User:John Gardner

If I made a personal attack on Mr. Abramson I humbly apologize. That was NOT my intent. My intent was to incorporate verification of the material 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 biography, that people understand that it was not posted on base 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.

You and I appear to be the only two "sapients" in complete agreement on this subject (or paying attention to this entry: aside from Mr Abramson himself)). I ran across "his page" randomly a couple years back and was rebuffed by him and some other editors when I took similar issue as you. I am not sure you really need to apologize but you might just just modify your editing practices and learn a bit more of how the protocol works here.

The page we are discussing was clearly written by Mr. Abramson and is regularly edited and added to by him. Checkout the history of the page, as well as the discussions; once you learn your way around. The real point here is that most of what is on this entry is not encyclopedic and just a self important resume. Again, I stand with you.

A point of note; generally in Wikipedia it is considered out of etiquette to delete entries on your discussion page. Moreover, in this case history will certainly absolve you.--Agrofe (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not very aware of the ins and outs of the wikapedia posting process. I am however fairly aware of what does and doesn't constitute an entry into an encyclopedic document. I too found the page (it was brought to my attention by a student) and was taken aback not by his wonderful accomplishments but with the lack of any disclaimer noting the source (himself). It appeared fairly transparent to me (and to the student) that this entry was not included by any impartial source but rather by the subject. That is fine with me if that is what wikapedia wants to be all about. I think it's fine that wikapedia desires to make space available to writers, poets and inventors (what-have-you) to self promote their accomplishments. But the caveat is, it should be clearly stated as such. You and I and others would clearly have a certain jaundice view of entires if we knew they were posted by the subject. Once again his accomplishments seem wonderful but they are no more or less than thousdands of other contemporary poets and writers. There are as you well know many poets with accomplishments that far exceed his and yet they have decided not to self-promote. Perhaps that is their choice. I merely speculate. I will try to learn how the protochol here works and I thank you for your kind response. I should make a disclaimer myself: I don't know this person from a hole in the head nor have I ever run across his work in any capacity. Based on this lengthy entry it would seem that I should have. That is the impression one is left with. It is not the one a reader should be left with. I certainly hope that wikapedia will enforce a full disclosure and/or disclaimer notification for unsuspecting readers. Thank you. John Gardner (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)