User talk:Paulmorantz

Welcome!

Hello, Paulmorantz, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synanon

Thanks for your contributions to Synanon. You are indeed a unique resource for this article. However please be aware that Wikipedia has special rules about sourcing information. It isn't sufficient for an editor to have personal knowledge of a topic. Everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable using generally available reliable sources. Inline citations are now the norm. Fortunately, the Synanon saga was (eventually) covered thoroughly by both journlaists and scholars so there is no lack of sources available. Another norm of Wikipedia is to work consensually with other editors. It may be uncomfortable for an expert such as yourself to have to explain editing decisions to those who aren't nearly so familiar with the topic, but it goes with the territory. To that end, please use the Talk:Synanon page to discuss your edits. Again, thanks for your participation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

In addition to your expertise, an especially valuable contribution that you may be able to make to the topic of Synanon are photographs. As you can see, aside from a modern photo of Casa del Mar we have nothing to illustrate the article. Wikipedia rules on photos (and other copyrighted material) are amazingly strict, so they would have to be photos that you've taken yourself or otherwise own the copyrights to. Even a couple of pictures would make a big difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

If you'd be interested in less formal discussion I'd be glad to get an email from you. Link to email. (You may need to set an email address in your preferences first.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Synanon

Your edit to this article was considered vandalism and has been reverted. Please use the Sandbox to experiment. ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmorantz/s edit wasn't vandalism, it was just the case of an well-intentioned expert who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia customs and guidelines. Let's work on improving the article together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul morantz

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Paul morantz, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/a/alqaeda/morantz_bio.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time I thought it was an honor to on Wikipedia. Now I want resolution or off. I am in about 150 different books, written 2 of my own and am subject in a book soon to come out. There are maybe 10,000 articles. My web-site has 2 million readers. I can be accurately researched without Wikipedia and without someone saying for 6 years this seems one-sided, but the fact is it was accurate. That was status in 2011. But constant editing by probable persons related to cults I took actions against to the ridiculous ultimate description of me as an expert in "institutional abuse (while calling me accurately as specializing against "cults" under Wikipedia's Center for Feeling Therapy)," a refusal to allow word "brainwashing," refusal to discuss my involvement in Molko case although Wikipedia refers to my involvement under its Molko entry, refusal to discuss what happened as result of my involvement with est even though my story is No.1 on google if you enter "est brainwashing." Now deletion City of Santa Monica issues me a Commendation for Synanon and my career helping othhers

My problems with Wikipedia began long ago when I tried to correct some wrong dates and locations concerning Synanon. Even though I was involved I was not a "source" I was then in quite a few different Wikipedia entries and what I knew from personal experience was none were accurate. But in 2011 it was pretty accurate and complete as to me. I was impressed by time spent by those who did it. It was not me. I was proud that mine was accurate and when journalists asked for background I referred then you take it down. Eventually you did take down that directive per my request but it got reposted last May. And Molko and est which I considered as far as society impact disappeared, and my specialty kept changing to the ridiculous. Today I refer journalist and documentary makers to articles on me, but not Wikipedia because it is inaccurate and incomplete. Someone who knows me made a last effort to correct it. The sources supported everything. You undid them. Please have someone in 5 days contact me for resolution Otherwise I prefer you just remove it. I can post an old version on my site with a statement this was created by people before those with an agenda starting altering history.

Paul Morantz

September 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Center for Feeling Therapy. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]