User talk:Andymiah

Image Tagging for Image:Andymiah.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Andymiah.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. 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumanism[edit]

Hello Andy, can you explain on the Talk:Posthumanism page why you removed Donna Haraway from the list of notable posthumanists in the Posthumanism article? --Loremaster 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haraway has never used the word posthuman to characterise her ideas. Moreover, she has made explicit reference to being against posthumanism as a guiding concept. Her work can more comfortably be characterised as cyborgology, which is particularly concerned with the politics of difference, the central thesis in her Cyborg Manifesto.

It's not necessary for Haraway to have characterized her ideas as posthuman for her and her work to be legitimately characterized as posthumanist.
Has Haraway made explicit reference to being against posthumanism or transhumanism? As Shannon Bell explains in the CIAC interview, there is a clear difference between posthumanism and transhumanism.

--Loremaster 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly, they are distinct concepts.

In her 2006 NYU Dorothy Nelkin memorial lecture, she did urge the rejection of 'post' terminology, such as posthumanism. I think her work is more aptly characterised in recent years by the terms 'prosthesis', which takes up notions of transgressed boundaries. I suppose the main question about her appropriateness in this entry resides in the choice of the author to identify her as one of the, currently, 4 posthumanists. This creates the impression that her contribution to posthuman thought is distinct. Yet, if she is included, then we might include many more authors, perhaps including Chris Hables Gray or even Jacques Derrida. As such, unless a more comprehensive picture of this literature is presented, then her being noted creates a misrepresentation of the range of ideas that can be argued as having contributed to posthuman thought. As such, I would ask the author to explain why the entry includes only these four authors and not the many other notable thinkers whose ideas can also be read as posthuman. A possible solution might be to acknowledge the relative lack of theoretical distinctiveness to this concept, which I believe is still finding its way.

To avoid a possible dispute, I've deleted the List of notable posthumanists section. --Loremaster 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article on yourself[edit]

If you want to keep that article from deletion, you must write it in the WP style, which includes:

looking like an encyclopedia article not a CV
listing only some major published papers, say how many total. Say how many other papers cited them. Use Google Scholar if you dont have Web of Science.
Do not list minor papers. I've helped you get started on this one. It sounds like promoting oneself and attracts unfavorable attention.

and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. These is, very unfortunately, some prejudice against people from the academic world. There is furthermore understandable feeling here against articles written by the subject or a member of his family, so it has to be a really solid article with definite 3rd part sources. See WP:AUTO and WP:COI.

If you do not do this right away, the article will probably be deleted in a few days or weeks--though not by me. However, as it is now, I would not be able to rationally defend it at an AfD debate.

I apologize for not having the time to help personally. -- DGG 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time DGG, I will try to take on board what you say, though you seem much more informed about style and language requirements than I am. The additions of publications was an attempt to respond to your concerns and certainly not an attempt to self promote! (I didn't start my own entry, merely sought to make it more accurate. I have tried to use neutral, descriptive information.) Also, I place no stock in Wikipedia's capacity to promote my work though am generally interested in its capacity to help communicate ideas. In relation to a couple of points you make, I feel it necessary to discuss a couple of points. For example, A Reader in the UK is certainly not comparable to a lecturer in the US. Assuming that we can make direct comparisons, I wonder what your would look like. Mine would be the following:

UK Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor

USA Assistant Lecturer Associate Lecturer Professor

Readerships do vary in terms of what they mean. The structures of achieving them are radically different from the US style of tenure and promotions. However, I presume we are not likely to conclude that the UK system is simply less credible than the US. In any case, Readerships are awarded in recognition of research. In comparison, Senior Lectureships are awarded more generally in recognition of a range of contributions to a department, which will include research, but perhaps less emphasis on this will be placed. On this basis, I don't believe it is accurate to characterise a Readership as equivalent to a Lecturer. In any case, I'm not particularly concerned that my title should determine my notability.

Can I ask what you mean by offering 3rd party sources? What should these websites indicate? I have listed the bibliographic details of newspaper articles I have written, some of which are published in the widest selling broadsheets within the UK.

I would also like to press your expertise a little if I may. You talk about Impact factors, Web of Science and so on. Tell me, what was your specialisation as a librarian? The relevance of impact factors in the social sciences and humanities is widely contested. For instance, the Journal of Medical Ethics (in which I have published), one of the leading journals in this field has a very low impact factor. this contrasts with The Lancet (one of the major medical journals in the world, in which I have also published twice) and its impact factor is much higher. There are many journals in the humanities for which impact factors do not reflect their significance. Also, you mentioned that there is nothing notable about Book Chapters and this again makes me feel you are located in a science related subject. As my work traverses science and humanities I am also aware that book chapters are not generally important in the sciences as they are often textbook chapters intended for undergraduate study. In the humanities, this is most certainly very different and I know many professors who hold equal stock in journal or book chapters, depending on the quality of each. This judgement is determined largely by peers rather than impact factors. I will be interested to hear your responses to these points, if you have the time. I struggle to see how one can exert an authoritative stance on whether an entry should be deleted or not, without justifying the process of decision making. My expectation of Wikipedia was that this was crucial to its function. Otherwise, it merely institutes a further hierarchy of knowledge. Thanks again for your time.

AfD nomination of Andy Miah[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Andy Miah, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Miah. Thank you. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

before we deal with the specifics of the AfD[edit]

There are some general matters. It is not me primarily that you have to convince that you are notable, but all the people at AfD, and they will have to be convinced by what is in the article. I have a fairly good idea of what factors of an academic career editors here thing relevant; I also have a fairly good idea of what sort of presentation is taken for vanity. Everyone who voices an opinion at AfD decides for themselves. They will get equal respect, for we are all of equal status. If I think their arguments better than mine, or the data they present more relevant, I say so, and change my opinion accordingly. You can find current and archived discussions collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators and judge the nature of discussions here for yourself.

I try to improve any article I come across that I think possibly worthy, to the extent that I have the ability and the resources and the time. There are hundreds of articles listed for deletion each day, and I try to pick out the 2 or 3 in higher education where my interests and my abilities lie. I do whatever I think will be honest and benefit the article. Other editors do analogously. If I can make effective small changes, I do that. Sometime I or others rewrite an article completely, if the people who started the article are not able to do so. But "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly by others, do not submit it." You may edit as you please, and so may I; if I think I can do better, I will edit accordingly. I would never deliberately change any article to make it less effective, but I will always remove material in any article I think inappropriate.

My academic qualifications or lack of them are of no concern to anyone in WP. (I am willing to discuss them off line--email me from my talk page). They are not relevant: it is the quality of work that counts, as judged by WP standards. I only hint at them on my user page to give some idea of the things that interest me. I only allude to them in talk or at an AfD discussion to give some idea of the sort of data I can find. Assuming for a moment I were a senior person in your specialty--which I am not--and I were to say in the discussion that I think very highly of your work, it would not help get the article accepted. It will be accepted based on the facts in the article.

II will comment on details you raise a little later, and on the merits of the article at the AfD debate. DGG 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

specifics[edit]

.Third party sources mean things you did not write and that do not emanate from your own institute or university or close associates. A university official web site can ad should be used as well, but there must be something from the outside. The ideal is an article in a magazine or major newspaper talking about your work; a non-technical magazine is fine. Ideally they should be in a magazine or paper other people will recognize as authoritative. A purely web journal is OK, though not as good. Second best is a Television program or the like. If these are firmly demonstrated the article will stand.
Book chapters depend on the book, as journal articles do on the journal. The virtue of journal articles is a/ that they are more easily verified, and more people will recognize the titles as important, and that they are listed in Web of Science, and one can add up the citations. When I think an article in a book is of high importance, I try to say something about the reputation of the book.
Citations & impact. I & most people here trust them in science and the hard social sciences. Unfortunately, not everyone has learned that the expected factors are different in different subjects. (I wrote a good deal of the WP article on Impact factors, if you want to see my general views.) J Med Ethics is very highly regarded, and most people with any acquaintance in fields it covers know it. It is much clearer without having to explain that its IF is in the range of philosophy journals, not medicine journals.
Nobody is concerned whether you are truly modest, but it is impt. to avoid giving an impression that you are not. Please look at the first two comments at the AfD . Please ignore wording on templates. These are stock phrases. But have seen many articles not do well when people list more than 10 or 20 individual articles in detail, especially if there is apparent COI. I've learned to select the most recent & prestigious--and of significant length, not letters to the ed.There are several editors who typically argue that any article written by the subject should be deleted--I respond to it saying it depends on the article, but it hasnt changed their minds, so it is critical to avoid anything that might seem like inflation. A book chapter or 2, wouldn't hurt, but I leave it to you to select the best. This also applies to awards--anything less than national is not usually a good idea. This is not a CV, where most people list everything possible.
academic ranks. I should have been more precise. In science in the US the rank of lecturer is not a tenure-track rank, but is a permanent rank, & is used for people who are expected to remain in subordinate teaching roles--supervising the lab courses, for example. In humanities it sometimes is an intermediate rank for people who have finished the doctorate but not yet ready for Asst. Professor (in science this is a post-doc). From what you say, the UK rank of Reader would match Assistant Professor. I'll fix my comment accordingly. (but the precedent at WP is that usually Asst. Professors are not considered Notable; Associate Professor varies, and I and some others are still trying to establish firmly that a full professor in a research university is sufficient demonstration of Notability) There are some people who don't accept NAS or RoyalSoc as sufficient.
I am very dubious about listing works in preparation. Let's see if they are noticed unfavorably.
A well respected editor with experience in transhumanism has joined in the editing, and I intend to leave as much as possible to him. As for me, I've learned not to be too partisan about articles I work on, & you should understand why. I have added my own comment in the AfD accordingly. hint: it does not help if you comment, unless you think the AfD is being ignored. There was an attempt to delete the article on Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. I think it can be successfully defended, but this should indicate some of the problems. DGG 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your clarifications DGG, I look forward to seeing what happens. My only sticking point is your decision about the Readership allocation. In my view, it really is not comparable to an Assistant Professorship, but much closer to Associate Professor. Again, the status of Reader varies as does the justification for the award and I make no specific claim about my own post in this message. However, I can think of many colleagues who are Readers in UK universities who would be genuinely surprised by your comparison. Your US rank of Lecturer does not really exist in the UK, though some non-research departments and/or institutions have begun to appoint Teaching Fellows, which sound very similar to your Lecturer. These posts generally allow for someone to develop their career in universities without the expectation to produce research. We also have post-docs in the uk, but these tend to precede the award of a permanent position (at any point in the scale, though usually one would move from postdoc to Lecturer). If you take a look at the entry for Reader (academic rank) this might help us come to some agreement.

Speedy deletion of "institute of nanotechnology"[edit]

A tag has been placed on "institute of nanotechnology", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jonny-mt(t)(c) 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Institute of nanotechnology[edit]

A tag has been placed on Institute of nanotechnology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007[edit]

Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to Institute of nanotechnology. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. The text of this very short article reads like an advertisement and does not assert the notability of the subject. Consistently recreating the article after it has been deleted does not help, unless you can improve the quality of the article to comply with WP policy. If you need a place to work on it, please use a personal sandbox. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumanism[edit]

I've been working on improving the Posthumanism article. Your comments would be appreciated on its talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andymiah, take a look at your talkpage on Commons. There is an urgent message for you. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]