Jump to content

Talk:Peter Max Lawrence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability?

[edit]

I'm having a hard time satisfying myself that Lawrence passes notability. Anyone else have an opinion? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability.

[edit]

I agree with the previous comment. This guy is known for having a bunch of aliases (Roberta Soltea, Whitler Pratphall) to promote himself. I don't think he should be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydebussy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how does someone report this guy?

[edit]

i agree. i go to school with this guy. he has never "worked" with tony labat... he tried out for something tony held open auditions for. and sharon grace never said that either. everyone else he listed are just friends of his from school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestprotest (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

[edit]

I am requesting that this article be deleted for several reasons listed below:

1. I have a very strong suspicion that Peter Max Lawrence not only created this article, but has been the only one maintaining it. If you look at the history (administrators can see IP addresses) almost all the names listed there like WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Verdequete, Waitformyturn are probably linked to the same IP address. These "users" also have no userpages, and therefore, makes me think they are just aliases of Peter's to promote himself on Wikipedia. Almost -ALL- the links go to his own website and Paper Waster Press is also his company. Wikipedia is NOT a RESUME website.

2. Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn was the one who removed my initial request for deletion from this page. This is why I have now submitted it for debate by other Wikipedia users. I am sure I will find more aliases of Peter's on here defending himself, and would like honest Wikipedia users to intervene.

3. In the history section Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn also slanders a student at the San Francisco Art Institute by putting a link to his myspace page. I assume he is blaming this person for the problems he is experiencing on Wikipedia. He also has slandered other users who have made comments on this talk page under the name "Roberta Soltea" and wrote a lengthy open letter to one of the users about how "Roberta Soltea" is a real person. I removed that nonsense from the talk page.

4. Basically this article is causing a lot of problems on here and more importantly, it is completely, a self-made vanity article and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestprotest (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the 'subject'

[edit]

It has recently been brought to my attention that a dispute has erupted around this wiki page. I would like to state clearly that I have had very little to do with the content of this page other than minor edits several months back. Originally in 2006(during T. Labats class) I did create this wiki page under my name with the intention of producing a very simple temporary work of art that spoke to the fragility of ego conflated with the current issue surrounding the malleability of information found on sites like wikipedia. The documentation to this project exists and I was completely satisfied with the work as it stood. At some point in the following weeks someone completely other than myself and unknown propped back up a new version of that text. This did not come to my attention for several months. I took no action because it seemed to be a humorous and unexpected development(not to mention in the spirit of the site itself). That said, I have absolutely no stake in the page and would be indifferent to its demise. I would however like to find clarification in some puzzling issues that have continually been brought to my doorstep. I have been plagued by a phantom hacker and anonymous slanderer of my work. I was originally under the impression that it was one particular individual, but as of late, it has become apparent that there are at least a two, if not a small gang of bandits who have specifically targeted me and apparently my relationships with former collaborators as well as instructors from SFAI. From these simple actions I have deduced a few obvious candidates (one of which seems to be using this forum for their own promotion and or they, too, are being targeted). Various actions falsely lead an overtly obvious trail back to the subject of the page, namely me. A similar tactic was used to send out mass emails atributed to me through the SFAI system earlier in the year. I would like to state clearly for the record that not only am I indifferent to the existence of this page; I am very disturbed by anyone who would purposely drag false information about people who I admire and respect deeply into such a childish slander. I am fully prepared to defend the attacks on myself and work, but to include others is quite disturbing even in the 'art' world.

Quick notes of point.

1) Roberta Soltea is not an alias of mine.

2) Whitler Pratphall is most definitely an alias of mine(This is an obvious fact to anyone who has ever been to my site). Apparently it has been co-opted by another user with the intention to defame me.

3) I have absolutely no idea who is working on this page and am somewhat disturbed that I have become a consistent target by both sides(or one devious individual).

4) Whomever is doing this obviously knows a bit about me and has cobbled together information from my social life and personal web site.

5) The image that has been up on the page for the past year was taken from the press images section of my site(or possibly KQED). I declined to dispute it due to the fact that I had already offered it up to the public as a free access-able download.

6) Lastly, the anonymity from all parties involved is quite telling in and of itself.

Though I cannot control the 'strange beasts' that surround me; I can control my own actions. I do not seek a vanity page as I already have my own site. I do not seek a resume builder and find that claim to be ridiculous, insulting and overtly transparent.

With that all said, I am asking for the wiki page to be taken down immediately; if possible. Having no control over a dispute that surrounds my name, character and lively-hood is proving to be a social sculpture that holds absolutely no interest to me. I have spent the vast majority of my life collaborating and encouraging other artists to make work that expresses themselves and challenges others to seek positive solutions to personal problems.

Although I cannot apologize or take responsibility for actions committed by others; I can offer sincere sympathy to those people who were dragged into this absurd discussion and mess specifically Sharon, Tony and Jarrett. I truly hope you have not been offended or incensed by this disturbing turn of events.


best of luck,

Peter Max Lawrence

p.s. - Note to those involved: I sincerely feel deep sorrow for those people in this world who have nothing better to do with their time than to spend it loitering among and vandalizing the reputations of people like myself. I hope this isn't your only outlet for creativity, because if it is - it makes me very depressed.

Petermaxlawrence (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!
If you placed images on web-sites, but did not explicitly release them to the public domain, or liscense them under the {{gfdl}} or another liscense the wikipedia considers a "free" liscense, then you remain free to have them brought down from the wikipedia or commons. Whatever happens to your article I encourage you to get images you did not explicitly release removed.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the "real" Peter Max Lawrence

[edit]

Why don't you delete it yourself if you want it to be removed?

I'm asking because I tried to delete this a few days ago and "someone" aka "Waitformyturn" removed the delete and wrote a long rant about something in the talk section defending "you". Quite similar to the long rant you just gave above. If you really do not want this article to exist like you claim above I will put it up for delete again and won't expect "Waitformyturn" to remove the delete.

P.S. Sharon Grace nor Tony Labat don't even know (or probably care) about this fiasco going on about your Wikipedia article. Please stop dragging them into this. I only asked Sharon if she said the quote about you being the most relevant artist of your generation and she said no. Modestprotest (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]

Unfortunately, since the article exists, and has for some time, simply deleting it is not possible. It will need to go through the deletion discussion and an administrator wil make the final decision. However, since the artist himself has asked that it be deleted, and there seems to be some larger issues at stake, there are legitimate grounds to delete at this time. I've just tuned in to this, so I don't know all the details, but if this is all true, it's unfortunate. I also know that an adminstrator can delete the material so that the negative comments and other objectionable content won't be available via Google. freshacconci talktalk 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

Opened up a sock puppet case against Petermaxlawrence and his several aliases to avoid scrutiny in creating his own article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence Modestprotest (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]

Second sock puppet case opened

[edit]

"Someone" went to the SF Public Library to get around IP tracking and created a new user name to update this page. Sigh. These actions are really transparent, that's what the sad thing is. Modestprotest (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet cases closed.

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence

All of the aliases WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Waitformyturn, and Neutralsutures show "the pattern of behavior and edits from the other accounts are sufficiently similar to establish disruptive sockpuppetry" and have been blocked indefinitely, including Petermaxlawrence. I hate to toot my own horn but, turns out my suspicions were validated.

And because of this action, can we now get back to the discussion of deleting this account?Modestprotest (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE AUTHOR, THE SUBJECT, AND VARIOUS PUPPETS...

[edit]

If you stay away from this article and its discussions for a bit, it might actually be possible to improve the article. But your continued defense with the creation of alternate accounts to argue your points works against you in ways you may not realize. If the article can be improved and kept, it will be (or would have been). If it cannot be, it will go. Simple. But the circumstances now surrounding the article greatly reduce the chances that someone will step forward to even try. Imagine being in an elevator and someone passes gas... permeating the elevator with a scent that curls the hair in your nose and makes your eyes water. All you might want to do is get out of that elevator as quickly as possible.... maybe even take the stairs. You may even be reluctant to ever ride an elevator with that person again. So, if you guys just quit farting around, there might yet be hope. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And like it or not... the result on the article page as of a few seconds ago, after my major overhaul, is one that may be acceptable to Wikipedia. That tremendous long list of things sourced only back to Paper Waste Press were seen as exteremely self-serving. At least I was able to source informations to articles and reviews by independent sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATES NEEDED

[edit]

I'm trying to learn how to use WIKI but seem to be failing miserably. Can anyone help me with these sources and information updates?

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/6091386/an-essay-by-monica-jane-peck-peter-max-lawrence http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1842442/ https://theboltmagazine.com http://contemporaryperformance.org/profile/PeterMaxLawrence http://www.frameline.org/now-showing/frameline-voices/peter-max-lawrence http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Chrono/LawrenceL.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jg7ERvOiAI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepinggorilla (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Max Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References, clean-up and editing activity

[edit]

I've tagged the article for further references. The ones listed are mostly closely associated with the subject, pay-to-play listings (such as the Saatchi link), or dead links (or frankly a combination of any of these). As it stands, the article is a PR statement, nothing more. I've removed some of the more obvious promotional items but we still have a problem with tone (promotional) and references (dead, affiliated and/or dubious).

There's also an issue with SPA editing: two editors with similar usernames are adding and deleting sections, at odds with each other. I have no idea the motivations for either, but the "clean" version with my last edit (clean being relative) is the best of the options at the moment. Since there's been sock activity in the past with the subject possibly editing under different accounts, supporters and detractors of the subject may be at it again. Obviously work is required to make this article passable but I've done what I can for the moment: very low priority article that I can't devote more time to it. freshacconci (✉) 19:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Max_Lawrence&oldid=1208113562"