User talk:Verbist

Spam in Diane Arbus
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Haberarts, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. '' A tag has been placed on Haberarts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Haberarts. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks.'' Coren 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You want to *add* the hangon tag, not replace the db-speedy. I've left your hangon when I added the speedy back.'' Coren 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from an article you created, as you did with Haberarts, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Coren 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Haberarts, you will be blocked from editing. Do not arbitrarily remove content from talk pages. Trusilver 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Haberarts
Hey there. The problem isn't that Haberarts is or is not interresting, but that it simply meets none of the criterion of the notability guidelines, as currently written. It may be that the website is, in fact, notable (for instance, by having significant coverage in independent secondary sources, but the article makes no claims of notability. Coren 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Haberarts
I've nominated Haberarts, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Haberarts satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Haberarts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Haberarts during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...
I take it the name of the game is plugging people's product (recently, Howard Mandel's book). Knock it off, please. --ND (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Persons of nobility
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring.


 * Appended: Albert Lilar is taken up into the Belgium nobility and was granted the nobility title "baron". A nobility title is naturally part of the persons larger naming, this is a historic custom. According to Naming conventions, Naming conventions (names and titles), and the discussion at the talk pages, a nobility title has to be included in the persons name in de first section of the text (but not allways in the title of the page).


 * Please stop reverting my contributions on the page Albert Lilar; you're violating the Wikipedia conventions and naming conventions. Please read the conventions about naming of persons. Thank you.


 * Greetings, Demophon (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

helpme

Hello Demophon,

Suzanne Lilar and Albert Lilar were my grandparents. I first started the Wikipedia entry on Suzanne Lilar and have been adding pertinent information about her literary career ever since.. The entry in Wikipedia is about Suzanne Lilar as a WRITER. She signed all her books Suzanne Lilar. She would have found it ridiculous to be addressed as Baroness. She was granted a title for her artistic contributions to Belgium in 1976, just as were Marnix Gijssen and André Delvaux, for example. But nobody talks about the writer Baroness Suzanne Lilar, or the cineast Baron André Delvaux, or Baron Marnix Gijssen, for example. They all would have found the use of this title preposterous as it applies to their literaray or artistic carreer, but they may or may not have used this title in social settings. However, the Wikipedia entry is about the literary career of Suzanne Lilar and how she was known as a writer, and this must me fully acknowledged and accepted. If you, Demophon, wishes to insert a line that she was made a baroness for the the ensemble of her literary oeuvre in march 1976, that is appropriate, but it is not appropriate to add the title in the heading of SUZANNE LILAR. Please understand the difference between the writer and social status. The same is true for Gijssen and Delvaux. And for Albert Lilar. P lease remove the titles of nobility from the Heading of the names,as they are completely irrelveant in this context.

Greetings,

Verbist (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Verbist


 * Hey guys. I saw the helpme tag so thought I'd give my two cents. The policies you cite - Domonphon - says basically use what they are popularly called. From Verbists message, it appears the title is correct. The MoS says that the title should be included in the first paragraph. Can we agree to having the full name bolded, and an extra sentence added the the first paragraph saying she was a Barron? Tiddly  -  Tom  19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{help me}} Suzanne Lilar would be horrified to have "Baronness" linked to her writer's name. So would Albert Lilar, Marnix Gijssen, and André Delvaux, all of whom I knew personally. They were all provided a title, but both the Lilars, Gijssen and Delvaux never did and never would have used the title in their artistic or political life. One needs to respect the wishes of the deceased. If they wanted to have used the title, they would have done so. None did! Such a honorary title is very different from old-family nobility. Again, please respect the wishes of the deceased, and understand the differences of nobility titles given.

Thank you, Verbist (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Verbist

help me Suzanne Lilar would be horrified to have "Baronness" linked to her writer's name. So would Albert Lilar, Marnix Gijssen, and André Delvaux, all of whom I knew personally. They were all provided a title, but both the Lilars, Gijssen and Delvaux never did and never would have used the title in their artistic or political life. One needs to respect the wishes of the deceased. If they wanted to have used the title, they would have done so. None did! Such a honorary title is very different from old-family nobility. Again, please respect the wishes of the deceased, and understand the differences of nobility titles given.

Thank you,

Verbist (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Verbist


 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that she was Baroness Lilar, so the information needs to be in her article. The same goes for all the others you mentioned. If you have reliable sources to indicate that they never used their titles in these contexts, that information can also go in the article with [WP:V|proper sourcing]]. However, Wikipedia convention is that a person's full name, including common other names, is always included in the opening of an article. - Revolving Bugbear  21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. With respect, everyone can claim that they know this and this person, but you have to come with reliable sources. It is really remarkable how many persons on Wikipedia I have debated with, who claimed they knew this famous or well-known person. Probable the number of Wikipedians is higher than the number of famous people they claim to know! :-))
 * 2. Second point, this is an encyclopaedia, not a site to honour or dignify persons. It sounds harsh, but if we have to apply censorship out of respect of that person we cannot be independently anymore. Politicians also have things they don't want to see back on Wikipedia, should we just delete information about them just out of respect? But we are only talking about someone person's name and the including of their nobility title, that's hardly disrespectful. Contrary, it's disrespectful and not honoring to omit their title in their name.
 * 3. You write that Suzanne Lilar would be horrified to have "Baroness" put in her name. The same with Albert Lilar, Marnix Gijssen, and André Delvaux. If they were so horrified with the title, why did they accept the title with the accompanying customs in first instance???? This is really strange, and I don’t believe that very much. But even if you are right about that, it doesn’t matter.
 * 3. I do know some about the Dutch Wikipidia, and over there is some strange habit to be anti-title.
 * 4. According to Wikipedia naming conventions a title should be taken up into the name in the first section of the site.
 * 5. Even more, Dutch and Belgium legal conventions say that a title is part of the person's name!
 * 6. A lot of writers, artists or politicians have 2, 3 or 4 given names in front of their surname. Most of them never use all their names in artistic or public life, but only one, or instead they use a pseudonym. A lot of them don't like their real or full name, but this doesn't mean that because of that we shouldn't include it.
 * 7 It is custom to be as complete as possible to put all their names in the first section. Also we have to include the nobility title, because it is part of the whole name. Further in the text or in the title of the page it is sufficient to mention only their well-known name. Demophon (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

help me Hello Demophon, What I meant, and what you do not seem to understand, is that the Lilars, Gijssen & Delvaux would be horrified of having the title linked to their professional name, i.e. for their accomplishments as a writer, as an artist, as a politician. This is very different from a social context where they may have used their title. Please understand the difference. Go ahead, if you wish to add a sentence in the text that they were given the title of baron or baroness, but you should not use this in the heading of their professional name. This is truly uncalled for because this is not how they signed their accomplishments. It is used socially only, and it is ridiculous to use it as you do in the context of an encyclopedia. This is no social register. Just understand. This has nothing to do about being anti-title, only not to use the title in the contect the Lilars and Gijssen & Delvaux did not use it. This is not the same as Sir Elton John, Sir Anthony Caro, Sir Paul McCartney in Britain, who want to use the title in that peculiar British way. This here is very different. How ridiculous, to call "De man die zijn haar kort liet knipper" a film by Baron Delvaux, or "Aspects of Love in Western Society" a book by baroness Lilar!!! Think about this example: it is not as Marnix Gijssen, the writer's name, that Jan-Albert Goris was made a baron, but well as Jan-Abert Goris. Respect how the writer signed her books!! Verbist (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Verbist


 * Sorry for butting in, but please don't add the helpme template every time you reply. Also, please be mindful of having a conflict of interest, and try to keep this in a neutral point of view. What an affected party would think is not relevant in the pursuit of unbiased knowledge. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Beste Verbist,

Is de naam van je moeder misschien Françoise Lilar?

Groeten, Demophon (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ken Johnson (art critic)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ken Johnson (art critic), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2006/08/04/johnson_to_be_globes_new_art_critic. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Khazar, but the links I added were NOT SPAM! Haberarts.com is one of the most encyclopedic treatments of art history! Check it out! It's encyclopedic in nature. There is NOTHIN PROMOTIONAL about what I very carefully post on Wikipedia. Verbist (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Verbist

Linkspam and COI
I see that you've been repeatedly warned about these areas, so I suspect this is nothing new, but I wanted to let you know I checked over your past edits and reverted some more of your old linkspam:, , , for example. I also deleted your clear conflict of interest article John Haber, which you appear to have re-created even after its first AfD voted for its deletion. It seems to me that many of your more recent edits have been in a more constructive, rather than promotional vein, despite a possible relapse a few days ago in broadly restoring artnet.com's linkspam, so I hope you simply keep on as you've been doing. I did, however, want to leave a note here warning other editors you interact with of these past problems, and also to ask you to avoid using Wikipedia for promotional purposes in the future; it's a big headache for the rest of us to clean up these messes instead of encyclopedia-writing. Best, Khazar (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Babs Reingold, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Encaustic and Installation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Image-S.Lilar,M.Fredericq-Lilar.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Image-S.Lilar,M.Fredericq-Lilar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file 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. 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 refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. wdwd (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Voltz Clarke Gallery for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voltz Clarke Gallery 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/Voltz Clarke Gallery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Vexations (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Galerie Zlotowski for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galerie Zlotowski 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/Galerie Zlotowski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permission 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:EugeneMartinRushHour.1982.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EugeneMartinRushHour.1982.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permission 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:EugeneMartin.untitled ink.1985.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EugeneMartin.untitled ink.1985.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permission 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Art.Crit.JHaber.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Art.Crit.JHaber.jpg, which you've attributed to S. Fredericq. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permission 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)