Whatwouldjoshdo

Hi! It was a target of vandalism and non-notable bios for a long time. That title's last content was:

Josh Adams is a Pegasus/Unicorn That Squawks and hurts Mateo."Squawk Squawk!"

Believe me, I couldn't have made that up if I'd tried. Only other thing is, if you're Josh Adams the artist, welcome! Just take a moment to review WP:COI. I'll go and release the title. Thanks for alerting me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Josh Adams

Hi. Regarding your repeated changes to the Infobox photo here and here, I don't think a badly lit photo is the best choice for an article, especially the Infobox portrait, when there are far better-lit photos to choose from available. I also don't think an office is something immediately "closely associated" with Josh Adams or comics, particularly compared to a photo taken in a comic book store whose name is visible in a big sign right behind the subject, along with some background details of comic racks. Also, "official" and "website" are not proper nouns. If you do not agree with this, we can arrange a consensus discussion on that article's Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your insistence on using that publicity photo, if you don't like the Midtown Comics photo, can you at least provide an alternative that has better lighting and color than the one you keep switching it to? That photo is very poorly lit. Nightscream (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--I have prodvided a better version of the photo. While I cannot claim ownership to wikipedia and it's pages, the same can be said of you. However my professional image with current and potential clients can be harmed as this the photo you have provided portrays me during my free time taking part in a signing as opposed to an image of me in my work environment, dressed professionally and accordingly with what is expected by those who seek my services. The merit for the page's existence is for my professional, credits; is it not? In that respect I think the photo I have provided represents that. I appreciate your want to use your work to represent me as I know you have amassed quite the photographers reputation but when it has the potential to affect my livelihood, I must make efforts to prevent it. Thank you for you help, and I apologize for having taken more of your time than necessary. --Josh

"...the same can be said of you." The same does not have to be said of me, because I don't claim ownership of articles, nor edit with such a motive in mind: I edit according to what's best for the article. The idea that a photo of you taken in public at a comic book store signing would be harmful to your career is rather specious, as is the inference that the only reasonable photo to include in a biographical Wikipedia article would be one in which the subject is dressed is business attire, particularly given that A. most comic book illustrators work at home anyway, and B. the shirt you're wearing in your photo features a decidedly non-formal skull design on it. The appearance given by your edits is that you have attempted to control the article according to your personal whims or aesthetics, which it is not within your rights to do. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. While Wikipedia is willing to compromise with an article subject who feels that something in an article is not to their liking, that level of understanding does not extend to wholesale control of the article by the subject.

"The merit for the page's existence is for my professional, credits; is it not?" If you mean that your career is the reason for which you are notable enough to qualify for an article to have been created about you, then the answer is yes. This does not mean, however, that editing of the article should be controlled by you, or performed in the interest that career. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be a general knowledge encyclopedia, and the criteria for material included in that article should be that which makes the best possible article from a neutral point of view, as determined by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia, after all, frowns on autobiographical edits, and is not to be used as a means of self-promotion. The Web is not required, after all, to use only the images of you that you deem fit, as could be inferred by this edit summary. (UPDATE: It should also be pointed out that there is a photo of you and your father at the same signing in your father's article.)

Thanks for uploading a better-lit and colored version of the photo. I think your lips look a bit too red in it, but it's far better than the previous version. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)