Talk:Buffalo ReUse

Mr Gainer

This is becoming a Wikipedia/fluff page for Mr Gainer (who had his page revoked last week for similar embellishment of facts and lack of actual merit for their own Wikipedia page) 174.234.238.33 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As discussed in the deletion thread for Mr Gainer’s page, The New Ministry is either Mr Gainer himself or someone close to him. The personal information is irrelevant and should be removed from the page. 174.234.238.33 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"Michael Gainer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Michael Gainer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 5 § Michael Gainer until a consensus is reached. Star Mississippi 02:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Page deletion.

Outside of Mr Gainer using this page to advertise himself, the relevance of a Wikipedia page for a defunct nonprofit should be discussed. 174.234.238.33 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The Buffalo ReUse not for profit corporation is not defunct. I removed the "Dissolved 2022" line in the infobox. Kevin Hayes (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Buffalo Reuse/page deletion

The page has become a fluff page for Michael Gainer’s career and is not accurate, or relevant to the history of the organization. There are unsourced speculative/slanderous comments made in the article that The New Ministry keeps re-editing into the text and is written to specifically raise Mr Gainers profile. Please delete or heavily edit the page to remove anything beyond essential facts. 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Page deletion

This is being run by Michael Gainer and needs to be deleted. The information being uploaded is NOT ACCURATE 2600:1017:B14D:558D:657D:8104:BB30:937C (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the requests to open a deletion discussion. I know @Daniel Case declined protection, but IP2600 you are also edit warring so please be mindful of that as you could potentially lose access to edit this page. Star Mississippi 15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The page is not being "run" by Michael Gainer.

We, board members of Buffalo ReUse, don't have any idea who created it or edited it, except for my deletion of "Dissolved 2022", which is an unequivocally false statement.

The truth is, we at Buffalo ReUse don't care whether we have a Wikipedia page or not. It does nothing to advance our mission. If the page remains, I intend to edit it down to the bare minimum, leaving out poorly sourced or ambiguous history, mention of buildings the organization occupied, mention of people, all of that extraneous stuff. Kevin Hayes (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! Be sure to submit requests for edits using the Edit COI template. Enjoy your stay! TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So the page isn't editable? I have to submit a request for someone else to do the edits? Unlike this morning, when I removed a false statement?

As is, the article's ludicrous. We should start from a blank slate.

I have very little time for this, so my participation may have to be later. But the article as is is silly, incomplete, irrelevant. Kevin Hayes (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I requested page protection when this article was being vandalized several days ago, but was denied by administrator @Daniel Case:, who then blocked me from editing and accused me of violating the site's Conflict of Interest policy, even though I have no ties to the organization. And after the vandalism continued, @Star Mississippi: didn't restore most of the article's original content that the vandal(s) removed before protecting the page. This is what the article looked like before the nonsense started: . TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry @Kevin Hayes there is an essay known as meta:The Wrong Version wherein any admin who places protection on an article they are believed to have protected an inferior one. I do think the IP editor was behaving inappropriately in their info removal but do not know the depth of info that may have been needed. I did not open a procedural AfD as I did with the redirect but someone who opined on the article or another editor may.

@TheNewMinistry you are absolutely welcome to request an unblock from this article and a different admin from Daniel or I will evaluate it. @Kevin Hayes if you are on the Board, you should not edit it directly but if either you or TNM believes there is information missing that is valuable to an outside reader who wants to learn about Buffalo ReUse, you 're welcome to make edit requests. Let me know if you need more information? Star Mississippi 00:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

If I source the information correctly, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit the page. There's no magic about who edits the page as long as the rules are followed.

Is our website, buffaloreuse.org, an authoritative source? I can think of no more authoritative source, but if I have to dig up newspaper reporting to lay out basic information, so be it.

I'd rather have no page than waste time on this. Kevin Hayes (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kevin Hayes what you need are significant, independent, reliable sources. We could use the org's site for basic facts/timeline, but the article needs 3rd party information about BuffaloReUse and its work. If you would prefer no page, you can nominate it and the community will decide. Star Mississippi 02:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Kevin, in what world is using your own website as a source acceptable? “It must be true because it’s online!” 2600:1017:B14F:D521:38EC:10B0:3442:B215 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Page protection

Since my Talk is not the place for most to look. Daniel Case and I discussed and we mutually agreed protection was probably needed here. IP2600,I do not know whether you have a valid case for deletion, but edit warring on the article was not the path forward. You retain access to edit everywhere else, but if the edit warring continues you will not be able to. I have not looked into the N:ORG merits of this article, and any established editor is welcome to open an AfD if they see merit. The RfD mentioned above is also open. Star Mississippi 18:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A Word from Buffalo ReUse

I'm a co-founder of Buffalo ReUse and am currently Board Secretary.

We, Buffalo ReUse board members, don't care whether there's a page or not. It makes no difference to us and neither advances nor detracts from our mission.

I'm aware of notability and sourcing requirements. Notability is often debatable, and authoritative sources aren't always a source of truth. I am completely aware of what's true and not true in this article, as I was present when the events happened. But if The Buffalo News or some other news source didn't write it up correctly, I'm unable to state the facts as they are in this article. So be it, I don't really care.

I'm the only person involved in this who's using his real name. Why should we take anyone seriously if they either don't provide a user name or if they do, it's a pseudonym? Kevin Hayes (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Pretty lengthy response for “not caring”. Page should be deleted, it’s all fluff and poorly sourced. Anyone can make their own website and use that as a source, not hard to see it’s biased information coming from the same organization it’s trying to glorify. 2600:1017:B14F:D521:38EC:10B0:3442:B215 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Page protection

@Star Mississippi: and @Daniel Case:: Of notice to you both - User:ScottishFinnishRadish restored the Buffalo ReUse page to a previous version this morning following a Wikipedia:Oversight investigation, but inadvertently removed the page protection you had granted. TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

She restored it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)