Vermeer1

cited copyright

The article Laila carlsen has been or soon will be deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. NawlinWiki 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sara roybal

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Sara roybal. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Arts

Please do not replace already selected Featured article (and FP) with another article. Add the new one to the next month. If You don't know what You are doing, then ask or just leave it alone. Best, feydey 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Sara roybal

I've nominated the article Sara roybal for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Sara roybal satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara roybal. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Sara roybal during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sara roybal. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Laila carlsen. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Again, please see WP:BIO and WP:V. NawlinWiki 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions

Hi there, I'm assuming this is Antonio? You have some beautiful work. I'm just not sure that Wikipedia is the place to promote it. I see you have been making lots of contributions to articles about people with the surname Roybal. You may want to take a look at the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in order to determine to which articles it would be appropriate for you to contribute. There is a general proviso against editing articles related to yourself or to your family. You are welcome to contribute in other areas, of course. But when you upload images, please be sure to be certain that they fall under the Fair use clause of copyright law. Thanks for your contributions, --Rockero 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks for your coooperation! Darkspots 14:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam in Hugo van der Goes

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Hugo van der Goes. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Same trick you tried with your other account, User talk:Ernstfuchs. Please stop, Antonio. Darkspots 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not antonio ..I am a collector and I am new to wikipedia. I will pay more attention to the policies of wikipedia. thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermeer1 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 December 2006

That's simply not true. You have two different accounts, User:Ernstfuchs and User:Vermeer1, and you've made a ton of edits to promote yourself throughout wikipedia. On Hugo van der Goes, you put an external link in an article about a flemish painter to a website, www.hugovandergoes.com, which is a mirror of your own website and promotes the work of Antonio Roybal, AND is registered to a an individual named Anton Roy who lives in Santa Fe, NM. I don't think any collector would put together a complicated, tawdry subterfuge to promote the work of a painter whose work he collected. You did the same thing with your other user account, User Talk:Ernstfuchs, same website WHOIS registration, everything. Please stop trying to promote yourself through wikipedia in this fashion.

Also, please stop blanking your user talk page. It's vandalism. Darkspots 08:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not wish to go back and forth on this issue. I realize that some of the edits to hugo van...etc are spam because the page hasnt been constructed yet..yes. thanks I collect many artists and my edits are an attempt to bring roybal and others to others attention. Because I am a brand new user..please cut me some slack. I am not a professional wikipedian yet, so I ask you to please try to understand where I am coming from. I wish you the best of luck...btw thanks for the contructive critism and edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermeer1 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 December 2006
  • I really appreciate your efforts to keep this civil. And you're welcome--it was my pleasure to copy-edit Antonio Roybal. But here's where your actions differ from those of an interested collector. The interested collector would start a page at Antonio Roybal, and that would be that. Really. The person more interested in rampant self-promotion would spend weeks shoehorning Antonio Roybal references and paintings into articles large and small. The self-promoter would register websites in the names of eleven dead artists (with registrations on networksolutions.com to Anton Roy of Santa Fe, NM), and make them mirrors of www.antonioroybal.com. The collector would care about a much more wide-ranging network of artists beyond the teachers of Antonio Roybal. The collector would have edited those eleven articles before he linked to the "homage" websites (antonioroybal.com mirrors). He would care about those artists, you see? You don't care about those artists, or you would have edited their pages. You just put your self-promotional link into their article, calling it an homage page.

All I want is for you to stop distorting wikipedia. Thanks! Darkspots 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Darkspots: thanks to you too! Thank you for bringing these things to my attention. I have not had time to edit other articles. I do know antonio personally and these mirror pages are soon to be converted from a mirror site to an actual site with information about that artist...this is why the links were added. I will take your comments to heart. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermeer1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 December 2006

Your editing on Alchemy

I have, once again, removed your addition of the painting by Remedios Varo, the Creation of The Birds from the Alchemy page. If you think that it belongs there, feel free to restore it accompanied by a caption or other text explaining the relationship of the Creation of The Birds to alchemy. --SteveMcCluskey 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Metallicaoriginalartwork.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Metallicaoriginalartwork.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Ernstfuchs.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Ernstfuchs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BirgitteSB 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also many other images you uploaded are listed.--BirgitteSB 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)