User talk:Buddy23Lee/2013 Archive

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alliance jiu-jitsu.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Alliance jiu-jitsu.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keenan Cornelius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand slam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Team Lloyd Irvin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Team Lloyd Irvin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
You'll have to forgive me if I am struggling to maintain a civil tone with Nomoskedasticity, but I would have more time for him if he would give any indication that he has read the sources which I've given. I have been trying to avoid wikilawyering, but as far I can see he is not following WP:Assume Good Faith, WP:Civil, WP:Consensus can change, and I could probably throw in a few others if I wanted to. WP:Coatrack is not helpful without explaining why it's a coat-rack, which could lead onto a discussion if there is any way of including the information without making the article a coat-rack. And how exactly is a one word edit "Concision" helpful?

When he actually presents arguments as to whether the sources are reliable, and whether the information can be given reasonable weight without distorting the article, I am happy to engage with those arguments. --Merlinme (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You certainly need no forgiveness for me – I can appreciate the cut of your jib, and what is concise to one can easily be curt to another. The whole coatrack issue aside, I think you’re seeing what was dealt with when this issue first came to the fore.


 * Once again, this is, in my eyes at least, a classic case of inclusion versus exclusion (and probably immediatism versus eventualism); you ardently feel that the inclusion of the scandal content is critical to maintaining a relevant article while the BLP noticeboard folks feel that the sanctity of policy considerations should preempt this.


 * Despite my own general bent of inclusionism, at this point I’m not willing to fight for maximal relevance of this very minor BLP if it means even potentially disregarding and/or breaking policy, but that’s just me. Obviously you feel more strongly about inclusion and I can respect that. Through the power of your quite discursive discourse, change is always possible here, as you well know. That said, given the course of this now third submission to the noticeboard, it would appear prohibitively difficult to find a more inclusive consensus, at least for the time being. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems a reasonable summary. I believe an encyclopedia should reflect reality, although I'm aware that in the case of Wikipedia we have to settle for verifiable reality. At the moment the Lloyd Irvin article mentions his team without mentioning that it has been through some highly public difficulties recently; the article does not reflect reality.
 * I'm more than happy to discuss the exact wording of what we say, to make sure it meets due weight, verifiability, BLP, and any other relevant policies. What frustrates me is when some people refuse to discuss it and refuse to look at any new information (i.e. what I think are better sources).
 * Anyway, Polarscribe has said they will take a look, I'll wait and see what comes of that. --Merlinme (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A very reasoned approach, which makes it quite likely that any changes which do result will be preserved indefinitely. This is certainly some tricky subject-matter for any article and it's only gotten more complicated now that the team article has been merged with the BLP. I strongly believe if the two were still free-standing articles this would be a much clearer issue, but, like most things, that wasn't up to me. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Opinion please
Could I have your view on notability for Pearce Robinson. I have contested that the page should not be deleted. But one of the administrators insists that it should. Last time it was deleted, because it was not properly cited. This time it is sited and it met the Good Articles criteria but the same administrator insists that it must once again be deleted for the same reason. I'm trying to get some other opinions. Capture2015 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Stark
Hi, I finally emailed you the articles I found relating to Aaron Stark. I hope these help. (If you need the text from the Aaron Stark article too, now that it's been deleted, let me know.) -Pete (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank ya sir. I actually have a version of it saved myself at User:Buddy23Lee/Aaron Stark archive. Now that the AfD is over and time isn't pressing I'll eventually try and put together a better article and see if it at least meets the GNG. Thanks again! Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

01:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

13:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steel City Clown Brigade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ministry and Word of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paulo Miyao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)