User talk:Buffs

Damn fine football game

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

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

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

File:Iowa Hawkeyes Logo.svg and others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Gators football: "State Championships"

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

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

12th Man (football) edits

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

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

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

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

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

File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png

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

If you will note on [1] there arealternate logos that were in use during this timeframe (including the one you mentioned), but the design to which you are referring in the USAToday article is the current one (a 3D view, not a side view), not the one on the pages here, so, no it is not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

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

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

Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne

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

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

Aggies

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

Holiday cheer

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

Season's tidings!

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

Paul Watson

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of File:New mexico.gif

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of File:UNLV textlogo.png

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

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

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

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

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

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

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

• So...a non-controversial piece of information (a birthday) is worth adding "citation needed". You appear to be striving to be awfully pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. You're reverting A change that's also accurate: [2]. Take your pick of an article. Slamming this with a 6-year-old discussion with no widespread discussion seems petty. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the ref for the broadcast.

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

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

Your edits on Order of the Arrow and now Warbonnet

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

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

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

Disagreement with you personally is NOT Disruptive editing

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

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

Civility Barnstar

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

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

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

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

Page blanking on Indigenous intellectual property

Removing UN resolutions, statements from elders councils, the Native American Rights Fund, etc, etc, etc, without consensus.[3]. With the history you have of this stuff? You really want to go down this road again? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)