User talk:Sharpen16

Saatchi Gallery

Your edit summary says to see the talk page; but you have no history of posting there; hence this message. I reverted your edits because frankly they smack of advertising, POV and were filled with weasel words. If anything a detailed history should probably become a page on its own; without the commentary and marketing type speak. Regards. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the discussion page for the Saatchi Gallery entry, sorry for the confusion.

I understand there may be issues with some of the language in the edits I've posted, however language is something that can be easily edited or changed. The content is still valuable, and gives a very comprehensive overview of the gallery's history and current activities. Surely this material is valid and of interest to Wiki users. Might I suggest that instead of removing this content in its entirety, that this material be reviewed and editted by Wiki Administrators to ensure parity and adherence to Wiki editorial standards? Please advise. Thank you. Sharpen16 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk:Saatchi Gallery for a further discussion of this. Your marketing materials are simply not welcome, nor are your attempts to remove criticism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowdart (talk • contribs)

Block

Who are these so-called "Wiki invigilators"? I have never heard of them. Oh, come to think of it, perhaps I am one! In this edit summary, you claim to have uploaded images but you have not. It has been suggested that you are sock puppet of Infoart. So I have blocked this account - please stick to one account. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi Gallery developments

Seeing as I can no longer contribute to the Saatchi Gallery discussion page I will comment here:

Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst have stated that they wish for comments on the Saatchi Gallery page to reflect that they are now friends and there is no conflict with the gallery or Charles Saatchi.

I would also like to suggest that the Wiki moderators in charge of maintaining the gallery page make direct contact with the gallery in order to 'edit through' the article in partnership with the gallery, via the phone, in order to create a mutually acceptable version of the article. A gallery representative has made this suggestion and the gallery would be more than happy to work with you on this. Sharpen16 (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it do you? (1) We have no way of knowing if that is true; and it is a historical, well cited fact that they had issues with the gallery, as indicated in the article. (2) The Saatchi Gallery page is not there for marketing, or to carry a message from the gallery itself. (3) If there is a reliable source, such as a decent newspaper article indicating that, for example, Emim has kissed and made up with the gallery then that would be suitable for inclusion; however a gallery representative (and lets face it, you *are* one) should not even consider editing the page due to conflict of interest issues. The Guardian knows this and has commented already on this ridiculous saga and your attempts to whitewash properly cited facts. And given the previous history of attempting legal heavy handedness I should, of course, point out this is my opinion; anyone can edit, anyone can disagree --Blowdart | ^talk 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offer to talk about the editing of the page still stands and should you wish to discuss this please contact gallerywiki@hotmail.co.uk Thanks. Sharpen16 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]