User talk:Buffs

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

"History is written by the victors” except on Wikipedia, as your enemies are still alive & have lots of time on their hands - Elon Musk

Final Words

I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will.

Wikipedia has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). People have sneakily redefined "reliable sources" in terms that effectively exclude any conservative sources...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.

And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!: [1]. Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication.

It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you.

Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. been banned for completely made up reasons with no clarification given despite repeated requests and it had to be taken to ArbCom to get resolved. I was even blocked for undoing clear vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need).

The remaining part of Wikipedia seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive.

While Wikipedia is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by John Stossel, a journalist and donor to Wikipedia, they just stopped responding.

IMNSHO, Wikipedia has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR/FARC is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE".

Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; everything I did was a manual edit...think about it.

further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own and I'd like this to be my statement. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Wikipedia and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. Oldag07 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) @Oldag07: IMNSHO, Wikipedia has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. Buffs (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) I scratch my wiki editing itch on Fandom. I actually am an Administrator on the Civilization video game series wiki. https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Civilization_Games_Wiki I must admit, some fandom sites can be even more dictatorial and unwelcoming. I found one which definitely welcomes changes and doesn't chase people off. Sometimes it feels like the old days. and if you can't find a wiki of your liking, make a new one. Oldag07 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC) This is an unsolicited response, so feel free to revert. But I've been watching the A&M FAR and FAC -- though not commenting because it's not one of my areas of interest -- and absolutely agree with your complaints about how opaque FAC is. And I'm increasingly worried that if this is not all by design, then there's been a massive capitulation of coordinators' duties. Where else on Wikipedia is there such an existential aversion to working on the encyclopedia? GANs routinely have reviewers make grammar corrections and fix up sources -- that happened at my most recent one, but it happens all the time. DYK reviews have people fix sourcing and review images ... and if those images are incorrectly licensed, people just fix them. But FAC is just a series of unactionable complaints and unwritten norms, which requires one to speak in a secret language to decode, and make massive concessions with no basis in policy or encyclopedic writing. What other process makes it all but required to have shepherds guide newbies? I remember nominating an article recently, and I was told that it reads poorly. I asked how. And I was told that FACs aren't supposed to substantially improve or change the article, despite that literally being acceptable per their own rules. It's a black hole of effort for those who don't accede to random demands or speak their language. Urve (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) @Urve: Glad I'm not alone. I think my biggest concern is what I expressed above: fiefdom-building. In that manner, WP is slowly walling itself off and elitists, while stating they want to improve WP, are actually hindering expansion efforts and improvements in the interests of attempting to achieve perfection and without risk (which is, in reality, unachievable). I've seen this build slowly for 10+ years. For example, people nominate files (images mostly) for deletion because they don't meet some criteria. The nominators and admins who delete it fail to consider and often refuse to take the time to understand copyright law, often erring so far on the side of safety as to be completely unreasonable (I once demonstrated a file was in the public domain as the image was clearly within the defined guidelines. The response was "By just over a year...barely" and a vote to delete it because it was "just too close"...the file and its talk page were ultimately deleted). It's massively easier to criticized the work of others than make substantive improvements. Given your interests, I think we're probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and I'm glad we have a forum like this to talk with each other!). The fact that we both see this, despite our [likely significant] differences in opinion, does not bode well for WP. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, we probably are. But I'm with you about fiefdom-building, and speaking in terms of content fiefdoms, that's especially true in my areas of interest. Take a look at articles like Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and J. K. Rowling to see versions of our own Kowloon. Man for boring edit warring in its history. There are more egregious examples. I've given up on ArbCom or the admin corps doing anything about having little autonomous communities trying to wall themselves out; why take action against those who are "right"? And it's hard to not understand why. If anyone were in charge of an entire encyclopedia, they'd probably want their own versions of truth stated as fact. I can't blame you if this is the end of editing for you - despite our [probable] disagreements on many things, the openness of editing is what makes this place valuable. This isn't some plea for absolute liberal inclusionism -- WP:NONAZIS is probably good guidance, man-woman marriage userboxes are probably needlessly divisive, people who can't accept when reliable sources disagree with them aren't here with our core values in mind -- but you're not someone I'd exclude. We should have internal disagreements on the project; when we all work together to create a work product, there will be contradictions, based on who we are as people and what we value, but there's always, always value in contradiction. Urve (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Nomination Buffs, I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: I'm not interested in dissenting with the coordinator. All I want is a clear explanation so I can address any shortcomings and an explanation how he determined consensus as it is perplexingly opaque to me. Lastly, your support would have been appreciated for FA. I have no intention of going through an additional A/GA process. This article already had GA a LONG time ago. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I did not know that I could support it, because I thought only coordinators could. However, I will support it next time it appears. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: Would you like me to inform you next time I put it up? (just for clarity so I'm not accused of canvassing) Buffs (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I check the WP:FAC noticeboards every now and then, so when it reappears again, I'll take a look at the discussion. But although I support the article as it stands, there may still be some overlooked concerns that other editors will notice. If that is the case, I will hold off my decision until you (or I) fix the issues. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: I'll take any feedback you have now. What changes have been asked for are currently unclear and I've asked for clarification. It feels very much like "do it my way or it isn't approved" overrides consensus. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see Texas A&M University on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC) I don't see it on the main page...*scratches his head* As for leaving, I'm going to confine my activities to a smaller set. But given the bias being shown here, I doubt it will ever change. Would you like to be notified next time I nom for FA? Buffs (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Final Words I have been saying much the same as you. I hope you keep editing, and do not let them silence you. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Without more conservative voices, leftist politics will prevail masquerading as WP:NPOV. As John Stossel pointed out, any altruism or sense of equality is simply gone. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Best of luck for you I hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) As mentioned with Lightburst, at this point, we have pushed to the point where leftism is dominant on WP and it's practically just a numbers game. WP:RS has not changed, but those controlling the levers have decided to label anything conservative as "unreliable" and anything leftist "reliable". It's a similar game across all of media. Fox News is no more right than the New York Times is left, but one is considered the gold standard and the other derided. This will not change until people realize the echo chamber they are creating. Buffs (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Buffs, it sucks that this is happening on Wikipedia. I believe that it would be fine to add all sources in most circumstances; we must maintain WP:NPOV. But if there are any information that is contradicting, make a note about it in the article, i.e "New York Times claims that ....." and then "Fox News claims that .....", and vice versa. Seems a lot more neutral, right? Also, we can always use DRN or RFC when in doubt. Would that help? Also, welcome back to being unblocked! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) I certainly don't advocate for violating NPOV, but when you define the conversation as left = neutral, you aren't achieving NPOV. I've had zero success with RfCs or DRN. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC) Well, let me know in my talk page when anything in that nature occurs. I will try my best to help you. Best of luck, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC) noted; thanks Buffs (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Texas A&M University

Hi again; just to let you know, I replaced a reference in "Notable alumni and faculty" --> "Alumni" [2]. The sentence was cited to a forum post, which are not normally reliable sources; I replaced it with a ref from Mary and Sophie Hutson cited to Houston Chronicle. Otherwise, no worries. Good luck with your planned FA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Buffs (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes for myself

• replace Alumni -> Aggies in at least some cases
• replace Texas A&M -> A&M in at least some cases
• replace university -> school in at least some cases
• update references and numbers
• add "right" to images

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Buffs,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI

You may be interested in reading User:Piotrus/Response+[3]. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies... Buffs (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Answer

Sorry but to answer your question you will "have to bite the bullet." Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

understood; thanks Buffs (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TAMU Help

Howdy Buffs, I noticed that you are quite an experienced editor and frequently make edits to the Texas A&M University page. I recently moved the campus section to be below the history section and then created a list of all the colleges. Now, when I look at the page from my phone, the sections are very messed up. I was wondering if you have the knowledge that could possibly fix my egregious mistake. Aquabluetesla (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

sure, undoing for now. Will tweak over the next hour to encompass your changes. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aquabluetesla: I've implemented some of the changes you made. Those I did not include were additional wikilinks to the College of Engineering and the College of Law (both are already previously wikilinked in the prose; see WP:OVERLINK for more of the rationale). I also did not include your chart for the colleges as such information is already included in the prose. This information was previously listed in a chart in the article, but based on feedback during the FA process, it was removed as redundant. If people want to know more about each of the colleges, they can click the associated wikilinks and read more about them. If you disagree, I'd be pleased to discuss it further either here or on the talk page. Have a wonderful day! ...and thank you for your interest! Buffs (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing me of the guidelines on that. I did not know. I checked and found that nine of the current sixteen (it lists seventeen but I could only find sixteen) schools are not mentioned anywhere on the main article. I remade list on the talk page though and hope that this figure can be decreased or a list can be added. My original list was very primitive, (I copied the style from UT) but I think it could be improved with pictures or it could be combined with the endowment section (like SMU) in academics so the article can have a list like similar institutions do. Maybe we can discuss this on the talk page. Aquabluetesla (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Here or there is perfectly acceptable, but Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice applies as well in an effort to standardize Colleges and Universities. That's why the pages correlate and there is a limited amount of variation between them when it comes to format.

There were 17 colleges when those paragraphs were written. Most are prefaced with "As of 2021..." to help avoid the problems that are created with such changes. It needs some minor updates.

Also, "I copied the style from UT"...I don't see that on the University of Tennessee's page, but maybe I'm missing something. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)