User talk:Coat of Many Colours

	Big Daddy is Watching You
	Trolls and drama royals thrown over bridges here

	This user has been tragically disappointed in wiki-love. Once bitten twice shy. Please respect the user's pain.
	Email the user if you would like some suggestions for some discrete surrogate wiki-loving (phwaaw).

NPA

Coat of Many Colours, "Talk page badge collectors" is kind of a shitty thing to say. You're talking about Sagaciousphil (unless I'm reading-impaired), and I consider it a personal attack. I'm not sure what your problems are with these FA nominations, since I don't speak digital/art/whatever language, but I'm sure that there is a better way of addressing it than by making derogatory comments in an FA nomination process, and I encourage you to remove it altogether, or at least strike it through. If you have a problem with a user, solve it elsewhere--there are plenty of acronyms to go around, including WP:DRN, WP:3O, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U--or Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. I'm going to ping Johnbod here, not because they have an admin badge (they don't) but because they know art, articles, and Wikipedia: John, is this going too far? Is this kind of commentary acceptable in a FP nomination? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly didn't mean it as a personal attack. Happy to delete it. Wasn't having a go at the editor you mention. I noticed earlier that he was editing at my Little Girl in a Blue Armchair start, tidying up the citations and was grateful for that and thanked him. That was in the early days in my account when I had taken on a citation model I struggled a bit with and never really got to grips with. I can't frankly understand why you are so invested here. I don't have a problem with these FA nominations, and especially the "own work" ones which I generally support warmly. As far as I can recall I've only actually opposed one (and of course I raised Cain about Olympia which brought me to FPC in the first place to see what was going on). I would like to debate the criteria for a Featured Picture of a painting now that there are so many candidates, now that there are literally tens of thousands of high resolution images available. Really just "like what I see so much I've put it on my User page"? That's the point I was making. However, obviously if I can't be heard in the group I'll go away. I've told you that already.

I know of Johnbod only tangentially because of a remark I saw he once made about Google Art Project pics as not necessarily the best choice, which I do agree with. They're quite often rather poor. Back in the old country for the Zurich games at the moment. Off again after the weekend, so any input from Johnbod he wants me to respond to quickly should be soon. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:I have reworded my remark per your suggestion [1]. I was in fact responding to Adam Cuerden who has posted once in a friendly and constructive way on this page and whose excellent restorations I invariably support. I was pointing out in the first place that the NGA high resolution pics he has been championing recently are not especially new and then just chattily banging on about criteria again. Perhaps you could let me know if you are satisfied with my explanation. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was rather too harsh, but I do question the point of going through the FP process for all these "official" hi-res painting images, at least without seeing the original at the same time. And what was a Yorck Project pic doing on the nom? They are invariably terrible. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's right about Yorck Project (though funnily enough I saw one recently I liked, can't remember where). They've served their time. I frankly don't understand FPC when it comes to paintings. A very few perhaps which sets new benchmarks for reproductions. "Own work" a quite different proposition. When I return I shall probably ignore FPC for works of art, unless they're genuinely innovative (or conversely definitely yorckish), but I do mean to continue supporting own work. Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw this because I was pinged - I've certainly learnt that (a) personal attacks are obviously considered acceptable - the change from being accused of being a "talk page badge collector" to being referred to as someone who just "like what I see so much I've put it on my User page" is equally insulting and derogatory; and (b) I've also learnt that my attempts at nominating FPCs are derided as questionable/stupid as I'm obviously such an idiot I include a Yorck image as an FPC. No worries, I won't bother in future. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil: I'm truly sorry to find your name implicated in all this drama. Believe me that wasn't a remark directed at you. I'm also rather drunk and better off in bed than my Talk page right now. Truly I'm sorry. It was not all my intention. I'll add when sober. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't had a beer yet and I may skip tonight. I am a bit puzzled as to how this wasn't directed at the nominator. I mean, I'm glad you removed it, but its smell still lingers. Well, I hope tomorrow is a new day. I think daylight will be good, esp. daylight between you and a few other editors. Which reminds me: please don't bring Hafspajen's name up again. They are no longer here and it has something to do with you. Sagaciousphil, I think it was Adam who got the Yorck ball rolling; Johnbod just kicked it a little further. He speaks bluntly but I am sure he meant no disrespect. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a skinful. I have to say all this is not much clearer to me in the cold light of day. My comments were not directed at the nominator (I was directly addressing another editor whose efforts I have a lot of respect for), nor "at" anyone for that matter. You can have shitty and smelly. He who smelt it dealt it, Confucius say. As for the editor you mention, the last I heard was from you when you asked me simply to ignore his (her) edits and I said indeed that's exactly what I proposed to do. You might have noticed I'm not even prepared to mention him by name, so I'm at a loss to understand your "again". At my advanced situation in life you get like that; I mean you do learn to send back post surplus to requirement, does one not? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off on my travels again, and this time I shall be away some weeks. Regarding this latest unsolicited drama, I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers. That was entirely not the intent. I would say there is some understandable sensitivity at FP regarding exactly what the game plan is for works of art. It seems to me exactly as I say: there are now tens of thousands of high res images out there, all of them eligible. It's become a somewhat pointless in-house game. Thus presently we have a somewhat minor Gainsborough portrait attracting enthusiastic support on the basis of it being a NGA high res image newly discovered by that community. Yet when I nominate a much more noteworthy painting by Mary Cassatt uploaded by me last year from the same NGA source, it is ignored.

When I return, I propose to continue monitoring FP for debacles such as Olympia. I shall also champion the occasional meritorious "own work" nomination by outsiders, who I've noticed generally don't receive a very attentive scrutiny.

Regarding the administrator dramatising his infernal mentee here, the 'something' I had to do with the mentee's current by me unlamented absence is simply that I opposed (I believe my only opposition at that forum) one of his (her) nominations. The image was hideous and it turned out that even the provenance of the painting had been poorly researched - that lingers on in the Talk pages of Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola. But what seems to have really piqued him was the rejection of his nomination by the forum's closer (who came up for RfA shortly after as it happens, supported by me but not our mentoring admin I noticed). I might have some sympathy for the mentee's plight were it not for his ingratiating himself on this Talk page in the apparent belief that I am a sock-puppet he was formerly matey with, his threat to out me, his subsequent disruptive canvassing, and a disgraceful personal attack on the admin's Talk page when I ventured to chill the dispute. Looking though his contributions I see a history of disruptive canvassing, a previous four year absence and a new identity. Needless to say I am unmoved.

I don't believe I can be getting on with stinky seconds all this when I return. I'm here until tomorrow evening should fellow devotees of the theatrical arts feel the need to respond. So long as it's not too entirely absurd you are welcome to have the last word on me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that an image of Albert Einstein up for deletion that I fought tooth-and-nail to keep, whose nomination was closed out by an admin as a "keep" following an intervention by an expert, has now had its keep reversed by another admin avowedly not an expert. It really isn't surprising that Wikipedia can't keep its editors any longer. I've already mentioned I have a single further edit in mind and after that I don't think I'll ever be very active again. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So ciao all my anxious page followers. In transit (non sic gloria), and about to step onto a chique jet to whisk me off to who knows what exotic adventures ahead. I've nominated a Klimt painting at FP. If I am to continue editing Wikipedia, Gustav Klimt would be my next topic. I'll see how that progresses. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delve

Again, the article's content is not germane to the FPC discussion. I described Delve (Delvé) as an actress because that's what she was. Read the article before you accuse me of OR: "They were comforted when I took first prize for both tragedy and comedy, and glad of the money I made on the stage when the war reduced our resources ... my stage work has taken me even to Hollywood". I did not say she was the same Delvé as in the French Wikipedia article. That's your OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the article on newspapers.com but I'm not familiar with the interface and it was very slow for me. I have limited visual acuity and I was bothered by a continuous pop-up window and could only get small glimpses of it in my system. I missed on the stage stuff. The article named her as Delve without an acute accent and described her as a hostess. Actress would be your synthesis.

But I think it quite likely she indeed was the French actress Suzanne Delvé. That would have placed her at 17 when she first posed for Chabas and I was merely suggesting you might like to research it yourself.

The fact is you were very reluctant to include mention of her very plausible story. I'm glad you have now at my urging.

I'll be busy mostly today. Only back briefly to cover the Scots referendum and then off again. My opposition to that image remains as before. It's inappropriate by today's standards. No UK gallery today would dare to exhibit it (even if for some reason they wanted to on its negligible artistic merits - he might have well as painted his wank rag for the backgound) and what you are trying to do effectively is to have Wikipedia exhibit it. I notice that his teacher was a fine artist who painted charming and decent pictures of young girls. I would be happy to see you nominate any of those. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you again

as Drmies did earlier. Please avoid engaging with Hafspajen. There was no real need to ping him in your response at the September Morn FP nomination, and he'd reminded you he does not wish to engage with you further. Please if yuo feel you must refer specifically to that editor, keep it in plain text - he's probably checking the progress of the discussion anyway. Echo was one of the WMF's few good ideas, but it requires an update to our wiki-etiquette because unnecessary pings may be unwelcome. Thank you for understanding and honouring your previous commitment. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaging with him (or her - I'm not sure what the preferred gender identity is). Regarding my response to Drmies (who I notice you've pinged) that was both ironic and patronizing, but it's no skin off my back not to notice him. What I'm not prepared to do is to ignore issues he raises and equally I think he ought to be aware of responses. As for the user you refer to he has made a disgraceful attack on me in the past and he continues to respond very agressively.

You were involved in the Duchess of Malfi drama that has apparently inspired all this hatred from the user you mention. I remind (or inform) you that edits I made at the article Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola that span out of that drama, were all reverted, not withstanding that the article was started in its entirety from contributions I made at Commons about that portrait. I think that's pretty disgraceful, don't you? I documented it all on the Talk page.

In the end, this does strike me as an ownership issue at WP:FP. I made it clear above I'm not interested any more in Featured works of art. I do finally think that exercise is pretty pointless, actually hard to understand, but I suppose it's a harmless enough hobby for the most part. But I also made it clear that I will continue to oppose nominations that I think are inappropriate. September Morn is precisely one such nomination. Whereas the painting is more or less unknown in Europe and I had never heard of it, its creator Paul Chabas certainly was known to me (sexuality is one of my editing interests: you can find an article I am preparing in one of sandboxes here on a landmark transsexualism case). The flak I have had to endure from that group on my oppose is extraordinary. The editor you refer to is quite wrong in the assertion he made to the effect that Lewis Carroll's Hatch odalisque is exploitative (a bold link provided to an image should we feel the need to remind ourselves how exploitative) whereas Chabas' paintings are not. But this is simply not how Chabas is viewed in the literature: Anne Witchard at page 186 of Dark Chinoiserie directly cites Chabas' paintings and Carroll's Hatch odalisque together via Dijkstra et al. I'm entitled to point out that and I am entitled to ping your editor about it.

I really don't want to hear from Drmies again here. Indeed from any of you. In the case of Drmies I naturally shall respond, but I think I've interacted all I need to with the rest of you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking you not to use the ping feature unnecessarily since it bothers that editor. The other issues you raise are neither here nor there in my view, but again I will thank you for that essay on Commons, which helped me write up the picture here, although we disagree about which image is preferable - you will note I left that as you made it, since I don't have very good eyesight (which is the main reason I don't participate at Featured Picture). My point about pings requiring an update to our wiki-etiquette is made; thanks in advance for incorporating it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was you! I had quite forgotten. We have bad eyesight in common it would seem. Not much else. Do me a favour and don't come back. As for the editor you mention, believe me I don't want to notice him. He came on to that forum this time with the remark Support: So many people can't be wrong. Erm ... it would seem that so many people were wrong. It's another color-cast image apparently and it shouldn't be featured. As for that Hatch edit, an elderly lady (a chat mate of Crisco's) had opposed the image on grounds of decency. Your infernal editor I really prefer not to speak his name, imagine, only responds by bold-linking a really upsetting Lewis Carroll image (the more upsetting I always think for how unhealthy and dispirited his child subjects look, and they all came from privileged middle-class Oxford don families). Is that gentlemanly (ladylike)? I think not. One of these days I might just tell him (her) to fuck off and hang the consequences. Coat of Many Colours (talk)

You don't care to hear from Drmies; Drmies will be happy to oblige--and I was, until I discovered that those pretty vile allegations from that IP were in fact from you. And you didn't have the decency to disclose this until much later. I find it hard to express how disappointed I am--yet another needless occasion of drama. (I realize you said you didn't accuse Crisco of et cetera, and I'm not buying it.) So let me make another suggestion. Stay away from Crisco and his FPs. I am now convinced that you are engaged in a pattern of harassment, and in this case chose the low blow of the anonymous accusation of pedophilia; it will not take much more to convince me that the proper way to respond to any next provocation is with a block. Feel free to respond as cutely or patronizingly as you like--it's like eating glass, it does not hurt me, but other editors, who are doing their best to improve the project (even if you disagree with their nominations), should not have to be subjected to more of this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I don't care to hear from you, but I did say I would respond. This editor knows I post on an IP when I am abroad and I had told him the day before I was going abroad. I was in fact in the Middle East in a country that is essentially a police state. Of course one has to be careful. The posts I made referenced an art historian I was responsible for introducing to the discussion and I chose an IP from Crisco's locality (which he necessarily makes no attempt to hide since he uploads so many fine photographs from his locality, many of whose nominations I have supported incidentally). Of course he might have surmised it was me. The moment I was challenged by another editor, I disclosed myself. The "vile allegations" you say I make is presumably contained in this concluding paragraph:

"This article needs to set Chabas' paedophilia within the context of, for example, Johns Ruskin's and Lewis Carroll's i.e. within the late Victorian tradition of the so-called "erotic innocent girl" identified by Kincaid, Dijkstra et al. I have to say I find its overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note both ridiculous and deeply deeply suspect."

The first remark I had already made before and the second, which references the article and not Crisco, simply expresses an opinion. Crisco indicated he felt it was a border-line attack (I'm having difficulty finding the edits in the edit history)

"As for your closing note, about an "overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note"... You assume much too much. I couldn't care less if he's seen as an artist of note, an academic who only did art because its fashionable, or what have you. I want to cover this painting because it was a (ridiculously popular) social phenomenon, with a very interesting and complicated history. I particularly resent the "deeply deeply suspect" comment at the end; the implications are borderline personal attacks" (my emphasis)

My response was

"Yes, but the fact is that Ruskin, Carroll and Chabas are dead and their paedophilia routinely cited. I think you are disingenuous to assert this article isn't an attempt to rehabilitate Chabas' reputation. It plainly is, and it should examine his paedophilia without attempting to repress it. I can understand that you feel personally attacked, but you have taken upon yourself a task which lays you open to such attack. It works both ways. Welcome to the mill." (my emphasis)

If Crisco has persisted in expressing injury over the border-line attack, I should have been happy to reassure him further, but he did not. Of course I wasn't implying he was a paedophile. Needless to say if Crisco thought I was accusing him of being a paedophile, he would not have described it as a "border-line" attack and as an administrator he would have known how to proceed. I don't see why a second administrator need now intervene on his behalf. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator he knows better then to act in the first place, since he is involved according to the letter and the spirit. And I, as an administrator, am not that as concerned with "intervening on his behalf" (Crisco is a big boy and can handle himself) as I am with intervening on Wikipedia's behalf. There is no place here for uttering such suspicions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're finessing "such" there, are you not. I began that discussion complaining that a fair use quote of a few lines from a Tennessee Williams play was deleted by Crisco. That's an example where an administrator arguably is using his powers to control content. There are other examples there I could give examples of the same sort of thing. It looks as if this nomination is going to go through with a nominated image that in all probability (an expert in the forum agrees there is a color-cast in the image) is not even remotely a faithful representation of its subject. Thus I dismissed the painting at glance on the basis of the nominated image. When I did finally see an image of it as it was (and there's no reason to suppose a painting that is barely 100 years old and stored by the Met is not basically in the same condition) I'm prepared to concede that it has real merit, though that still does not stop me from opposing it. You were pinged on an issue concerning another editor. I have courteously addressed another issue you nevertheless presented here. I can't see I need to host you here again in the foreseeable future. I shall continue to oppose nominations at WP:FP I regard as inappropriate, whether nominated by Crisco, the other editor you say you like, or for that matter any other editor. Probably, as I did in this case, I shall simply record my opposition, indicate a reason as required by the forum in the case of opposition, and indicate that I should prefer not to debate it. On another occasion perhaps Crisco will let me be. I cannot imagine a more challenging and offensive response in the context of child abuse I was referencing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging, maybe, but offensive, hardly. And certainly not as offensive as the suggestion that some editor is trying to redeem some pedophile for deeply suspicious reasons. Look, I don't care about a fair use discussion or whatever. Bringing "admin" in that way is a ruse. Whatever happens in that article is a matter for that article, not for an FP discussion about one of the guy's paintings. What is this, that editors think that behavior is to be discussed all over the place? God gave us user talk pages and dramah boards for that--not article talk pages, not AfDs and FA and FP and GA reviews. You can oppose any nomination you like (but leave Hafspajen out--and please don't drop oblique "infernal" references), for whatever reason, I couldn't care less, as long as that reason isn't some suspicion about the nominator's motivation or aspersions on their character. But I've taken up enough of your time. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's offensive because paedophilia has both benign and pathological presentations. Chabas I should imagine was of the essentially benign sort, though posing a nude adolescent girl over three years strikes me as borderline. In the pathological presentations, those involving babies are absolutely heartbreaking. Ian Watkins comes to mind in the UK. I can cite similar cases in The Netherlands. I made a principled oppose in that forum. I never once mentioned the p-word, simply not wanting to go there, until frankly the discussion needed a reality check. Perhaps as little as ten years ago it was still possible to collect and disseminate indecent images of children without being labelled a paedophile. No longer, and Chabas was unquestionably a paedophile by today's standard. You can have the last word if you like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:The image is now a Featured Picture, an example of Wikipedia's finest images that it offers, a lurid yellow color-cast image paint-buckets away from the 1961 image featured elsewhere in the article with no explanation of how it arrived in that condition in the unlikely event that it actually is in that condition, with on-going contributions to the article presently degenerating into squabbling over exactly which bits of the "young woman's" erogenous zones are visible, the French artist himself noted for his genre painting of naked pubescent and pre-pubescent young girls, none of which are any longer on display in French museums as is the example Featured also not on display at the US museum holding it. Our visiting administrator might well care to intervene there on Wikipedia's behalf as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Many Colours, I don't understand your coded messages very well. I don't know who "our visiting administrator is"--is that me? And why would an admin intervene in a content matter? I understand you got a problem with this image being an FP, either because of its color (?) or because of the subject. I don't understand much about the first issue, and the second one is not of concern to me. Perhaps you could have halted its advancement if you hadn't spent your time on suggesting evil motives for the nominator. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Please don't ping me unless you need urgent admin help, and I have no desire to have the lost word here. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, the thing is you don't care. Not really. So I'm going to throw you over the bridge every time you come back here, whatever your issue, whoever it is you like whose interests you are trying to protect. In conclusion go away. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erogenous zone update (let's hope it doesn't get nasty). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vulva out, pubes in Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to hear from, don't beg for me to intervene. Your oppose was a personal attack and I can only surmise it was intended to sabotage the nomination. I cannot discern right now if you intend to continue down this path, so I will not block immediately, but if you persist I will block you. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would leave me alone. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like nothing better, believe me. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you right at the beginning of of this drama that I was awaiting an event and after that would review my account. That event is past and I briefly considered closing my account in protest (much as you yourself were doing at the time, incidentally, in connection with some other drama involving politeness), but in the end thought better of it. It's quite plain to me that you are not going to allow me to edit at WP:FP. I have one or two more edits I should like to do at Wikipedia outside visual arts and then indeed I propose to edit exclusively at Commons. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this threat of a block, I am refraining from editing Wikipedia article main space (excluding Talk pages and dramah boreds) for a period of one month as a personal protest. I shall resume after 13:03, 28 October 2014. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being oppressed. There is no "threat of a block" anymore than there is a threat of a block for me if I engage in personal attacks and shots below the belt. (Incidentally, I noticed that another editor asked you to apology, and you couldn't muster a non-apology apology.) "It's quite plain to me that you are not going to allow me to edit at WP:FP"--where you get that from, I don't know. You can edit when and where you like, but you must do it without personal attacks. "The administrator I dare not mention"--pff. I asked you to stop pinging me all the time. That's all. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I feel oppressed. I feel attacked and I feel bullied by that group. When I pointed out a simple inconsistency in an editor's position there you reverted me with a threat of a block if I persisted in personal attacks. Hence my response. I do think you should let me be now to indulge my protest. It is not as if you never make similar protests in your own editing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozymandias

Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

verbal barnstar

Hello Coat of Many Colors. In my wanderings around Wikipedia I've noticed you've had some unhappy interactions with other editors and am sorry that you now feel it best perhaps to leave off editing here. Just would like to say that I very much valued your excellent help last December on the Charles Prendergast page I initiated; had hoped to call on you again when your expertise might be helpful. I really did appreciate it and many other edits that I've seen you do. - Xenxax (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for that Xenxax. Much appreciated. I might do some editing on Gustav Klimt next year if I can work up the enthusiasm again, but on the whole I think I'm better off at Commons. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I defend your right to protest to my dying breath. Forgive me if I don't get involved. At the outset of all this I said I didn't want to debate the issues. Your response left me no choice. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you correct your inadvertent duplication of my comment - I expect you had hit an edit conflict, Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that was Mark Miller who's presently posting within comment bodies, but I'll go back and have a look for you. Of course you could have done it yourself! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; however, your edit summary is incorrect to state: "Removing duplicate comment per request from poster" - I did not post the duplicate, you did. I did not attempt to make the alteration myself as some may have seen it as re-factoring, hence my polite request for you to do so. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do hope it's all right now Phil! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that may be very pertinent

Hello Coat of Many Colours.
I wrote a little stub about Australian artist Rodney Pople in July 2014.
His "Degas's Night" is a deliberately confronting work.
Artists like Pople have license to be deliberately controversial and confrontational.
That license does not apply to encyclopedia writers, like you and me.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Don't know Rodney Pople. I hope he's not the same gentleman who paints with his dick. I really do find that quite extraordinarily offensive (and also, obviously very dangerous from a carcinogenic point of view - and yes you can and the only recourse to chop it ...) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

CoatOfManyColors,

I just removed two images, one from your user page, and one from this talk page. It's not personal or anything. The reason was that copyrighted images are not allowed in userspace at all. (I happen to like Les Miserables too! ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those images are marked as public domain, are you seeing something I am not? Chillum 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've restored them. That was a rather annoying intervention Kosh. I do hope I don't have to do this again. I'm not planning to edit any more on this account, but I would like to maintain the Talk page as I left it. The translation of the preface by the way is from the Wikipedia article. It's a bastardized version from a beautiful translation of Les Misérables that was circulated privately some years ago. All my associates will recognise it and I chose it as my final statement here: it amounts to summation of a life's work that is drawing to a close, and I really would appreciate if it were left alone. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Sorry -- but again, per NFC we cannot have copyrighted images in userspace at all. The image from Les Miserables is copyrighted, please remove it or I will have no choice to report this image, I don't want to , but that is policy. As to your question, the artwork is used in Les Miserables, thus, it is copyrighted. (Wiki always assumes copyright unless it's explicitly stated as not copyrighted). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC) My bad , the Les Mis image may be a trademark of Les Mis, but the image itself is not copyrighted. My bad KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: can you prove the copyright claim? All of the images are currently marked as free per:

"This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less."

"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923."

If the picture is under a copyright then the licenses for the images needs to be changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well...that was rather odd. And it is trademarked. But only a specific part of the image..and trademark is not the same as copyright.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am not even sure if the Les Misérables (musical) image being used on the article is copyrightable but just trademarked. The image may not pass the threshold of originality as the image itself is not an original work and has no copyright and the rest is just colors and type set. Might make for a good discussion on the non free content review page.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. It would be interesting to take it up at NFCR if you have time (kisses to Stef ...

). Regarding all the renewed dramah about " ... on this account" over at ANI, that was meant in a rather general life-encompassing sense. Short of a miracle I shan't be back. My ex categorically refuses to valedict me here, but you can safely trust me on that. I did notice something else there from the the editor the administrator I don't care to cite likes. He (she) said that I was a man because I said "I'm a Turner man". But that's a remark that in colloquial English both men and women make. I did note early on that a possible reason for this editor's sensitivity is his problems with English as a second language. Erm (safe to admit now I think) ... I'm a lady, pink bits and everything (intacto alas, but there you go). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block message

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months per WP:ANI#Battleground_mentality_and_disruptive_editing_by_Coat_of_Many_Colours, as both a reflection of consensus in the ANI discussion, and a review of contributions and the material provided in the thread. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For info the closing comment is here. Regards, Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this Euryalus. I'm not sure I'll be able to edit when the block is lifted. At any rate I should hope to finally contribute my long projected article start for P v S and Cornwall County Council in my sandbox, a landmark transgender decision in the European Court of Justice. Beyond that I doubt I shall care to continue editing at Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the block is lifted I think you should return. Why let this keep you from contributing. Even the very best of friends will never agree on everything. My best friend and I are still disagreeing about when the "Big Valley" started...with or without the Lee Majors character. LOL! (I never said disagreements are all about important issues! ;-) )--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Mark. Appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_about_offline_meatpuppeting_when_all_we_have_is_circumstantial_evidence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't comment there, but I can comment here that I don't care and I ask you to stop following me around like this. Amongst other actions I have taken is that I have written personally (i.e. not emailed merely as a Wikipedia editor) the curator of European paintings at the Met regarding the condition and hanging criteria for the painting September Morn that you valorize so much, and I should expect an answer and that it will confirm the painting is undamaged, that the image you have featured is color-toned and poor, and that the painting has been removed from display (except for perhaps the occasional specialist exhibition) not only because of its poor artistic merit but because it also inappropriate by today's standards of decency. I have also instructed my agents to try and contact the estate of the late Suzanne Delvé, who I think is quite clearly the subject of that painting, with a view to finding out if there is other material which corroborates her story and perhaps documents her experience. If you would like to open a Wikipedia ANI board about those actions feel free.

Regarding the other place you found me commenting, in the first place I was responding to a supporter Andrew whose posts are in fact injurious to my reputation (all that I am at pains to defend here). You have been the subject of commentary there before now unrelated to me, have indeed been "doxxed".

Concerning this, you wilfully misunderstand the remark above to the effect that in all probability I shall not be editing further at Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I haven't intervened at Beauty Revealed you mention at the ANI and I wouldn't normally want to. I didn't know the painting and I suppose it's a curiosity in its own right. It's not frankly something I would want to see valorized as an example of Wikipedia's finest images (boobs?) and I might have made a comment (not an oppose) to that effect, but that would have been the sum of it.

Added: I don't know what the acronym PM you use at the ANI means, but clearly you seek to implicate me in what you consider "disruptive editing" at Beauty Revealed. But I find the editor involved is actually a considerable editor in the visual arts active since 2006. Of course it's not me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really would like to see the last of you here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I made some informal enquiries at the Met about September Morn. It is exactly as I say: the painting is in good condition and is in storage. It's unlikely to be displayed again except as part of a specialist exhibition. The donating family is held in high esteem by the museum (amongst other things they made available the funds for the Philadelphia's purchase of Mary Cassatt's Portrait of Alexander J Cassatt and his son Kelso - that image uploaded to Commons by me incidentally) and plainly they don't wish to be embarrassed by any controversy over the painting.

Right at the beginning of this little drama I asked you what your policy would be regarding Balthus' The Guitar Lesson (reproduced as a Fair Use image in his Wikipedia article). You made no reply, as indeed you and your supporters made no effort to address any of the issues I raised. Well I can tell you, as indeed I could have told you then had you cared to enquire, what the Met's position is: in the first place they had the option to purchase this painting but refused it, and secondly it was not displayed at an important retrospective there last year. Museums do have to make choices like this from time to time, and Wikipedia ought to as well.

I have no other comment to make. It's unlikely I shall return. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional months to your block for your abuse of multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coat of Many Colours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More socking. Block is now indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucien Smith - Two Sides of the Same Coin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucien Smith - Two Sides of the Same Coin.jpg. 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) 14:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucien Smith - Two Sides of the Same Coin (detail).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucien Smith - Two Sides of the Same Coin (detail).jpg. 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) 23:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Coat of Many Colours (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting: Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Yunshui

Orphaned non-free image File:Oscar Murillo - Untitled, 2012 (0.1 MP reduction).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar Murillo - Untitled, 2012 (0.1 MP reduction).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Oscar Murillo - Untitled, 2012 (4.7% detail).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar Murillo - Untitled, 2012 (4.7% detail).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - The Coridor - (reduced 300px).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - The Coridor - (reduced 300px).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Joan Mitchell - No Birds.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joan Mitchell - No Birds.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]