User talk:Callaban

Welcome...

Hello, Callaban, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lumos3 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

An encyclopedic article can not stand on the recollections of interested parties---that's what blogs and personal websites are for. Given his notability, there ought to be numerous sources to support much of the material. This is not something arbitrary I'm inventing: WP:RELIABLE and WP:PRIMARY are relevant. Third-party objective sources are necessary. JNW (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Callaban: Terrific start on sources. I think it will require more, for quotations and various claims, but it's a good beginning. You've obviously devoted a lot of good work to the article--my suggestions are not meant to undo it, nor to make things difficult. I view hundreds of articles, and instantly believed this could transition from a well-crafted and heartfelt reminiscence to a solidly researched historical document, without compromising the passionate interest in the individual. JNW (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esalen Institute

Thank you for your edits to Esalen Institute. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and additions must be referenced. Wikipedia specifically bars original research. If you feel that the article is unbalanced, please find references for the facts you want to add. --E99ead (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, E99ead, the "Esaleaks" blog does not constitute a "reliable source" and cannot be used for references. It is you who is out of order on this matter. Afterwriting (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Price article

Nobody is "diminishing" this article in any way at all ~ so please stop making this ridiculous statement. All I am doing is improving it by editing it according to Wikipedia's style policies. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing support for Callaban

So sorry to see anonymous attacks, once again. Sorry you have to deal with this. Do not waste your time. We all respect and support your efforts where it really matters. Keep up the good work. Heartherapy (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.18.29 (talk) [reply]

(Transferred to User Callaban talk page. Please mind the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines WP:TALK. ) --79.228.18.29 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Esalen Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

<ref>"Esalen Institute to get a face lift." Santa Cruz Sentinel : Architecture, March 20, 2015< http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/arts-and-entertainment/20150320/esalen-institute-to-get-a-face-
called [[Gestalt Practice]],<ref> Manual of Gestalt Practice in the Tradition of Dick Price] (2014) [https://sites.google.com/site/gestaltenbooks/ ''The Gestalt Legacy Project'']. ISBN 978-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esalen - your recent edits

The article about Esalen: Concerning your recent edits and changes: To resolve a content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. --79.228.17.51 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

@Callaban, your username bears a remarkable similarity to a published author with an intimate familiarity and professional association with Esalen, and it's apparent from your contributions and comments here that this may be a very accurate description of you. If that is the case, you need to disclose your potential conflict of interest on the Esalen Institute talk page, the Dick Price article, on your user page, and any other relevant pages linked to Esalen that you have contributed to. In the interests of transparency, integrity, and honesty, values held dear at Esalen, you ought to do this ASAP.

Editors with a potential conflict of interest are asked to:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, frieds, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

Regards, — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a retired environmental attorney. I have no professional interest in Esalen Institute. I have nothing to gain from my contributions. All my contributions have been reliable. I have been motivated solely by a desire to maintain an accurate account of the subject matter. Apparently that motivation is not shared in this venue. Your accusations are unfounded and insulting. Callaban (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callaban, I'm sorry you feel the request to disclose your relationship, if any, with Esalen Institute is "unfounded and insulting." Asking to reveal a potential conflict of interest is not an accusation of anything. For example, I have a potential conflict of interest as a participant in the White Stag Leadership Development Program, an article which I wrote. And I disclosed that information. Perhaps in the legal field a conflict of interest is seen as a pejorative and bad thing. Following Wikipedia guidelines, I don't wish to publicly reveal anything about you without your permission, but it appears you have an interest in Gestalt, an intimate knowledge of and many years of experience visiting Esalen, and have written a few articles about both. If that's true, that's all you're being asked to disclose. I would think you would be proud of these accomplishments. There's no reason to hide them and, if that's all there is, these facts shouldn't prevent you from contributing. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attempt to backpedal. You have published defamatory remarks in order to injure the reputation of an attorney. I have no professional relationship with the institute. Everything I have done is pro bono, as we say. I only care about the accuracy of these articles. You have already attempted to publish inaccurate statements in the two articles, about which you obviously have no knowledge (except, perhaps, gossip). Apparently, you did that with recklessly disregarded of the truth. If you had made a studious attempt to examine my work, before you started making accusations, you would have discovered that my contributions have been accurate and balanced. Instead, you opted for the shortcut of defamation. Consequently, I believe my displeasure with you remarks is justified. Callaban (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callaban, I'm sorry you have chosen to take such a hard line and reached this conclusion. Since I and everyone else on Wikipedia don't know who you are, I can hardly "damage your good reputation" or "slander or libel" you. I have only asked you to state your relationship with the Institute due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have made no attempt to back pedal, only clarify. As an attorney, I'm sure you know that written communication is much less nuanced than person to person.

You have ignored more than one offer to state your relationship or lack of one with the Institute, an incredibly simple thing to do. You have stated what your relationship is not--that you don't have a professional relationship with the Institute--but not what it is. Instead, you've chosen to take offense where none was intended and accused me of defamation, leaving your role as an editor of Esalen Institute, Dick Price, Gestalt Practice, and related articles in limbo. That unfortunately leaves all other editors in the position where they must, based on your comments here and elsewhere, examine your contributions with care.

Everything I've contributed is backed by sources. If you feel the sources are not truthful or reliable, or if you can cite other sources with information that contradicts or calls into question information I've added, please provide that info, and we can include both sides. You are free of course to challenge sources that you believe are not reliable.

If you honestly believe my actions were a personal attack, then it is incumbent upon you to apply your legal skills and submit a statement with the appropriate evidence to Arbitration, where it can be duly resolved. Regards, — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to knowingly attack an attorney. You called me out expressly. Otherwise, I may not have noticed your flawed editing. Long ago I gave up on the Esalen Institute article, as it degenerated. Although I have said this before, let me be clear. I have not represented Esalen Institute or anyone in management, as you falsely allege. But under normal circumstances I would not have to defend myself, because my contributions have been accurate and balanced. In fact, I would be inclined to assist if I had not been singled out for insult. But you have chosen a different course. You have chosen the course of defamation. Callaban (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callaban, btphelps has not "attacked an attorney", he has commented on user Callaban's edits and asked questions about a possible conflict of interests. That is all. --79.228.28.205 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was a targeted attack. That is beyond dispute. I probably would not have responded unless I was targeted with particularity. There is no conflict of interest. So that is definitely not all. Callaban (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This attack upon me has been the basis for recent publication of falsehoods. So the strategy has been revealed for what it is. Defaming me is one thing. Publishing false statements is another. Callaban (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callaban, thank you for your contributions. If you don't choose to submit a statement with the appropriate documentation to Arbitration about my alleged defamation and false statements, then I'll consider the matter settled due to the lack of evidence. It's great to see based on your comments and remarks the improvements to mindfulness, communications, relationship skills, empathy, enhanced awareness, and spiritual growth that Gestalt Practice can bring to someone's life. Best wishes to you in your retirement from the legal practice. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will be happy to drop this matter. Frankly, the hook for me was the factual misstatement about Christine Price and Tribal Ground. Please don't interpret this as another form of "conflict of interest." However, I would appreciate it if you would guard against any reoccurrence of that problem. I would also appreciate it if you could clean up the language in the Dick Price article. I spent a great deal of time and effort behind the scenes negotiating the correct language among interested parties when I initially edited that article. I would also appreciate it if you could please remove flagged references to my putative "conflict of interest" on the Esalen article. I can assure you I have none. I assume you are aware of the current posture of litigation involving Esalen. I have been meticulous for several years not to become insinuated into that situation. I do not represent, nor have I ever represented, any plaintiffs or defendants in any Esalen related litigation. That is one reason for my sensitivity about claims regarding "conflicts of interest." I am still concerned about the underlying reason why I was individually targeted. I expended a great deal of effort, initially, to purge the Esalen Institute article of misstatements, grudges and nonsense. For a long time I had to defend these articles against crackpots. Considering all the inaccurate "contributions" I had to deal with, I was somewhat miffed to be singled out for censure. Beyond that, I am considering a retreat at the Hermitage this winter. I can promise you that I will not attempt to write anything about it in Wikipedia! I appreciate that you have offered me the option of settling this matter. I am not going to avoid intervention if something truly weird is done to these articles. However, I trust you will be committed to exercising the greatest care with Dick's legacy. Callaban (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from litigation, I assume you are following the senior management transition process. I am sure you want your references in the article to be accurate in the future. Callaban (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callaban, I'm not aware of any ongoing legal proceedings involving Esalen or any of its staff. Thank you for clarifying that you are not involved in these issues. I am aware that McEntee is out as CEO, but that is all I know.

You are not the only editor of the Esalen Institute and related articles that may have a close relationship with the subject of the articles. User:David.price is another, and IP addresses from Poland where Dick Price lives are possibly others. I asked you to disclose your relationship because:

You have made more than 27% of the edits to the Esalen Institute and Dick Price articles, and 78.59% of the edits to Gestalt Practice.
Your Wikipedia account name is very similar to an attorney who has written about Esalen Institute, Dick Price, and Gestalt Practice.

I would be happy to remove the Conflict of Interest banner if you would just state the obvious: your acquaintance with the subjects of the articles, if any. You have said you don't have a professional relationship but it's possible you have written about these subjects elsewhere. If you have written about these topics elsewhere, it's unclear if you have been compensated for writing about those topics, which might create the wrong impression that you are potentially making changes that could benefit you directly or indirectly. All you need to put something like the following on your user page:

"I knew and / or know Dick Price and / or Christine Price and / or Michael Murphy personally and have attended workshops at Esalen Institute for many years. I have studied Gestalt Practice. I have (received payment for OR have not been compensated for) writing about these topics elsewhere. I have no professional relationship with Esalen Institute." ... and whatever else is pertinent. You can choose whether or not to disclose your real identity.

Warmest regards, — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, the size of my contribution is a result of the reticence of many potential contributors to engage with Wikipedia, because the work product is flawed by irresponsible editors and interactions have a nasty and insulting quality. This is absolutely true. I have actually tried to recruit people with professional backgrounds to work on these articles. But potential contributors will not have anything to do with Wikipedia. However, I have developed the defenses necessary to deal with this forbidding environment. So the burden has fallen upon me to take on this difficult task. I have not enjoyed it. In point of fact, now you seem to be dedicated to embarrassing me. I am mortified that I have been subjected to cross-examination here. I am a senior citizen. I am an attorney with decades of experience. I worked for the United Nations in my youth. I was a student of international institutions and international human rights. I have been an attorney for the federal government. As such, I complied with a highest ethical standards. I know a great deal about the humanistic psychology movement, beginning with my undergraduate studies. I met just about every great humanistic psychologist of the late twentieth century. I engaged in psychological studies in San Francisco and Palo Alto in the 1970s. To this day, I have attended seminars with the luminaries of psychology and psychotherapy at various locations. I have engaged with a variety of spiritual traditions. I met and/or studied with nearly every teacher listed in the Esalen article. However, I do not now, and have never have had, professional involvement with Esalen and its management team. I have edited many texts in numerous fields of psychology and the spirit. However, I have never earned a living from these activities. Rather, I consider it part of my service as a human being. Let us contrast that with your qualifications to work on these articles. It might appear from your contributions that you have only a tangential understanding of the subject matter. It might appear that you have not carefully read all the primary sources. (I have.) It might appear that you have not carefully read the references for the material you have edited. Traditionally, an editor is expected to do their homework before engaging with a text. Otherwise, their intervention is considered unethical. Can you assert that you are fully qualified to edit the complicated material in these articles? If so, I might consider you a colleague. Would that be an accurate assessment? Callaban (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callaban, thanks for volunteering your relationship with the professional staff at Esalen and the Institute itself. I appreciate your dedication to working through the often Byzantine ways and methods of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

neutral point of view?

Callaban you wrote: "I spent a great deal of time and effort behind the scenes negotiating the correct language among interested parties when I initially edited that article. (...) Callaban (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)." Does this mean that your edits are not based on reliable source alone, but on other persons' opinions and personal views as well? Then your edits are not written in accordance with the "neutral point of view". --79.228.19.187 (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Callaban. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]