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)
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
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-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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)
Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)
Even if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was in the wrong, as you believe, the actions you took were also incorrect and in violation of policy:
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)