User talk:5thworldart

Speedy deletion of OpalescentZurich
A tag has been placed on OpalescentZurich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
The recent edit you made to Kaleidoscopography constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. ''' Jon athan 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I disagree with Jonathan- that was not vandalism, you have ever right to remove the prod tag if you disagree with the deletion. However, I still believe the page should be deleted- see my notice below. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Opalescent Zurich
Please stop. If you continue to create inappropriate pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Warthog Demon  17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is the Justification. I am an artist and have developed the terms to define my style. 5th World Art defines the approach and mindset. The terms, Kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich, define two distinct styles. I am proud of these techniques that I developed myself. The intent is to post these on Wikipedia to define all three terms. These are legitimate and the result of my efforts. The links to the web sites are there to describe the work and provide reference. These are my first postings on Wikipedia. I disagree with the deletion and ask that this be restored. - 5thWorldArt

--5thworldart (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and these rules as they pertain to these descriptions equate to art censorship!!! This is about Art and a style that has been purchased. I have three pages that have been deleted, 5thworldart (5th world art), kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich. Within two weeks each will have a web site presenting the art and a discussion on what each is. Currently you are welcome to browse www.5thworldart.com however, this site is a draft and is to be broken into four web sites. Each of the styles are in private homes (by collectors) and a very reputable design showroom is considering taking on my art as a new frontier. I am very serious about my work and the terms are being used. As for being "spammy" - if i were spamming, i would use other profiles to come back at this. there are worlds within worlds out there and this art is not of your world.

AfD nomination of Kaleidoscopography
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kaleidoscopography, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 5th world art
An article that you have been involved in editing, 5th world art, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/5th world art. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your comments on Talk:5th world art
The page has now been deleted, so I copy your comments here for convenience:


 * Disagre I find it odd that your rules delete articles when Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I may have made this up but this defines an art style. I have seen terms defined that are pure marketing and their logos used and frustrated by this line of reasoning. I am a legitimate user and have a term to define. I ask, if this cannot be posted here, where can it be posted within wikipedia. At what point does someone decide this is of social or historical importance?

Also, may be new to wikipedia, but i am not new to the web. I have been involved since 1982. I see now that the reputation that wikipedia has earned as a place where you need to pay someone to post for you has some validity. This is not a place for the common person. - 5thWorldArt --5thworldart (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points raised- you find it odd that an encyclopedia deletes articles? Should there be an article on me, some student from a forgotten corner of England? Should there be an article on the bed I am sitting on? We can't have articles on everything, be realistic. Your article may define an art style, but posting it here constitutes original research. Because we are an encyclopedia, as you so kindly reminded us, all information must be cited to reliable sources, and none existed in this case, meaning that an article on the subject could not pass our verifiability or notability guidelines. I have no doubt that you are a good faith user, but this article cannot be posted 'within Wikipedia'- we're not a free webhost. We decide that a term has historical/social importance when it meets our notability guidelines. I find it rather doubtful that you have been involved in the web since 1982, as it wasn't even created then, but whatever. Wikipedia does not have the reputation that you claim it does, and your idea that it does is frankly ridiculous. I've never paid Wikipedia anything, and I'm here for hours a day. No one has to pay anything to get an article on Wikipedia, it just has to meet our policies and guidelines regarding inclusion. If you have any questions or would like any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

'''
 * Wikipedia and these rules as they pertain to these descriptions equate to art censorship!!! This is about Art and defining a style. By the way, the internet was born way before you were born. To reply to your statement before the was was as robust as you know it today, it was called DARPA NET. There were message boards, file transfers and mail. Each decade brought technology change and transformation, but this is internationally recognized as the beginning of the modern day internet that everyone has come to appreciate!''' btw, i do appreciate you seeing what you can do. I have three pages that have been deleted, 5thworldart (5th world art), kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich. Within two weeks each will have a web site presenting the art and a discussion on what each is. Currently you are welcome to browse www.5thworldart.com however, this site is a draft and is to be broken into four web sites. Each of the styles are in private homes (by collectors) and a very reputable design showroom is considering taking on my art as a new frontier. I am very serious about my work and the terms are being used. I came to Wikipedia to enter the

[Copyvio removed]

Source: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw64.html --5thworldart (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ok, it's not particuarly relevent anyway; I just took the birth of the web to be mid-late eighties. Regardless, the problem here is reliable sources. Until these genres/terms are written about, any encyclopedia article on them constitutes original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Once sources are available, feel free to message me on my talk page, and I would be happy to help you create pages that were compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your website/the websites that you are working on do not constitute reliable sources due to the self-published nature of them. Art books, art journals, art magazines, respected art websites (not just something on freewebs or whatever) even documentaries would be considered reliable sources- once the terms have been discussed within them, we can have articles. I am not watching this page- if you want to reply, do so on my talk page. Cheers. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)