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 Edits 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)

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

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

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

More effective use of talk pages

Hi, Buffs,

I responded at the Rfc on Order of the Arrow. Just wanted to make a comment about improving your effectiveness at talk pages or Rfcs. Regarding conversational tone or style, I think the use of caps, bold, or other methods of emphasis can be useful when used in a very limited fashion. At that Rfc for example, you are most effective when sticking calmly to the facts, but sometimes you seem to get goaded by comments of others, and in those cases you don't always help your case by the tone of your responses, regardless how provoked or misunderstood you might feel. I ended up supporting your position, but frankly, the tone or style of your response made it harder to do so. (It shouldn't—I shouldn't be swayed by that at all as it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I couldn't help it, I'm human.)

If you feel someone else's comments are inaccurate, correct them, dispassionately, one time. If you feel you can't do that, either wait a day or two and come back and try again later when you've cooled down, or go to another editor's talk page you trust and ask them to do it on your behalf, if they feel it merits it. If you feel an editor's behavior at an Rfc violates user standards, don't mention it there, but take it up on their use Talk page instead. Another approach, if you've already made your case about some point once in a TP discussion, and some editor responds as if they never read what you said, or didn't understand it, is to trust third party editors to see what's going simply let the other editor's remarks stand, in all their glorious inaccuracy.

And especially, don't feel you have to respond every time someone says something you think is wrong; consider just letting it be, and have faith in other editors to consider what you already said earlier and take it into account along with opposing viewpoints and weigh everything properly, regardless who repeated their same argument more times or posted it last. Repeating your argument, louder, bolder, all in caps, with exasperated tone at some editor's failure to see the golden light, isn't going to persuade them or help them understand, and might alienate neutral editors.

So, don't do that. Make your best case, add new comments only when you have new arguments, and when you don't, just chill. Smell the flowers. Have a nice cup of java, tea, or whatever your poison is. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point, any edits are met with assumptions of bad faith, incivility, "You can't do that! I'm the gatekeeper and you MUST pass through me!", WP:MEATPUPPETRY, and a host of other hostile/noncollaborative responses. The last significant edits of an article I edited was Indigenous intellectual property. My edits were derided as "blanking" despite the fact that there was no blanking. Any logic on this talk page is summarily dismissed as "you're just mad you lost" and subsequently ignored. Any attempts of discussion are derided as edit warring when no edit warring exists. At this point, I see no way forward as no one is willing to say that this admin is CLEARLY acting in bad faith, blocking those with whom he disagrees, insulting others, threatening people with blocks, etc.

Why has NO ONE addressed his demeanor? Buffs (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Still zip for this problem. Buffs (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

I ask that you quietly drop the rumor

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow BRD on Order of the Arrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C:, I've been following this conflict off and on since early March, 2019. In my following overview, I've offered some diffs but in the interest of brevity, I haven't provided thorough, point-by-point diffs for every statement. I can, though. I made a comment in the RfC on the Order of the Arrow talk page and even gave Buffs a warning on his talk page about his behaviour. Bishonen also left a detailed warning on Buffs' talk page. My observation is that Buffs is an extremely tendentious editor on this page (and others), obstructive to compromise in a disruptive manner, and liberally misrepresents WP policies in discussion. Reading some of the early conversations between Buffs, Indigenous girl, and CorbieV was a little disorienting until I realized Buffs was quoting and linking to policies that were not applicable in the situation. His comments, individually, often seem reasonable but if you look closer and pull apart his policy citations, they are either not pertinent or carefully cherry-picked out of the policy matrix.

I see the basic conflict on Order of the Arrow as Buffs not wanting any critical views/sources included in the article. Further, he very specifically does not want any Native American/Indigenous sources of criticism used in the article (this is de facto, not necessarily explicitly stated). The citing of Adrienne Keene in the article provides an example. On 6 March 2019, there was this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The result was generally in favor of using Dr. Keene as a RS. Later in March, Buffs brought it back to RS/N with additional grievances. At that point, GreenMeansGo entered the fray with Buffs. The consensus outcome again said Dr. Keene was a RS. Look carefully at the shotgun spray of policies and guidelines by Buffs in the comments, some quite inexplicable for the circumstance. On the heels of that outcome came an RfC from GreenMeansGo that again had consensus for using Dr. Keene. This, to me, shows persistent tendentiousness and complete rejection of consensus outcomes that do not align with Buffs' goals.

This is just one telling example of extreme long-term disruption. I've watched Buffs use a variety of tactics designed to wear down other editors rather than reach compromise. I've seen so many of these tactics deployed that it has become extremely difficult for me to assume good faith of Buffs. Here are some of these tactics. If a compromise is reached, Buffs will continue to push for more. He'll request citations for a sentence/point which will already be cited/sourced, then when more citations are added, it is over-cited according to Buffs. Then Buffs will delete the best citations, leaving one to say the sentence isn't well-sourced enough and delete the sentence. He continually changes the goalposts, sometimes contradicting his previous position or goal. Eventually, I noticed that Buffs often used DARVO in talk page discussion, i.e., attributing to other editors the behaviours he was doing. Buffs is not stupid. Deliberately or not (personally I favor the former), Buffs engages in a long drawn process of grinding attrition with other editors until they give up, at least in this case.

Like you, El C, I would like to see discussion, collaboration, and compromise between these editors, a collegial approach to shaping an article and content. From what I've seen, once you look past the surface, Buffs has little interest in that process. If this seems like casting aspersions, I can provide diffs/proof for any of those points. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

link diff where it was added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

Proposed solutions

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

Specific areas Buffs feels need improvement

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

Proposed solutions

1. "It uses imagery commonly associated with American Indian cultures for its ceremonies."

   Rationale: At no point does the article or the OA claim their ceremonies are modeled on those of Native Americans. Adding this remark only serves to unnecessarily highlight "THESE ARE NOT REAL NATIVE AMERICANS!!!" and in a disparaging manner. "It uses imagery..." is sufficient for this task. Nothing in the article or a referenced source backs up that claim. The words "self-invented" should be removed per WP:LEAD and WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

2. "Along with his assistant camp director, Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society to acknowledge those campers he felt best exemplified these qualities, calling the program, Wimachtendienk, or "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects."

   Rationale: "a word he stated meant" is redundant as the previous phrase "calling the program..."; it is also an attempt to register doubt without a factual basis in a reliable source. Reliable sources state otherwise; no reliable source to back up the current claim; it fails WP:MOSQUOTE, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

3. remove

   Rationale: This statement is now a note that does not support the given statement. As noted above, fails per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Likewise, "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings...". Even if currently incorrect now, it was as accurate as possible at the time it was stated. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

4. On July 23, 2018 the National Order of the Arrow Committee announced that they had received complaints about Arrow of Light crossover ceremonies from Native Americans. Given the inconsistent nature of the ceremonies, the only authorized ceremony by Arrowmen would be conducted without Native American regalia.<ref name=Complaints>{{cite web |title=Official Arrow of Light and crossover ceremonies |publisher=[[Boy Scouts of America]] - Order of the Arrow |date=July 23, 2018 |url=https://oa-bsa.org/article/official-arrow-light-and-crossover-ceremonies|accessdate=March 4, 2019|quote=many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed... [effective as of January 1, 2019] "...lodges and chapters that are asked to conduct Arrow of Light or crossover ceremonies for Cub Scout packs will only be permitted to conduct them using the new approved official ceremonies which can be found in the OA Inductions Portal. These ceremonies are to be conducted in a Scout uniform and are no longer permitted to be done in American Indian regalia."}}</ref>

   Rationale: summarize and place into prose per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style...It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

5. In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard to the National Order of the Arrow Conference being held on the MSU campus expressing his displeasure of the OA's choice of logo, despite its improvement, and accusing them of "flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism".<ref name=PRice>{{cite web|url=https://statenews.com/article/2015/08/letter-boy-scouts-on-campus-demonstrate-insensitivity-to-native-american-traditions,|title=LETTER: Boy Scouts on campus demonstrate insensitivity to Native American traditions|website=The State News|quote="For years, the OA's official logo was a stylized image of a generic "native" face with a swirling headdress. Their logo has since changed to a rough-hewn arrowhead, and although it is better than a dehumanizing image a la CMU's old "Chippewa" logo or the current Washington Redskins logo, it is still a symbol deliberately and shamelessly appropriated from a stylized stereotype of Native American artifacts. The OA website, as of today, features a prominent image of the "original chief bonnet," a feather headdress on a young white man's head. There is nothing "original" about this "bonnet." It is a symbol stolen from a culture that has absolutely nothing to do with the British tradition of Boy Scouts. Although the Boy Scouts have made some very recent advances toward being more socially aware...their honor society remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism."}}</ref> Ceremonial elements from from Native American groups have also been criticized. By using objects Native American groups deem not only sacred, but alive and/or blending the traditional elements of various Nations without apparent recognition or regard to distinctions between them, activists have criticized that the OA has shown disrespect and contempt.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ikwe |first=Ozheebeegay |title=Boys Scouts Order of the Arrow Guilty of Cultural Appropriation |publisher=Last Real Indians |url=http://lastrealindians.com/boys-scouts-order-of-the-arrow-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-by-ozheebeegay-ikwe//|accessdate=November 2, 2017|"I have been told that if we are not using these sacred objects as they are intended, we aren't walking the walk. Along with carrying and using these items, comes a great deal of responsibility. Not just anyone should have them. I want my children to know the truth that is the Drum, Pipe, and Eagle Feather. I want them to understand that traditional ways are not a costume or boy scout initiation. They are alive, they are sacred."}}</ref>

   Rationale: Same as previous + the summary of the second quote includes more of the article to include "disrespect and contempt" that was omitted by solely including the quote. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

6. I'm not sure we should reference this. If we do, it should be incorporated as-is, not with editorializing

   Rationale: Ignoring the accuracy of the assessment (example: people in the Boston Tea Party First dressed up as Native Americans in various manners to disguise who they were, not to portray themselves as Native Americans or silence them; Eagle Scouts are Boy Scouts...it's redundant; etc) and grammar (There are a stream of single-noun "sentences"), this isn't even a proper quote. It removes the original text (grammar errors and all), omits an entire paragraph, and changes the meaning of what was actually stated. Criticism of the Order of the Arrow is mentioned in passing once in the entire book of 250+ pages and nothing the OA does is even mentioned. It's just a blanket accusation. As placed in the book, the phrasing of the second part of the quote seems to better apply in accusation to the film "Cannibal Tours", and not to the Order of the Arrow. At no point does the author even mention how Boy Scouts, the OA, Eagle Scouts, etc. even fulfill the stated criteria, though other groups' actions are described in detail. At a bare minimum, it should be quoted accurately. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont)

I would appreciate if you were to refrain from that. Thanks. El_C 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I would appreciate if you were to tell IG to refrain from editorializing to advance a political agenda and to be more careful in her quotations and accurate in her sourcing. Buffs (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. As long as IG continues to edit scouting articles, we'll probably edit some of the same articles, but I tell you what, if I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first so I don't get accused of "following" again.
3. I'll be continuing auditing language that no longer applies tomorrow in other scouting articles if I have time (there's a lot of "Boy Scout" vs the more-appropriate "Scouts" lingering from the change to co-ed in February). Buffs (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just being polite — this wasn't really a request. El_C 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was just being polite too. Right now, all the "warnings"/threats are exceptionally one-sided. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't threat, but I do warn. And this is such a warning. I haven't warned her because I fail to see what she's done wrong. But I obviously don't think it's appropriate that you ended up following her around to an article she had just edited a few hours before. What was the point of that? El_C 17:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't see anything wrong about misleading quotes (one implies they lied; the other that they just haven't taken such action recently)? You don't see anything wrong with saying that paraphrasing shouldn't be allowed by anyone disagrees with Corbie?

Buffs (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't want you following her around to other articles, period. I agree that there has been an overreliance on lengthy quotes and have said that much on the article talk page. Again, I want to look forward rather than relitigate the past (which I told Corbie, also), but you're not making it easy. El_C 18:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I already said "...I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first...". Please be just as publicly critical of him & her as you are of me though. This seems VERY dismissive of WP:BLP violations. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Let me add to this ~ Stop following them ~ it's called Hounding ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for still following her around! What gives? Also, suddenly, after she edits a scouting-by-state article you start editing all those articles en masse. Really? Having those articles now displayed in your contributions will not serve you as a shield. You were warned not to follow her around — you ignored the warning. This is the consequence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)