User talk:PaulHA2

"Cartoon"[edit]

I know your edit was made in good faith, but people like Joe Matt and Chester Brown refer to themselves as cartoonists. The term is quite old, and has a much broader meaning than you believe. There are cartoonists who, for some reason, feel ashamed at caling themseles "cartoonist" (going back at least as far as Hal Foster), but that doesn't make them any less cartoonists. It's not a shameful word, and I suspect Joe Matt would be either offended or amused by your edit. After all, his first collection was called Peepshow: the Cartoon Diary of Joe Matt. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your reversion of me, though I'm not sure that questions about things like "respect" or "shame" have anything to do with what I was thinking of when I made the edit in question. Cartoons and graphic narrative aren't really the same thing--some scholars in the field do distinguish between the two--but I was never trying to imply that one was "better" than the other. PaulHA2 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who disagree with you—Hal Foster's insistence that he was not a cartoonist (and why he thinks so) has been much talked about. It boils down to having a very narrow definition of the words "cartoon" and "cartoonist". Quite "serious" graphic narrativists, like Art Spiegelman, Chester Brown, Eddie Campbell, David Mazzucchelli, Daniel Clowes, Jaime Hernandez, Dave Sim and a slew of others have no problem with the term "cartoonist" (look them up and see what they call themselves). If you look into the history of cartooning, you'll see that the term long precedes the comics medium, and didn't have anything to do with exaggerated imagery. There is a set of cartoonists who have come to associate "cartooning" with the idea of caricatured or otherwise exaggerated drawing, but there is also a large set of cartoonists (and critics) who have never bought into this narrowing down of the definition of "cartooning". These cartoonists (and critics) also tend to have a greater and deeper respect for the history of cartooning.

Anyways, in the case of Joe Matt specifically, he himself, his friends, and his critics all refer to him as a "cartoonist", so it would need some sort of concrete evidence to counter the claim. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have no problem with your reversion, and I make no value judgments about cartoons versus comics; I just subscribe to the idea that they are qualitatively different things. Some people agree with that. Some don't. PaulHA2 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia - Conflict with scientific views[edit]

Correct me if i', wrong as a newcomer, but that's an example of original research, and not properly sourced, yes? The info I added about the list with examples of pseudoscience from Conservapedia's article "pseudoscience" is not original search. Conservapedia's article on Pseudoscience really includes this list. The info is sourced with the article which contains it. It's one more example of Conservapedia's opinion on some of the most important scientific theories and achievements. What has to be cited here is the fact that this list is included in conservapedia not wether the list is correct or wrong and wether what is mentioned in the list is pseudoscience or not (of course relativity, evolution, climatology e.t.c. are far from being pseudosciences but that's another matter). Why do you consider it original research?--NNeilAlieNN ^{Talk to me} 14:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not sourced to an outside citation. Look at every other citation on the page; they all refer to what someone else--newspaper, blogger, etc--says about Conservapedia, not to Conservapedia itself. PaulHA2 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle[edit]

Hi Paul, thanks for your edits, but I've reverted to the capitalised version in line with the convention here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I had NO FRIGGIN' IDEA that capitalization standard was a thing. Sorry to create work for you. PaulHA2 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Footnotes in Gaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PaulHA2. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Adam in MO Talk 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. PaulHA2 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Joshua Redman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Bernstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]