User talk:Xxxartxxx

Welcome

Hello, Xxxartxxx, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Proposed deletion of David Hawkes (Public Intellectual)

Hello, Xxxartxxx. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, David Hawkes (Public Intellectual), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want David Hawkes (Public Intellectual) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Sourov0000 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi, I noticed the article you submitted at LG Williams. I would recommend you read References for Beginners as the references at this article is a bit of a mess and they make the article's content a bit difficult to process. The references really should be re-formatted to be consistent with other articles. Wikipedia has a built-in tool to make referencing easy, and there is a video on that page that should help you out. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line by clicking "talk", which appears after my name. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, will do. Thank you. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LG Williams may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

national and international venues, among them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_Pavilions_(Venice_Biennale The Internet Pavilion of La Biennale Di Venezia 2011], [[Yerba Buena Center for the
* Art Text Pics, Super Window Project > LG Williams / The Estate Of LG Williams > GMG, Elena Bordi, November 17, 2012

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LG Williams may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Xxxartxxx. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

LG Williams

Note that I have closed the AfD on LG Williams as made in bad faith. Last night, I did not have awareness that the particular editor was acting in bad faith. This morning after some looking around, that became apparent, at which point I closed the AfD. Safiel (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Safiel for your quick actions and reply. I certainly agree, how could you know about the ruse? This time, the vandals made an expressly insider's attempt to vandalize LG Williams.

But clearly, as you must now imagine, making additions was NOT the bad-faith users intent. The intent of creating Baronosuna was clear: to try and permanently damage this page, period. In other words, either to delete the page or leave it open to further bad-faith actions.

With this in mind, the fact remains: the intentions and damage caused by this bad-faith user, I suspect, have only just begun. Perhaps, this page should be protected because of repeated vandalism (documented in the Talk page) [1]. Should we repeatedly blocking users while leaving LG Williams open to bad-faith vandalism, again and again? --Xxxartxxx (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's warranted to protect the article simply because one user periodically vandalizes it. I deal with vandalism all the time and this is minor and controllable. As I said in the AfD, I think now is a good time to beef up the article somewhat by properly establishing the subject's notability. The references are a mess, both in formatting and bulk, and we can't use articles written by Williams to establish his notability. We need either the general notability guideline to be met by providing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or to clearly establish in the lead that he meets the criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST. "Significant coverage" typically means in-depth discussion about LG Williams, not just passing mentions. And it probably wouldn't hurt to explain why he is notable on the article's talk page so we can avoid another AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cyphoidbomb, thank you for your message. I value your input. I would also value hearing from other editors who frequently deal with vandalism.

As I said in the AfD, I think the effects of the inappropriate acts of vandalism can clearly be found, well, in your comments. Not that I do not value editors "beefing up" articles, quite to the contrary, I greatly value editors "beefing up" articles. What I specifically object to is bad-faith users and good-hearted editors making false claims.

For example, kindly, let me put this question to you: where in the entire LG Williams wikipedia page can you find, as you state in your commentary above, "articles written by Williams" in the over 100 primary resource articles in the mentioned wikipedia page?

Answer: nowhere. Absolutely nowhere.

My second respectful question to you is: how in the world did you get the idea that there are "articles written by Williams" in LG Williams?

Answer: I have no idea. But I suspect you simply read the vandals words, rather than carefully reviewing the wikipedia page article itself. So, as a result, this unwarranted and unjustified suspicion of yours is yet another lasting effect from the damage that Baronosuna continues to wreck upon LG Williams. To repeat, there are absolutely no "articles written by Williams" mentioned in this wikipedia page.

Perhaps in the future, let's please try to keep our sights on the page itself, rather than the effects of vandalism. Respectfully --Xxxartxxx (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions. I read the previous AfD discussion. That's where I learned that Williams was a writer for Tokyo Weekender, which we would not be able to use to establish his notability. Your claim that there are no articles written by Williams mentioned in the article, is incorrect. Anyhow, the more important point is that notability needs to be well established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb, I must bring to your attention the fact that you appear to be retracting your initial statement and, thus, confusing the matter under discussion. Why do I suggest this? The articles you just highlighted which first appeared in Tokyo weekender are listed not to support the claim of notability of an artist; if they were written in support of some notion of notability I would have written an entirely different article concerning LG Williams as a notable art critic. LG Williams is a notable artist, not a notable art critic.

* There are over 10 "References" by distinguished art personages and publications listed in the article for artistic notability. None of these notable "articles are written by Williams".

* There are over 10 references by distinguished art personages and publications in "Critical Writings Featuring LG Williams" listed in the article for artistic notability. None of these notable "articles are written by Williams".

* There are over 100 "Additional References" by distinguished art personages and publications listed for additional support of artistic notability. None of these notable "articles are written by Williams".

* To repeat, there are 0 articles in the main article text (which establishes notability) that pursue / argue / support the theme of artistic notability "written by Williams" whatsoever in the main body of the article. That said, I would be the kind of wiki editor and art advocate which would believe that the best route to confirm Gerhard Richter's notability, would be to show a Gerhard Richter painting. Enough said. Obviously, there are "Career Highlights" listed in the LG Williams Wikipedia page as there are in every other artist wiki page. And since Williams has a long and distinguished art career (which includes distinguished spurts of art criticism in distinguished publications) this distinguished art criticism has been mentioned with other resources because they comprehensively provide a invaluable resource for interested wiki viewers.

I would like to mention, too, that the valuable art criticism written by Williams for the Tokyo weekender was in fact notable. Consider the fact that the distinguished Japanese newspaper selected Williams and paid Williams to appear in its highly-regarded and established publication -- from amongst the 17,000,000 people living in Tokyo at the time. I would call that notable in itself, even though this fact does not appear in the article or appear as a statement of artistic notability. Moreover, people who know about art would not have to be "told" how notable this is.

I am happy to bring this discussion to an end. Thanks again for your support of LG Williams. Let's agree to please try to keep our sights on the page itself, rather than the effects of vandalism. Respectfully --

You're reading too much into my comments and are ignoring the most important aspect of my comment: the article needs better establishment of Williams' notability. That is the matter under discussion--at least, that is the matter *I* am discussing. Either clearly identify the subject's notability so the community can better defend the article, or expect future deletion nominations from disruptive users. It is unclear from the article what specific things Williams is notable for. The infobox lists a few, but the lead doesn't adequately explain what makes him notable or support the importance of those works with inline citations from reliable sources independent of the subject. The infobox is intended to summarize sourced content found elsewhere in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb, I was very happy to end this discussion. However, I must confess that I can only read what you write. And, what you are reporting to me is nothing but the effects of today's vandalism. You have become a vandal's voice, one that repeats the effects of inappropriate wiki vandalism -- present and pass vandalism (see, for example, Cyphoidbomb above: "I read the previous AfD discussion"). Why have you not simply taken the time read what is in the LG Williams article -- and all the remarkable citations? I know why: nobody reads anymore.

Unfortunately, the only way to learn is to read the text in the article, and follow-up on the resources written by distinguished authorities -- by yourself -- in the distinguished publications that are cited in the article. Please do not become just another after-effect of vandalism. George Lakoff is the leading authority of what has just happened to your imagination, if you are at all interested (see esp: Don't Think Of An Elephant).

Let me just list the most esteemed art historical authority in the article: Clearly, by any account, there is no higher, respected authority in current Art History as UCLA emeritus Prof. Donald Preziosi. Despite Preziosi's eminence in the field, his esteemed authority is no match for you. Why not? Well, in the first place you do not know his importance; secondly, you choose not read what he wrote, and, lastly, you would rather read or re-read writings by vandal (see, for example again, Cyphoidbomb above: "I read the previous AfD discussion"). Therefore, I suspect that this figure or article will not strike a cord upon your imagination, as you aptly wrote, and I will "expect future deletion nominations from disruptive users", because no valuable editors like yourself care to read the core materials -- but are happy to read vandalism. Still, at the next instance of vandalism, perhaps you will give LG Williams valuable assistance again? I hope so!

For now, I give up, trying to get you to read the article and read the notably articles by the esteemed writers and publishers in the field. I am just a humble proctologist. Yet, in the meantime, you can rest assure that over the next few weeks I will, at your suggestion, try to make the infobox more inline with your idea of a good infobox -- in fact, I will attempt to make a "poor" infobox into a great infobox. Maybe you could give me an example of an Infobox that meets your approval? That would be very helpful. Respectfully --Xxxartxxx (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to readers to read all the other works to figure out why a subject is important. I don't think I'm quite capable of explaining this point to you, since you keep ignoring it and seem more interested in writing diatribes and making transparent insults. Good luck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb, I am very sincere about learning what additional 'Infobox' material I could add to LG Williams that would impress you -- and reach your high standards for Infobox notability? The current Infobox template for the LG Williams page is based upon the current infoboxes currently in use for artists like Bruce Nauman, Damien Hirst, Paul McCarthy and Wayne Thiebaud. If you would care to take a look at those pages, you will see that all of these artist boxes appear to share roughly the same information in the infobox. I am curious, what do you think I could add or change to improve the current, standard infobox that is conventionally used for artists across the Wikipedia platform? What information would make a better / notable infobox for these artists, including LG Williams? Again, thank you for your insights and experience --Xxxartxxx (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"now is a good time to beef up the article somewhat by properly establishing the subject's notability. The references are a mess, both in formatting and bulk...We need either the general notability guideline to be met by providing 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' or to clearly establish in the lead that he meets the criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST." "...the more important point is that notability needs to be well established..." "...the article needs better establishment of Williams' notability." " It is unclear from the article what specific things Williams is notable for. The infobox lists a few, but the lead doesn't adequately explain what makes him notable or support the importance of those works with inline citations from reliable sources independent of the subject. The infobox is intended to summarize sourced content found elsewhere in the article." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like the like Bruce Nauman, Damien Hirst, Paul McCarthy and Wayne Thiebaud infoboxes? Which artist infoboxes do you like? --Xxxartxxx (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LG Williams - possible conflict of interest

Hello, Xxxartxxx. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article LG Williams, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

:: Comment: I would second the COI tag with this one proviso: this is not a "conflict of interest" -- please see LG Williams Talk page -- rather a "conflict of intelligence". --Xxxartxxx (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:LG Williams, especially if it involves living persons. Comments like "Clearly, Williams is a pervert!" are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Also, please stop making personal attacks on other editors as you did here. If you continue this behavior, you will very likely be blocked from editing. - Mr X 12:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @ MrX: Dear MrX, I have never spoken to such big-shot Wikian before, so please (forgive me) for being brief and frank: Frankly MrX, I am simply shocked ('shocked' in the full Casablanca sense) to read your holier-than-though admonition to me about my comment ("Clearly, Williams is a pervert!"), in light of your recent comment in the Dan Savage talk page: "Why is there suddenly an influx of editors trying to remove the word "gay" from the lead? Savage's notability is largely based on his very public sexual orientation.- MrX 01:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

In other words MrX, if I can lay the parallelism out for your in plain terms, artist LG Williams notability, is largely based on his very public sexual perversion! Anyone, with any knowledge of Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area would know this fact. Therefore, to call the artist LG Williams a pervert is to state a fact; and a fact that the artist would happily concur.

Of course, anyone can see in your recent edits you don't know anything about Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area, but they can see you have an interest in perversion, i.e. Dan Savage and Homosexuality in medieval Europe, et al.

But, do you really know what pervert means? Pervert, as defined in Wikipedia: the verb pervert means a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal.

The facts surrounding LG Williams are this: LG Williams -- the artist -- and we are only speaking of the Post Modern artist, not the person, has openly proclaimed in the media that he is a pervert, i.e. that he seeks unorthodox and atypical sexual appetites. Here is the link to a interview in the original french in which Williams' states this clearly and directly. But, for the non-french readers let me translate and paraphrase the artist's recorded statement: "Artistically, being a Beat Generation artist means a life-long pursuit of rejecting received standards and notions of art and sexuality." [2]

"Rejecting received standards of sexuality" is the very definition of pervert.

Of course, I do not expect you to be in the least informed about the subject on which you have suddenly inserted yourself, that would not be the Wiki norm -- I've already dealt with another Wiki hypocrite today, as a matter of fact. However, when I did make that comment I also included, for those few interested souls, many documented examples of Williams' artworks which anyone -- not knowing the artist, general topic or this exact artist quotation -- could simply see as being art that is sexually perverted -- AND, at the very least, followed up on if they were curious or insulted. But, no. Of course, you didn't follow up on my visual clues and evidence. That would take some fact checking and a little effort. It is much easier and expedient to unlearnedly post a tag on a User page.

With this verifiable evidence at hand, let me repeat: Frankly MrX, I am simply shocked ('shocked' in the full Casablanca sense) to read your holier-than-though admonition to me about my comment ("Clearly, Williams is a pervert!"), in light of your recent comment in the Dan Savage talk page.

So MrX, before I press this issue any further (into the realm of your arrogance, hypocrisy, and ignorance of the subject at hand), I would prefer to give you a chance to respond my verifiable allegations -- even though the thought of "being inspired by many of the excellent contributors here on Wikipedia" never even occurred to you.

Hint: a simple apology will put an end to this matter for once and for all. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I really like the idea that you have to add an image about LG Williams! Why not load an image of his works that is discussed in the article, rather than an image of LG Williams in a newspaper? I tagged the image because it's not work of art, as defined in the fair-use criteria, it's an image of a newspaper page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Daily Californian (Newspaper), University of California, Berkeley (Front Page), September 14, 1999.png

Thank you for uploading File:The Daily Californian (Newspaper), University of California, Berkeley (Front Page), September 14, 1999.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xxxartxxx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reject outright this "superficial" claim. I repeat: all of the charges posted by this bad-faith editor are, by his own admission: "superficial"; and all of the "superficial" claims made by this bad-faith editor are false, except the following: (Just let the bad-faith editors ban me again for using these bullets!!!) * XxxArtxxx does have the word art in it (sandwiched between two XXX -- LOL!). So what? * User would like to build LG Williams into an average, respectable BLP artist article…along the lines of other artists represented in Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area. So what? * LG Williams and Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area is an "abstruse" subject. So what? I mean, generally, one would expect to find "abstruse" language with "abstruse" subjects. Does anyone here read PostModernism? Of course you don't. Yet, this subject is essential to LG Williams. So what? * Xxxartxxx has thanked many editors for protecting LG Williams from long-term, systemic, and continued WP:Vandalism. So what? According to Wikipedia guidelines, this is the point "where I am supposed to stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally". I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs on Wikipedia. Why do I state this? Let me explain: But, before I proceed to explain, I would like to share with you my Wiki experience. My entire wiki experience, almost without exception, given my expertise in Contemporary Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area has been: truly horrible. My horrible experience is entirely due to the fact that none of the "editors" (3-4; who write upon hundreds of topics a week) have any business editing Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area articles (contextually) because they have absolutely no understanding of Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area. This is a FACT. Let me give you just ONE fact, one representative super-factoid quote from among my exchanges with a few editors: * Art really isn't my thing.--Nowa (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC) This is not only a verifiable fact: it is the truth. None of the editors that I have encountered (about 3-4) working on this BLP artist, a artist-member from Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area, have any notion of what they are talking about. So, rather than concede their ignorance, they began a bad-faith smear campaign attempting to prove COI. You can find the discussion here. With this smear campaign, just what did they prove? NOTHING. This was a clear case of harassment. Did I ask other editors to punish them for this bad-faith, false claim? YES. Did any senior editors come along and punished my bad-faith accusers for this false claim? NO. In fact, as a result of being left unpunished, these bad-faith editors did not stop the harassment: they only ramped up their attack. In other words, their false COI charges turned into this claim. Next, since bad-faith User: Cyphoidbomb could not prove anything in the COI FALSE CHARGE, the bad-faith editor started writing about "editors who know a lot about subjects are sometimes closely related to the subject." This statement is absurd and against the good spirit of Wiki. If an editor is writing about cockroaches, does that make an editor a cockroach? No. This statement is another attempt at fueling harassment. In plain terms, therefore, (User: Cyphoidbomb) is a bad-faith, embitter editor, who knows nothing about any subject he edits and he is usurping Wiki guidelines to meet his own perverted agenda; whatever that is. This clear case of harassment should not go unpunished. May I continue: All of User: Cyphoidbomb charges are "superficial" and I will not waste my time (at this instance) refuting a bitter, resentful, editors superficial comments at this time. There is a more serious evidence to address. For instance, I would like to address the FACTS, well, the only single purported FACT, in this false charge, in this illegitimate claim and harassment: * I can only say that the edits came from the same relative (being half decently large) geographic area. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I would expect that I have the right to request a full and impartial description of this presumed FACT. What exactly does "from the same relative half decently large geographic area" mean exactly! WTF? Come on, seriously. Please tell me, what exactly does this mean? Does this mean that the edits under scrutiny cover a "half distantly large" geographic distance of, say, an ice cream parlor, or Lubbock, Texas? Which one? Or, does this mean that the edits under scrutiny cover a "half distantly large" geographic area of, say, of the state of Texas?; or the "half distantly large" geographic area of the western region of United States?; or the "half distantly large" geographic area of the western hemisphere? or the entire planet? Which is it! Moreover, if this quote means that the edits appear from across the planet, do you think anyone would edit LG Williams from Monaco, just to apply an edit to LG Williams at Copacabana Beach? Honestly, a WP:Duck is a duck; unless of course it is something completely stupid. Seriously... Please explain exactly what this lone "smoking gun" fact states. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pretty clear WP:DUCK block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please read WP:NOTTHEM and consider making a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. Origamite^{is out right now} 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite Thank you for your putting out that 3rd option. (I will be banished for a 4th time for this remark lol ) I would like to pursue one appeal at a time while at work. However, since you apparently have some experience with people getting harrassed for what or who they are (which ever it is), could you kindly look at this most recent abuse by an editor 25 star Wiki barnburner (what ever that is). The thread can be found here. In this thread you can see what I experienced: I was harassed by a experienced editor -- totally out of the blue -- who not only did not know what he was doing -- he himself had recently written (on another page) an admonition on a thread criticizing people who didn't know what they were doing on the same very topic (sexual perverts!) ! When you read the short discussion, you will apparently discover the editor was left with so much (hypocrite-tical) mud on his face, the editor never even replied or apologized to me! Is all Wiki like this!?! If so, I must admit, I have had enough. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see no reason to change my opinion on this indefinite block. However, if some other admin should happen to see the matter differently, I will not be offended if you choose to reverse the block. If you do this, though, please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em and note what you have done. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales from Xxxartxxx: Thank you, yet again, for another demonstrated classic example of wiki impunity.

For the record (dear impartial editors): I did not ask @Richwales to "change your opinion." (I know that is a statistical and systemic impossibility.) Rather, I asked @Richwales to elaborate more on one of the mosts bizarre / totally suspicious statements of supposed fact that I have encountered in my brief Wiki history:

* ...the same relative (being half decently large) geographic area. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) -- seriously WTF is does this mean? I have a right to know what this means exactly.

Also @Richwales, let me be perfectly clear. Reader's don't have to be a George Lakoff or a Sigmund Freud to see what is now at stake here: your ego. Look at what you wrote: " I will not be offended" (Richwales). This is a wholly bizarre statement. Why? In my appeal, I was asking for a brief description of the only supposed fact in this case...that is, other than my harassment at the hands of Wiki editors.

Truth and falsehood can be proved by the facts. Some editor tried to present a fact -- a bizarre fact -- in this case. Why not simply (A) clarify this factoid in this case, rather than present readers with (B) some upcoming bruise upon your ego? Whether or not your ego gets bruised in this rebuttal may or may not have anything to do with my appeal. Any impartial editor can recognize this fact. However, since @Richwales prefers to hide the supposed facts, this inevitably becomes @Richwales show-trial.

Does Wiki always work like this!?! --Xxxartxxx (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot Le Huffington Post 2005 Prix Marcel Duchamp Scandal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot Le Huffington Post 2005 Prix Marcel Duchamp Scandal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Luk ^talk 14:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LG Williams

The article LG Williams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article was created by a user who has engaged in sock puppetry, attempted to make the artist appear to be more notable than he is, and a very likely conflict of interest scenario. One of the ways has been to use letters to the editor and blog postings as sources for content. Based upon google news, google books, HighBeam Research, and Questia searches, it's very difficult to find sources for the subject, except for his own essentially self-published books (PCP Press). The article was created several years ago (2008 / 2009?) and deleted due to notability issues. Since then, I read that the artist worked as a realtor in Hawaii for at least two years.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LG Williams For Sale By Artist (2011).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LG Williams For Sale By Artist (2011).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 As an FYI, that file was previously in an article entitled LG Williams. It's deletion was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd_nomination). This user was part of a sockpuppet discussion, its archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive. This user was supposed to be blocked indefinitely. Was this uploaded by this user?—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]