User talk:Andrew Norman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the best way to communicate with me.

Comments left here will be responded to here, comments left on other people's talk pages will be responded to there (my watch list includes talk pages I have commented on). Please try to keep both sides of a conversation in the same place.

Add a new section

[edit] Archives

[edit] Leicester Campus Image

Hi, I've touched up the campus Image that you created on paint shop pro; I thought it looked a little dark so I improved the lighting, hope you dont mind :) Thanks User:Tomber

[edit] Paul Marchment et al

You postulate on what a fine fellow you are on your User Page but your actions in the case of others show that to be a fallacy. User:Paul Marchment is a good example. This fellow arrives on Wikipedia and hardly gets a foot in the door before you and your nasty little gang ban him simply because you don't agree with what he's been saying. This use, or should one say abuse, of Wikipedia's all-embracing rules, is wrong. Are you a democrat or a dictator? 86.129.73.61 10:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a dictator, especially when it comes to right-wing nuts trolling talk pages in order to provoke people into saying things which might later prove useful to their chums in court. HTH, HAND. --ajn (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

Might it be an idea to semi-protect this page? It seems to be vandalised by a "new" user just about every day. While I don't want to get involved in the politics behind the edit war, the opening paragraph they keep reverting to is unwikified and unconventional. JRawle (Talk) 11:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I had considered it - it's pretty obvious who the "new" user is, and semi-protecting would stop the situation, so I'll do it. I'm not interested in the politics either, but it does seem as if the "unwanted" version is non-libellous and based on verifiable sources, and the removal of material is being demanded on the basis of an anonymous editor saying "this isn't true", so I know which side I come down on. --ajn (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Here you can see vandalism [1] carried out by IP-number 69.128.86.78 on the Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden article and here here [2] on the Albrecht von Wallenstein article. Maybe time to block this person? - Litany 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leicester my favorite

i arrived in leicester in august of 2004 and though through hard times i fell in love with the city, then on december 22 of that same year i left bound for london then once there i missed leicester alot then after that i went back to london two more times but not once did i return to leicester now in america i wanna go back to that special place

[edit] english winters are cruel

being a native californian, spending autumn in leicester was cold freezing cold one december night i found myself walking down melton road in my favorite BILLABONG board shorts, basically swimming trunks and my BILLABONG "hoodie" i recall that was a mistake on my behalf all the locals were gauking at me like this young man is not from around here , oh i also remember wearing my skate shoes without socks , as i proceeded to take the short walk to my girlfriends place of employment, it was cold really not my element but i was happy feeling all warm inside because i was in leicester england a nice place to me, not in my native mild climate (cali) then once i returned back at my flat i basically hugged the heater/radiator and soaked up the warmth of an indoor dwelling.

[edit] bertie russell article

Please don't just revert all my changes here.

1. The sentence 'whig family' and then 'i.e. (liberal)' was really ridiculously misleading. The whigs were not at all 'liberal' in the contemporary (welfare socialist) sense of the word. 'Classical liberal' would have been far better, but still wrong. Thatcherism is really the closest thing we have to gladstone today.

Russell's grandfather was a Liberal prime minister. Indeed, he was the first Liberal prime minister. You may not think capitals are important, some of us do. --ajn (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A mere capitalised 'Liberal' doesn't specifically refer to the ninteenth century british party. Liberal Party (UK) might do, but writing it in brackets after whig is still wrong: the words, despite sharing many referents, have quite a different sense. Bertrand would agree. Avaya1 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Russell would in no way agree - please read the voluminous discussion of this on the talk page. Russell saw his liberalism as very much a continuation of the nineteenth-century liberalism (and Liberalism) of his grandfather. The Whigs preceded the Liberals, and the Liberals of the nineteenth century evolved into the twentieth-century Liberal party. There's more to politics than the Thatcherite obsession with economic regulation. --ajn (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You miss my (admittedly quite pedantic) point utterly. The sentence including 'whig (Liberal)' is misleading. A sentence including 'whig ( Liberal Party (UK))' would be misleading still, but obviously less so.

Yes, for a period, 'Whig' and 'Liberal' both fixed many of the same referents - they were temporarily quite co-denoting. However, due to their different historical connotations - as Mill would say - each also fixed many different referents, notably from different times. Further, the word 'liberal' has now itself shifted most of its referents. So we have, really, three divergently fixing senses here: 'whig'; classical 'liberal'; contemporary 'liberal'.

Russell might happily claim certain continuities and overlapping family resemblances between the three senses, but he would never claim that they are synonymous. To do so would go against his entire philosophy of language: they are too extensionally divergent.

You also write: "There's more to politics than the Thatcherite obsession with economic regulation."

I mentioned thatcherism merely to emphasise the shifts in our political language: Thatcher would be denoted by a 19th century use of 'liberal', but not by a 20th century one. Gladstone would not be denoted by the contemporary sense of 'liberal'.

Anyway, it's a minor point.

2. Russell's wanting to nuke russia is far more infamous and unusual than his bland opposition to the vietnam war. Surely worth listing in the political biography segment. Avaya1 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the article before editing it. This is already in there. --ajn (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Surely it is worth listing in that early summarising political biography segment - otherwise why have that segment at all? Avaya1 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not worth detailing in a brief overview of Russell's life when it's dealt with in detail in the appropriate section of the article. Undue weight shouldn't be given to such minor incidents. --ajn (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the first humorous russellian anecdote many a lecturer in logic would mention. If not of his political philosophy, then it's certainly archetypal of the man. BUt I'll let it rest.

[edit] LorenzoPerosi1898

As for the Marx article - that person was also the source of some very POV pro-Groucho material (in the ad-lib section) that was removed by another user. I provided a cite for my part about Groucho being senile towards the end of his life - I feel that Mark Evanier is extremely trustworthy when it comes to matters like this and, seeing as there seemed to be no possibility of "LorenzoPerosi1898" backing down on his/her POV given their history, i saw no choice but to block. As with User:Margana people will find it was a mistake to unblock i fear. PMA 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wiki, ajn opined differently. Wiki did not invent the blocking privilege so that you can banish anyone who disagrees with you. Don't worry about POVs on Wiki; so long as you are here, there will be plenty. LorenzoPerosi1898 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh a personal attack. PMA 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

... and jejune responses. LorenzoPerosi1898 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "^{[citation needed]}" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping ^{[citation needed]} here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzo

There was no point explaining the rules to hiim - my five years here gave me the experience to judge what kind of person he was - same with Margana he ended up making those who tried to reason with him look like fools. my experience over so many years should have been respected - we have paid the price because it wasn't. PMA 23:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was worth giving him a chance - he's only making one person look like a fool, and that's himself. His choice. I have seen others in similar situations turn round and realise what they are doing - and I don't think your initial actions (which were manifestly unfair) did anything to help. It's always worth trying to explain to people what they are doing wrong, before hitting them with a big stick. --ajn (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to this as to why i am wary about giving chances anymore. Be carefull is all i ask. PMA 07:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ModalJazz.com link

Hi Andrew,

Just wondered why you deleted my external link to www.modaljazz.com from the "modal jazz" article and "Kind of Blue" article. I am new to Wikipedia contributions - do I need to follow a procedure to get things submitted, as far as I knew it was an open source enclyopedia?

My website is an educational and an informative site directly related to the subject matters in the article. In fact it is the only website dedicated to modal jazz on the internet, so it seems an extremely relevant and useful link! My website is not a spam link or a profit making enterprise if this is your concern.

Best Regards,

www.ModalJazz.com

Please see WP:EL, especially point 3 under "Links normally to be avoided" - if you want to contribute to the encyclopaedia, then you should be adding material to the articles, not just linking to your own website. --ajn (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Susan Blackmore

Dear Mr Norman,

I see that Dr Susan Blackmore´s Wikipedia page has become "protected".

The reason you cite is

" Repeated insertion of potentially libellous and unsourced information "

Oh dear!

Must have been me who got up her nose!

I am James Plaskett and was making my insertions from my own computer in my home. I am intrigued to know exactly what I inserted that justifies your cited reason for "protecting" her...

Here´s what I kept inserting ( sometimes very, very slightly different to this )

However, there is a caucus of opinion that her public stance of "Rentasceptic" may not be wholly genuine. She began her career as an enthusiastic investigator of the paranormal and ESP, but after obtaining negative lab results, she switched and claimed that "there´s nothing there."

More than a few who have remained in those fields, e.g. Dr Keith Hearne, believe that she may be exhibiting sour grapes. When detailing her failures in a 1988 BBC science programme she concluded " But PSI will NEVER be proved."

Not, note, "PSI does not exist."

The following year she related on TV how she had been part of a witches coven but had abandoned it as "It didn´t work!" Then she added "Oh, except once! Once it worked. We cast a spell asking for a light to go out, and it did! And I spent ages crawling around trying to find a fault in the electrical system."

Another odd lighting incident was in December 1992 when she lectured in Kensington to The Society for Psychical Research on The Near Death Experience: Visions of The Dying Brain.

At the start the lights in the hall flickered and went out… and then they came back on again a moment later. She looked uneasy and made a nervous joke about odd things happening when one addresses an SPR gathering. It was not the sort of reaction one would have expected from a die-hard sceptic such as James Randi or Paul Kurtz.

And during a TV appearance of the 1990s in which she outlined her scepticism she was directly challenged by an audience member. "You ARE a believer!" he said. She just smiled back, saying nothing.

One sees therefore why some people believe that her true philosophy might be summarised as:

"If you can´t beat them, pretend to join them."

Now, what are the UNSOURCED or LIBELLOUS bits in this, please, Mr Norman?

I cite one opinion from a parapsychologist about his and a number of his colleagues´ reactions to her public change of mind, and also FOUR instances where her disbelief in PSI, ESP, a spirit reality, magic, or whatever might be doubted.

ALL are impeccably sourced - 3 being televised.

Dr Keith Hearne DID tell me, in 1989, regarding other parapsychologists´ attitudes towards Susan Blackmore - " She´s regarded VERY strangely! All bitter and twisted..."

a) The " PSI will NEVER be proved! " quote, delivered with a bitter sneer, was from a March 1988 BBC science programme called ANTENNA. The series was presented by Professor Lewis Wolpert.

b) Her admission that she had once been part of a witches coven which successfully cast a spell to make a light go out is from a February 1989 Channel 4 programme in their AFTER DARK series. She was seated by Randi at the time.

c) Her nervous comments about odd things happening when you address the Society of Psychical Research were made on December 10th 1992 in Kensington Library. I was there. They are reported on page 99 of my 2000 book COINCIDENCES ( ISBN 0 9509441 6 5 ) a copy of which I sent to her 6 years ago. Also, on page 85 of the same book, I write -

" In September 1988, I attended an afternoon session of the annual conference of the Society for Psychical Research in Winchester. Dr Susan Blackmore spoke for half an hour about belief and disbelief in parapsychology. She herself had started out as a believer, but said that she had become progressively disillusioned by her inability to come up with positive laboratory results and had hence moved into the sceptics´ camp. At any rate, that was the stance she assumed PUBLICLY. "

d) She WAS directly challenged by an audience member on a TV show where she was appearing as "Rentasceptic" with the words " You ARE a believer!". I am afraid that I can be no more specific than to say that it was between Summer 1994 and Summer 1996. And she DID just smile tacitly back.

Now, Mr Norman, if some identifiable person inserted something about noted sceptics such as James Randi, Wendy Grossman or Paul Kurtz which ended as mine did, i.e. with words to the effect of -

One sees therefore why some people believe that their true philosophy might be summarised as:

"If you can´t beat them, pretend to join them." -

then that person would be in receipt of communications from their lawyers sharpish.

Somehow, I don´t think that Sue - whom I have met and who struck me as pleasant - will be instructing hers to take any action against me.

No matter. I´m not much interested into getting into a squabble about it.

But the reasons you have cited for removing my annotations are bogus. It´s all sourced. It´s all true. It´s not libellous.

There IS such a caucus. It´s just because these accurate facts might embarrass her were they to appear in Wikipedia that she does not want them to be known.

That´s all.

And in a TV James Randi Investigates special programme of 1991, a man was challenged by Randi to use his dowsing abilities to determine which of 24 squares on a map ( the details of which he could not see ) contained a noted landmark. The dowser picked the right square. Susan Blackmore was there as an invited expert and when asked what she thought of the performance commented that on this occasion dowsing had seemed to work and that she would be interested to see the follow up studies. There were none, Randi pooh-poohing it in his book of the series.

Shame on Wikipedia for being so cowed.

James Plaskett

Please read WP:LIVING, WP:RS and (with regard to "your" article) WP:AUTO. --ajn (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! My apologies about adding bits to my article. I know little of Wikipedia rules, and assumed that was the done thing. I now read that it isn´t, and so have reduced me to a line or two.

Back to Blackmore: I´m still unsure why my stuff was removed. It´s sourced and not libellous and I believe highly germane to the subject. All other Sceptics, whilst sometimes disagreed with, are never accused of misrepresenting themselves. She has been. She is the ONLY prominent figure in the Sceptical community to have been so attacked. Dr Keith Hearne, who has written books on Precognition and Lucid Dreaming spoke to me of how many in the parapsychological community regarded her " ... very strangely! All bitter and twisted..." I said there is a caucus of opinion that she is not being 100% genuine about her beliefs ( remember that the 20th Century has been dubbed that of "half-belief" .) All other Sceptics would not sneer, when cataloguing failures - their own failures - to prove PSI, "Psi will NEVER be proven." Only her. All the others would just say that there´s nothing to prove since they sincerely regard it as bunkum. To admit on live TV in awe-strcken tones, whilst seated by the world´s most prominent sceptic, that you and others successfully cast a spell, hardly meshes with Scepticism. Does it? To pause as lights flicker as you are about to give a sceptical lecture on Near Death Experiences to The Society for Psychical Research and make nervous comments about funny things happening when you address such a gathering, hardly sounds like the behaviour of a true Sceptic. Does it? To be challenged on live TV that "You ARE a believer!" and to silently smile back, shows both that there are people who disbelieve her and gives some further reason to hold that view, does it not?

I have read the Wikipedia guidelines to which you drew my attention. I appreciate your concerns, but I put it to you that these observations are valuable also in the wider scientific context. One aspect of science is pressure to conform. To advance in a consensus activity it is necessary to be part of that community. The only other way of making a name in science is to achieve a kind of revolution or breakthrough. That was Blackmore´s first objective. She failed, but the totally supported incidents I cite indicate why a caucus of opinion exists that she´s no 100% Sceptic. May I now please ask again: why has my insertion been removed?

James Plaskett

Because it is potentially libellous, applies to a living subject, and is not (despite your assertions) properly referenced. It's also original research - it's conclusions which you're drawing from facts which are in themselves dubious. --ajn (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I can see that we´re not going to agree on this. It´s NOT libellous at all. And if my sourcing and referencing is still, in your judgement, insufficient, then there´s no point in trying to improve it.

It´s not original research; it´s very well known that many people think that of her, with one cited as even challenging her thus on live television.

If there are legal concerns here, then I see why you´re erring on the side of caution. And perhaps Wikipedia is not the place, then, to make this point.

But Blackmore has laid out her stall with unequivocal clarity. On the cited Channel 4 AFTER DARK programme of 1989 she said "There´s no god. There´s no meaning. There´s no purpose. There´s just one moment of perception, and then another moment, and then another."

Couldn´t be clearer, could she? So we have here your classical reductionist, mechanist mainstream scientist. Consistent enough that it should be just this woman who presents that lecture of December 10th 1992 on The Near Death Experience: Visions of the Dying Brain. She put forward her theory that a dying brain, starved of oxygen, produces the illusion of a tunnel and that´s what the many people who think they´ve glimpsed the afterlife have really seen.

All very neat and rational.

BUT, at the start the lights flicker, go out, and come back on a few moments later. She glances nervously up and around her, and jokes about odd things happening when you address the Society for Psychical Research. No true Sceptic would have said that in a million years.

NOTHING could more clearly have betrayed her sympathies towards a supernatural reality than that incident.

Susan Blackmore is not what she says.

Your last line says it all - you really don't see how accusing someone of being a fake could be potentially libellous? Especially an academic (albeit a freelance one)? --ajn (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay.

The risk seems to me no greater than that faced by the guy who so challenged her on live TV. Does it to you? My exposure to litigation seems no greater than it would have been after I so wrote of her in my cited book, a copy of which she possesses. Does it to you? Do you really think she´s going to do anything? Of course she isn´t!

Nor is she doing much here, Andrew... http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2006/11/religion_in_china.html

[edit] Lobby Lud

why'd you split this out from You are X and I claim my five pounds? Without it, you just leave an empty shell, and there's really not enough information to break up the topic into multiple articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They are two separate topics - one is a form of newspaper competition, the other is a catchphrase which originated in one of the instances of that form. The catchphrase has since transcended its origins - plenty of people use it who have no idea where it came from, and in circumstances which have nothing to do with its original meaning (indeed, it has become ironic rather than literal). --ajn (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems logical to keep the discussion of the phrase and its origin together, though, simply because it's impossible to get the full story of either without reading both articles (well, at least of the phrase, becuase its article is now a gutted shell). A complete article on either would have to discuss both. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the Problem now?

May my user page and Talk page be unprotected? Why was the talk page protected? I know why my userspace was protected but was protecting my talk page more punishment for my wrong doings? R.S.V.P. --Mi ss ingno. 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still mucking around with multiple accounts. Stop it, immediately. --ajn (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's the one mucking around signor?

Why should i stop? And I am not "mucking" around. That's why I want my multiple accounts deleted, so you can't complain. See action-reaction. A.Y.A.K.? Such acronym will cause a reaction when you find out what it is. Oh yeah, what does arsing about mean? Does it mean the same as azzing about? Two last things Andrew, You wont know if I start a new account and I don't like the way you handle things. I think you jump to too many conclusions that aren't true. Think about it. --Mi ss ingno. 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[thoughtless and stupid comments striked by the author]

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hood cycle of days and seasons.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hood cycle of days and seasons.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing the Reviews section on Dawkins

Hi: 2 of the Richard Dawkins editors want to remove the "reviews" section of the article. I don't agree but since you contributed many of them we'd like your input please 217.158.22.35 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph Block

Hello, sorry to trouble you. I notice here [3] that you have blocked Zeraeph in the past. I'm currently trying to pursue an informal mediation between this user and Psychonaut that has arisen over this MfD post: [4]

Irregardless of the merits or lack therof of the page, this user and Pyschonaut have been butting heads. Whhen he noted that Zeraeph had been blocked in the past, I decided to dig up some information on this. If it's not prying to ask, why was this user blocked by you in the past?

Thanks for your assistance in advance. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Miles_Davis-E.S.P._(album_cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Miles_Davis-E.S.P._(album_cover).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Miles_Davis-Filles_de_Kilimanjaro_(album_cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Miles_Davis-Filles_de_Kilimanjaro_(album_cover).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.