Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 12 October 2012

Archives

Archive 1: 14 February 2007 – 6 May 2007 Archive 2: 10 May 2007 – 20 June 2007 Archive 3: 21 June 2007 – 31 December 2007 Archive 4: 1 January 2008 – 30 June 2008 Archive 5: 1 July 2008 – 31 December 2008 Archive 6: 1 January 2009 – 31 March 2009 Archive 7: 1 April 2009 – 30 June 2009 Archive 8: 1 July 2009 – 30 September 2009 Archive 9: 1 October 2009 – 31 December 2009 Archive 10: 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2010 Archive 11: 1 January 2011 – present

Question

"Buffs"? Oh, and I like your photo - a rare snapshot of Ryan Dunn's dashboard. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Does "Buffs" mean anything in particular? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Nah, if it's confidential I'll just leave it be. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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)

File:Aggie Bonfire.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aggie Bonfire.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

fyi

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sregor Ylloj. You may, if you wish, add comments there. Otherwise, let the investigation take its own course. Thanks. Wifione _....... 09:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Email

-FASTILY 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:88 bonfire.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:88 bonfire.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

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

I was just wondering if you realised that this edit violates the BLP policy, see Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

1. You don't own your talk page. Refusing to talk about issues will not help the situation.
2. 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)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

..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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

in re damiens

add to the list nominating a book article for deletion, in order to justify deletion of book cover image. 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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).

(@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)

(@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

You wrote on Hammersoft's talkpage when you had been asked not to, which is contrary to Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and want to "rule" by enforcing their OWN ideas via WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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, 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Your knowledge and willingness to make Misplaced Pages 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, 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fl intl.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fl intl.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

File:Simple Circle.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simple Circle.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

T-43A discussion update

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

Tb

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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Talkback

Mtking 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Mtking 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  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)

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)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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

1. 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.
2. I'm well aware of policy and have 4 FAs to my name that were featured on the main page. Don't lecture me.
3. 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.
4. 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)

1. I stand by my contribution record, which consists in great part of adding references and well-sourced material.
2. If you blatantly disregard policy you will have to put up with having it explained to you.
3. Glad to hear you have no issue with our core policies. Adding bogus references is disruptive and users have been blocked for that too.
4. 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)

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

November 2011

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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, 20:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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 ©_ontributions 02:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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  23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 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)

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).

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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  09:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Some stroopwafels for you!

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

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

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 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)

I added that line actually. -- A Certain White Cat 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

File:Cincinnati text logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cincinnati text logo.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

File:Clemson text logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clemson text logo.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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  02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Buffs. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, 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 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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  23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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  14:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 " solely responsible for ensuring that 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 Misplaced Pages, right? Nolelover 13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Got it...thanks for the help! Nolelover 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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  18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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  09:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Noinclude to nominate templates

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

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  00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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?

--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)

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)

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  20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages article, which would confuse them. I hope you don't mind. ~ Matthewrbowker 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)