User talk:Buffs/Archive 11

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zscout370/gallery

If you have Inkscape, you can make the simple changes to the colors when needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Buffs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_15#File:UVA_logo.jpg

That is all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florida State logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Florida State logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgia tech.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Georgia tech.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logos again

The files are not even used, so why the need for a redirect? I also do not think we can cross-project redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can cross-project redirect by forming a redirect to the name of the image, but in Wikipedia instead of commons. When the image links to THAT, it will automatically pull the image from commons. My primary concern is that the images are simply updated in all uses. The Tennessee logo is a prime example. The T was upgraded from jpg to png, but the logo disappeared from a bunch of pages requiring a lot of manual updates. Some of these are in use across Wikipedia in hundreds of articles. Simply deleting them has some issues. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure all uses were replaced before I went to FFD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine by me then! I guess I missed that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oregon state.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oregon state.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there BQZip01, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:BQZip01/sandbox5. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

At Talk:Boeing T-43 Bobcat. I know you're not online frequently, hence the note in case you stop by quickly but don't get to check your watchlist. Keep up the good work, esp off-Wiki. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Comments made. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user who reply K-State

Hi, sorry I wasn't of more assistance on that issue. I figured I would at least take care of some of the problem right away to help ease the vandalism. I'm just recently back and brushing up on new policies and prefer not to overstep any bounds. Hopefully another admin was able to resolve any further issues. If I can be of any help in the future, let me know. Who (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Perhaps you could help move the Boeing T-43 Bobcat page to Boeing T-43. See talk page for details. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np, Done. Cheers. Who (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is requested in a PUF discussion

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 20#File:Louisiana Monroe Warhawks workmark.svg when you get a chance. A user in that discussion brought your name up in the discussion, indicating that you might be knowledgeable about what constitutes sufficient originality to qualify for copyright. Your input would certainly be valuable in helping resolve this discussion one way or another. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback given. Let me know if other logos pop up and I'll be happy to weigh in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe stub

Thank you for the e-mail. Feel free to add an icon to the template {{GIJoe-stub}}, if you know of an image that won't be rejected. Or, let me know where to find such an image, and I'll add it myself. But I'm not familiar with any G.I. Joe logo that was simply a star, and after trying 3 times I've decided to let it go for now. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Received your follow up e-mail. Thanks for uploading the new logo, I've added it to the template, with a disclaimer to contact the uploader before removing. I'll let you know if it disappears again, but thanks for all of your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I wish all issues could be so reasonably/helpfully resolved by everyone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KSU

Please point out to me where my comment with the requested reference was uncivil; I thought it offered the possibility of a resolution, or at least discussion and progress. :? Dru of Id (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured this out. Edit conflict or something similar. You have only one recent edit. The other comment never made it.Ham tech person 02:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the edit conflict (see User_talk:Hamtechperson#KSU); if my post was collateral damage, please restore it or let me know and I will. Dru of Id (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 3

Just so you don't miss it, I thought I should let you know that I've briefly explained the situation as regards Minnesota state works at the TfD. I'll be watching there should you have questions/concerns about my explanation. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Made plenty of sense once it was explained. Wasn't aware of the background of the situation (even with links to previous discussions). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 angry men image

I don't see the pertinence of your comment to the image. I suspect you intended the comment for another image; otherwise to which of the actors do you refer? —teb728 t c 07:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not being used for the movie but for the late actor Sidney Lumet and I stand by my comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know Lumet was never an actor; he was the director of the film depicted and does not appear in the image. —teb728 t c 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then my point still remains. If he's not in the shot and the style or scene is not covered in any significant way, we don't need the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI thread

The matter you raised at ANI has now been resolved. The user Melesse now understands the tagging requirements. Unfortunately we have an unknown number of incorrectly tagged logos in the collection and that's another problem that will have to be tackled I suppose. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've apprised this user before and saw no change in behavior. As long as the same things don't continue to happen, I see no problem with dropping the matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 25.
Message added 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...

[1] ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_25

Thanks for your support. It'd been a long day, but then conflict isn't my thing on a good day. :) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I always support images IAW policy and try to cut through the BS that people THINK is policy when, in fact, it isn't. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award BQZip01 with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww shucks; twern't nuttin'... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polite question

I usually don't ask, but would you mind if I scrutinize your image uploads in a demonstration of stalking? --Damiens.rf 20:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are 100% open to review. It doesn't bother me. As a matter of fact, here's a link! — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haw-Haw! Is that you? --Damiens.rf 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the copyright status for the original photo? --Damiens.rf 21:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All seven were mechanical reproductions of their service photos (PD). They have been in place since approximately 1955 with no copyright markings (therefore PD). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you have the time (and the mood), consider adding this information to the images description page, instead of simply claiming "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby ...". Meanwhile, please just reply something offensive to me. --Damiens.rf 15:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot image

Hi BQZip01, I don't have a problem with this though I do think that the existing foxtrot image File:Foxtrot - Assembled with Care - Cover.jpg would be better as it shows more that just two characters ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the Wikipedia one would be better (there aren't many strips that don't contain Peter or Jason). The one you propose is so small that it is difficult to tell what the characters look like. However, I think it is reasonable to include one of them and that should be left to the talk page as to which one should be included. I like a single strip as a sample of what it looks like, but I certainly could understand others wanting all the characters (even if it is from a compilation book cover). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A-Batt BQ Bowl Champions 2000-2001.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A-Batt BQ Bowl Champions 2000-2001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm. Take it to the image discussion page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take what? Also, if this is what you call me when you're calm, try not interacting with me when you're not. --Damiens.rf 22:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take the discussion to the talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LogicalDOC logo

Dear BQZip01, many thank for having edited the Ldoc_logo.png logo page because now it looks like very better. In your opinion can i use this image in the article LogicalDOC? Sprmw7 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha! In fact you can use it anywhere you want on WP. If you need any additional help, drop me a line. As a rookie, you probably don't know, but new posts usually go on the bottom of talk pages. In any case, welcome! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excuse i didn't know it, thanks for the advise. Sprmw7 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clock showing 9 to 6.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clock showing 9 to 6.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijan circa 1920.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Azerbaijan circa 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OSU flag fix.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSU flag fix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beat army.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beat army.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:American flag vertical shorter.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:American flag vertical shorter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:American flag vertical.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:American flag vertical.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My God, help me to survive this deadly love

Hi. This article is due for deletion again. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since I don't know that anything's been done with it since it came back. :) I'm letting User:Roscelese, who also requested a shot at it, know as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edit on WP:AN

This edit broke the thread. You have a coherent comment, and then there is a fragment of something tacked on to the end of the thread. I reverted it; could you please take a look and fix whatever it was you were trying to say and then repost it? Horologium (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation blocks

"Annotation blocks" such as what you proposed [2] appear to be controversial. See this AN/I discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Please try to be more civil in discussions. "He must either be incompetent or intentionally disruptive" are not the only options when people disagree with you. Insinuating that I can't read is also ridiculous and uncivil. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I insinuate that you could not read. Please get your facts right. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 18:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. "Before you answer, you'll probably want to read what it says (potentially for the first time, given your input above)..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely sure that I wasn't just suggesting that you hadn't read a particular policy rather than that you were unable to read in general? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on the subject of not reading pages, you seem to think that I received no 'positive' comments on my editor review. So I'll assume that you accidentally failed to notice them. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know I've read that policy, it's the only thing remaining. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you think that the comment you quoted above implied that you were illiterate, despite it containing a suggestion that you read something? ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 19:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, all you want is a discussion in which you constantly berate others. Not interested. Buh bye. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Sorry, TT – I mistakenly accused you of making a personal attack when you in fact did not," ? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Fine. You are willing to argue the most inane points. For the sake of ending this, you didn't say I couldn't read. There! Happy? Still leaves your other insults. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Just so you're aware, you've now removed the collapse-template of your off-topic abuse three times, and would do well to read WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK before doing it again. Also, take this as an ANI-notice. ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 22:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere there is a pot and kettle deprived of someone calling them black. You would be well to read your own editor review. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you don't like my comments, don't read them and don't respond to them. If I ask someone else a question, it is, by definition, quite rude to answer for them. I get that you think the image should be removed. Your relentless snide/rude remarks are WAY out of line. There's a reason your ANI request went absolutely nowhere. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"Buffs"? Oh, and I like your photo - a rare snapshot of Ryan Dunn's dashboard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Buffs (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Buffs" mean anything in particular? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Fire me an e-mail and I'll let you know (just get a throw-away account on yahoo or google or something). I'd like to keep it low key for a while. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if it's confidential I'll just leave it be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I have responded to your request for information here – ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952

Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 13:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aggie Bonfire.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aggie Bonfire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sregor Ylloj. You may, if you wish, add comments there. Otherwise, let the investigation take its own course. Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Buffs, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Buffs/FBS Trademarked logos. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not copyrighted, so I removed its FUR and restored it to your page, Buffs. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of image

Hi, would you edit File:88_bonfire.jpg to add some information on how can anyone interested verify the source information about that photo? Please, take that as honest as it can be and avoid any excessive sarcasm that would burn anyone's time. Thanks, --damiens.rf 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found it under the Cushing Library archives, but they have since reshuffled their archives and put them on Flickr. I cannot seem to find it right now, but I'll look into it and find a link as soon as I can (IRL issues are pressing). Buffs (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft

Thanks & sorry he deleted your comments. I'm happy that the item he removed was put back in by a member of Wikiprojects Radio Stations! The strange thing is tho that I couldn't make heads or tails about his thoughts about the very rationale he used to delete that image in the first place because his thoughts read like he wasn't for it! Weird! Thanks for your support & comment! Did he ever reply to my question?Stereorock (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't respond really. HS continues to make edits like a robot. He is intentionally ignorant on copyright law and acts primarily on what's on the image summary page. He will not make corrections even if he bothers to notice them because "that's not my responsibility"...but somehow he's taken it upon himself to make image removals his responsibility (yet it's also not his responsibility). In any case, the image cited needs to have the rationales removed, a simple image summary added, and {{PD-Pre1978}} & {{trademark}} templates added. Short version, the packaging didn't comply with copyright law at the time (no visible copyright notice), ergo, it became public domain the instant it was "published". Buffs (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Fastily#Review

I received this message from Damiens.rf today. As a user who participated in this debate, perhaps you might like to comment. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, but it looks like a WP:POINTy comment. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Buffs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:88 bonfire.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:88 bonfire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia makes headlines for its reliability. Again.

I was just wondering if you realised that this edit violates the BLP policy, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Where BLP does and does not apply? It is an unsourced derogatory remark. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a BLP violation. The headlining article addressed in this thread specifically comments on the poor journalism standards regarding the Toronto star and this editor in particular. The fact that he didn't verify his sources is indisputable; to call such actions "third-rate" is just as accurate as and synonymous with using the term "lazy" (as it was mentioned in the article). Buffs (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I didn't realize you changed your name. I was just curious to see how everyone was doing. As for me, well the economy stinks. . . . You might want to change your name on the Wikiproject. Best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page

I have repeatedly asked you to stay off of my talk page. Twice within the last month you have ignored that request and insisted on posting to my talk page. STOP IT. Stay off of my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own your talk page. Refusing to talk about issues will not help the situation.
Perhaps if you stopped making life difficult for others for no reason, I'd be able to. Twice in the past month, you've given people VERY bad advice and these incidents, plus others, show that you continue to cause unnecessary problems on WP. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't want to deal with images that qualify under {{pd-textlogo}}, then feel free to pass those images my way if they are even close. I'll happily help. However, if your traack record is any indication, you will continue to fail to make any sort of call on such images and just treat all images as if they violate NFCC criteria. Use some common sense. Buffs (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is here. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does have the right to ask you to refrain from posting there ... and you do have a requirement to pay attention to that. If you have something that is truly bad enough to discuss there, then you'll need to have someone else who has noticed the same severe issue do it, or request admin assistance when needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed, noted, and ignored in this case and one other. 2 edits in 6 months isn't "harassment". If it is, I'd prefer you talk to others who have been plaguing my talk page. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..oh trust me, I never suggested there was harassment. I have stated that "stay off my talkpage" is a valid request in this situation, so please do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and extend BW's comments. If Hammer has asked you to stay off Hammer's talk page, then you should do so. If you "must" say something to Hammer for some reason - this should be quite infrequent - ask someone else to post to Hammer's talk page. I would consider blocks for repeated violation of such talk-page bans. As far as I recall I know nothing of either of you. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a "talk page ban", but if you are going to start blocking based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, let me know so I can get some popcorn ready...you aren't an admin, so how exactly are you going to block me? Buffs (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Could you explain? (And yes, I am an admin here; this is my alt account.) Gimmetoo (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...didn't know that. Buffs (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice below that you got blocked and then I unblocked you. As long as you stay off Hammer's page, you will likely stay unblocked. But you should notice that a few editors are already displeased with your arguments for the "right" to post to the talk page. WP:UP says clearly that "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests"; even if you don't act against that, if you continue arguing against it, you might still end up reblocked. And from my perspective, you should avoid even making the customary notices (like ANI notices). Get someone else to do it, should the situation arise. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting randomly, all this blocking stuff hadn't happened when I formulated my comment, but I got distracted archiving my own talk page. This will be my original thought: Buffs, if you feel that HS may be misleading another editor, you can advise that other editor on their own talk page of your own interpretation of policy and procedure (or of course fix the problem yourself) within your own area of specialty, namely PD-text logos. If you are addressing the policy-compliance issues as opposed to personality or editing-approach issues, I don't see a problem. And I don't see any problem either if you work off posts to someone else's talk page or by reviewing another's edits to identify instances where you can help - so long as you are improving the 'cyclo, not just furthering an ongoing dispute, which is what formal WP:DR is for. If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, yes, it's not a truly absolute prohibition, but you have to confine your posts to those that are truly necessary project-wise, things like ANI notices and friendly heads-up type stuff (and if you can explain to a newbie why an editor you normally oppose is right in that one case, I've never seen that taken ss harassment either). There's no use trying to educate someone who refuses to learn, and that very much applies both ways between you two. Now I'm going to read up on what has happened between when I wrote this and when I commit it. :) Franamax (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short version summary:

WP:OWN applies equally to all pages...unless some admins are your friends and you complain loudly enough. THEN you can exert ownership of any of your own talk pages on a whim and get people blocked based solely upon your own personal desires. Seriously. Even Jimbo allows anyone to edit his page and objects to it being locked or people being blocked for making honest queries/criticism on his talk page.
Admins can block people as they please. There are times when common sense dictates something not in the rules, but those should be appropriately discussed and then implemented, not acted upon by a single rogue admin. The fact that this block was overturned almost immediately is a perfect example of how wrong it was to block in the first place.

This whole incident makes me question the members of the admin guild. Buffs (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in re damiens

add to the list nominating a book article for deletion, in order to justify deletion of book cover image. [3] apparantly pushing a political pov.

fwiw, you might be interested in User:Slowking4/Image Rescue Squadron Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a policy or guideline to back you up on that? Buffs (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey i am strictly following the NFCC policy, and the Image Usage policy. keep in mind that damiens conduct is not enforcement of policy, but vindictive mass deletion of an editor's uploads. (user:timeshift9); i then rescued two of them, and then damien in bad faith nominated an article, in order to justify deletion of the image. he did not prevail.

it's important to highlight how these editors misrepresent policy to bully others. they will stoop to any argument, and thereby disgrace themselves. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I just wanted to see what was around that part. Please take note of the below suggestion by MQS. Buffs (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 31 hours

Just to remind you, you may use the {{unblock|''your comment here''}} template to request unblock. I would comment that I have performed this sanction to stop you disrupting the project caused by your arguing that your perception of your rights over-rides the advice of other parties, some of them of much experience. When you feel you are capable of convincing a reviewing admin that you are willing to abide by consensus (that a request not to post on a user talkpage by that account should be complied with) of experienced contributors, then you might consider requesting unblock. Or... you can wait out this sanction and then see if your particular perception of how collegiate interactions should be managed has gained favour. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to dispute this block. Buffs has not posted to Hammer's talk page since Hammer's request, and in my opinion it would have taken a few posts before a block would have been in order anyway. Buffs has not even edited in half an hour and is likely away-from-keyboard. Buffs should be able to discuss the issue at ANI when Buffs returns. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to lift the block, then I have no objection. I would point out, in direct response to the above, that the block is not for posting again on Hammersoft's page, or even for saying that they may do so in the future if so inclined; the sanction is for disrupting the project by attempting to wikilawyer the consensus of each commentator to this discussion. If you still believe that the sanction is inappropriate as a means of enforcing WP:Consensus, then you should take the action you feel necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving my ANI comments here. Yes, I know how you phrased it, and that's why I object. You appear to have blocked Buffs to stop Buffs from discussing at ANI. It seems to me a very bad practice to block editors for questioning the "consensus" - because sometimes the "consensus" is wrong. We should be grateful when editors make policy arguments as clearly as they are able, not block them for it. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the "blocked Buffs to stop Buffs being discussed" point - the discussion regarding Buffs apparent disinclination to follow fairly established practice (and enshrined in guideline per the section just under WP:UP#CMT) may continue if desired. Further, if Buffs wants to see a change in Wikipedia:Userpage then they can discuss it once their privileges are restored. In the meantime, if you feel that my response to their wikilawyering is inappropriate then please do as you feel is correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked pretty much concurrently with your last post. As long as Buffs avoids Hammer's talk page, I don't see a problem with the discussion you call wikilawyering. I have no objection to a reblock if Buffs makes an inflammatory post to Hammer's page, or any "repeated" posts to Hammer's talk page (ie, 2 or more of any sort in the next few weeks). That also means, from my perspective, that Buffs should not to post routine notices, like the customary ANI notices, on Hammer's page, but should ask someone else to do so should that situation arise. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that unblock. The block was appropriate and highly agreeable to common sense. What is supposed to be the point of posting on the talkpage of a user who doesn't want you to, and then going on and on wikilawyering about how it's your inalienable right to do that? What effect is that supposed to have, beyond aggravating the user and wasting the community's time? Bishonen | talk 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(@Gimmetoo)No problem. I also hope that Buffs notes that arguing over the semantics of one interpretation of a viewpoint may result in unfortunate consequences and that good advice should best heeded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(@Bishonen) I invoke WP:BRD! If Buffs stays off Hammersofts talkpage and becomes more inclined to listen to the voices of many, then the matter is moot. If they do not... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Buffs observes the guideline in practice, and doesn't post to the page of the user who doesn't want it, what does it matter? The so-called wikilawyering in this case should be answered by referring to the guideline, and then ignored. The block here seemed to me likely to inflame the user more. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with an unblock, though it should have been discussed with LessHeard first, but so long as Buffs refrains from harrassment, then the unblock is fine. Should Buffs revert to harrassment again, they should be blocked immediately. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblock, "too argumentative" is a thin basis, especially for comments at AN/I where the normal mode is "argue to the max", where a discussion is ongoing and without solid consensus, and the provoking actions have not been repeated - such admin action is reversible with comment only at the ongoing discussion. Misunderstanding of project norms should be met with education, not blocking. Franamax (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-freakin'-men, Franamax! To pile on "project norms" should be documented as policy/guidelines, not arbitrarily enforced on admin whims. Buffs (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What effect is that supposed to have, beyond aggravating the user and wasting the community's time?" If you will notice that the post was deleted (which I consider "read when removed" IAW WP:USER). If HS had done nothing else, I wouldn't have given it much of a second thought. HAMMERSOFT elevated this and wasted the community's time, but I see no sort of admonition on him...oh wait, could it be that my blocker takes HS's side in all discussions we've had? He's involved and shouldn't have been one to block in the first place. This is an act of intimidation, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on Hammersoft's talkpage when you had been asked not to, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Userpage, and then tried to wikilawyer your way out of every commentator confirming you were in the wrong - to the point that you previously questioned the admin who unblocked you whether they had the flags to sanction you. I note that you are still arguing from a basis of ignorance, since previous admin actions in respect of a party does not make a sysop involved. My actions were solely in regard to the disruption you were creating by your responses to the request that you do not post on their talkpage. If you have issues with Hammersoft then take them to the appropriate venue and have someone else provide Hammersoft with the notice - I also suggest that you carefully read up on policy and attempt to comprehend it before opinionating, and to take note of what other editors comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...so, I'm within my "rights" to demand that everyone who wants to use my talkpage make all posts in limerick form? Otherwise, I have a right to bring them to ANI and have them blocked?

I know for a fact that policy states I am allowed to do what I did. However, I did refrained from posting at any point after ANI was begun. We were having a discussion and, just because you disagreed with me, you blocked me. WP:USERPAGE is a guideline and therefore, is no required to be comlied with. WP:OWN is a policy and cannot be overridden by a guideline. I keep noticing that people who accuse others of "wikilawyering" often don't know Wikipedia policies and guidelines and want to "rule" by enforcing their OWN ideas via WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey this is great, where do i go to block all those people tag spamming my talk page? clearly the "enforcement of rules" is a subtefuge to justify disrupting other people's work. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the newbs

In the same vein as WP:NewbieGuide, might you consider writing a very basic guideline essay for newcomers to introduce them into the world of images and copyright on Wikipedia? Something that could instruct on just what kind of images are allowed and what kind are not, and how they might best determine which Use Rationale to use and how? And to include help links if they have questions or problems? What I noticed in my own early days here is the use of technical in-house patois that can sometimes confuse more than enlighten. Couched for newcomers in the simplest terms, it could be a great help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT idea! I'll see what I can whip up. Buffs (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge and willingness to make Wikipedia a welcome place for newcomers should result in a very decent essay. I only stress simplicity and avoidance of wikispeak. As newcomers become more confident, they will naturally move on. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fl intl.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fl intl.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simple Circle.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simple Circle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football Helmets

Thanks for the information. I will try to insure the helmets have free logos and load them to Commons. Perhaps this will satisfy the requirements that only free images be used. (Even though I realize that is not strictly true.)SGT141 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate athletics logos

I recall that you were a participant in the Great College Sports Logo Debate of 2009. Do you recall the resolution? Was it agreed in the end that a free (trademarked but non-copyrightable) logo exists for every team? I've hunted around and found bits and pieces of the debate, but not the resolution.

Also, would you be interested in moving User:Buffs/FBS Trademarked logos into projectspace at WP:CFB, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Free logos or something like that? If not, I'll probably go ahead and copy it there, with an attribution note. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was part of that Great Debate, but there was no real resolution. However, a simple workaround was effectively created by coming up with list of trademarked (yet free) equivalents. I have no objection whatsoever to copying the page I have there (It's all released under GDFL anyway)), but I would request that you leave my user page intact. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why I couldn't remember the resolution! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-43A discussion update

plz see Talk:Boeing T-43 thx, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tb

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:A Primer for newcomers#Nice work!.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Longhorn logo

The article you're pointing to to try to justify the logo as being in 1913 clearly only calls out the name "Longhorns" as being adopted then, nothing about the logo. But on this article [4], though the logo was officially adopted in 1961 , it appears to have been used before.

Because of the number of articles/templates this affects, I've put up the logo for discussion (not deletion) at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, only to fairly establish if it is free (due to previous use before 1961) or non-free. It's not a clearcut case and needs consensus to discuss. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mt king ^(edits) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mt king ^(edits) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:360training wikimaster/360training.com

Hi Buffs,

User:360training wikimaster has reconstructed his article in the above userspace. I have tagged it for speedy deletion under G11, as a violation of WP:UP#PROMO. Admittedly, I hadn't seen the extensive discussion on his talkpage at the time, however I still believe speedy deletion is the appropriate action having reviewed the block/unblock history. 360training wikimaster does not appear to have followed your suggestions: his username (the original reason for his block) is unchanged and the article is still grossly promotional. Since you're mentoring him in regards to this, could I ask you to take a look when you have the opportunity, please?

Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 10:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Bwilkins has deleted the page. Yunshui 雲水 10:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, I came here because it appears you're mentoring them: the user doesn't get it. No insult to you, but his intent is clear: promote his organization. He then makes a very very late comment about asking to change his username - not at WP:CHU but on his userpage. At this point, no matter what his userid, he's effectively been given a de facto topic ban on any phrase containing "360training", even if he is unblocked to request a username change. Spam is spam is spam is spam (baked beans, tomato and spam). He's blocked accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

You might like to review WP:TPNO for what is and is not appropriate for an article talk page. Commenting on other editors, especially with such comments as "You have NO idea" and "You are being dickish", is not appropriate and might even lead to your editing privileges being restricted. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you might like to review WP:CIVIL and grow a thicker skin. My comments are about your behavior, not you personally. If you are questioning whether this incident is notable, I believe it to be a fair assessment that you have no idea what you are talking about. I did a simple Google search and found a dozen reliable sources from coast to coast to support every assertion. Your actions are what I take issue with, not you personally. I don't know you from Adam, but your actions are also disruptive. This is a collaborative work and I do not believe you are actually collaborating. Instead you are using "rules" to bludgeon and tear apart articles which are true, but just need a little bit of work. Instead of assuming good faith, it seems to me that you are assuming the opposite. Just because an article needs more sources or the sources aren't ideal, it doesn't mean they aren't true. Instead removing 8 paragraphs of information, try doing a simple google search to see if the article simply needs more/better sources. On top of that, you need to understand what a reliable source is. Reliable doesn't mean it is completely and totally separated from the subject. If the U.S. government claims a debt of $23.69 trillion, it's a reliable source even if it comes from the Bush or Obama administration (depends on your political persuasion). Likewise, just because something is from an autobiography, it doesn't make it untrue or "not verifiable". Random House is a known reliable publisher. Additionally, you could have simply altered the phrasing to include phrases like "Kelly Flinn claims..." or "According to her autobiography..."

To be completely transparent, I am in the squadron she was in. My previous Wing Commander flew with Mrs Flinn. I personally don't think much of her, but that doesn't mean the information is incorrect. Please try to rework and alter before deleting wholesale works. Buffs (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair rule of thumb that when people say "grow a thicker skin" they mean that they were rude but don't care.
"Just because an article needs more sources or the sources aren't ideal, it doesn't mean they aren't true." Maybe so, but the question is what we include in the encyclopedia. Meditate on "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
"I ... found a dozen reliable sources ... to support every assertion" -- that this is quite untrue. See the article talk page for details. What you did was to insert a bunch of urls into every paragraph apparently oblivious to whether they supported the assertions or not (in one particularly egregious case you used a news story dated before the event it allegedly described). Don't do that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. No it isn't; perhaps you might want to fill this out. Life is tough out there. Wear a mental cup.
2. I'm not going to meditate on ANYTHING in WP, but since you brought it up, the threshold is indeed verifiability. Since these claims could clearly be identified and referenced, they were indeed verifiable...though I'm sure next you are going to go on a spiel about the sources again. You could have rephrased or added references and, instead of making the information more accurate /in-line with the references, you said, "I can't be bothered to do that sort of menial work. I'm going to delete it." Just because you have this elitist attitude doesn't make what you did right.
3. I said I found a dozen sources. I didn't say those were necessarily the ones I added.
4. Lastly, if you'd spent even a third of the time fixing mistakes/cleaning up/etc that you do on tearing down the work of others, you'd make WP a much better place. Buffs (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I spent some otherwise productive time cleaning up the mistakes that you made in sourcing this article, your comments seem somewhat beside the point. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I spent some otherwise productive time cleaning up the mistakes that you made..." <sigh> THIS is the problem I have with your elitist views of how WP operates. Cleaning up references is productive and improves WP. If you'd just done that from the beginning, then we wouldn't have wasted all this time on various talk pages. Buffs (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about what's going on here. You added material with citations that, for the reasons I have already mentioned, were at best negligent, and I fixed them. You are now trying to spin this into somehow being the result of my having an "elitist" attitude. It is in fact due to the contempt you display for Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability and sourcing. If you truly hold the view that this policy is somehow a bureaucratic nicety or my personal whim, then your time here is likely to be both unhappy and short. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother to respond to all of this, but here are the high points:

You view work toward improving sources/editing articles as nonproductive and apparently beneath you. That isn't what WP is all about. We are collaborative, not bureaucratic. WP:IAR is a policy too.
I'm well aware of policy and have 4 FAs to my name that were featured on the main page. Don't lecture me.
I do not take issue with the policy itself, but your interpretation of it and view your attempts to use it as a bludgeoning tool as highly inappropriate. You can be 100% in the right and still be disruptive. Users have been blocked for that.
You seem extremely well-versed in WP for someone who's been around for only a few months. I find it highly unlikely that you are this new.

Buffs (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my contribution record, which consists in great part of adding references and well-sourced material.
If you blatantly disregard policy you will have to put up with having it explained to you.
Glad to hear you have no issue with our core policies. Adding bogus references is disruptive and users have been blocked for that too.
Like you, this is not my first account. What difference would that make?

Additional. I don't think anything new or productive is emerging here, so I'll take this page off my watchlist. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not your first account, eh? Ever read WP:SOCK? Buffs (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:JCDenton2052 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JCD, you have to be kidding me. Your entire post was simply taunting (and in fact isn't even actually true...Texas has cancelled ALL sporting events with Texas A&M after this year under the guise "we just can't fit them in" when, in fact they certainly can fit them in. Furthermore, the Aggies have an "any time, any place" standing request for a game) and was not encyclopedic. Don't give me BS that it was an abuse of anything. Buffs (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Copyright

Hi Buffs, you told me that if I needed assistance with tagging the logos for a school I should contact you. Could you please verify that I have correctly tagged the following photo? File:W.O.Mitchell_School_Logo.gif
Thanks, Amarite1 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Excellent work! Buffs (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Iran in US

Template:PD-Iran in US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Letters Patent

Template:PD-Letters Patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hi Buffs. Sorry you had some trouble. I hope that you are well and that you will remember you can always ask me for help if you need it. Warm regards, --John (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bro. Buffs (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

This RfC discussing the above issue may be of interest to you. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this I saw your final point at the TfD and somewhat agree with you - I will be honest and say I missed what you were getting at to begin with. I still believe that the template at TfD was a misrepresentation of (existing policy) as it did not mention that we shouldn't use them and were doing so as quasi-fair use, but I also agree that labelling them copyrighted is wrong. If things stay as they currently are we're going to need some work on a template that describes everything sensibly. If on the other hand we decide we can simply use such images when every we want (i.e. not treat them as copyright) then we can restore your template in it's current form. Dpmuk (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuppers. I'm writing that now. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Military History introduction

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator
Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it down a notch

Hi, I too was harassed by a user (for years) so I can sympathies with your frustration with the site - probably better than most. I understand my opposition to your proposal upsets you. I am not commenting at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights in opposition to your proposal to upset you. My remarks are entirely based on issues commons and I dealt with back in 2006. I was among the people who was most displeased with the removal of so many decent images, particularly images from the Soviet space program. Unfortunately it is a matter of how copyright law works in practice which is very different from any other law.

That said I hope to work with you because you clearly are a motivated wikipedian and I hope our disagreement doesn't reduce your motivation.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense is taken! I have no issue with your voicing your opinion. That's what makes WP good and America so great (not sure exactly where you are from, but WP works within the states, so we at least take advantage of its freedom). Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't get along. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. Constant harassment can lead to a lot of stress so I was not sure if I was adding to it - something I want to avoid. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. No issues. You are expressing your ideas in a public forum and you aren't being disrespectful, so I see no issues here. I may disagree with you or think your ideas are wrong/off-base, but that doesn't mean you can't express them. As a matter of fact, I took an oath to protect those freedoms. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

You say "Europe made some changes when the EU formed and some things that were public domain suddenly re-became copyrighted and, yes, the US does recognize those copyright claims."

I was under the impression that pre 1924 work published in the US is PD, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you are correct. However, it should be noted that, even though it is PD in the US, it may not be so elsewhere (i.e. Mexico uses 100 years from the death of the author!). That's effectively the problem we are facing in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

My comment was directed more at the issues regarding the signing of certain treaties which re-enacted copyrights for works that were previously PD, such as those that fell under old {{PD-Soviet}} tags. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am faced with a similar dilemma concerning collective works which we have blanket-assumed to be PD due to their age, Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Bryan.27s_Dictionary_of_Painters_and_Engravers is the appropriate thread. Individual contributors may have inconsiderately survived to the mid or late 1940s or 195os, and hence thier works still be in copyright. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Aggie

No, not an Aggie. Not a grad of any SMC, though I've served with grads of all of them. Ocalafla (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your most recent edit ("US News & World Report ranked A&M as their highest of the SMCs") is accurate, by the way. Given US News' bizarre categorizations, it is tough to make apples-to-apples comparisons. A&M's 58th ranking in the "National University" category is, of course, clearly higher than Virginia Tech's 71st in the same category. But, how does it compare to VMI's 71st in the "National Liberal Arts College" category or The Citadel's 5th in the "Regional Universities (South)" category?

I have no dog in this fight at all; I've been impressed with grads from all these SMCs that I've served with. Just want to make sure the great rivalries that exist between these schools don't prevent accurate info from appearing on wikipedia. Ocalafla (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my buddies from A&M is from Ocala and since you removed a reference that had an A&M spot in it...well, I thought you might be him.

As for the reference, you are right that we should include what they are 71st in. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Olds

Got a hires unsigned version of the portrait from the USAFA library...I'll upload it. – Connormah (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broader discussion on international copyrights

I fully support your last point, but can I suggest you post it somewhere else on the page, with an appropriate heading etc - it is liable to get lost in the current sub-sub-sub-section.Babakathy (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

For being WP:CIVIL in a protracted discussion. Babakathy (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I forgot to get breakfast this morning... Buffs (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan Copyright Law

You may want to take a look at the ongoing discussion about it. Afghanistan does have a copyright law it turns out. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the line right above the "Copy Right" note:

"Following conditions will apply when Afghanistan becomes a signatory of international copyright agreements" Buffs (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added that line actually. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

SR-71 comment

Buffs, Thanks for your note on my talk page, but although I have written several parts of the Blackbird article ( Inlets, ANS, Sensors, Simulator, etc. ) and explanations on the Talk page, I have to admit I don't know all the rules and I don't know how to repost the Simulator section. Please do as you wish and thanks for your EWO time. You might be interested that my last 2 1/2 years at Wright-Patterson AFB before retiring in 1980 was that of the EW SPO Director. Hope this comes through on your Talk page, David

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 01:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Baltimore Ravens Alternate Logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Baltimore Ravens Alternate Logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cincinnati text logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cincinnati text logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clemson text logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clemson text logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Files for deletion and your delete suggestion

Howdy. With regards to this FfD, I'm curious why you suggested that image be deleted with the reasoning of "copyrighted"? It appears to me that the uploader is the copyright holder and uploaded it under an ok license.--Rockfang (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel page

Thanks for your work and help pointing out areas needing improvement at The Citadel and for your patience in the dispute that you helped moderate. It is very much appreciated. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can. Thanks for the praise. I really hope we can make The Citadel a featured page. Buffs (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, take a look at my edit to The Citadel article. I tried to preserve your great clarification to my earlier edit while updating the ranking info from 2011 to 2012.Not sure I'm quite there, though. I also tried to take into account concerns expressed by anonymous ip editor. Ocalafla (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Buffs (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, thanks for adding in that reference. I couldn't find anything anywhere. Ocalafla (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Buffs. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Faulkner & the Citadel

You removed all reference to Shannon Faulkner, the female cadet who resigned from the Citadel, creating a scandal at the Citadel and garnering national attention. Was there an explicit reason for doing so, or was that an accident? Are you willing to replace the text referencing her tenure there? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about what you are referencing. Perhaps noting the diff would help. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff from late March. The section has been re-worded and shuffled back in, but I'm of the opinion that the Shannon Faulkner incident was high-profile enough that it may merit its own section. As I recall, her acceptance at the school was under duress and in deference to federal funding. Her departure was high-profile, garnered national attention, and forced some radical changes at the school. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you will note in the edit summary, I removed it as a violation of WP:BLP. Anything referencing a living person must have a reliable source as we could be sued for liable/slander. I believe a sourced addition on the subject is certainly worth mentioning, but as it didn't have proper referencing, it absolutely had to go. This was not a point of negotiation. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly BLP trumps, but removing all reference to Faulkner from the article fails to thread the needle. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no needle to thread here. This isn't fine stitching. It is black & white: if it doesn't meet the requirements, it has to go, period. I already said I supported inclusion, it's just that it needed a reliable source. This is the way WP works. Buffs (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs & TreacherousWays, forgive me for intruding on your conversation on Buffs' Talk Page and tell me to butt out if you want. It sounds like you're both in agreement that some Faulkner mention is appropriate. FWIW, I agree. I also agree that it needs to be properly sourced. I don't think this should be a problem; as TreacherousWays notes, this was high-profile, so there should be no lack of sources. Any volunteers? :) Ocalafla (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've always noted (from the deletion to now) I concur, it is worth mentioning and is apropos for the article given the level of coverage involved. I have no objection to a wholesale revert of what I did and throw in a website (we can detail the source in a proper bibliography later). However, this is not the issue at hand though. TW seems to take umbrage at my actions, which I have taken more time to explain than it would take to probably find a source. I can appreciate this effort to make sure people are improving the encyclopedia and not just deleting stuff. I've criticized others over the same actions. In my case, I only had a few moments to spare and fixed what I could at the time. Others have since edited it and restoration as-it-was is no longer possible.

EVERYONE is welcome on my talk page for whatever reason (as long as you aren't a banned user). Buffs (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon; I took no umbrage. I feel that Faulkner's inclusion is important, and wanted to know for what reason it was removed. "Threading the needle" referred to describing a notable incident without violating BLP. Faulkner has her own WP entry which I haven't closely examined. The entry may handle the BLP issues, or it might be worthwhile to look at merging the two because her notability is tied inextricably to her court battle with and brief tenure at the Citadel. If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to continue this on the article talk page. I breached the subject here because I was worried that it might be a point of contention. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. and no offense taken. The talk page is probably best but you are welcome to return here any time. Buffs (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces
Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War
Interview: Article writers discuss biographies
Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSU logo

Hiya Buffs, I just caught this edit, and I wanted to ask you about it. I'm sure you're far more knowledgeable about files and copyright than I am, but can you explain this to me a bit? It seems extremely odd that an image like this would be PD... Cheers, (and please check your email) -- Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The image itself meets the criteria for current copyright guidelines. However, when it was originally first published in 1976, it did not have a copyright symbol nor did the University register a copyright for the image at any time since. Since they have failed to do so, it falls into the public domain. That is NOT to say that it is free of any sort of restrictions (it IS a registered trademark) and as such, we can use it when identifying the FSU, but not for a profit (well, at least not without financial compensation). There's other restrictions involving trademarks, but they are a separate issue from copyright concerns and whether an image is PD or not. Buffs (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense, provided that the link you gave on the file description page is enough to prove all that (I'll take your word there). I do have one more question though about that nicely frightening-looking template that says "[I am] solely responsible for ensuring that [I] do not infringe someone else's trademark." You're saying that as long as I don't use it for profit, it can be treated as any other free image on Wikipedia, right? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That language is basically Wikipedia's legal opinion on the matter. It's already been agreed upon by both the users of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. For more specifics, see: Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Trademarks Buffs (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it...thanks for the help! Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NP! Buffs (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign
Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion
Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications
Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cadets

Hello Buffs, it's not that I do not like the cadets. I have no opinion about them actually except that they are a subgroup in the student body. Please, don't say that I took down the pictures because I do not like the cadets. They are just students like the rest. I have taken interest in the A&M article because I am now associated with the school. I have now realized that the singing cadets is purely a musical group. I think it is hard to dispute that there is still a disproportionately high number of cadet pictures on the article. From the point of view of a person who might look at the article for the first time, the high number of uniforms can give the wrong idea. Nothing wrong with the uniforms, except that so many on the article does not represent the reality on campus. I still think we should downgrade the number of cadet pictures.

I'll repeat this just to try to be clear. It's not about liking this or disliking that. I just want the article to reflect A&M as much as possible. For example, I would like to article to emphasize a bit more the research status and economic impact of the university. I think that overall the article is great. But there are lots of outdated facts. Recently I updated the research expenditure and endowment numbers.

Please, let me know your thoughts. --Yousowiki (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disagree that there are a disproportionate number of cadet images in the article. By my count, there are 20 pictures in the article (23 if you count the 3 logos). Of those, only three feature cadets in any meaningful way (a picture of a cadet that's only a pixel wide doesn't count). Given that they represent roughly 4 percent of the student population, that percentage works out darned close. It should also be noted that 2 of the three pictures are in the section about the Corps and the last one is in a section about traditions...I think we'd be remiss in our WP editing duties to leave out a picture of cadets in all of the traditions sections considering how they are involved in them. It should also be noted that the section about notable Aggies includes an image of a soldier not a cadet. If you think that the Medal of Honor recipients don't deserve mention/a picture, I think we may disagree on a LOT more.

This doesn't mean that I don't respect non-regs (hell, I married one!), but I don't think your opinion is representative of the image the University portrays nor at the brute statistical level. Likewise, cadets are roughly 20% of the on-campus students and are highly visible at virtually any event. I remember standing in the rain at Silver Taps and EVERY member of the corps was there except those on duty in the Guard room. There were probably a few hundred non-regs. My point is not that "we're better" merely that the corps IS more visible both by choice and by design. I don't think 3 photos is asking too much. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a non reg myself, I don't think that there are too many corps pictures on the page. I think that there aren't enough non-reg pictures. Unless people want to put their personal pictures on Wikipedia, there aren't too many public domain photos of non-regs out there. Taking a very non scientific peak at the universities Texas Tech and the University of Texas at Austin, I see they too don't have photos of everyday students on their pages. Oldag07 (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing you from adding such pictures by taking them yourself or browsing through Flickr and uploading those images with appropriate licensing. Feel free to add them at your discretion. Buffs (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Late 50s Aggie Bonfire.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Late 50s Aggie Bonfire.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude to nominate templates

Please see this edit for how to technically nominate templates for discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II
Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

SC State game

Only 10 touchdowns? The second and third-string Aggies running backs must have needed oxygen from doing all of those 100-yard windsprints yesterday. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did give the 3rd string women's golf team a chance to be part of the twelfth man... Buffs (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire
Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buffs/Hydric Acid

Buffs,

I added a {{Noindex}} to this page, as it was showing up as the first page of the Google search for that term. Users might have taken your article as an actual Wikipedia article, which would confuse them. I hope you don't mind. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I do mind. It's clearly a user page and, if anyone decides to be confused by it, they are far more likely to be confused by the previous pages on google search. This is really an example of how a perfectly accurate page can be misleading and it is intended to be as such. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have stepped into a hornets' nest here and I have no idea what the long-term history of this particular user-subpage might be or what harassment you've apparently endured, but I would suggest that characterizing a good-faith restoration of content by an uninvolved editor with your edit summary as "(rm commentary from banned editor)" seems to be incorrect. So far as I could tell, from looking at the editing history, the content that was deleted had been in place since 2010 and the editor who added it was not banned. In February 2012, this subpage was vandalized and was then subsequently restored by Rcsprinter123 a filemover/rollbacker editor. An IP editor deleted some content in August 2012 which I then restored in October 2012. Maybe you have some unnamed suspected DUCKs or socks in mind, but I see no banned editors in this chain of edits. Last time I checked, I know I was not. Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shearon, I could have phrased that removal better. The removed editorial comments were made by User:Nickgbruns whom I believe the be a throwaway account of banned user:TomPhan, a.k.a. User:GENIUS(4th power), a prolific sockpuppeteer with over 200 accounts to his name and another suspected 60. This user has harassed me in various venues and has publicly accused me of the murder of a fellow wikipedian (no, I'm not exaggerating...said user committed suicide and this user accused me of killing him and making it look like a suicide). He routinely made 1-2 posts per account and created a new one to avoid blocks. Suffice to say, I've had enough of his ilk. My comments were directed at his actions in line with WP:DUCK.

To be clear, my statement was NOT directed at User:Matthewrbowker or any of the editors mentioned by Shearon. I appreciate the query and will strive to make clearer edit summaries. Buffs (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffs, could I ask you as a favour to restore the {{noindex}} tag to keep the page from showing on search engine results? You and I know I'm aware of all that other history, but I think no-indexing is a different issue and a reasonable request to avoid a bigger discussion. Regards! Franamax (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add it again, but I'm still with Franamax. I wasn't aware there was a history for this page, but I actually added the tag at the request of another user who was confused by the article. Here is the thread. The user seems to have created an account to voice a concern about the page. And if someone goes through the trouble to voice a concern, you have to wonder how many people don't bother, or accept it as fact outright instead of as a user page (most people don't know what a "user page" is...). Again, I'm not going to do anything more, it's truly up to you if you want. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All, given the support for adding such a tag, I'm not wholly against adding it back, however, I am interested in why people are wanting this. "It shows up in search results" isn't a reason to exclude it from Google results. There is no provision for preventing user pages from showing up in search results (and I'd be opposed to any such mandated provision). Again, not against adding it, but if we are going to exclude things from search results, I think a better reason than "someone might think it's an actual article" or "someone might think it's a fact" is in order. WP already has disclaimers for such information. Additionally, there isn't anything in the article that isn't true (I fully admit it is misleading and intentionally omits details for the sake of illustration). Buffs (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There appears to be a discussion at AN in which you may be interested. The particular thread is User:TomPhan review. I am notifying you because of a link to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/GENIUS(4th power). --No unique names 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...and no friggin joke. That user name needs to be permablocked. This sort of BS has to stop at some point. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results
Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command
Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn fine football game

Howdy! I can only assume that you are somewhere large quantities of alcohol are being consumed in celebratory fashion. Congratulations on your kids' fine victory, and welcome to the conference. Your kids passed the final exam. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...my head...was that really all a dream? It wasn't?!?! WHOOOOOOOP!!!

...and thank you! :-) Buffs (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iowa Hawkeyes Logo.svg and others

Have you been relying on any source besides sportslogos.net in order to determine which logos are PD due to age and any lack of copyright notice? I've been doing some research the last few days and am questioning its reliability as a source for such information (and I see no indication there of any registration information or lack thereof). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been relying on that site for the first usage of the logo. I checked with the US copyright office's website and found no registration of copyright for said logo (or any others I labeled) as such. That is not to say that these are not trademarked (for which they are), but that trademark protections are different. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I have two follow-up points. First, with regards to the date of publication: How reliable is sportslogos.net? What source(s) are they relying upon? I've been looking into File:OSU beavers.gif and found a different site which seems to indicate that it came into use/was published in 1997 as opposed to 1986 as indicated on sportslogos.net and our article on the matter claims it was made in 2000. I'm not familiar enough with the sites or subject matter to determine which is actually correct nor have I yet found firm confirmation for any particular date.

Second, with regards to the copyright office: I would urge a more thorough investigative approach (either on your own or by seeking assistance from others) before retagging something as PD for reasons of no notice/registration. For instance, the creator of the Iowa's Tiger Hawk logo is Bill Colbert, who both registered the copyright and transferred it to the university. Similarly, Kansas State's PowerCat logo was created by Tom Bookwalter who both registered and transferred it to the university. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to address these each individually as each situation is unique.

Iowa's logo: Has been in the news in many differing circumstances, but in every trademark case, copyright is not mentioned a single time. Copyright violations are MUCH easier to prove and I find it highly unlikely that they would chose trademark courts over copyright. Moreover, they do not claim copyright, but explicitly claim and defend it as a registered trademark. That said, you have a valid point and, if this is the exact same logo, then you have the evidence you need. That said, I'm not seeing the representation of said logo in the links you provided. If it's the case, then indeed it needs to be removed as a PD image.
Kansas State logo: Same situation as above
Oregon State's logo: I too am confused as to the design on OSU, so given the references in the article, I'd say we should remove it as copyrighted.

As for checking the copyright notices, I do check and did my best. I regret any mistakes, but we can certainly change them. I don't think a rebuke is in order here. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand that you do check, I'm just trying to say that when it comes to copyright situations we should be particularly cautious about asserting that it's free when there's no positive proof as such (e.g. a clear denial of a registration number). Determining just how much research is required to provide evidence of absence is never easy.

With regards to Iowa and Kansas State (and other similar cases), there could be any number of reasons they choose to pursue trademark rather than copyright litigation ranging from the uncertainty of a fair use copyright defense to the risk of trademark genericization should they not pursue such cases.

Now the copyright office doesn't provide copies of registered works except to authorized parties or pursuant to litigation, so unless the universities explicitly claim the copyright for their logos like they do the trademark, we don't know for sure that it's the same work. That said, since the times, creators, and general description match up with the information in the news articles I linked to, I strongly feel we need to respect the probability that they are indeed copyrighted logos, for similar reasons to the precautionary principle on Commons and the wording at WP:PUF which calls for "proof that the file is indeed free". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been putting this off for a while now, but I do still think the other two images should be retagged as non-free to be on the safe side. If you wish I'll take them to a discussion at WP:PUF or WP:MCQ for some more opinions. Would you like me to start up a discussion about the images or can I simply retag them as non-free? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and retagged both of those images as non-free. I thought you might also want to know that I listed File:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 21 since I found some evidence that it too could be copyrighted.

On the free side of the coin, I found File:Kstate text logo.svg which is close but not quite the same as the text logo you have listed on your FBS logo page for Kansas State. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Gators football: "State Championships"

Your objective, third-party opinion is hereby requested: Talk:Florida Gators football#"State Championships". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invite, but the discussion is already one-sided...and I concur with that "one side". No need for additional input on this one. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12th Man (football) edits

The information on the page when I first found it this summer was somewhat inaccurate (dare I say hagiographic at times) and incomplete with respect to the context in which the phrase was used in the 1920s and 1930s. TheunUniv of Iowa edits were necessary to coorect the record.

In my most recent set of edits, it is important to note none of the events of Jan 2, 1922 are supported with citations from 3rd party accounts. Neither the Houston Post, Houston Chronicle of Dallas Morning News editions of 3 Jan 1922 mention the team being down to 11 players or Gill even being in the press box. Also there is no evidence to show Gill was a member of the team who left early to prepare for basketball season. The first 3rd party account of Gill's actions come from the Dallas Morning News July 16, 1942 which is why the description of Gill's role has been changed with the DMN article as a citation. If any earlier 3rd party accounts can be found, the information in that article should be considered for updating the entry.

As for the last paragraphs in the "History" section, it is important not to give the impression the term was applied to only one school, that being TAMU. There are other citations I can give for the term being applied to individuals including a Dallas area high school principal and in connection with a former Vanderbilt football player slain in WW1. Additionally, there are many instances I can offer for the term being applied to other fan bases. Since the predominant context given is to describe the TAMU fan base, adding how it was applied to the TAMU and Texas in connection with their rivalry game in 1938 adds much context to is widespread use during the 1920s and 1930s. Its use after the 1942 DMN article about Gill's WW2 service is unresearched. The next cited use of the term I know of is in the 1980s.

Much of the information on the phrase "12th Man" is unsupported by reputable citations and needs to be cited. I am attempting to do just this and will continue to edit or add context as I research further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just chat on your talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png

Being only a short drive away from the University of Arkansas campus, I see (and wear) the Razorback a lot. However, I must tell you that the version of the razorback logo we have on Wikipedia isn't in the public domain. You are correct that the razorback was on the helmet was from 1964, but changes were made from the 1967 logo (http://www.hogdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1967-2000-Razorback-Logo1.png) to the 2001 logo (as documented by http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2001-07-18-arkansas-logo.htm) that it will enjoy copyright protection. I am not going to call for the deletion of the image, but we need to have FURs for it again. However, hope is not lost for any kind of razorback logo usage. I recently located PDF copies of all of the Razorback logos, including textual ones (so we can use PD text), so if you can work me on this, that would be great. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you will note on [5] there arealternate logos that were in use during this timeframe (including the one you mentioned), but the design to which you are referring in the USAToday article is the current one (a 3D view, not a side view), not the one on the pages here, so, no it is not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is a bit suspect as a fan site, but I've tweaked the image accordingly. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The razorback that adorns the red football helmet will look slightly meaner, but otherwise will change little. Officials said they didn't want to make dramatic changes in the pig, which has adorned the helmet since 1964." So the helmet design was indeed changed so while the version from the 1960's is public domain, this is not. I also have to agree with an earlier poster here that the sportslogo page you cite for public domain usage should be used with caution. http://d3pczhwof661ii.cloudfront.net/downloads2/e35dd536-a500-48f1-8aba-74c83724fd9f_preview.jpg and http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SpuGRTzo_-A/T6HHL535ZoI/AAAAAAAAADE/JAN2KLgA1G4/s1600/nuttinbutfuntowel.jpg show the logo usage in the 1990's, and I still believe that we cannot claim the 2001 logo as public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a user talked to me off-site and mentioned the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case. It was mention that any type of updating or refreshing the logo where subtle changes were made will not enjoy the updated work to copyright status. If that is the case, I have vector logos of all University of Arkansas sports icons (and of the university) so if you want those, I can shoot you an email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (edit, Meshwerks v. Toyota also gives us ideas).[reply]

Ironholds makes a good argument that that case isn't as persuasive as it might have been, but ATC Distr. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. is closer. Nevertheless, the question is a question of fact ("does it meet the threshold of originality"), and might be arguable either way.

That said, I think that the changes are clearly de minimis and mostly a consequence of the move vector art. Since the new logo is clearly intended to be the same "razorback" as the older one, my opinion is that this does not cause a new copyright protection to exist. — Coren ^(talk) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coren on this one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art

http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/pdf8/849897.pdf here you go User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways
Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force

I have restored my edits which you reverted on Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. I had no choice, I had made more than one edit and your blanket revert gave little information other than claiming "POV". I'm not sure you examined my contributions because not only did I not introduce any new material or unsourced information but the entire passage had stood previously. I am able to explain each and every amendment I made but you need to ask me what the purpose was behind each one, unless you do this, I would be forced to publish a directory for you to find the alleged "POV" response. The very fact that my version contains fewer characters is justifiable is that it reduces clutter. Had I removed something by mistake (I believe I didn't because I checked), I would far rather you restored that particular piece. Naturally if it seems that I added something that is either POV or unsourced, your two options are to boldly remove the controversial part or to place a citation tag so that I may provide sources. Blanking of contributions however is not constructive, particularly in light of it having been a clean-up, designed to make more sense and not to be repetitive nor to send readers on a path of needless circumlocution. As the subject in question is one close to my area of knowledge, I am able to discuss this topic. Please enlighten me on what you believed to be POV so that I may either explain it or make further amendments to the page which I am quite happy to do. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have made some more changes and have spotted something that was out of tune if not POV-intended. I have tried to clean those parts. Please also be aware though that if you mass revert me, you will not remove anything or bring anything back because everything was already on the page prior to my first edit. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes to make it more difficult to revert. The dates were fine the way they were. So, that, but definition is POV pushing. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful throwing accusations of "intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes" if you do not wish to be the subject of WP:ANI. Had you taken the trouble to examine my edit in comparison to the previous you would see that nothing was added and nothing was removed. I removed no source, the page has been viewed many times between your contribuions and only one editor (User:Bobrayner) removed a link. I invited you to present my alleged "POV" and you failed to provide a response whereas I adequately explained my amendments and they in turn contained fewer characters than the previous revision therefore I have the jusification of clutter-removal. Therefore, if in future you have a problem with my edits on the article, I sugest take the mater to admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with it on my own, thank you very much. I don't need the sheriff. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is? Just which side do you think I am on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on the side of accuracy and I'm an asshole.

Dude, I was WAY wrong. I must have clicked the wrong diffs twice on one day and AGAIN on the next. I made a HUGE mistake and I'm sorry. Buffs (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not, don't be hard on yourself. But do me one favour, as things are there really is a repeated section. The second paragraph beginning with Jamie Shea now features twice. I'll leave it to you to take out whichever you feel most appropriate. All the best! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead of an article is supposed to summarize the contents, that is it is a duplicate/summary of some information contained later in the article. As such, you removed something and pushed it up top, but it had nothing to go with it below. As such, it is now a straight duplicate. Keeping the latter and summarizing the former is the best solution. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I merged two pieces with the first contribution. Shall I get rid of the top part or the second mention which is titled "Measures taken, etc." ?

That or just condense it. Buffs (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tied it to LEDE and took out lower part. I hope you like it but if wish to make chnges to it, I am all right with it. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied it up a bit. Feel free to add to it. I removed the comment about cluster bombs as it really wasn't a factor and unnecessarily pushed the anti-cluster bomb POV. Buffs (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is fine now we both know what the other was thinking. I'm happy to leave it as it is, I expect the page is feeling dizzy itself! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Buffs (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne

I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggies

I thought you might appreciate this Doonesbury Sat 15 Dec. NtheP (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watson

Your return to the discussion at Talk:Paul Watson would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Buffs. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Buffs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:New mexico.gif

The file File:New mexico.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:UNLV textlogo.png

The file File:UNLV textlogo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Buffs. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Dave Ramsey. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So...a non-controversial piece of information (a birthday) is worth adding "citation needed". You appear to be striving to be awfully pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. You're reverting A change that's also accurate: [6]. Take your pick of an article. Slamming this with a 6-year-old discussion with no widespread discussion seems petty. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP demands a great deal from editors, and places the burden on those seeking inclusion.

IMDB is not reliable for such information. Successstory.com doesn't look any better. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if there genuinely is no such source that would prove to be acceptable to you that is accessible by the wider populace; from your original note, even his birth certificate would be an original document and "inadmissible". I'm fully aware of WP:RS and have 5+ FAs under my belt, however, I stand by my assessment that you're being rather stilted on the subject by using WP:BLP as a club attempting to meet the letter of the law as you see it rather than looking at the clear intent. While "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source", you're neglecting the "material challenged or likely to be challenged" component. There is little doubt of any kind in his date. He's even mentioned it in his radio show, for crying out loud. I provided a link for you to provide a source better suited for you and, instead of a discussion over a relatively insignificant portion of a WP:BLP article, you seem to be hyper-focused on trivial minutia and demanding from others something you aren't willing to provide. I've added it back with a bunch of sources + google search results. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of those are reliable sources, let alone reliable sources suitable for BLP information.

As I pointed out in my edit summary, I looked and didn't find anything that's clearly not being copied from Wikipedia, let alone anything that meets BLP requirements.

If he's mentioned it himself, a source is still required. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"didn't find anything that's clearly not being copied from Wikipedia". The Google search result comes up with the same result (not website results, but the search itself. I've added the radio program and broadcast date, if you want to hear it. I'm sure you can look it up in the VAST history of his podcasts if you want to pay for a subscription. Buffs (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref for the broadcast.

Google search results are not reliable sources. I'm not here to frustrate you. These are serious issues, often dragged to BLPN (and to ANI and to ArbCom). BLP requires reliable sources. WP:DOB is policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ that you are not here to frustrate me/others. While I agree you are enforcing "policy", I do not agree with your interpretation and application of enforcement of said policy. Buffs (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Order of the Arrow and now Warbonnet

Are showing a clear pattern of trying to remove Native American sources and minimize the voices of Native Americans who protest having white people do offensive mimicry of Native cultures. In multiple cases now, you've marked sources as dead links, or tried to remove them completely, when a simple search or check of the wayback machine shows they are archived and easily updated. You have not done this removal and degradation to any of the non-Native content or sourcing. The edits you make to the text are almost wholly disruptive, not improvements, and show, at best, a lack of familiarity with serious concerns around racism and cultural insensitivity in these topics. Some of the content you've tried to introduce past-tenses living peoples and living cultures, with a bias towards supporting the non-Natives who mimic these cultures, against the express protests of Indigenous groups. Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias. We don't need more of it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "past-tensing" is.
If there are articles/paragraphs that lack reliable sources per WP:RS, then they should be removed ESPECIALLY if they are contentious.
That you view WP as having a problem with "systemic bias" is irrelevant and you are NOT the police to undo all edits of those who disagree with you. You do NOT own these articles and you cannot solely dictate what is/isn't acceptable. I've offered multiple questions/opportunities to collaborate and I'm met with silence or accusations. Instead of fighting, collaborate.

You have no idea what I do/do not know. All you care about is that I disagree with you. You've already called my edits for compliance with WP:RS "racist" and you have no problem simply undoing my edits and QUICKLY adding intermediate edits in order to prevent their quick undoing.

Disagreement with you personally is NOT Disruptive editing

You have NO knowledge as to my motives for input into these related articles, but it isn't what you think it is.

Regardless of my motives, Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. That means we include notable opinions that support AND oppose (to use your words) "non-Natives who mimic these cultures against the express protests of Indigenous groups" or any other notable topic. It is not up to you to suppress views on ANY side of an issue nor is it appropriate to imply that all Native Americans agree with the points of view you're advocating (they don't). Buffs (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		Civility by example during a heated edit discussion 0pen$0urce (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'tis Appreciated Buffs (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking Edits on Indigenous intellectual property

Removing UN resolutions, statements from elders councils, the Native American Rights Fund, etc, etc, etc, without consensus.[7]. With the history you have of this stuff? You really want to go down this road again? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me paraphrase what saying and how it's being interpreted: "Changing things from the way I and others want it is wrong. In order for you to do anything, you need to make sure that everyone else agrees with you including me. DO THINGS THE WAY I WANT OR ELSE!!!"

Stop threatening anyone who disagrees with you. WP:BEBOLD applies in spades, here. I hardly "blanked" it. I provided a summary. Over HALF of the page was quotes! As such, I summarized them per WP:MOS: " Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text...". Buffs (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading this, these was not page blanking. I removed extraneous quotes that composed over HALF of the body of an article. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/2600:8806:4802:B100:F5D0:E36E:97D8:1796

Keeps reposting the personal attack against you. What do I do? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am now at level 3 with this IP. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone if he reposts. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks! SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25595 was submitted on Jun 14, 2019 15:33:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs - did you submit this UTRS appeal? Just Chilling (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Just Chilling, no. Not sure why it was posted here. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'll close it with no action. We know what is happening. Just Chilling (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um...User:Just Chilling, I'd like to know what is happening. Was this a case of someone appealing a ban and putting my name in it somehow? Or is this a technical glitch? Or is someone submitting me for a block without my knowledge? Buffs (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a disgruntled blocked user trying to cause trouble. You were an innocent victim. Just Chilling (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah. Gotcha! Sure is nice to be called "innocent". Thanks! Buffs (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you quietly drop the rumor

You now state bald rumor on that page, I would hope you would reconsider, and just withdraw it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the direct implication and stuck to what the WMF Chair specifically said + included a link. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, do not factor others' comments. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence and no reliable source for the claims you are making about the personal lives of people, and the Chair's statement most certainly does not provide any such evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep this on YOUR page. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow BRD on Order of the Arrow

You were bold, but you were revered. So now the onus is on you to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page, not revert again. Please be patient and let the discussion commence. Thanks. El_C 17:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally impossible to gain consensus when they refuse to discuss or address the points. Perhaps it would be better to address the person who refuses to discuss? Buffs (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the point that it's "burying the words of those who object". It's absurd that you aren't addressing this with the person who's reverting in contravention with WP:SUMMARY. Add to it for all I care, but this isn't the only place where Corbie is adding copious quotes in contravention of policy to advance a political agenda and accuse anyone who attempts to summarize as doing so for nefarious purposes. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. Anyway, you only wrote on the talk page about this yesterday. Please just be patient and give participants a chance to respond. You are both changing the prose and hiding the quotes in the ref with that one edit — a major change. Which needs consensus. A few hours delay on the talk page does not indicate there's no one to talk to. El_C 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. I'm not "hiding" anything. See WP:SUMMARY. If anything, I incorporated MORE of the comment than the commentary stated. We seem to be able to do this everywhere in the article except for where Corbie wants to apply it. I don't care HOW it's summarized and I've invited others to summarize for months now. I specifically wrote the same thing 3 weeks ago with no response. How long am I supposed to wait for a reply? Buffs (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How am I casting aspersions? Let's go one edit at a time, shall we? El_C 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How?

"You only wrote on the talk page about this yesterday." - No, I've been writing about it for months. I specifically asked for input weeks ago. I also invited discussion yesterday. I was met with a reversion, a derisive comment, and continued silence. You are effectively claiming I'm being impatient, ergo, an aspersion.

"You are...hiding the quotes in the ref..." I'm "hiding" nothing. To accuse me of doing something wrong when I'm following WP:MOSQUOTE is, again, an aspersion. "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style..."

Since you're (inaccurately) criticizing only me and ignoring the incivility of others, it seems pretty one-sided as well. Calling these "aspersions" is pretty damned appropriate.

Buffs (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one edit at a time. I am speaking to the other user, also. Please try to tone it down, in the meantime. El_C 18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, YHGBKM! I DID do one edit at a time solely to make it easier to undo if there were problems. Literally as you're telling me to do what I'm already doing, Corbie, instead of addressing each point, he blanket reverts EVERYTHING thereby reintroducing spelling errors, scrambling the order of references, etc in addition to undoing what he personally doesn't like and reverting to his preferred version (or what he calls "stable"). I request that you ask Corbie to undo that last edit and undo ONLY those he finds objectionable AND answer the questions I posed on the talk page. Ample time has been provided. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am not kidding. The response is already on the talk page. I expect concise summaries as well as slow and steady progress toward reaching consensus. El_C 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ironie's inflammatory comments removed

Well, that's a HIGHLY biased/misleading take of the discussion...

There was well-reasoned discussion on the subject of Keene's inclusion with multiple people concurring with my opinion. However, others disagreed. Likewise, I didn't open the RfC on Keene, others did that. Though I disagree with the conclusion, the majority opinion was inclusion and I've not touched Keene's sourcing (other than re-ordering) since that discussion. There goes the "unwilling to accept consensus" garbage.

Evidence of warnings is not evidence of wrongdoing and I'm really growing sick of this guilt-by-accusation nonsense. "Warnings" for behavior that is perfectly acceptable is like complaining about someone driving too fast even though they are going the speed limit. When the police come to your door to talk about it, they find nothing actually wrong, but your neighbor whines "He's been warned over and over for his behavior! He should be punished for going that speed!".

As for "He'll request citations for a sentence/point which will already be cited/sourced, then when more citations are added, it is over-cited according to Buffs. Then Buffs will delete the best citations, leaving one to say the sentence isn't well-sourced enough and delete the sentence." That's absolute garbage. I've NEVER done that. User:El_C, I assume that casting aspersions and other uncivil behavior is also not allowed under the ARBCOM warning? Or do we just let people get badmouthed on their own talkpage as long as it isn't on the talkpage of the article? Buffs (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to remove it, which I thought you did. But I'll pose this question: if you are, indeed, editing tendentiously, which two editors have now claimed, how can that be expressed without expressing it? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting a comment here I almost missed it. How about demanding diffs from them? You're demanding diffs and references and clarification from me. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead I'm stuck defending vague accusations with zero evidence and you seem to be perfectly willing to trust them. He accuses me of meatpuppetry with a backhanded remark "It is sometimes difficult to parse, particularly with some surrogate editors participating on Buffs' behalf..." and such unproven claims are not only unchallenged, but you thank him. I hope you'll understand my skepticism that this is an even exchange of ideas. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the accusation that I'm trying to eliminate all criticism of the subject is laughable. At no point have I EVER said or advocated for "no criticism". I will state that this criticism is exceptionally weak. Sources in these articles go back to a single protestor at a college campus as reported by a college student newspaper, a vague claim that all costumes are an attempt to silence a minority, an activist, and a "grievance studies" professor whose paper(s) and conclusions are based on opinions of those who agree with their viewpoint, not actual research. Again, I find these to be really weak sources, but given WP standards, they are included and, regardless of my opinions on their quality, SHOULD be included! Sources that were eliminated were from personal blogs of non-experts and (literally) ungraded, undergraduate student essays (!!!). Buffs (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that (undergraduate student essay). Sorry, am I suppose to guess where in the article that is? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would have thought Ctrl+F and "paper" would have been sufficient on the discussion page or history, but here it is anyway:

link diff where it was added

I'll happily point out the bias of Corbie specifically. He literally considers this group to be a bunch racists...even the SPLC doesn't consider the OA or Boy Scouts racists (and their definitions are pretty liberal), but they do note their "anti-LGBT policies", so they are even looking at them... Buffs (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, again, I don't see the harm in including a ref to a well sourced 44-page (albeit undergraduate) essay. How is that damaging to our readership, if it's just a ref along several others, which I gather from that diff was your position, as well (?). I'm not saying it should be used for anything authoritative, but I also don't see the harm of it backing up a minor fact, if it's itself well sourced on that front. Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to clarify. And, again, feel free to also take it to RSN if it's that important to you. As for the point of view — one is entitled to have one, so long as they edit in an NPOV manner: by fairly representing the scholarly and mainstream consensus regarding the subject. El_C 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that fails the criteria for WP:RS. Furthermore, for the statement it allegedly supports, the paper uses the same source, ergo, it's redundant. At the time, people were adding "sources" to support all kinds of things that didn't support the statements made. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know about any of that. Maybe that's true. What, at any event, would you like done, concretely? El_C 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only side I entered the fray on behalf of was not using blogs for sources, which I will continue to not do, and will continue to argue against at every possible opportunity regardless of the subject matter or the editors involved. I'm not a partisan and please do not paint me as one. GMG ^talk 01:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, would you be so kind as to talk to Corbie about his remarks. At 2/3rds are comments about me/irrelevant material to the discussion at hand. "The problem here is that Buffs..." is not collegial, it's uncivil (specifically 1c, 1d, 2a, and most egregiously 2e), and focuses not on edits, but the editor, and he delves into attempting to correct historic injustices. As a buffer and attempt to moderate disagreement, I will respond solely to the substantive remarks and allow you to speak about behavior at your discretion; if you feel there's nothing wrong, please let me know. Response to remarks above will be forthcoming after the response on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm finding you both to be a little unfocused. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wasting my time here. El_C 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think you are wasting your time, but the personal remarks need to stop. That's driving the animosity. Please address it.

To address the remarks above, what I'm looking for is

to remove the notes about "It's worth noting..." (that's explicitly prohibited per WP:NPOV)
Remarks of "Goodman claimed" should also be removed. The fact is that multiple reliable sources of the time period back up this definition of the word: 1 2. Goodman used the word based on a reliable translation without malice or neglect. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Point_of_view You cannot say he “claimed” or “stated” it meant something because it casts aspersions that he’s incorrect that are not backed up in reliable sources. Likewise, it isn’t proof to say “it was made up” by pointing only to sources available now (especially those that are incomplete). “Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that...would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.". Absence now ≠ proof that “it’s a made up word”. Phrasing designed to introduce doubt or push the anti-cultural appropriation agenda fail WP:NPOV Even if it isn’t in use today, that doesn’t prove it wasn’t used then. Plenty of words are not in use today that were in use at that time. Examples of just English:
- Barnish then & now
- Beastlings then & now
- Gynecandrical then & now
- etc
Lastly The last section should be in summary style. Instead of blanket reversions saying "no not that, I want it this way" are not the way to build consensus.

Specific remarks I'd like you to address: This is the same argument Buffs pushed on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, claiming that Native objections to these activities are "Fringe" and not notable due to the "small number" of people still alive to voice them.

I NEVER claimed that all Native objections are fringe. I certainly never stated that they were fringe because of the small number of people alive to voice them. Read the quote and context and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong. I stated that the opinions stated there are fringe opinions. There is NO evidence to show that they are even held by a sizable minority of the Native American population, much less by the population at large. I've asked for such information...no response.

Such opinions are being given undue weight: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well...If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

As such, it's being given undue weight in this article, but NOT because it is an opinion held by Native Americans; it's because the opinions should be excluded by our guidelines.

All that said, I'm willing to include some anyway. Like I said before, 3-4 instances are fine. It's not like OA activities are 100% approved by everyone (nothing is). Buffs (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts?

El_C, your thoughts on adding to the talk page? Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this ping — which I hope is understandable in light of the volume of material now on this talk page. Related to that, my suggestion would be for you to temper your expectations as to the overall intensiveness and extensiveness of the editorial process here, on Wikipedia. Again, my advise would be for you to attend to one item at a time. Frankly, I find your user talk page to be a bit inaccessible now due to you seemingly trying to do everything at once. El_C 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People ask me to specify what I want done and then I get complaints that it's "too much". Fine. That's why I asked. I put it here for reference. It is absurd that people (especially admins!) can revert all changes, demand consensus, and then refuse discussion with no consequence. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Look, I'm not sure what all that is about. But maybe use collapse fields to even better condense and prioritize by highlighting summaries...(?) El_C 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I tried that and you blocked/tried to ban me for it. WP:AGF is simply gone with you. Buffs (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

IG has expressed that she doesn't have time to put together proposed changes. I don't see how these issues require much effort to fix, but, in order to assist, I'm putting together a list of the areas that I feel need a fix and my proposed solution. I'm attempting to be as concise as possible with Rationales of 1-2 sentences. Hopefully, this will serve as a place for discussion, other takes on these passages, and resolution. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific areas Buffs feels need improvement

It uses imagery commonly associated with American Indian cultures for its self-invented ceremonies.
Along with his assistant camp director, Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society to acknowledge those campers he felt best exemplified these qualities, calling the program, Wimachtendienk, a word he stated meant "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects.
<ref name=WimachtenienkNote>''Wimachtendienk'' is not contained in any current online dictionary of the Lenape People, including the tribes own language site: ''[http://www.talk-lenape.org/results?query=Wimachtendienk&lang=lenape Wimachtendienk]'', but neither is a translation for the English, "[http://talk-lenape.org/results?query=brotherhood brotherhood]"</ref>.
On July 23, 2018 the National Order of the Arrow Committee announced that they had received "many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed." and that effective as of January 1, 2019, "lodges and chapters that are asked to conduct Arrow of Light or crossover ceremonies for Cub Scout packs will only be permitted to conduct them using the new approved official ceremonies which can be found in the OA Inductions Portal. These ceremonies are to be conducted in a Scout uniform and are no longer permitted to be done in American Indian regalia."<ref name=Complaints>{{cite web |title=Official Arrow of Light and crossover ceremonies |publisher=[[Boy Scouts of America]] - Order of the Arrow |date=July 23, 2018 |url=https://oa-bsa.org/article/official-arrow-light-and-crossover-ceremonies|accessdate=March 4, 2019}}</ref>
In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard...They are alive, they are sacred.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ikwe |first=Ozheebeegay |title=Boys Scouts Order of the Arrow Guilty of Cultural Appropriation |publisher=Last Real Indians |url=http://lastrealindians.com/boys-scouts-order-of-the-arrow-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-by-ozheebeegay-ikwe//|accessdate=November 2, 2017}}</ref>}} (truncated for brevity)
David Prochaska, professor in the University of Illinois History Department states when addressing the issue of cultural appropriation and the implications of such...{{quote|Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Order of the Arrow, Order of Red Men, Campfire Girls, Woodcraft, Boston Tea Party. "White Indians" - white New Agers as Native American "wannabes." ... what is "playing Indian," "playing Native," "playing an Other," all about? It is about play, for one thing, in the sense of dressing up, masquerade, the Bakhtinian carnivalesque. It is also about appropriation, in the sense of taking on, assuming an other's identity, taking another's identity. The implication here is replacing one with another, silencing another, speaking for another.<ref>{{cite book |author=King, C. Richard |authorlink= |author2=Springwood, Charles Fruehling |title=Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy |publisher=U of Nebraska Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0803277984 |pages=166}}</ref>}}

Proposed solutions

"It uses imagery commonly associated with American Indian cultures for its ceremonies."
Rationale: At no point does the article or the OA claim their ceremonies are modeled on those of Native Americans. Adding this remark only serves to unnecessarily highlight "THESE ARE NOT REAL NATIVE AMERICANS!!!" and in a disparaging manner. "It uses imagery..." is sufficient for this task. Nothing in the article or a referenced source backs up that claim. The words "self-invented" should be removed per WP:LEAD, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Along with his assistant camp director, Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society to acknowledge those campers he felt best exemplified these qualities, calling the program, Wimachtendienk, or "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects."
Rationale: "a word he stated meant" is redundant as the previous phrase "calling the program..."; it is also an attempt to register doubt without a factual basis in a reliable source. Reliable sources state otherwise; no reliable source to back up the current claim; it fails WP:MOSQUOTE, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
remove
Rationale: This statement is now a note that does not support the given statement. As noted above, fails per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Likewise, "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings...". Even if currently incorrect now, it was as accurate as possible at the time it was stated. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On July 23, 2018 the National Order of the Arrow Committee announced that they had received complaints about Arrow of Light crossover ceremonies from Native Americans. Given the inconsistent nature of the ceremonies, the only authorized ceremony by Arrowmen would be conducted without Native American regalia.<ref name=Complaints>{{cite web |title=Official Arrow of Light and crossover ceremonies |publisher=[[Boy Scouts of America]] - Order of the Arrow |date=July 23, 2018 |url=https://oa-bsa.org/article/official-arrow-light-and-crossover-ceremonies|accessdate=March 4, 2019|quote=many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed... [effective as of January 1, 2019] "...lodges and chapters that are asked to conduct Arrow of Light or crossover ceremonies for Cub Scout packs will only be permitted to conduct them using the new approved official ceremonies which can be found in the OA Inductions Portal. These ceremonies are to be conducted in a Scout uniform and are no longer permitted to be done in American Indian regalia."}}</ref>
Rationale: summarize and place into prose per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style...It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard to the National Order of the Arrow Conference being held on the MSU campus expressing his displeasure of the OA's choice of logo, despite its improvement, and accusing them of "flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism".<ref name=PRice>{{cite web|url=https://statenews.com/article/2015/08/letter-boy-scouts-on-campus-demonstrate-insensitivity-to-native-american-traditions,|title=LETTER: Boy Scouts on campus demonstrate insensitivity to Native American traditions|website=The State News|quote="For years, the OA's official logo was a stylized image of a generic "native" face with a swirling headdress. Their logo has since changed to a rough-hewn arrowhead, and although it is better than a dehumanizing image a la CMU's old "Chippewa" logo or the current Washington Redskins logo, it is still a symbol deliberately and shamelessly appropriated from a stylized stereotype of Native American artifacts. The OA website, as of today, features a prominent image of the "original chief bonnet," a feather headdress on a young white man's head. There is nothing "original" about this "bonnet." It is a symbol stolen from a culture that has absolutely nothing to do with the British tradition of Boy Scouts. Although the Boy Scouts have made some very recent advances toward being more socially aware...their honor society remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism."}}</ref> Ceremonial elements from from Native American groups have also been criticized. By using objects Native American groups deem not only sacred, but alive and/or blending the traditional elements of various Nations without apparent recognition or regard to distinctions between them, activists have criticized that the OA has shown disrespect and contempt.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ikwe |first=Ozheebeegay |title=Boys Scouts Order of the Arrow Guilty of Cultural Appropriation |publisher=Last Real Indians |url=http://lastrealindians.com/boys-scouts-order-of-the-arrow-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-by-ozheebeegay-ikwe//|accessdate=November 2, 2017|"I have been told that if we are not using these sacred objects as they are intended, we aren't walking the walk. Along with carrying and using these items, comes a great deal of responsibility. Not just anyone should have them. I want my children to know the truth that is the Drum, Pipe, and Eagle Feather. I want them to understand that traditional ways are not a costume or boy scout initiation. They are alive, they are sacred."}}</ref>
Rationale: Same as previous + the summary of the second quote includes more of the article to include "disrespect and contempt" that was omitted by solely including the quote. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should reference this. If we do, it should be incorporated as-is, not with editorializing
Rationale: Ignoring the accuracy of the assessment (example: people in the Boston Tea Party First dressed up as Native Americans in various manners to disguise who they were, not to portray themselves as Native Americans or silence them; Eagle Scouts are Boy Scouts...it's redundant; etc) and grammar (There are a stream of single-noun "sentences"), this isn't even a proper quote. It removes the original text (grammar errors and all), omits an entire paragraph, and changes the meaning of what was actually stated. Criticism of the Order of the Arrow is mentioned in passing once in the entire book of 250+ pages and nothing the OA does is even mentioned. It's just a blanket accusation. As placed in the book, the phrasing of the second part of the quote seems to better apply in accusation to the film "Cannibal Tours", and not to the Order of the Arrow. At no point does the author even mention how Boy Scouts, the OA, Eagle Scouts, etc. even fulfill the stated criteria, though other groups' actions are described in detail. At a bare minimum, it should be quoted accurately. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

review

Well, the secret is this. We sometimes review and cannot make a decision, so we leave it for the next reviewer. And as the block expires in 28 minutes, I'm just gonna let it expire. I'm sorry for the waiting, but it was only 24 hours. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim, then I request the block be extended until it can be reviewed. I know when it ends. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25797 was submitted on Jul 03, 2019 21:13:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not something I can do. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I note that your block has now expired so it is now outside the scope of UTRS. If there are related issues that you wish to pursue further then they should be raised either on an appropriate talk page or on a suitable admin noticeboard." (From the "reviewer")

Translation of both people here: no one is going to bother to lift a finger to review this. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with WP, people. Take note. Buffs (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban appeal

Per the clear consensus at AE, the six-month ban imposed above is overturned.

I want to be clear that the grounds for overturning it were technical and procedural, not that you were not being disruptive. I haven't looked into this dispute much and don't know the rights and the wrongs of it but reading through your talk page above, it seems there are possible problems of hounding and that discussion of administrative actions has got very heated. Please do remain collegial and collaborative. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best, but it is hard to be collegial when standard, noncontroversial edits are arbitrarily deemed "disruptive" and "hounding"/"stalking" (especially when announced in advance and no objections made). Buffs (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

I have started a discussion that concerns you at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied. Buffs (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoldenRing: I'd be a lot more collegial if IG/CV's edits were treated the same as mine. There are numerous accusations on WP:AN that are demonstrably false. None are retracted. There are no calls for THEM to retract anything. There's no warnings. This is all one-way punishments and suits IG/CV quite well. Buffs (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Saxifrage. Lepricavark (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You make yourself look foolish when you tell a highly experienced admin that if he would like to experiment he should use the sandbox.[8] Please use your own words to alert people to problems that you perceive. Do you think JzG doesn't know about the sandbox, or needs your condescension..? Templates such as uw-tpv2 are intended for new users, if for anybody. Incidentally, JzG's edit that you found fault with was good, and was properly explained in the edit summary. The bolded word "Conclusion", that JzG modified, was misleading. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I beg to differ. I guess admins don't have to have warnings, they just get blocked? Hmmm...no, apparently not. I do something like this as advised by an admin and I get blocked + no admins are willing to lift a finger for review. An admin does it and he's openly defended. It's hypocrisy and double standards. Buffs (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules" and blocks are so inconsistently applied on WP, it's really hard to WP:AGF here. There are rules for us mere peons and there are rules for admins. Admins can be crass, mean, vindictive, hound editors, etc with impunity. Us chattel are thought of as second class citizens who have to prove we've done no wrong. Admins are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (and even then, many get a free pass when proven guilty). I truly wish I felt otherwise. For example, if I told you to "f*** off" (which I wouldn't do...this is just a hypothetical scenario), I'd be blocked in a heartbeat for incivility (and rightly so). But when an admin does it, Fram for example telling off multiple bureaucrats, he's "letting off steam" or "he was just frustrated".

There was NOTHING about "Conclusion" that wasn't CLEARLY the expressed opinion of the editor. Their signature was right there at the end and no one was going to confuse it with anything else.

I'm seeing this as more evidence of hypocrisy and it further erodes the credibility of those entrusted to maintain WP and its standards. Buffs (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]