User talk:Ton-Metallicon

The article Tamara Bane Gallery was deleted after a deletion debate at Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery. Please do not recreate it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Tamara Bane Gallery Scott - you told my clients (Sorayama & his agent) that the page would be held open for us to re-create it. There is no craziness at all in this. It is a straight reporting of the litigation. Ton-Metallicon (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon

From: info-en-q@wikimedia.org To: Digitall1@aol.com Sent: 12/11/2009 11:35:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: Re: [Ticket#2009112710008397] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamara_Bane_Galler Dear John,

Thank you for your email.

OK, we'll keep the page open for you.

Yours sincerely, Joe Daly

Ton-Metallicon (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon


 * OK, there seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not at all sure why a volunteer at the e-mail team told you that, and I've asked that they get back to you. However, decisions about articles are not made by a central authority you can appeal to, they are made by the community of users here. That community has decided to delete the article in question - and you should not recreate it. People who have a personal interest in articles should not create articles about companies or people they are involved with. See oour policy on conflicts of interest and our policy on writing about yourself.


 * If the Tamara Bane Gallery merits an article, then hopefully someone without a conflict of interest will eventually decide to write one. After the problems with the previous article, that would need to be a regular user of Wikipedia who understands how things work here. In any case, even if someone were to do this the community may decide that the gallery does not meet the standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia (WP:CORP). I hope this helps, you may like to e-mail the volunteer team and ask them to clarify what they've told you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. You can reply to me, if you wish, by writing on this page. I will be watching it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle it is probably to do a report on the case on a page devoted to the case, Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane. The article is amply footnoted and the only strong words about Bane and the gallery are from the court itself. It seems to me that only someone who reads the case materials (as I did at PACER) would be able to report on it. As it is, there is plenty of mis-reporting and misinformation going on across the net and it would be helpful to have an encyclopedic entry. I think it is a matter of public importance.

I don't have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. I was asked to write about it for a small fee and my only conditions were that I write it without interference and that each and every fact be evidenced in the court record. As a consequence there are various allegations that appeared on the old page that do not appear on the new page. I haven't earned and won't earn money from the litigation, I didn't and won't participate in it, and I have no connection to it or to the artist other than my free-lance reporting.

I hope you will consider these issues. All the content in my article is verifiable and there's no slant to it other than the words of the court. Please read it if you have any doubts.

Ton-Metallicon (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Mettalicon

I would just like to add a comment regarding your conflict of interest page: "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

I have stated what my interest is above and I firmly believe that I have far less stake in advancing outside interests than I do in advancing the aims of Wikipedia. If you look at the old page, you will see a lot of contentious argument that does not appear in my strict account of the case. My interest is reporting on the case in a truthful manner. Ton-Metallicon (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon

Speedy deletion nomination of Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policywill be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an attack. This is a report on COURT JUDGMENTS about a case with a complicated fact situation which is explained in simple terms and heavily footnoted to the COURTS' DECISIONS. Read this page. It is a strict report of court case. I saw NOTHING to attack Robert Bane or his gallery in any personal way. The only words against Bane come from the FEDERAL JUDGES. If wikipedia adopted your view, a report about someone convicted of a crime be an "attack" on that person and thus prohibited. That's ridiculous. The page I have created is far less an attack than is the wiki page on Bernard Madoff, just to cite an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

This case is of public importance which has been reported in the press. Moreover, this page has NOTHING to do with the old Tamara Bane Gallery page, which was full of contentious claims and disparagements. There is just no disparagement here. I think you're being incredibly unfair and arbitrary. I didn't create the old page and have nothing to do with the old page.

Ton-Metallicon (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon

I have revoked your editing priviledges
It is not acceptable for you to use wikipedia as a vehicle to advocate for a paying client against another person. Not only does is breach our policies on Neutrality but is using wikipedia as a battleground. We have enough problems of our own that we don't need to import other people's fights thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)