The article Tamara Bane Gallery was deleted after a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery. Please do not recreate it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Tamara Bane Gallery
Scott - you told my clients (Sorayama & his agent) that the page would be held open for us to re-create it. There is no craziness at all in this. It is a straight reporting of the litigation. Ton-Metallicon (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: 12/11/2009 11:35:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: Re: [Ticket#2009112710008397] http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Tamara_Bane_Galler
Dear John,
Thank you for your email.
OK, we'll keep the page open for you.
Yours sincerely, Joe Daly
Ton-Metallicon (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon
I think the best way to handle it is probably to do a report on the case on a page devoted to the case, Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane. The article is amply footnoted and the only strong words about Bane and the gallery are from the court itself. It seems to me that only someone who reads the case materials (as I did at PACER) would be able to report on it. As it is, there is plenty of mis-reporting and misinformation going on across the net and it would be helpful to have an encyclopedic entry. I think it is a matter of public importance.
I don't have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. I was asked to write about it for a small fee and my only conditions were that I write it without interference and that each and every fact be evidenced in the court record. As a consequence there are various allegations that appeared on the old page that do not appear on the new page. I haven't earned and won't earn money from the litigation, I didn't and won't participate in it, and I have no connection to it or to the artist other than my free-lance reporting.
I hope you will consider these issues. All the content in my article is verifiable and there's no slant to it other than the words of the court. Please read it if you have any doubts.
Ton-Metallicon (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Mettalicon
I would just like to add a comment regarding your conflict of interest page: "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
I have stated what my interest is above and I firmly believe that I have far less stake in advancing outside interests than I do in advancing the aims of Wikipedia. If you look at the old page, you will see a lot of contentious argument that does not appear in my strict account of the case. My interest is reporting on the case in a truthful manner. Ton-Metallicon (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Ton-Metallicon