User talk:Modestprotest


 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * Although this is a relatively new wiki-id those who suspect I am not new to the wikipedia are correct. I created this ID to protect my identity from outside retaliation (I attend the same school as Peter Max Lawrence) as a result of proposing the Peter Max Lawrence article for deletion. If an administrator would like to find out more information about this, and to alleviate sock puppet concerns, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.
 * Although this is a relatively new wiki-id those who suspect I am not new to the wikipedia are correct. I created this ID to protect my identity from outside retaliation (I attend the same school as Peter Max Lawrence) as a result of proposing the Peter Max Lawrence article for deletion. If an administrator would like to find out more information about this, and to alleviate sock puppet concerns, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.


 * }

Peter Max Lawrence
Hi,

Thank you for pointing out the Saatchi gallery; it doesn't change my opinion on this at all, I'm afraid. I still believe that Michael's edits establish a very weak notability for this artist.

As for your ability to question other editors regarding their recommendations; you are, of course, able to do this but it can be seen as harrassment when you comment as regularly and a vehemently as you have been. Also, the fact that you are using a newly created account to solely press for deletion of this article does not help this and makes people doubt your motives: ie, are you attempting to assist in building an encyclopedia (as Michael is, for instance), or are you attempting to remove the article of someone you know as part of a grudge? That is, unfortunately, what it looks like to me. If you had constructively contributed to WP before or during your crusade, I would be inclined to forgive other actions. Perhaps you would like to consider doing that?

Thanks,

 one brave  monkey  14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear onebravemonkey,

Thanks for your reply. I will be honest here and will probably implicate myself as having a COI but of course, it seems obvious to the people participating in the AfD that I do so I have nothing to hide. I have been a Wikipedia user but had to create a new ID to avoid Peter Max Lawrence's wrath at school. He has boasted about being on Wikipedia for some time now and I refrained from saying anything until he made an edit saying one of the professors at school said he is "one of the most relevant American artists of this emerging generation." (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Max_Lawrence&diff=240539630&oldid=225497070). I was surprised that she had said that, so I asked her if she did and she said no, and asked me to find out who would put such an absolute quote like that and was concerned that it was stated on Wikipedia. I did some research and strongly believed he was the only one who created and subsequently maintaining his own article, which I found to be strongly discouraged by the Wikipedia community. I also found more inaccuracies and decided to point them out too.

I agree things got out of control, mostly because of the sockpuppets (that I believe to be PML himself) that kept popping up trying to edit the article and demand to find out who I was. This is why I had to create a username because I did not want this brought on to my real identity in San Francisco.

I do not feel what I am doing is harrassment. What I am trying to do is clarify things. I am sorry if it seems that way, and would appreciate it if people like you to point out the things I've said that seem like harrassment. I am sure it's too late now for any redemption in the eyes of people on the AfD page, but I am merely trying to help this situation. As an artist myself, self-promotion can get very out of hand in the art world (mostly because it is so tough these days to get noticed) and feel that Wikipedia, the Internet, is a way that can be used, and misused, to get your name out there.

Modestprotest (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I welcome your attempts to remove POV statements and in revealing socks, but I think with your COI it might have been wiser to propose the article to AFD and then simply let the process take its course, rather than trying to coax it along as you have been doing (which is what could be construed as disruptive). The AFD process is strong enough to deal with a fair bit of disruption, but with the way that the PML thread has been going, I'm afraid you haven't been helping things much (despite your best intentions.) AFD relies on editors reviewing the articles against the core WP policies and guidelines (which I'll link you to in a second)... that should be the basis for discussion. It may be that the subject of this article passes those policies (in my opinion it is conceivable that he might), but you should leave it up to each editor to form their opinion independently of your coercion (despite how strongly you hold your views.) It goes without saying, however, that I share your views on self-promotion.


 * Good luck,


 *  one brave  monkey  15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And as an aside, you'll notice I did take your concerns about self-promotion into consideration when COI was repeatedly and repeatedly stressed at the AfD and all related talk pages. I removed evey bit of peacock from the article and was able to find independent sources for what remained. I'm sure PML would not be happy with how much the article has been whittled down, just as you are not happy that it is still here at all. But when something goes to AfD and the concerns of the nominator are addressed, that should be the end of it. I did not dwell on past edits or comments... yours or his. I did not dwell on the various discussions... yours and his. I simply wnet to the article and did what I could to make it fall into line with Wiki requirements. Period. If I had not been able to do so, I would be "voting" delete right along side you, your emotional arguments notwithstanding. And even were you to show me a reliable source that describes the Tornado Gallery as being something that only exists in the corner of his apartment, there are enough other sources that speak toward his notability, that that does not matter. As it is, the statement that he is curator of a place called "The Tornado Gallery" is sourced, and your claim that it is a fiction is not. The biggest problems in your continued attacks on the article and the person is 1) your admitted interest in the issue and 2) that your statements about the article and subject that are subjective and unsourced. And certainly the original article was full of self-serving fluff... but it ain't fluffy no more. Think about it.... as much as you dislike the subject and his gloating rooster ego and attitude... the article as it stands improved does not reflect ego... only notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS... and with respects to you statment above, this diff revealed that COI 2 weeks ago... on October 16.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Michael, Please see that I striked the comments that were disruptive from the AfD. I never said he wasn't the curator of the Tornado Gallery. I said that the Tornado Gallery would not be considered an established (notable) gallery by most people in San Francisco. I think the definition of a gallery is where a person, anyone, can go and visit it within certain hours set for public viewing. Yes, my comments are subjective and I cannot source an opinion because it is an opinion. The reason I brought up the point of the Tornado Gallery is because I noticed that you put it in the very first line of this article, and was concerned that there is no source to establish that the Tornado Gallery is real/established besides the mention written about it by Monica Peck, who is actually a close friend of Peter Max Lawrence's. But since it was published in some random article, then yeah, I suppose we can call it a gallery.


 * Your tone towards me is really unfortunate because I've actually supported and applauded the work you've done and tried to help you. Obviously you don't care for it. I thought it would be a COI if I edited the article while you were making the changes so that is why I made comments to you. I've also seen you mention me on other peoples talk pages in a very unflattering light and I want you to know I am not working against you. I am just trying to make the article become fair/neutral, like you are. Have you seen me in AfD say "DELETE. DELETE DELETE." No, I am trying to clarify things/questions about the article because of the knowledge I have about the artist.


 * Thank you for the work you've done on this article. Especially for someone you don't even know. I am sure he will not like how it's turned out. But the fact he is still on Wikipedia as of now, is something I am sure he is pleased with and that you helped it stay on without his sockpuppets. I mean that sincerely.


 * Modestprotest (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to congratulate you for removing the mystery of how you could appear out of no-where, with a knowledge of wikiprocedure, like how to nominate articles for deletion. I agree with most of the comments others have offered you here.


 * I'll offer an additional piece of advice. Nomination for deletion should be reserved for articles nominators honestly believe can not be saved.  In my opinion when those who have nominated an article for deletion become convinced there is hope that the article can be saved they should withdraw their nomination.


 * Occasionally one sees nominators who, after making their nomination, make "improvements" to the article. Policy allows anyone to edit an article while it is being considered for deletion.  But, in my opinion, those who nominate an article for deletion, and those who voiced a delete opinion, should only edit that article in emergencies -- like removing personal attacks, libel and slander.  Otherwise their improvement strong appearance of bad faith.  You wrote that you kept your hands off the article after making the nomination.  That would be something you can congratulate yourself about.


 * One thing I am going to disagree with is the opinion expressed above that the afd procedure is robust. Personlly I see it as quite flawed.  The wikipedia asks contributors to work towards building a culture of civility, tolerance, collegiality, reasoned discussion and commitment to abiding by consensus.  I'd say that, in general, that effort is a mixed success.  One of the exceptions being the deletion fora, where a subculture has grown up where breaches of the wikipedia's civility polices are so routine they pass without comment -- or even, possibly, without notice.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the fact that you did a strikeout of your comments. I do not think we even need deal with a definition of a gallery, as all the article sourced was the sentence "He is the curator of the Tornado Gallery. No other claim as to the gallery's existance or its efficacy was made. Only that he was curator of a place called "The Tornado Gallery". However, in a good faith concern for your statement, I just removed that sentence. But since the article which made the statement exists, I have instead added it to external links. Find me a review that says "PML is a hack" and I can add it. Find me a review that says "his work is amateurish and dirivitive" and I can add it. As long as there is verification in reliable sources, I could use them.
 * As for your perception of my "tone"... well, my tone is that of someone trying his best to bail a rowboat in stormy seas... trying my best to maintain a neutral middle-ground in editing a peacock article up for deletion. Your statements may be 100% true... but wikipedia is about verification, not truth. And where the two are at odds, Wiki must go with verification. Its not my rule. It's wiki's.
 * I do not know who you are, or your regular user name. If you have been supportive of my discussions at past AfD's, please trust in my objectivness here. As for mentions in other discussions that you felt were unflatering... well I apologize for you getting that impresion, but your own actions set that impression. You came on like a steamroller. Though I admire that tenacity and courage, might it not be best now to step back and let nature now run its course? I promise to keep the article on "Watch" and not let PML or puppets add more ego-centric tripe. Fair enough? And consider, were the shoe on the other foot and someone was adamant in deleting an article that you cared about, wouldn't you wish it defended?
 * As you say... I do not know PML and never heard about him until the AfD. I only know from what I sourced in the various articles. And please accept THIS statement as true: I have made it a point to NOT read any of his self-promotional stuff on his own websites... even though it might have led to better outside sources. I tried my darndest to be as neutral as posible, even as I addressed your own concerns of his obvious COI.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am sorry I came off so strong. I made a comment on Geo Swan's page that I realize that I was getting too riled up because I thought I was dealing with PML through him, his socks, and his friends. I suppose it bothered me to see things written about me being up to no good, when I've been trying to point that out all along. But I understand that you don't know me, anymore than you don't know him. So now I've been trying to make amends, reveal my intentions, and help out. If I find any bad reviews I will let you know! Modestprotest (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. And like I said above, I admire courage and tenacity. And if you do find bad reviews, I would glad to add them... as "Critical response" should be as balanced as possible. Perhaps there are art critics that think his stuff is bad. Their opinions are just as worthy as praise. However, amd remember, getting a bad review in the press also speaks toward his notability. So such would not be a win for deletion... only a win for "he's not as great as he thinks he is".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)