User talk:Oceanblueeyes

Maitresse declaree
A tag has been placed on Maitresse declaree, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also 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   to the article 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. Victao lopes (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Medusa looked upon by Poseidon.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Medusa looked upon by Poseidon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Medusa in origin.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Medusa looked upon by Poseidon.jpg. The copy called Image:Medusa looked upon by Poseidon.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image for Medusa
Thanks for your contributions to Medusa, but in general, original artwork like your Image:Origin of Medusa.jpg is considered unnecessary decoration for an article (I'm sorry if other editors removed it previously without explaining why). If you wish to reintroduce the artwork, I suggest you begin a discussion on Talk:Medusa and get a consensus before you so so. Thanks. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Persus_armed_by_the_Nymphs.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Persus_armed_by_the_Nymphs.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Persus (detail) by Canova.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Persus (detail) by Canova.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Madame du Barry
The hidden comments about which you are getting upset are mine, with my signature *FW* for Frania Wisniewska, which you could have guessed by going back to the date when comments were inserted. May I point out to you that hidden comments within text are not *accusations of lies* (please find one instance where I accused you of lying), they are addressed as a point of discussion to the editor who wrote the contested part. That's what Wikipedia is all about. The fact that you may have read hundreds of books on one subject does not mean that everyone will agree that you know more about that subject than anyone else. There may be books you have not read. For instance, have you read memoirs in French written by individuals who personally knew Mme du Barry? If you have not, you should, because this would make you realise that, depending on whether they liked her or not, the authors of these memoirs either praised her or thrashed her (the duc de Choiseul, for instance, who could not stand her because he had tried to have his own sister become official mistress to Louis XV, so you can imagine what he wrote about Mme du B!). Some authors and libellists did not treat her any better than was treated Marie Antoinette, with similar accusations of both women being whores, which, as the article stands, gives the impression that it is what Mme du Barry was, i.e. a modern call girl. Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Sean, Thank you for your note. Please, do  not feel bad about our little exchange via hidden notes in the du Barry article.  There is nothing to forgive as you did nothing wrong.  We only had a sharp exchange...  So let's shake hands with the hope that, in the future, we can work in harmony, even if we rarely agree.


 * Her humble origins, and the fact that in spite of it she became the mistress of Louis XV, passing over all the other beautiful women who were vying for the *post* are at the base of the hatred many at Court had for her. You have to realise that the Court at Versailles was nothing but a wasp nest filled with gossip, greed & jealousy.  People were divided into factions & the woman who would win the heart (and bed) of the king would immediately be sought after by those hoping to get the king's favour through her position, while, at the same time, she would be demonised by those who had lost to her.  In the case of Mme du Barry, her supposed mémoires are apocryphal, i.e. the work of the baron de Lamothe-Langon.   I am including a link to something you may find interesting.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:70FK_xYupOgJ:www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/working-papers/2007-2008/WP02_08.pdf+Baron+Etienne+L%C3%A9on+de+Lamothe-Langon+apocryphe&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


 * Now there are books that are not on Mme du Barry but which have details on her - books written by the authors themselves, who met her. In her Souvenirs, the painter Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun has eight pages on Mme du Barry & the conditions in which she did three portraits of her.


 * May I suggest that you do not give out your e-address for millions of readers to see?


 * Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ceto (mythology)


The article Ceto (mythology) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is clearly notable, has been redirected back to where it came from, viz. Cetus (mythology). Oceanblueeyes, your edits of that page do not seem to have been helpful, perhaps some guidance would be welcome

Declan Clam (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Persus (detail)by Cellini.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Persus (detail)by Cellini.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Maitresse declaree
Hello Oceanblueeyes,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Maitresse declaree for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TopCipher (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)