Talk:Pictures for Sad Children/Archives/2016/November

Reconsider Deletion

The creator of the comic has again asked that this page be removed, and they will repost the comic archives if it is. By existing, this wikipedia page is limiting content and information, as well as directly going against what an artist wants for their product. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forpfsc (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is happening here. Basically rehashing information from the above prior requests. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disappearing from the internet is impossible, especially after you've been using it the way Campbell has. Even if this article would be deleted (which would be a big mistake IMHO), other articles about Campbell and the comic are still all over the net. And they will be for years, if not decades, to come. In that respect this deletion request is pointless. Yintan 10:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the graphic really needed? You don't need to rub it in ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly removed. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't my intention to rub it in, Mable, so I would have taken it down but I see that Thoughtmonkey has already removed it (with a brilliant edit summary, by the way). Yintan  21:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like this was closed as a keep. One of the main things that worked against the author's favor in requesting an article deletion is that they apparently never confirmed their identity. This will need to be done through WP:OTRS and I know that Blueraspberry volunteered his assistance with this. I do think that at the very least the information about the Kickstarter fiasco needs to be toned down. Even if this is ultimately kept in the long run (I highly recommend revisiting this in the future after the author confirms their identity), we need to remember that what got them the most coverage is something that came about as a result of severe mental illness. Going into a lot of detail about this isn't a very good idea, especially since it could likely be summed up far more succinctly. Going to the media to discuss the failed attempts to remove the material might not be a good idea if the motive is to further lobby for its deletion, as this might just result in the Streisand effect, even as it would result in Wikipedia being able to change the name and gender of the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I might actually look into redoing this whole article at some point in the near future. I agree that, though the controversy might be what got the work and author the most attention, it shouldn't be the meat of the article. Hmm, i'll look into this later this afternoon, actually. As for confirming the author's identity, I don't think anyone is currently working on that :( They left the discussion without much way to contact them... ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing, we haven't got a decent source for any of the claims. Not for the deletion request, not for the name and/or gender change, not for the "severe mental illness", nothing. I think it's best to let this rest because all we've been doing for the past week is speculate and go round in circles. We could have been taken for a ride, for all I know. Let's wait to see if Campbell contacts OTRS and go from there. (By the way, "Elmyr de Hory" is the main subject of F for Fake). Yintan  10:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I voted delete, I am also okay with the situation as it is.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Elmyr De Hory needs citations

I'm looking to resolve some conflicts here. I am the author of Pictures for Sad Children. I refer to myself as Merry Graves, and gender neutral. After reading the deletion discussion and talk page, I contacted the OTRS team a week ago (is info-en-q@wikimedia.org the correct address?) but have received no response. I have also contacted the New York Wikipedia team as mentioned by Blueraspberry, but that was today and I will wait for their response, if any.

I would also like to mention that I am not "Elmyr de Hory doesn't need citations".

I also do not have control of any social media accounts/websites verifiable as related to "John Campbell". This article seems to easily bring attention to anyone who would want to use this identity for their own purposes. It seems easy to use the internet to impersonate "the notable artist of the dead stick figure webcomic" who does not have a voice on the internet. Is there a way I can confirm my identity with anyone so that we can put this to rest? As "Elmyr De Hory" said in the deletion discussion, "Sorry for wasting everyone's time", ha ha.

Itsmerrygraves (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I put a message up at the biographies of living persons WikiProject. I hope someone can help you out. It's a rather awkward situation indeed ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Itsmerrygraves. What exactly seems to be the problem? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like the name of the author of this article to be changed to "Merry Graves", please. If there are any pronouns left I would like them to be feminine pronouns, please. This is part of my identity and I would like some small form of control over what information people have about my identity. Did you know - I don't have control over the "picturesforsadchildren.com" website. Maybe you can take a look and experience one of the problems firsthand. Itsmerrygraves (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, hadn't spotted that you'd already posted, Itsmerrygraves. When you say "I would like the name of the author of this article to be changed to 'Merry Graves'", am I right in thinking that you wish the author of Pictures for Sad Children to be identified as Merry Graves, rather than that you wish the author of this article on PfSC to be identified as MG. I'll work on the presumption that its the former, since that seems sensible.

Whereas I am happy to accept your assurance that you are the author of PfSC (which from what little I have seen appears to be most excellent work), I do not see a route yet by which any alteration to the article can be made based on your request. Wikipedia does not work on the basis of truth or facts, but on the basis of verifiability. This means that we seek to limit ourselves to asserting that which we can verify, or, at least, that which we can derive from a reliable source. Right now, we have your request and assertion, but we have no proof and we lack a reliable source. You'll appreciate that anyone is able to rock up at this article, assert they're the author of PfSC, and ask that the name of the author be changed.

In order for us to amend the name associated with the article, I think that you would have to be able to point us to some sufficiently robust evidence that you are the author; and even then, I have some doubts ... the article is about PfSC, and is not about the author of PfSC ... we have sources asserting that the name of the author at the time of PfSC was John Campbell ... so I have at least three trains of thought here: 1. how much can we rely on The New Yorker or other sources which gives us the JC name 2. presuming JC was the author, was he or she known as Merry Graves at the time of the authorship and 3. if not, is a later change of the author's name pertinent to an article about PfSC?

Next, I think we do need to factor in some concern about what I will call game-playing (for lack of a better phrase). I'm particularly thinking of the 'I've been pretending to be depressed' and 'I've been pretending to be pretending to be depressed' ... rather like the boy (or girl) who cried wolf, the clear danger is that she will later be eaten.

So. Back to you. Can you assist with evidence which verifies the claim that the person responsible for PfSC should be known as MG? I have a horrible feeling that this might be a long-shot ... you'd need to demonstrate that you are (or were) the JC who produced PfSC, or if JC is a red-herring, that you were the creator of PfSC. And we would have to consider whether we feel that the MG name, however well verified, was germane to a discussion of PfSC on wikipedia when all other sources point to the name JC.

A couple of final points: I hear you when you say "This is part of my identity and I would like some small form of control over what information people have about my identity", but I regret that wikipedia is not in the business of dispensing such control even to the creators of matter forming the subject of our articles, and so whilst I have every sympathy for your expressed position, I quickly run into a hard limit as to our capacity to grant your wish. On a personal note, I very much regret that I'm unable to view your PfSC and Birdman work on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thorough response. Are there any forms of verifiable evidence you would suggest in this case? I think you should try it out yourself first: attempt to verify that you are Tagishsimon using your suggested method of verifiability, and then I could have a good example. I understand your arguments regarding proof and verifiability vs. truth and facts, and I very much regret that I may be causing someone to consider choosing between these two sets of information for their on line Encyclopedia. Itsmerrygraves (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Itsmerrygraves: The process has been thoroughly described during the deletion discussion by User:Bluerasberry. There is no reason for User:Tagishsimon to try it out. In fact, that suggestion makes me wonder if we're being taken for a ride again. We now have two people claiming to be John Campbell. Helpful editors have explained to both, at great length, how to proceed and what the Wikipedia rules and guidelines are but the messages just keep coming. I like to assume good faith but it's becoming difficult. You said you contacted OTRS. I suggest you wait for their response. Asking other editors to verify their identity first doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Finally, you're not causing Wikipedia to choose between verifiability and truth. That choice has been made years ago. Thanks. Yintan  07:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have any good suggestions as to proof for you, Itsmerrygraves. You know better than me what material exists documenting your work and your choice of name. Selfishly, I suggest you should get back to work and build a body of art identified with your chosen name which we might all enjoy - I'm sure that'd go some way to solving the problem, and if not, might amount to healthy occupational therapy. I thank you for your suggestion that I try to prove I'm Tagishsimon first. I would be able to do that, but only by virtue of a so-called 'Committed identity' which you'll find at the foot of my user page - it's a form of password that only I know, and an option probably not open to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)