User talk:Postmodern-art

Welcome!

Hello, Postmodern-art, 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, such as Art and mind control, 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! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to (expand article if you can) (you can't delete article of subject of this importance) (you no need to verify conclusions made in accordance with logic)

talk 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(please expand article or include arguments inside if you can) (it's a subject of global importance, you cannot delete it anyway)

June 2010

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 Art and mind control. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. GregJackP (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Hey high school confidential, of course i will delete (speedy deletion tag because i consider it vandalism, if you want to expand article, you can try to do so in a logical and professional manner, yet it's brand of mine You could try to add links, but it's strictly article you couldn bully tagging like that

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Art and mind control, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GregJackP (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia facing lawsuits for $10.000.000 for previous jokes with speedy deletions

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Art and mind control. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Jusdafax 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Postmodern-art could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. GregJackP (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pushing to hard? If you pretend to be encyclopedic source, you can't dismiss possibiity to have encyclopedic article "Art and Mind Control", simply because it's an issue of general impostance. If you assume that it have to be more neutral or have different logic- go ahead try to change. I just wanted to pay you back in logical assertions, is this something that you have to use to write articles, or modify them, if you have enough arguments. I will not allow article written is such complex language to be deleted this way or to be stored elsewhere with offence to writer. If you disagree- i will publish my text at different site. But don't have to abuse people with irrelevant tags. You better don't say it's sourse to be edited upon consensus, because it's obviously owned and edited by just few people, who have respect just for one another. Just blank pages in case you disagree. isn't this more respectful and easier? @Please don't tag articles for deletion just because you like conventional fine art, school teacher or communist, it has little or no relevance to the content of article. I had never deleted article which was about conventional fine art just because i'm against convention, i just don't read what i don't like. We all heve a freedom of speech. And freedom for creation of new philosophical assertions. @You will offend many people in a wrong way, than. What if i start deleting all on conventional fine art, let's eat each other here. I'm against it. let the people understand of modify something they can justify.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Postmodern z for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Timneu22 · talk 15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you crazy? If you pretend to be encyclopedic source, you can't dismiss possibiity to have encyclopedic article "Art and Mind Control", simply because it's an issue of general impostance. If you assume that it have to be more neutral or have different logic- go ahead try to change. I just wanted to pay you back in logical assertions, is this something that you have to use to write articles, or modify them, if you have enough arguments. I will not allow article written is such complex language to be deleted this way or to be stored elsewhere with offence to writer. If you disagree- i will publish my text at different site. But don't have to abuse people with irrelevant tags. You better don't say it's sourse to be edited upon consensus, because it's obviously owned and edited by just few people, who have respect just for one another. Just blank pages in case you disagree. isn't this more respectful and easier?

What you have written is not an encyclopedia article, but an essay. I am finding your writing difficult to understand- if your writing in English isn't strong enough for publication, you might find it easier to contribute usefully and to understand the rules on a Wikipedia in a language you are fluent in - see the List of Wikipedias to find your preferred Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Please don't tag articles for deletion just because you like conventional fine art, school teacher or communist, it has little or no relevance to the content of article. I had never deleted article which was about conventional fine art just because i'm against convention, i just don't read what i don't like. We all heve a freedom of speech. And freedom for creation of new philosophical assertions.

Your freedom of speech does not mean that Wikipedia has to publish your articles, if they do not meet the standards that have been set. You are free to publish it anywhere that you can obtain a website, but as written, it is not appropriate for this venue. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I prefer more contemporary art styles, although older fine art is also nice. Is "School teacher or communist" supposed to be insulting? If so, the insult didn't come across very clearly, but Wikipedia has a very clear rule against personal attacks. You don't seem to understand what an encyclopedia article is, and how it is different from a collection of essays, but 'creation of new philosophical assertions' isn't part of what an encyclopedia does. If you'd like to publish writing at Wikipedia, you'll need to only publish encyclopedia articles. If you want to publish your new philosophical ideas, that's fine, but those should go on your own web site. I looked at your web site, by the way- I like your paintings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Eah, Dear FisherQueen, i think you like the game i shot Andy Warhol i guess, but, listen, if you apply same rule to everything you have empty site. Actually i have own website, but it's a bit not a place for article "Art and Mind control", i suppose you had to put this article in public place. It this issue does not deserve to be discussed? written? not at all. Try to discuss my article, put own in counter-argument and link from my page. I'll be more than pleased you do express your opinion about Art, Values and Mind control. Puppets? your child is your puppet unless it gain independence, your pupil is your puppet, but hey, it's discussion, not a fight, hey, i've been here at Wiki 5 years and has to ruin any new. It doesn't work with me @i spent 1 hour to write this essay, because i had mood for it, if you all want to edit entry, it's possible to do, why to remove such interesting unconventional and likely sensational topic from here. You could just link to me afterwards this deletions gone. Best.

I have never heard of "I shot Andy Warhol." We do apply the same rule to all of Wikipedia- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we only need encyclopedia articles. That doesn't leave us with an 'empty site,' it leaves us with an encyclopedia. I cannot discuss the ideas in your article- as I mentioned, your writing is difficult to understand, and what you wrote does not communicate any ideas that are understandable. Do you understand the difference between an 'essay' and an 'encyclopedia article?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read the article on the movie I Shot Andy Warhol (movie, not game), I understand that you were trying to insult me again. That, plus the extreme difficulty of understanding your poor English, means that I am no longer interested in trying to help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$No, I shot Andy Warhol wasn't movie(maybe it was, but i meant different one(your link is to wrong one)) it was an art concept used either in game either elsewhere i do not remember exactly myself. It's just a concept. See there was a sculpture of Damien Hirst(by other artist) commiting suicide, as well. Well your knowledge of art is extremely poor, as well as, know if someone don't want to try to sing, don't think that others shouldn't $Then, dear FisherQueen, you could try to spend more time to understand article, or, maybe i have to make 15 pages addition explaining in 15 pages what water is water sky is sky and we are here exist just to change order a bit... £Actually it's cool essay i like it. You couldn't ban this topic "Art and Mind control" it's important one. £££And, know, never tried to insult anyone, you def. insulted me tagging this article for speedy deletion. I only may try to make people think. this is all i do.Postmodern-Art (talk · contribs)· $No one bans Jackknife chelicerae, just because it's too small or say, i haven't seen one.