Talk:Heather Duby

Untitled

This article must be a cut and paste job from a promotional biography. Toby Douglass 10:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the bumpf. The article is a lot shorter, lol. Toby Douglass 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I note with interest the uncommented full revert by User:Headlightglasses. I have left a request for explanation in that users talk page. Toby Douglass 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Headlightglasses has reverted again and ignored a request for revert explanation on both his talk page and in this discussion page. I have returned the page to my article and left another comment both here and in his talk page. I expect another revert to occur, and then I will find out about Wiki arbitration processes. Toby Douglass 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained on your page Toby, I have attempted to provide as much factual information on Heather Duby's life as an artst and musician. It's not a promotional biography and I don't wanna get into any arguments here. I provided information that is fully factual and do not wish to have that edited by someone that is not familiar with the topic. You deleted vital information that is not to be overlooked. Love ya, HeadlightGlasses!

As explained on your page -> AFAICT you ignored my requests for comment on your part, since your explaination occured only after my most recent revert. Prior to that you twice performed uncommented full reverts without comment and without responding to my questions on the talk page and on yoru talk page. Uncommented reverts - especially full reverts - are a significant breach of decorum. Do not do this.

I have attempted to provide as much factual information on Heather Duby's life as an artst and musician -> "also learned to navigate the roads of the city faster than any Seattle cab driver could ever hope to". This is not factual.

It's not a promotional biography and I don't wanna get into any arguments here. -> it may not be promotional, in that it was not written with that express purpose, but it certainly does not read as an encylopedic article. I have added the Essay-entry template to the article. Secondly, your wish not to get into arguments indicates that you wish your work not to be contested. You may indeed not wish to get into any arguments, but the Wiki and its readers does not exist for your benefit. If you write material which does not match the Wiki guidelines, you WILL find yourself in arguments, and rightly so. Thirdly, I personally find your comment insulting, for it implies you would rather ignore me and my opinion in this matter than have to defend what you have written. Show some *respect*.

I provided information that is fully factual -> such as "Thankfully, for the pedestrians of New York, she will not have a car" and "She also made the decision to focus on challenging the conjecture of her past works. And the resulting album proved challenging even to herself" which isn't factual in any way. I suspect you need to read the wiki entries for Proposition, Fact and WP:NOR.

and do not wish to have that edited by someone that is not familiar with the topic. -> you mean to say I'm unqualified to edit her page? this is a red herring. It is clear the article is not encyclopedic and removing the non-encyclopedic material does not require particular expertise in the subject itself.

You deleted vital information that is not to be overlooked -> I removed your opinions on her work and stripped the article down to the facts which are present. If you wish to write personal reviews, get some web-space of your own and put them there. This is not the place for them and you will find yourself extremely frustrated if you attempt to put them in the Wiki, because they will be contested and heavily modified, back to the encyclopedic standard. Toby Douglass 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the suicide squeeze link is supposed to link to Suicide_Squeeze_Records not Suicide_Squeeze Atoddjones (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heather Duby.jpg

Image:Heather Duby.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)