BAGGED!" I think that about sums it up. Oh there is one more thing: If this is some sad, poor, starry-eyed student fawning and gushing over this entry on behalf of this person, my God, please get a life. I'm telling you he's just not that important or known to most people.

John Gardner (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Warrior 4321  04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)