User talk:Buddy23Lee/2015 Archive

User talk:Buddy23Lee/2014 Archive

Rather than deleting the history of the conversations you moved to User talk:User talk:Buddy23Lee/2014 Archive, I deleted the page you copied and pasted and moved the history to User talk:Buddy23Lee/2014 Archive. -- GB fan 11:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Sheesh, you'd think after having created so many of these separate talk pages I'd have it figured out by now... Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creonte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grandmaster. 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) 08:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gladstone, Oregon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gladstone, Oregon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gladstone, Oregon

The article Gladstone, Oregon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gladstone, Oregon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gladstone, Oregon

The article Gladstone, Oregon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gladstone, Oregon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Buddy23Lee. I apologize for not answering your question posted on my talk page. I'm not sure I have an answer for you one way or another. As you mentioned before, the patch itself is subject to copyright law and either way you will need to upload it locally under fair use. From a functionality standpoint, I find it easier to find a patch that is already on the internet, generally from the agencies website, and upload it. These images tend to be higher quality anyways. Taking photos of patches tend to not turn out looking as nice. Hope this helps! Tiptoety ^talk 22:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I appreciate it. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gladstone Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 205. 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) 09:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)

You are invited!

• Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm

  Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Gladstone police patch.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gladstone police patch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Police department articles

Obviously, we disagree on the notability of police departments and that is just fine. Let me try to clarify what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladstone Police Department, as perhaps that may help you see my position. You don't have to agree with my position, but running to ANI over it was certainly not the right thing to do and frankly it kinda makes you look bad. Let's get past that.

The Afd was closed as no consensus. That means the article gets kept, but it is not a keep. I could immediately refile it if I so chose, and that would not be considered obstructive. I'm not going to do that. You are more than welcome to ask the closing editor why he closed it as no consensus, but this is why I think it was, and I have been at AfD numerous times. The actual !vote count was 4-3 to keep, but yet it was closed no consensus. The actual delete !votes other than mine were either without argument, or with an invalid argument (I never said the article didn't meet GNG...it does. it does not meet ORG, which is a more restrictive guideline and in the case of companies and organizations, supersedes GNG.) So actually, the only valid delete !vote was mine. Yet it was kept as no consensus, not a keep. That means that the closing editor did not find the arguments made to keep to be particularly compelling. The general practice is when there are multiple thought out, but not really good arguments for one side and a single good argument for the other, you close as no consensus. The keep arguments centered around there being something inherently notable about policing, which is not enshrined anywhere in policy, and the fallacious argument that because The Oregonion is a regional paper, that it ceases to be a local paper. I am sorry, but a bunch of stories about policing, added to a story from long ago about a bear and a nurse do not equal notability. if there were a book dedicated solely to the history of this police department, that would show notability. If there were numerous detailed stories in the O about how the department polices, rather than on crimes the department interdicted in, that would show notability. if there were stories from outside metro Portland on how the department polices, that would show notability. I don't find any. This article is still here. Perhaps you can find some. I sincerely wish you good luck with that.

As far as the other articles go, i do hope you do what your research and your heart tells you to do. Just keep in mind that has nothing to do with the drama boards. I can tell you and other's did not like my actions. That does not make them in bad faith or a policy violation. it just means we disagree. Disagreement is a large part of what makes Wikipedia function. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry John. You seem like a nice guy and I'm by no means trying to call you out or make your life hard. Clearly, you do a lot of good work here and should be recognized for that. Despite my own time here, I don't know every wiki policy super well and I thought that the board would be a good place to get a neutral opinion from experienced editors. I specifically didn't bring you up there because I didn't want to make this an ongoing issue for you, but (as I've been informed) that was a mistake.

I have to admit I'm very much an inclusionist, and that's likely where our disagreement stems. I see your points, in addition to the sharp response at the noticeboard, and I'm happy to let it go. Maybe it's just a difference in philosophy - I thought those articles, while in many ways routine, were good for the wiki, and I know that you feel otherwise. At any rate, it's over and dropped. I wish you well in all your editing, even when it deleting the things I generally work to preserve. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello B. As I read your posts I take it at face value that you were, and are, acting in good faith. I just want to make a couple points for future reference. AN/I is (as John mentions) a "big time" drama board. It is meant to be a "last resort" for discussion - after all other means of communication have been exhausted. Posting a question on an articles talk page or asking the editor in question on their talk page is usually a good start. Then there are places like the various wikiprojects for the individual states. Also the Wikipedia:Help desk‎ can be a place to search for answers and it is (for the most part) less confrontational than AN/I. The other point is that it is almost impossible to discuss a persons edits without mentioning the editor. Anyone who starts to research (as I did) a question like the one you asked is going to find that it was only one editors actions that you were questioning. I understand your reasoning but, IMO, things are made worse by not mentioning who the editor is right from the start. Don't worry about not knowing every policy - I have been editing for over ten years and am still learning new things all the time. If any of this reads as too scolding I do apologize as that is not my intent. I am just trying to give you some food for thought as you proceed. You live in a beautiful part of the world. I have friends in Portland and have visited there many times. Powell's Books and the Portland Japanese Garden's are two of my favorite spots. I hope that you enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very kind and thoughtful of you to go the extra mile and provide the advice and additional context. I most certainly was trying to approach it in good faith. It can be pretty confusing around here sometimes. Usually when I'm not sure if my position is the prevailing one I try to test the waters with other editors to see if any consensus is on my side. I just assumed that if I broached the issue with John he would more or less tell me to buzz off (as is his right to do so). I figured that if I found some consensus first I would be better prepared to negotiate the issue with him. I never knew the admin noticeboard was a "drama" place. I actually looked for a more specific one for a while but nothing seem to fit. Anyway, I'm rambling. All of this is duly noted and I'll approach things differently from hereon. Thanks again. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2015 (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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Hall

First things first. Happy birthday. Now are you referring to his nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.75.187 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 96.33.75.187. Yep, you guessed it. Normally I wouldn't even have bothered to mention it, but an editor recently alleged the "blinky" thing might be contentious or mean-spirited, so we should probably add a decent reference if you want it in there. Cheers. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)