User talk:Buffs

Kraft Talk page, history of edits by people with conflicts

Hey there, I was wondering if I could ask you about your removal of this from the Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah_Kraft&oldid=914584953#History_of_sockpuppeting,_contributions_by_people_with_financial_ties_to_Kraft,_and_contributions_by_brand_new_editors_with_disclosed_but_unspecified_personal_ties_to_Kraft).

Regardless of what you think of BC1278's involvement (and I would even be fine with omitting him from the section), there's a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses and brand new accounts. As well as an editor with extensive undisclosed conflict who later admitted his conflict and recused himself. This history indicates a high likelihood of future vandalism, which is why I think it's important to include this section in the Talk page, at least for the time being. Your thoughts? DaRonPayne (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, it's not your place to put a list of problem editors on the talk page. Such grievances belong on their talk pages or WP:AN. To categorize edits that have not even happened as "vandalism" is inherently hostile/unnecessary/prejudicial. Let them make the case they wish. Other editors can take their input accordingly and make their own independent assessment (like me). As stated on the talk page, even if they have a WP:COI, they are allowed to edit and it isn't your place to be the arbiter on this page.

Lastly, looking at your edit history, you seem to be solely interested in this article. Assessing the actions of others as "a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses" is a big disingenuous considering you're doing the same thing. Even if there are multiple accounts involved, they are not using them to claim consensus. In short, back off. Plenty of people have eyes on it and there's no need to be this aggressive toward other editors. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If it belongs somewhere else, that's fine. I wasn't familiar with what the protocol is here, so that was partly why I was asking.

And just to be very clear, 3/5ths of the editors referred to in that section made actual, substantial edits to the page. In some cases they authored the majority of it. In others they reverted things without comment. And at least one of those editors had multiple, serious **undisclosed** FINANCIAL conflicts that he later admitted to before recusing himself.

I do have several edits on other topics, and if not for this pattern and my disgust with how easy it apparently is to game Wikipedia or buy favorable coverage, I hardly would have touched the page. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

To be direct. Your point's been made. It no longer needs to be there.

No one seems to be hiding any COI at this point. The ease of editing these is inversely proportional to the popularity of the person; the more famous you are, the more difficult it is to game (more people are watching). Whether they made substantive edits or not is irrelevant. Their COI is known and we simply acknowledge it and treat their edits accordingly. That doesn't mean that the edits are automatically wrong. Please read WP:COI. If you want it changed, you need to go there to change it. But you cannot go around badmouthing people on an article talk page: Wikipedia:Civility#Different_places,_different_atmospheres. Their personal talk page is the place to discuss such behavior and the various notice boards. Posting a perpetual warning that certain people have reasons they shouldn't be trusted flies in the face of WP:NPA and the guidance at COI. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your continued civility and good humor, despite us having different perspectives about RHowarth. I greatly appreciate it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

AP2 notice.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I'm notifying you of this SPI because you had noted 6Years's DUCK like profile [[1]]. Springee (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet...I'm shocked...shocked... Buffs (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

RfD for List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

Hi, Buffs. I think that you left out the word "not" in your comment to the above-referenced RfD (I listed the reasons why every reasonable assessment is that Palestine is *not* a generally recognized sovereign state.)

Cheeres, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Whoops...fixed. Also, it's "Cheers"... lol Buffs (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Do'h! That's what I get for editing from my iPhone (and without my glasses).  : ) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Tina Keeper

Unfortunately I accidentally hit the enter key in the process of trying to type an edit summary, and if there's a way to go back and alter an edit summary after it's been saved I've never been told how it works. So the only thing I can do is provide an explanation now.

The issue is that the subject herself has a persistent habit, literally throughout the entire past decade, of repeatedly trying to rewrite the article so that it serves purely as an advertorialized résumé about her current work as a film producer, and almost completely blows out any content about her time in politics beyond basic acknowledgement of the fact itself: she deems the electoral results tables "not pertinent", she considers it "not pertinent" for the infobox to list her predecessor and successor as MP for Churchill, she considers it "not pertinent" for the article to actually say anything about her time as an MP, and on and so forth. This is the last version of the article that she tried to impose before I finally indeffed it back in March — as you can see, it's clearly not a properly written encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination, and fails to even demonstrate her notability as a film producer.

But because she's surpassed autoconfirmed status, the autoconfirmed and pending-changes levels of article protection wouldn't stop her at all — and because the first time she tried to do this was in 2010, yet she was still trying to do it as recently as this March, I'm not convinced that she won't try again if she can. So I don't know what other options there are: it can't stay indeffed forever, but she's been too persistent about this for far too long to trust that the problem won't recur; even if she were blocked, she would likely just register a new username so she could keep doing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I'm not an admin, so I don't know 100% of the tools or their functionality. However, it seems to me that you can apply ECP again and provide a rationale (it's been done by others. It is my humble opinion that if an individual user is causing problems, we should block that problem user rather than protect. If they are circumventing blocks, then ECP would apply due to persistent disruptive editing. ECP has a VERY specific role in Wikipedia ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). When we start restricting articles editing access, we fall short of that goal. While it's sometimes necessary, a de minimis perspective should apply. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at Sir Joseph ANI

I see you've left a comment on my participation at ANI. Please review and consider what I said. I said "nobody's here to ban you". Less tersely, nobody came to that thread, with its abundant evidence and discussion, with the predetermined purpose of banning Sir Joseph. In the course of the discussion, it evidently has become clear to many of us that a ban is the only way to put a stop to his corrosive behavior. Your comment really didn't help advance that discussion at ANI. You can always come to my talk page and disagree or present constructive criticism. Most of the editors who support a ban seem to have long knowledge or experience of Sir Joseph's behavior. In my opinion, after all the warnings and civil disagreements that have been presented to him over the years, and after all the sanctions he's earned, it is not a good bet that he would change his longstanding style of editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree and I guess that's it. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. I suppose I don't know that none of the many participants there came predisposed to banning him, so fair enough as to my words. But by the same token, your "demonstrably false" as to editors' intentions is also unproved, only in your case it's an insinuation of malicious intent. Mine was an assumption of good faith. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I bid you good day/night Buffs (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, Your additions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence seem to have nothing to do with the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. Zero^talk 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: explanation added in case it wasn't clear. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Decline Per my 4th grade soccer coach about a fight at the field next to ours: "not my circus...not my monkeys..." Buffs (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case proposal

Regarding this edit: you should create a subsection under section 4 for your proposals, and put the proposed remedy there. Hope that helps! isaacl (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl:I'm new to this process, so thanks for being gentle. Done! Buffs (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes to self

User talk:Ks0stm (likely absent)  Not done

• Template:Uw-botublock‎
• Template:Uw-uhblock-double‎
• Template:Uw-efblock‎

User talk:Plastikspork (likely absent)  Not done

• Template:Sample
• Template:Documentation/start box

User talk:Noyster (likely absent)  Not done

• Template:Campaignbox Sheeba Farms conflict‎

User talk:Fish and karate  Done

• Template:Merging‎

User talk:Mifter (likely absent)  Not done

• Template:Wikidata redirect
• Template:WikiProject Fungi/class‎
• Template:Crime opentask‎
• Template:Post-nominals/GBR‎
• Template:W-graphical‎

User talk:Xaosflux

• Template:GeoTemplate‎  Not done WP:IAR...should just be ECP'd due to disruptive editing
• Template:Taxonomy/Asparagaceae‎  Done
• Template:Christian-denomination-stub‎  Done
• Template:Cleanup bare URLs/bot  Not done WP:IAR...not sure why this template is so special when no others have this protection for this reason
• Template:Public holidays in the United States‎  Done

User talk:Primefac  Not done

• Template:INRConvert‎
• Template:Annual readership‎
• Template:INRConvert/CurrentRate‎
• Template:Inflation/fn‎
• Template:Coat of arms
• Template:WikiProject Canoeing and Kayaking‎
• Template:WPVG announcements
• Template:If preview‎
• Template:Infobox power station
• Template:WikidataOI
• Template:Navseasoncats/navhyphen
• Template:Navseasoncats/navyear‎
• Template:Navseasoncats/var lasthalf
• Template:Navseasoncats/var season
• Template:Certification Table Entry
• Template:Cite certification‎
• Template:Infobox dam
• Template:Inflation-fn‎
• Template:WikiProject Maine
• Template:Birds tasks‎
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics/class
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics
• Template:WikiProject Languages/class
• Template:WikiProject Languages
• Template:Metadata Population DE-RP
• Template:WikiProject Military history‎

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I consider your effort to enforce widely-broken rules to be deserving of a barnstar, given that I've been engaging in similar behavior myself for months. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

*tips his hat* Buffs (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Taku/Hasteur thing

I thought your summary of the Taku/Hasteur situation over at AN was very nice. I've been on the periphery of that for a couple years now — it seems to sputter up occasionally, generating more heat than light — and I'd say you struck a good tone. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ECP

Hi, I see you're commenting on ECP of admins. Just as a point of clarification, administrators do not have to log every ECP. The policy says: Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic.. I see you incorrectly pointed out on Risker and Muboshgu's talk pages that they needed to log any ECP of a BLP. Policy allows usage of ECP outside of the DS system, and not all BLP protections are DS protections. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve never said that admins have to log EVERY ECP. Likewise, if they are citing BLP (without DE), then the only viable rationale would be DS under an ARBCOM ruling.

If you’ll notice, I haven’t made such requests where the summary is clear. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We cite BLP as a reason for actions (both blocks and protections) all the time without DS. It’s a standardized twinkle reason. DS is actually fairly rarely used in the area. You’ll know an administrator intends it as discretionary sanctions if they include the phrase “Arbitration Emforcement” or “DS” in the summary. Otherwise it’s just a standard protection under the existing protection policy, which does allow for ECP for BLP vios since they are disruptive. Please stop asking anyone who makes an ECP protection under BLP to log it. They don’t have to in the overwhelming majority of cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've asked them to be clear in their summaries. Look at what was actually written. I said that IF they did so due to WP:DE, then please annotate it so it's clearer. If it is due to WP:ARBCOM rulings, then to please annotate it in the logs. That's all and it falls well within the policies of WP. Buffs (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If they don’t say AE in their protection log, it is not a DS protection and it does not need to be logged or clarified. You are wrong here. We’ve never required admins to say something isn’t AE. It’s assumed not to be unless it is explicitly claimed as such. Please stop requesting clarification over it since no clarification is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's spell this out:

1. In the first instance you cited, Risker gave no reason whatsoever. I asked him to clarify so it was clear. I also reminded him that if it was under DS/ArbCom reasons, then it should be logged. I never said it was under any DS rationale.
2. In the second, it was done so due to WP:BLP. So, let's look at BLP. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Role_of_administrators states: "Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages." It does not mention anything about ECP. Likewise, it does mention WP:DS: "Editors are also subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN, which in May 2014 authorized the application of discretionary sanctions to 'any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace.' The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator." Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. Accordingly, I asked for clarification and appropriate documentation. Not only did Muboshgu not object, he apparently agreed and documented his actions in accordance with WP:DS policy.

In summary, it isn't as clear-cut as you're making it out to be, DS rationales WERE apparently applied without due notice (as was required). Now, if you want to change that policy, fine with me. I won't even object. Let's make it clear what's really meant when applying ECP. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Policy allows for application in disruption in any topic area if semi-protection has failed. I'm opposing you on this because your recent contributions make it appear that you've taken it upon yourself to be the ECP police. I don't necessarily object to that, I think ECP is overapplied. I do object to you making up rules that don't exist. I'm going to take this to ARCA, so please stop on the BLP front until they agree with you, which I suspect is highly unlikely. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(EC) "Policy allows for application in disruption in any topic area if semi-protection has failed." I completely concur. If so, the rationale should state as such. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss for less than a day and then take it to AFCA? This is ridiculous. We could have come to some sort of arrangement before resulting in the semi-nuclear option with misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That didn't take long. Disagree with someone and right on to AFCA? Wow. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You’re saying that people have to either directly cite WP:DE or log it as a DS. I tried to resolve it with you above, and you made your position clear. The only option is to get the committee to clarify whether or not they intended the requirements of logging to apply as you think they apply. There’s really no where else to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I never said anything of the kind. I've asked for clarification because I find the rationales to be unclear (in most cases because they are blank) or unwarranted (such as to templates where the community has decided ECP should NOT apply). If (and only if) such a ruling falls under ArbCom rulings, then I've asked them to document the logs appropriately. That this is even contentious at all is perplexing. Buffs (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

While that certainly would be preferred and make such summaries MUCH clearer, in the vast majority of instances, I've asked for ECP to either be unapplied or a rationale of ANY kind to be provided. The reason for this is that if it is ECP'd for DS, that's going to go to WP:AE. Otherwise, it needs to be appealed at WP:AN/WP:ANI via community consensus. Both have separate rationales for protection. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Damn, dude. You’re saying that people have to either directly cite WP:DE or log it as a DS. I never said that nor have I advocated specifically for that. I have asked for SOME edit summaries to be clearer, but you've taken a LOT of what I said WAY out of context. Buffs (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Closure

Thank you for the closure request; as you have noticed I have been trying not to edit the ANI thread. As we all know any response will be counterproductive. (I have long been happy with the consensus to move old drafts out of the draftspace as you suggested. I have even begun implementing the consensus). I am just lost what I should do. — Taku (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

History of Texas A&M University page edits

I have referred our disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Wikipedia arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or my edits until the matter has been addressed by Wikipedia arbitration. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Randolph Duke that's not how this works in the slightest. You are the one making changes and controversial ones at that. As such, you need to have better citations to THIRD party sources, not your interpretation of original sources as multiple people have pointed out to you on both the talk page and your user talk page. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have indeffed Randolph Duke per your AN3 request, Buffs, but then I noticed that twitter link, which may count as WP:OUTING, so I have redacted and revdeleted it out of an abundance of caution. Please don't do this again, even for obviously problematic users. Best to communicate such discoveries via private means. Thanks and sorry for the intrusion. I realize I may not be particularly welcomed on this page. El_C 17:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the policy. When someone openly admits they are posting online under a certain name AND it's published that's their name in the Wall Street Journal, that's hardly WP:OUTING. Still, point noted. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As for your contributions here, that's a required notice and I take no issue with it. It was neutrally worded. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hi Buffs, the BLP clarification request which you were a party to has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (December 2019).

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 14:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nofulton.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nofulton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear.

Clearly, I think the purpose of our rules and regs is to obfuscate and confuse. Your mileage may vary.-- Deepfriedokra 18:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. IMHO, the rules should be a framework within which we can constructively build. It should only be a proverbial sledgehammer when it needs to be. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices is officially open, in case you want to comment there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

using common terms

Regarding your commented-out commentary on GorillaWarfare's statement, "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men": as she explained in her evidence submission, she meant when she is included in a list of user names that has male editors, she'd prefer to also be referred to by her username, rather than her real-world name. As far as I can tell, Kudpung's responses in that discussion don't seem to based on your interpretation. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed—my issue was being the only one referred to by my first name when included in a list of male administrators referred to by their usernames. I have no problem with people of any gender using my first name, but I prefer it to be used consistently with how one is referring to others in the same statement, for the reasons I outlined in my evidence. I realized soon after leaving the note that "among" was unclear in that context and the statement could be construed the way you interpreted it, and so I clarified, but it did not change Kudpung's reaction.

BTW, should I be responding to your workshop proposals that are commented out or should I hold off? I'm not sure if the commenting means you are considering withdrawing the proposals, or what. I would like to respond to some of them if you intend to leave them, but I don't want to interrupt your drafting or spend the time if they are possibly going to be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

GW, I’m not done with these and I may or may not submit them for consideration. If you wish to pre-reply, you are welcome to do so, but please realize these are drafts and are not compete Buffs (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! #2

	The Original Barnstar
	I want you to know that despite disagreeing with you on the Kudpung workshop, I appreciate you standing up for Kudpung, for fearlessly expressing your views and for your overall civility. I hope it is clear that you have my respect. Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

*Tips his hat* likewise. Reasonable people can disagree...I think we've forgotten that as a society in a pursuit of "the truth". The fact is that there are a bunch of ways to look at things and impacts of decisions can have massive 2nd-order, 3rd-order, 4th-order, etc effects that can be just as damaging (if not moreso) than the problems they purport to fix. Likewise, just because there is a solution that has such effects doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the best solution (by which I mean the least-worst solution). I appreciate your candor and civility, Chris.sherlock. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For defending a trusted and valued admin against those with a particular axe to grind against Kudpung and the admin corps in general. Slatneck (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'm not defending anyone for being a trusted or valued admin. But I hate to see someone get railroaded via misleading summaries of events or slanted takes on their own experience. Kudpung needs to control himself better than this, but it doesn't rise to the level of desysopping either. Seeing as you're blocked for being a sockpuppet, I'll take the compliment. For anyone who's decided to "review" my actions off-site, no, this sockpuppet isn't me...I don't do that; the fact that you assume the worst of me and Hammer me for it is part of the problem. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Apologize for my rudeness

I want to apologize for my rudeness earlier. It was unbecoming of me, and uncalled for. You did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to deserve what I did. I unequivocally apologize for my actions. --Jayron32 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32 Hey man, if I came across as snippy, me too. Just want to make sure we log everything so it's clear. No harm. No foul. Buffs (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG

The file File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Careen/career

What do you have against the verb "career"? --Jtle515 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your assessment of the usage of the word is incorrect. The use of careen is FAR more common in this context than career. Likewise, it is describing an accident in North America; such word choice is preferred. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly pointless re-opening of edit request at Talk:Texas A&M Aggies football

Just wanna tell you I just re-closed the edit request at Talk:Texas A&M Aggies football you had reopened yesterday after seeing it in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests because I saw no reason why it should be reopened. If I missed something, feel free to revert me. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rummskartoffel: POINTLESS?!?! <reviews the edit...what was I thinking?...> I COMPLETELY missed that request's date. My fault. Thanks for the catch. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Thank you

for your statement. Whatever the outcome, it needed to be said. I am reminded of what I said to you here. At least this time round the committee has a slightly different composition, but I'm not holding my breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I;m pretty sure I've already banned you from my talk page in the past, but just in case you squeaked by, you're banned now. I have no interest whatsoever in anything you have to say. Your blatant lack of objectivity concerning me hasn't stopped you from commenting on my work. I can't stop you from doing that, but I can certainly shut the door to you on my talk page. Take a hike. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

1. You have no authority to "ban" me from anything (see WP:BAN). The fact that you misuse the term as a form of bullying is absurd. That said, I'll respect your wishes. If you requested it in the past, that's a mistake on my part and it won't be repeated.
2. My "blatant lack of objectivity"? You're no where close to being impartial here. I pointed out where the other party was incorrect. I tried point out alternatives to moderate what's clearly a dispute over you inserting your photos over long-established lead photos. The fact that you can't even see that your own photos are blurry or that you're exerting WP:OWNership is indeed the problem. Buffs (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delmar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Texas A&M University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~ HAL333 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)