User talk:User 24158

Welcome!

Hello, User 24158, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Optipictual, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Glenfarclas (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Optipictual[edit]

A tag has been placed on Optipictual, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Optipictual[edit]

A tag has been placed on Optipictual, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Optipictual Art Style[edit]

A tag has been placed on Optipictual Art Style, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hairhorn (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optipictual Art[edit]

Hi User 24158, I saw your question on my user page (which I've moved to my talk page). I remember seeing the articles you added, which by the way were well put together and clearly written. There were a couple of problems (in my view at least) that you should consider. One, they read like advertising -- not necessarily a commercial, but like someone trying to actively promote and raise the profile of an as-yet-unrecognized new art form. Two, Wikipedia is about notable things, not about brand-new creations that have yet to take off. So although you stated that optipictual art has been "widely acclaimed in the U..S and international art community," when we do, for instance, a Google search and find some marketing sites but no real evidence of wide acclaim or other noteworthiness and no news about Lyric Jones, your assertions sound even more like trying to raise the profile of something that's not currently notable, which is pretty much a form of advertising. The article didn't really sound like it was written with a dispassionate, neutral point of view.

That was the way I saw it. Welcome to Wikipedia and best of luck if you continue trying to improve the article. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bug you again. Just wanted to clarify on the article. There were some news sources written on it, objective publications. It is a new art form but it is recognized. Would Wikipedia not accept it just because it's only a few years old? Also, I see what you're saying about being more objective. I've taken out some extra adjectives. User 24158 (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you provided them on the page? Like I said, I looked and didn't find anything that would be verifiable. What's more, I looked at the references you did provide: there's the interview (a better link is here), but this just seems to involve Jones promoting herself, and then there's a broken link and a few that have nothing to do with optipictual art whatsoever. (Consider that Lyric Jones might be notable as an artist -- I haven't given it enough consideration -- even if optipicualism is not itself proper subject matter for an article.)

If you have anything that indicates the notability of optipicualism as a recognized new art form, I suggest you add it to the page. I guess I don't see doing collages with small pieces of paper as any different from, well, collages. If it has gained objective recognition as a new form of art, though, then by all means let us know. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Did not realize link was broken. I'll look at that. Thanks for the other link. But it's not a collage. It's a multi-textual art form that requires a long process. User 24158 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. One other tip: if you have a question or comment for another user, please leave it on their talk page (discussion page), and not on their main userpage. For one thing, talk is for talk pages; for another, it triggers the system to notify them that they have a new message. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of (Optipictuals)[edit]

A tag has been placed on (Optipictuals), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a blank article providing no content to the in the current revision and past revisions would have been candidates for speedy deletion. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tiderolls 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]