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).

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Magdalene College Dining Hall, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg

I've edited out the lens flares. See if you think it's good enough. I have a PNG version so can go back if I miss anything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Looked good to me. I changed my vote to Support either, Alt preferred. It's one of those flaws frankly I wouldn't have noiuced, but once noticed it does irritate and best edited out I think. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola 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:

• di Psiche'' at the [[Villa Farnesina]] in Rome.<ref name=Brown/> Her loose hair, the red garments (the colour of love for [[Petrach]], and her meeting the viewer's gaze are all sensuous details;

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers BB. Fixed. I love you very deeply, by the way. I just wanted to let you know that. Let it not be said that I am untouched by warmer sentiments. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)