User talk:BlueThird

Fair use rationale for Image:Shangri-La BES.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shangri-La BES.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album Formatting

I noticed you reverted my changes to the formatting of The Blackeyed Susans' albums Mouth to Mouth and Shangri-La - I'm guessing that you are not aware of the accepted standards for articles on albums, as set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, whereby songs and singles are placed within quotation marks. I have reverted the articles back to my original changes as that is the acceptable format. I'd suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums because I know that use the standardised format is a really assistance in creating music articles such as the above. If you have any queries I'm happy to help out but like you I'm still learning. Dan arndt 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are quite elogantly put - I appreciate where you are coming from - I guess I was trying to say that for consistency sake that (almost) every other album article has used the same format - in saying that the best place to raise your particular point is on the discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and then wait for the debate to ensue... Dan arndt 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad's Tree

Since you have an interest in The Blackeyed Susans any chance that you would be interested in assisting on an article on Chad's Tree? Was also thinking about creating articles on The Jackson Code and Martha's Vineyard but just haven't had the time recently.Dan arndt 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Julie Robinson (curator)

The article Julie Robinson (curator) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Julie Robinson (curator)

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Julie Robinson (curator) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Dpmuk (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not at all, just finding some google books. in the future use that ~~{{hangon}}~~, you can revert the speedy, with a reason the the talk page. here's you task order: "give the reader a sense of how and why the person is significant in his field." (and with references) also look at the existing (curator) articles for examples: it's exhibitions and publications. Ian Jenkins (curator); Christiane Paul (curator); Sarah Cook (curator); Adam Carr (curator); Malcolm Rogers (curator) ;> Slowking4 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually voted in the discussion yet! Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. First warning for continual personal WP:ADHOM attacks on me in AfD discussion pages. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I agree completely with this warning. You will be blocked without any further warnings if you continue your personal attacks. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Nick. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, it's entirely factually correct to say that LibStar has recommended an article for deletion that explicitly meets the appropriate notability guideline, has misrepresented the guideline on reliable sources in furthering the argument, and has also failed to discharge an editor's duties under the deletion guidelines. Would you care to comment? BlueThird (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, it doesn't give you the right to make continual personal attacks to me. this is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I suggest you take heed and be WP:CIVIL. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept that we got off on the wrong foot. But almost all of what you refer to as personal attacks since that first exchange, has, in fact, been me pointing out where you are in contravention of guidelines. You simply ignore the fact that you are outside the guidelines, without offering any justification or even explanation, still less an apology, and continue to act in the same manner. Why is that acceptable? BlueThird (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is not acceptable to make continual personal attacks. you fail to acknowledge this. hence the warning and subsequent support from an uninvolved admin. no need to discuss further you seem intent on wanting to WP:BATTLE. end of story. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intent on making sure that pages aren't deleted incorrectly, and I'd also like to see that you acknowledge the existence and meaning of the guidelines and abide by them, now and in the future. Now, since you repeatedly bring my attention to guidelines that you yourself are in contravention of: Incivility includes "aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project", and quite clearly that would include wilfully and repeatedly acting outside the guidelines I've mentioned and looking for pages to recommend for deletion apparently on the basis that I initiated them. The latter certainly suggests that you're the one looking for a battle. BlueThird (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the idea of who wants to battle, you'll notice that I asked Nick to comment, not you. BlueThird (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you just WP:LETGO and concentrate on improving the articles you created. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of improving them is in preventing them from being deleted. With you pursuing me like this it's going to be very difficult indeed to do anything more constructive. BlueThird (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you abide by the guidelines instead of posting references to them all over the place? BlueThird (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating Myself #1. Further to the idea of who wants to battle, you'll notice that I asked Nick to comment, not you. BlueThird (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continued attacks on LibStar (talk · contribs) (see above) despite being explicitly warned against this. You will be blocked for a longer period if these attacks continue - Libstar's AfD nomination is perfectly reasonable, and your persistent attacks on him or her is contributing nothing to your cause. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> as you see the retaliation for losing an AfD is baiting you into a block. i wouldn't get too concerned with Libstar, getting a keep decision is good for the article sticking around, but you can't win them all. there are far worse nominations made, (like speedy deleting people with MacArthurs). there's lots of work to be done here in the fine arts, which will be done over the objections of some. Slowking4 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]