User talk:Pranek

Fringe and pseudoscience sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is with respect to this diff where you imply that you are going to add material related to a pseudoscientific point of view to Paul Hartal. In addition, since you are using what I presume is not a royal plural, you are obligated to DISCLOSE your connexion to Hartal per the Terms of Use before you do anything else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "Paul Hartal" article from Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Hartal Pranek (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Paul Hartal and am not going to add or edit the Wikipedia article.

Paul Hartal Pranek (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI alert

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I'm Dennis Brown, an admin here at Wikipedia, and I've blocked you from editing because you were blocked previously with a different account. As for deleting your article, I don't see that as likely, although that is up to the community of editors, not admin like myself. Subjects of articles do not have any control over what we publish. They can make requests, and point out any information that is false and unsourced to a reliable source, and if done politely, we are pretty open to reviewing, but you don't have control. You don't own it. Actually, Wikipedia doesn't even own it. The individual editors who create the material own it. But more on point, subjects of articles have no control over the content, just as you have no control over what the New York Times or Britannica says about you. We have very strict policies on what is allowed, however, in our Biographies of Living Persons policies, to ensure we don't publish obvious falsehoods. But we publish the good and the bad about individual, as long as it was previously published in a reliable source, and the inclusion isn't undue. We aren't censored, and we try to stick to a neutral point of view. This is why it is strongly discouraged that subject edit their own articles. None of us is truly objective when it comes to writing about ourselves. Anyway, I wanted to take the time and explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis, for your note.Since basically I am a humble person, allow me please to point out that I don't chase fame, nor view it as an important life goal. At the same time I would expect fairness and good faith from Wikipedia editors. The fact that the "Paul Hartal" article has been drastically truncated, documented sections of it with reliable references deleted (e.g., the Paul Hartal article on the Art History website of Concordia University, references to my 1978 exhibition at the Luxembourg Museum in Paris, or the page regarding my 2007 exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, curated by G. Galantai of Artpool), prompts me to question the objectivity and good faith of certain editors. Regarding the problem of my notability, I believe that it would be better to delete the "Paul Hartal" article. Years ago actually there was an editorial voting on its notability and quite unfortunately, it seems, the result was to keep the article. Still, if Wikipedia editors were really interested in more reliable and documented information establishing and confirming the notability of the undersigned, they could find quite a great deal of it by searching , including an award winning Dutch film on poetry, creating the Canadian art entry to the 24th Seoul Olympic Games aport album, exhibiting as NASA Space Artist, etc. The reference to the July 21, 1979, article of Tom Konyves, Poetry Corner, published in the Montreal Star was also deleted. Among other things it says, "Paul Hartal's...painting, Flowers for Cezanne won first prize in the Prix de Paris competition last year." This can be easily verified in the archives of the paper available online.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Hartal Pranek (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have links to articles, that helps. I understand your frustration, but you have to understand that admin (like me) don't decide content, we just monitor behavior. There are maybe 300 active admin, hundreds of thousands of editors, and millions of articles. It isn't hard to have an article not get noticed by the right persons. With biographies, our philosophy is pretty simple, in that it is better for a bio to be incomplete than wrong, which is why we demand good sources. But again, if someone makes a bad edit and no one else notices, the bad edit can stay until a good editor sees it. If you can provide some cleaner copy, I will look at it. I have to go and search each one of the sources you provide and verify everything, but I'm open to doing that as long as the sources meet our standards at WP:RS. In a nutshell, that means we don't use blogs or personal websites as sources. Local newspapers, CNN, New York Times, widely accepted art magazines, etc are all fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dennis, for your messasge.

Paul Hartal Pranek (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dennis,

I forward you the link to Paul Hartal's poetry on award winning Dutch film. The poem "Subway" by Paul Hartal was adapted to film by Director Iris Dekker. It won first prize in 2012 at the Poetry on Film competition held at the Free University of Amsterdam. Credits appear at the end of the film. The poem is published online at www.poemhunter.com and www.best-poems.net/paul_hartal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwg_NFmWsgo

Yoyrs sincerely,

Paul Hartal Pranek (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use that source (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is only usable if (1) the video was produced by an outlet we'd ordinarily consider reliable and (2) is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. The latter part is especially crucial; for all we know this video was pirated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the original site, and we would have to use it from there, but there needs to be clear copyright info posted on it. Wikipedia can't even link to material if there is any question of the copyright. Youtube is full of infringing things, and the legal team here (not part of the community, just a necessary part of the corporate structure) will get involved if we aren't clear about ownership. Credit and ownership are two different things, as you likely know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]