User talk:Paul Hartal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Paul Hartal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Will Beback 01:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No vanity links
Please refrain from placing vanity links anywhere at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles (Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF). The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roger J. Geronimo
Hi Paul. Since I've reverted you twice on this article I just wanted to let you know what my thinking is. I've removed the citations you put into the Roger J. Geronimo article because they are both promotional in nature (gigmasters is looking to book artists and indie-music allows artists to write their own blurb), so they don't rise to the level of verifying that he actually is world renowned. For a statement like "world renowned" we need published articles about him from several independent and well respected music reviewers, and from more than one country. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Libellous Claims"
If you want to deal with legal issues like libel then a court of law is the proper arena, not Wikipedia. You are welcome to pursue a case against the editors you think have libelled you. But please don't pursue that case here. No legal threats Here we are only concerned with summarizing verifiable information using a neutral point of view. If something is incorrect then let's deal with it in a constructive, collaborative manner. -Will Beback 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Paul - Your statement at Talk: Columbia Pacific University - I would like to remind you the undisputable fact that publishing a false and defamatory statement damaging a person's reputation is libelous, and libel is a crime. is again raising the issue of whether you have violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. I remind you that the policy states:
-
- If you make legal threats you may be blocked from editing so as not to exacerbate the matter through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding.
- I do not intend to get into an argument as to whether your statement actually constitutes a legal threat or not. Rather, I note that should an administrator here so decide, the matter will probably not be open to further discussion. I am not an admin, and I don't plan to raise the issue with the administrators here - IF you make no further references on talk pages to libel, legal issues, or pointing out possible "crimes" that other editors may be committing. It should be sufficient for you to tell other editors that Wikipedia should not contain negative information about organizations or people unless the information is supported by reliable sources. If you believe that an editor is repeatedly posting such negative information without adequate sourcing, I and others certainly will be willing to help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
John,
Thank you for your note and willingness to help. Some time ago the Wikipedia editors of the Columbia Pacific University (CPU) article deleted the Notable Alumni section and told me that CPU has no notable alumni. Eventually, they very reluctantly put a few of them back on the list. Among those still removed are former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, a Honorary Fellow of CPU; renowned scientists, the internationally recognized and bestselling author Barbara De Angelis; Jon Sigurdson, the Minister of Industry and Commerce and former director of the national bank of a European country (Iceland), as well as others.
Right now there is a discussion about the proposed deletion of the Wikipedia entry on Columbia Pacific University (CPU) alumna Rochelle Holt, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rochelle_Holt. I’d like to draw your attention to CPU editor Skinwalker’s defamatory characterization of CPU!
Please, see my comment on this below:
JoshuaZ, Skinwalker and Company,
Your continued call for the deletion of the article on Rochelle Holt is not only unjustified but even bizarre. Moreover, explaining the proposed deletion because, in addition to her MFA from the University of Iowa, she pursued further studies at Columbia Pacific University (CPU) is part of an orchestrated academic witch hunt. Since when is learning a crime? The defamation of CPU is part of the irresponsible misinformation phenomenon, which is described quite well, for example, in M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie (ISBN 0-671454927; Dr. Peck is best known for his best seller, The Road Less Traveled).
Your prejudice is unprofessional and should be brought to the attention of fair-minded Wikipedia administrators, contributors, as well as Wikipedia donors and in fact everyone concerned about the quality of the Internet, the advancement of knowledge and intellectual freedom.
The article on Rochelle Holt in its present stage clearly shows and documents that she is notable on several accounts and highly eligible to be featured in Wikipedia:
She is listed in the International Who’s Who in Poetry, London: Routledge, ISBN 0948875593, and her biography is featured at universities and literary publications. Please see Reference Section in article. She received numerous professional awards, grants and honors, including nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. She is regarded by her peers as a major poet and a significant science fiction writer. A Reader’s Digest survey ranked her first among American poets. In addition to her numerous and well-received books, she published over 2000 poems in about 300 periodicals and magazines, and gave over 700 public readings at universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, bookstores and other places. She has originated a new literary genre within the category of the poem-novel, recognized by experts as a significant and innovative accomplishment. Her plays have been performed in theatres. As a publisher she has advanced the works of other professional artists. Among other things, she has published important scholarly work about the life and art of Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell as well as others and contributed to the development of literary theory.
I went through uncounted entries in Wikipedia, and I am amazed to see how many of them are basically just short notes about people who cannot really reach the level of notability as Rochelle Holt does, and nevertheless they are featured in Wikipedia.
Paul Hartal 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stating Facts is not Libellous
I applaud your suggestion of dealing with incorrect matters “in a constructive, collaborative manner”. As to “Libellous Claims” please, note that in all my writings I avoid making legal threats, or claims of legal action. Since you did not provide me with any actual example of the “legal threats” that you found in my comments, I am at a loss how to address your complaint.
On the other hand, I was already threatened with being banned from contributing to Wikipedia because I have dared to set the record straight regarding false claims about alternative education and health care. Let us bear in mind that the Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines libel as "published false statement damaging to person's reputation, act of publishing it; false defamatory statement or representation". Although according to its editorial guidelines, “slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia”, this cyber encyclopedia is far from being free of these ugly monstrosities. Wikipedia, for example, along with thousands of honest other graduates, defames David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD, because he is an alumnus of Columbia Pacific University (CPU). The Wikipedia article is vague, or fails to mention that Dr. Hawkins’ CPU doctorate is legal and valid, that CPU was a California State approved school, and that approval was the equivalent of regional accreditation in the US. Instead, CPU is portrayed as a “diploma mill” and Hawkins’ character is assassinated. In accordance with the Oxford definition presented above, it is clear that Wikipedia libels Dr. Hawkins (and other CPU alumni), but in stating this I am not making any legal threats, just pointing out the facts.
Paul Hartal 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Hartal article
I have created an article about Paul Hartal because the artist is notable. I don't think that Lyco art or "Lyrical Conceptualism" are notable so I recommend that article be converted into a Redirect to the artist article. Hu 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merged articles
The content of the Lyco art article is now merged into the Paul Hartal article. It is not notable enough to stand on its own, but can certainly be used in the Hartal article. I hope that this will satisfy Hartal. -- Fyslee 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preview, Group, Summarize
Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Using the Show Preview button (above the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to reduce the number of edits in the page History to make it easier for fellow editors to monitor the edits, 3) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button). Hu 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Columbia Pacific University
Hi Paul: I have appended an NPOV tag to the CPU article. I discuss my reasons on the talk page. As you have been a prolific editor of the page, I would like to solicit your comments before making changes. I believe that the present state of the article is quite unencyclopedic, but I think we can work together to improve the article, while maintaining a neutral tone. Thanks! Skinwalker 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've proposed some fairly major changes at the Columbia Pacific University page, and I would really like to get your input before I move forward. I realize you may be busy, but please take a minute to look at the talk page and respond to my concerns. Thanks! Skinwalker 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent comment
I've removed your most recent comment from the CPU page as both violating WP:BLP and being general soapboxing. JoshuaZ 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of Roger J. Geronimo
On March 5, an editor placed a {{prod}} tag on the article Roger J. Geronimo, of which you are the creator and main contributor, with the reason: "There are insufficient sources to verify the notability of this subject." I feel you should have been notified of this as you are still obviously monitoring the article from time to time (you made a number of edits to it earlier this month). So, I have de-prodded and re-prodded the article so that it will expire 5 days from today. The article has a number of sources at least one of which (#3 in the current version) is non-trivial and/or in-depth. I wanted to de-prod the article myself (given the sources, I don't think a claim of uncontroversial deletion is applicable), but thought it better to direct the issue to you first. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editors' Bias on CPU behind Deletion Proposal
The Roger J. Geronimo article was featured on Wikipedia for quite a long time and edited by a number of contributors who did not propose its deletion. Why then suddenly the urgency and the change in policy? Also the announcement is given in a dictatorial tone. Some administrators seem to forget that Wikipedia exists in a democratic society supported by donors!
Roger Geronimo was an adviser to President Reagan. This alone makes him a notable person. He is also a noted tenor. The Internet is a relatively new medium and most of the reliable sources on him are in “old fashioned” printed publications.
It is quite evident that Roger Geronimo’s position as president of Columbia Pacific University (CPU)does not make him very popular with editors such as JoshuaZ and Skinwalker. They either ignore or are confused concerning the legal status of CPU degrees in California. Skinwalker calls CPU a “diploma mill”, which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines because he irresponsibly defames living persons! He refuses to accept the fact that the court that closed CPU did not adjudicate that CPU was a diploma mill. In fact, it ruled that CPU degrees earned before June 1997 are legally valid in California because until that date the school was state approved. Moreover, the State of California acknowledges that these CPU degree holders are eligible to sit for professional licensing examinations, similarly to graduates of regionally accredited universities. So calling CPU a degree mill is malicious misinformation. Skinwalker, and others with similar agendas, should be banned from editing CPU related subjects, or at least apologize for their irresponsible and defamatory words. Paul Hartal 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citing websites
It would be a lot easier to follow your edits if you cited websites by citing the website itself, not its search-engine cache. What we really need for Rochelle Holt though is indication that she meets WP:BIO. The best way to do that is to produce multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources about her. I've looked through the sources you have and none onbviously do that. JoshuaZ 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rochelle Holt: Deletion Proposal Prompted By CPU Connection
The continued call for the deletion of the article on Rochelle Holt is not only unjustified but even bizarre. Some editors, like JoshuaZ and Skinwalker, explain the proposed deletion because-- in addition to her MFA from the University of Iowa-- Rochelle Holt pursued further studies at Columbia Pacific University (CPU). The campaign of these editors is part of an orchestrated academic witch hunt. The defamation of CPU is an extension of the irresponsible misinformation phenomenon, which is described quite well, for example, in M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie (ISBN 0-671454927; Dr. Peck is best known for his best seller, The Road Less Traveled).
From the list of Notable Alumni in the Columbia Pacific University article, a whole group of renowned people were deleted, among them, John Sigurdsson, Minister of Industry and Commerce of a European nation, Iceland [1]; Barbara De Angelis, internationally known and New York Times number one best selling author; award winning scientists; as well as the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, a Honorary Fellow. A supporter of adult education, Prime minister Wilson was a founder of the Open University in Britain and delivered a speech in 1983 at a CPU graduation ceremony held in Birmingham, England. The deletion of these eminent people from the list is part of the attempt to discredit CPU.
The unfair treatment of CPU by biased editors is unprofessional and should be brought to the attention of fair-minded Wikipedia administrators, contributors, as well as Wikipedia donors and in fact everyone concerned about the quality of the Internet, the advancement of knowledge and intellectual freedom.
The article on Rochelle Holt in its present stage clearly shows and documents that she is notable on several accounts and highly eligible to be featured in Wikipedia:
She is listed in the International Who’s Who in Poetry, London: Routledge, ISBN 0948875593, and her biography is featured at universities and literary publications. Please see citations and references in the article. She received numerous professional awards, grants and honors, including nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. She is regarded by her peers as a major poet and a significant science fiction writer. A Readers Digest survey ranked her first among American poets. In addition to her numerous and well-received books, she published over 2000 poems in about 300 periodicals and magazines, and gave over 700 public readings at universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, bookstores and other places. She has originated a new literary genre within the category of the poem-novel, recognized by experts as a significant and innovative accomplishment. Her plays have been performed in theatres. As a publisher she has advanced the works of other professional artists. Among other things, she has published important scholarly work about the life and art of Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell as well as others and contributed to the development of literary theory.
I went through uncounted entries in Wikipedia, and I am amazed to see how many of them are basically just short notes about people who cannot really reach the level of notability as Rochelle Holt does, and nevertheless they are featured in Wikipedia. Paul Hartal 06:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of making claims about defamation (which incidentally, are blockable) the easiest way for you to resolve this is to present reliable sources that discuss her that are independent of her. If you do so, I and other users will be more than happy to keep it. JoshuaZ 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some issues
OK, there are some issues here that you need to address.
- Nominating an article for deletion is not a sign of evil, you may not assume bad faith of the nominator, although you are free to advocate keeping the article, provided you do so in a civil manner.
- Attributing claims in an article is great, but as per our attribution policy, the claims should be traceable to their source and should be made in a reliable, independent publication. For example, the claim that she was listed as a major poet you sourced fomr a couple of places, including a self-publishing house, but the claim originates with Writer's Digest; you present no evidence that this is an authoritative source forr the claim, and have not in any case provided a reference to the original claim which can be verified.
- The supporting references you give do not appear to properly support the claims. For example, the statement that her work includes aestetic theory and experimental writing is sourced, among others, to this paragraph:
8:30-10:00
Session II: Nin in Context
Room 401B . Moderator: Kathy Silvey, Claremont Graduate University
Paul Herron, Sky Blue Press, "The Paris of Her Mind: Anais Nin's Paris."
Maryanne Raphael, "Anais Nin, Therese of Lisieux, and Mother Teresa."
Diane Richard-Allerdyce, Lynn University, "Nin Considers Durrell: Friendship, Jealousy, and the Creative Process"
Rochelle Lynn Holt, "Enriching the Passage: Nin, Miller, and Durrell."
- Your inference is, I think, either original research or plain wrong.
- Some of the sources were off-the-page sales links. That is not acceptable per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Also, [2] does not support the claim that she has invented a new genre.
- Your efforts to sanitise the article on CWU are problematic to say the least. Whatever the place says or said about itself, the reliable sources call it an unaccredited school, and probably a diploma mill. If you want the article to counter those claims, you need to come up with reliable independent sources which say that it is not.
Apart from that, your general style is aggressive and uncivil. Please try to be a little more measured in what you say, or you are likely to be banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing. Your past legal threats do not endear you to the Wikipedia community, and words such as "defamation" are an implied legal threat which you simply must not continue to post or you will be blocked from editing - please do endeavour to be rather more calm in your future interactions with other editors.
Overall? Lighten up a little. And under no circumstances should you climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man :o) Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indefinitely blocked
Violation report--Jersey Devil 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
