User talk:Artworldpro

September 2011
Please do not continue to add non-notable names to historical lists as you did at Pop art. Make an article first if the person is notable, thank you...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I was in process adding his page when you deleted the name, so I will reverse the process & add his page & then re-add the name-Thank you.

It an historical article about an art movement from the 1950s and 1960s, if you continue to add the name it will be removed and you might be blocked...Modernist (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nelson de la nuez.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nelson de la nuez.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I have had Nelson De La Nuez-the copyright owner email permission rights as requested to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org so this should be taken care of and this photo should be approved swiftly. You can call him, email him, get a blood sample or whatever is needed but do not delete the photo. I have permissions and he has sent the appropriate email. Thank you.Artworldpro (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Pop artist.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pop artist.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No copyright licensing problem with File:Pop artist.jpg-I had already chosen to delete image myself
Reply: I don't understand-I already deleted this image myself-I don't want it up I decided. I deleted it yesterday morning,so how did you even still see it?--it is no longer in my article? If you still see it somewhere- let me know how to permanently delete it if I did not. Thank you. Artworldpro (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Artworldpro

So I guess I don't know how to permanently delete my image files-it's gone from the article but not from the Wikipedia entirely? How do I permanently delete-I may want to delete the other as well..please let me know how to access that process. Thanks Artworldpro (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When you erase the text on a page, it doesn't actually delete it. The history is preserved, and in the case of images, it is still there to see. Only administrators can permanently delete content. Sorry about that (it confused me a bit at first too). If you want to have something you alone created, just place this tag on it: db-author. Soon enough an administrator will come by and do it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pop art painting.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Pop art painting.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring, proscribed content
Your recent editing history at Nelson De La Nuez shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.The content you are reinserting into the articles plainly violates WP:BLP and WP:RS requirements, as well as basic ]]WP:NPOV]] principles. It is also extremely inappropriate to add links to pages hawking the article subject's merchandise, especially by pretending they are references. If you restore this material again, or insert similar material, your editing privileges are likely to be suspended. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of playing a game with you in an edit war so STOP it!


 * I have no idea why you have been deleting this Wikipedia page--this is a page for a very well known prominent artist. You have obviously not taken the time to read or look at citations because everything is just fine and citations are great--he is represented in galleries worldwide, has massive press, articles, magazines, and sales internationally--there is more than enough proof and if there is even 1 sentence in question--I am more than happy to find the proof and cite it but for you to have come along and randomly deleted an entire Wikipedia for a very prestigious collected artist--it is absurd and wrong.


 * I am shocked that you felt it was ok to do so--it does not seem you have any knowledge of art, artists or the art world if you are acting this way...I am happy to make the page better and improve things but you obviously do not care at all about the content--this seems very personal and jealous to you for whatever reason and I do not want to be involved in that. I have no time--this has taken up way too much of my time. I am telling you DO NOT DELETE OR TOUCH THIS ARTICLE AGAIN.


 * You are the one in the wrong here and I have proof for my statements--this is not a Britto artist making bravado statements and long lists--it's truths about an artiost who worked hard and came from Cuba with nothing and now has hige success as one of the biggest selling pop artists. I need you to lay off--I don't know what your issue is but it's a big problem and I will have the page protected from you--that is my next step. I am 100% correct that the page is fine and I will keep fixing it-LEAVE it alone.


 * Unless you know your art and what you are talking about--STOP.


 * You keep removing his legal name King of Pop Art--that's a legal trademark and what he is known as worldwide and I discussed that-it's laso his site but he owns THE LEGAL TRADEMARK SO LAY OFF. That's 1 small case of how wrong you are... The pieces/series of art he's known for I can prove each individually but it's absurd I'd need to for you--who are you??


 * I already proved the Ditching Dorothy is a set of US postage stamps & toured worldwide with the Witch that all of the OZ became huge after Michael purchased--each series has a famous story but that part above doesn't ask for that--people like you are just causing problems.


 * This artist raises huge money for charity, works hard & has a huge heart & you just want to screw with him--why??? Can you be civil & stop it?


 * STOP-leave it alone.


 * Move on to someone else to harass next...


 * I didn't know Wikipedia had people like you allowed on it? Why are you doing this? You don't care about the content or making it better...that is very obvious. Very. You haven't done any research that's obvious or you'd know it's all true on there. I don't know the entire lingo how to sign this whole thing & you've wasted my time-just stop it now PLEASE. signing out is all- Artworldpro (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC) (talk) 8 July 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Some points
Even if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was in the wrong, as you believe, the actions you took were also incorrect and in violation of policy:


 * Being right is not an acceptable excuse for WP:Edit warring. You should have, instead, started a discussion on the article's talk page.  That way, other editors could express their opinions, and a WP:CONSENSUS could be found about what course of action to take.


 * You do not own the article. Please see WP:OWNERSHIP. Even if you wrote every word in it, it is not yours, and you have no right to tell another editor to stay away and not to edit it.


 * I am willing to bet that you are either the subject of the article or someone closely connected with him. If you are the subject, you should read WP:Autobiography, in which you will note that editors are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves, for the very reasons that have popped up here.  Also it is very difficult to maintain the proper WP:Neutral point of view when you're writing about yourself, and it's easy to slip into WP:Promotionalism, which we don't allow on Wikipedia.


 * Even if you aren't the subject, your edit summaries and your reply above show quite clearly that you have a serious WP:Conflict of interest in regard to the article, and should therefore refrain from editing it any more. You can make suggestions for additions and changes on the article's talk page, and other editors can decide whether to add them or not.

I have restored some of the material that HW removed, stripped it of its blatant promotionalism, and copy-edited the entire article. It remains to be seen if other editors will accept my changes, but I have advised HW to step away from the article, as I believe he is too involved with it. I give you the same advice: step away, and let neutral editors such as myself work on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Nelson De La Nuez for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nelson De La Nuez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nelson De La Nuez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John Nagle (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note: you are allowed to express an opinion at the AfD discussion, but, given that tenor of the comments you've directed at other editors who worked on the article, please be advised that any participation by you needs to be civil, polite, calm, and collegial. Don't go there to rant at people, that's a sure way to get blocked from editing, and it won't help the article be kept.The question that's being raised is whether Nelson De La Nuez is notable enough to have an article, according to our definition of notability, which you'll find at WP:ARTIST. A number of editors have been unable to find information about him in reliable sources, and most of the sources used inthe article are in some way connected to, or ultimately come from, the artist themselves.  We require reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, and books published by reliable publishers (in other words, not self-published).  If you have access to such sources, you should let the editors at the AfD discussion know what those sources are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I just don't understand...I gave you reliable great sources -MUSEUMS, prestigious magazines, countless links to everything-- I actually believe I was very civil and actually helped give great educational information that should help those people in the future..honestly. I reached out very nicely at the end which they did not do to me ever and asked for help for positivity & fixing it---this is not being rude. I gave you everything you need- If you delete it still than there is something far more sinister going on here... NOTHING given to you was self published in any way shape or form so why would you say that?? I gave you a MUSEUM show link, proof of so much--far more than most artists on your wikipedia-- of course he's notable enough! I cannot even believe you didn't come back and say --we were wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for deletion--there needs to be evidence that none of those links are true--they are all real, true and from other sources and companies. Thank you Artworldpro (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)ArtworldproArtworldpro (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, the Coral Spring Museum? You're hanging the entire article on that?Your comment was not civil, it was condescending. You copped a superior attitude and deigned to give us Wikipedia ignoramuses the benefit of your wisdom.  We are not here for you to "teach" us, we are here to write and improve an encyclopedia, and to do that we have standards about what should be in it.  Your job was to show that De LA Nuez was notable enough to be in it, and instead you chose to talk down to us and assume we are idiots.If the article is deleted, as seems might be the case given the way the AfD is going, there will be noting "sinister" about it, merely an encyclopedia upholding its standards because you failed to provide the evidence needed to keep the article.  Understand, when a subject fails the test of notability, the presumption is that it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, and evidence would have to be presented to show that it does.  Your list of second-rate sources, blog, opinion pieces, PR, and "news" generated from PR are not sufficient. Where's even a mention in a major newspaper, for instance?  If Da La Nuez is the "King of Pop Art", newspapers that regularly cover the arts seem to have missed him (and the one newspaper article cited in the article stems from a piece of PR, so, again, not sufficient). Where is he covered in the major shows about Pop Art (as mentioned in the AfD)?  If you really want to save this article, that's what you have to provide, and you have to stop acting high-and-mighty and get down in the trenches and do the work that's needed.  The article will not be kept on the basis of a rant from you, it will only be kept on the basis of fulfilling the requirement of WP:ARTIST, which I'm willing to bet you still haven't read or understood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)