"

 Response 

1. Photo selection: On 3/15/07, I trimmed his four photos down to what I felt was the most representative one, even though trimming them to zero makes more common sense.  What did I do to balance out this trimming?  In the external links section, I added a link to Shankbone's gallery in Wiki Commons, which features all four pics.  Hence anyone can see all four photos with the click of a button.  ""Chivalry is truly not dead,"" you say to yourselves.  (I even left the gallery/centered HTML around it, so that it'd be positioned right in the center for all to see, not off to one side.)  What does Shankbone then do?  He adds his other three photos back, and slyly keeps the link which I had added to his pics at the Commons.  His reasoning is that ""One photograph in a gallery looks odd.""  He could have simply reverted to the prior version, but he looked over my changes and then only kept the one change that benefited him. He keeps talking about how he wants to compromise and work with other users, but every chance he gets, he puts himself above all other considerations and still refuses to cooperate. Why would he have even made the Commons gallery unless he understood that his photos were not main-article-worthy?  He made the Commons gallery in the first place since he correctly reasoned that that was a better location for them.  Now he has told me he will do his best to have me blocked from editing this article any further.

Back to what I previously brought up about him using this article for careerist purposes.  Why did he put his full name in the title of each of the .jpg files he uploaded?  (Roll your mouse over the photos, or attempt to download them to your hard drive, if you don't know what I'm talking about.)  That's unheard-of.  Unless, that is, he wants a lot of people to download them, and have his name conveniently attached in the file name, in case said downloaders ever want to contact the photographer and offer him $ to reprint them... 

How can he get as many people as possible to download them?  By making them as racy as possible, of course.  The point is: He could have posted clothed pictures without his name in them.  Or racy pictures without his name in them.  Or clothed ones with his name in them.  None of those possibilities would have raised the serious ethical questions that have been voiced here by multiple users.

2. Slant of article: Tara Subkoff is a professional actress. She designs (or designed, since IOC is apparently defunct) clothes on the side, though actually all she does is modify existing ones with the help of a partner.  Her entire varied, and usually quite daring, 13-year film career is reduced to this line of text: ""She has acted in over a dozen movies."" (Technically, that counts as zero descriptive lines of her actual roles or of accolades she has received.)  However, one fashion show of hers, which took place over maybe a 2-hour span at most, is represented by around two thirds of the descriptive text in this article.  Does that seem right to anyone?  I'd like for even one Wikipedia user to lay out for me how this is correct.  Someone who had never previously heard of Subkoff would think that the U.S. media had some sort of frenzy over this one show she put on, and that her acting is so subpar as to deserve approximately 0.0 to 0.5 words per film role.  (And 100% of the two ""references"" that he hastily added to this article are about this one-time event.)  Shankbone has consistently and subtly altered the emphasis of this article towards proving his point of view, at the expense of doing Subkoff's career justice.  In science, an experiment is never undertaken with the intent of molding the results towards proving one pre-desired hypothesis.  Any scientist who does so is branded as a sham and generally stripped of his tenure/degree/etc.  This is known as the scientific method, and has been followed for centuries.  Wikipedia was designed to be laid out in a very cold and scientific manner, to dispense nothing other than actual facts about certain objects and entities.  It's not an arena for positing one's own spin on objects and entities.  If you don't like cold and non-biased data, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you.  I often go to entries on my favorite bands/movies/etc. (and I'm even talking about ones that have drastically changed my life, or bands that I like enough to have interviewed them in the past) and delete anything with even the tiniest whiff of favoritism.

3. Style.com link: I went to the style.com link that Shankbone provided.  This link simply reinforces my position.  What it shows is 36 pictures of this event.  The models are topless in 6 of the pictures.  The models are fully clothed in 30 of the pictures.  Tell me how Shankbone's four topless pics provide an accurate overview of