Jump to content

User talk:Rlevse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Barnstar - thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. They seem to me to be a curious idea, but it is nice to know that someone thinks I am making a usefull contribution. I appreciate it. On another point, I have changed all the Australian State articles so the portal is below the logo. I agree with you. --Bduke 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for mine. Now, if we just had a Scouting Wikipedia Editor emblem for this I could wear on my uniform. :-) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Violence in the Boy Scouts

While I personally have no knowledge of this, it doesn't mean it does not/has not happened. I honestly have no idea if its a problem or not. If it is notable, then I guess it deserves article space - but I'm not sure about its own article. At any rate, this new article does not cite any references and makes claims that I know will soon start another drag-down-knock-out fight. Also, the way the intro paragraph is written, makes it sound like "Volence in the Boy Scouts" is a commenly used phrase. Needs some re-wording. Just wanted to give you a head's up.

P.S. I'm sorry I never got around to commenting on the B-P sexual orientation thing. I wrote a comment about 4 or 5 times and ended up deleting all of them before I clicked "save page" because I just couldn't come to the right conclusion. Oh well I guess. --Naha|(talk) 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I hadn't seen it yet. Rlevse 16:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User SaintCliff

Hah! I just noticed that you have User SaintCliff on your userpage. Are you a Cheers fan too? Staxringold 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my best buddy and I at work User:Coffeeboy, is a Cheers fan too. He and I made the userbox (his idea, my code). I voted for your Cheers fac too. Nice to work with you. Rlevse 16:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I made a semi-serious proposal at Wikipedia talk:Mascot, if you're interested. Maybe the three of us should propose it on a more widely read page like the Village Pump? Staxringold 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I put him up on meta:Wikipedia_mascot! Staxringold 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Psst

I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Newbie help

I've notices your edits on lots of scouting topics, so I thought I might ask you for help. Could you look at Talk:Camp_Tuckahoe,_York-Adams_Area_Council,_Boy_Scouts_of_America ? --12.106.111.10 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a few days. If you don't here from me by 12 Mar, remind me. Rlevse 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI - Gadget850 to care of the issue. Thanks ! -- 12.106.111.10 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I hadn't forgotten though. Rlevse 11:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Take a look at the new Cite.php footnote style at Wikipedia:Footnotes. This looks much easier to manage. I converted James E. West (Scouting) to the new style and used the cite web template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portal:Scouting

The portal has been promoted (though I made a final suggestion on its nom page). Congratulations, --cj | talk 05:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation in the OA article...

was a bit confusing. I've cleaned up the grammar a little to clarify what you mean can be included in the article. Please give me a holler if I've missed the mark. KC9CQJ 02:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Crew

Sea Scout ships, Explorer Scout posts and Air Scout Squadrons were divided into crews (similar to patrols) until Exploring came along in 1949. The Venture crew existed at the troop level from 1989 to 1998 when it was renamed to a patrol and Venturing picked up the crew designation. BSA tends to recycle concepts: compare the old Boy Scout skill awards to the Cub Scout Sports & Academic belt loops. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Air Scout Squadrons were divided into Flights. They were supposed to use the term 'crew', for consistancy across the board, but never really did. Senior Scout Outfits were also divided into crews. Exploring didn't come along until 1959. Under Explorers in 1949, the units continued to be divided into crews. --Emb021 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Featured portal page

I've added a clarification to Wikipedia:Featured portals.--cj | talk 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Scouting caps

I've got to go with Emb021 on this one. "Patrol Leader", "Junior Assistant Scoutmaster", and all unit jobs (youth or adult) are titles of specific jobs and as such should be capitalized. Not capitalizing them makes it look like a generic phrase; it's like not capitalizing Systems Engineer on a business card. I know it says otherwise in the LOS and the Scout handbook has them lowercase, but I have always disagreed with it. On the other hand, I do agree with Ed that we need to be consistent throught the Scouting articles. Rlevse 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse echoes my views on caps in regards titles. As to consistency, you're not going to get an argument from me. I fully supported the proposed layouts that Ed proposed and have been trying to be sure we have some good articles. I've lost count of the number of scouting related articles I've had to fix things along those lines, as I'm sure the rest of us have. --Emb021 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Scout portal featured article

Hi, thanks for the vote of confidence. It will be nice for the SASA page to get some extra publicity. If I have time I'll try to add a few more items of international interest. Zaian 18:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Boy_Scouts_of_America_50-Miler_Award_Patch.jpg

Hi Rlevse, thanks for that edit. The tag you used is probably better. Best, Johntex\talk 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Eagle List

Hey RLE-

I was just surfing the web. I just came across this page, and realized when comparing the list there with the one here, List of Eagle Scouts, that you were the author of the former. There are several entries on the former (Gary L. Anderson, Charles Barber, John Bryant, Jim Whittaker, [[Donald F. Wright, John M. Wright, Jr, among others) that didn't make the wiki list. What to do? evrik 17:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons FAC

Hi, you objected to the The Simpsons FAC on grounds of missing reference section, please note that this has now been fixed. Poulsen 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

UK Scouting

User:Horus Kol is making a great contribution now on UK Scouting. He has significantly expanded Explorer Scouts and just added Scout Section (UK). I predict more good things from him. --Bduke 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the tip. Rlevse 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words Bduke - and thanks for the thanks on my talkpage Rlseve... i do my best Horus Kol 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Youth and Adult Training (BSA)

I am preparing to write articles on youth and adult training in the BSA. I was thinking preliminarily to make them sub-pages from Boy Scouts of America, then when they are complete and wikified, finding a place to put them permanently. What is your advice on this? NThurston 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New tool

Check out User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Looks interesting. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore on WP:FAC

Thanks for voting on the WP:FAC for Mount Rushmore (here). I tried working on your minor objections to this article, and hope that the new changes are satisfactory. AndyZ t 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dyess, MoH, BSA

I'm working on creating and updating articles on all Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients. I note that Mitchell Paige is also an Eagle Scout. I'll be making further updates to that page when I get to the "P"s. —ERcheck @ 17:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you! Its my first one :) --Naha|(talk) 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Colaboration

Hey, maybe there is a way to promote the scouting collaboration and promote editing. Wikiproject Star Wars has tabs to put on the article when they are nominated, and then once they are colaboration like this Black Fleet Crisis or this Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/Collaboration of the week. We could even talk to people via talk pages to try to promote it. Collaboration is such a good way to get work done, it's a shame that it goes largely unnoticed lately. Griz 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You could always get a small group of people to help with recruiting for editing, so you wouldn't have to do it all by yourself. Just a thought. Griz 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

I apologize if I have violated the insular nature of the project. I see your point: non-scouts dont understand scouting and tend to make decisions which don't help the project as a whole. Next time, I'll bring it up on the Project talk page first. However, Scouting in Vatican City? You have got to be kidding me. It didn't strike me that these set of articles would be the result of Project consensus, and in fact, I do not see why the decision to separate Scouting by country necessarily implies articles for countries in which there is no scouting. As I said in the nomination, I didn't nominate aritcles which had even a whisper of content other than "there is no scouting in this country". Similarly, we divide the Olympics by year and then by country, but that doesn't mean we create articles for countries that didn't participate in the Olympics. If there actually is Scouting in these countries, let me know, and I will yank the nomination. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow article

I can't help but notice your last statement on the talk page for Order of the Arrow, in which you say that the conversation keeps going and going.

It's been that way even long before the Scouting WikiProject stepped in and attempted to form consensus. The problem with the article is that some folks form consensus, and then others go around that consensus and create a different one, yadda, yadda, yadda. From Savidan's point of view, he wants to create an article based upon verifiable fact, not just what Scouters are pulling out of left field. I just want the article to conform to one standard, the one you established as to material inclusion, however, there will be people who remove things from the article based upon their personal feelings and not upon the consensus that you advocate or readily available National materials.

Bravo for your work there, I agree totally with your statement of consensus and I'm following it to the letter of the word. We all are working to create the best Order of the Arrow article that we can. In the meantime, perhaps you can look at Firecrafter and get some ideas on how I handled some similar issues there. KC9CQJ 03:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and support.Rlevse 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get 1.1 ready to release late this evening or as late as tommorow evening; however the log-in failure doesn't result from anything that's been changed between versions. Check that you're using the monobook skin and that you are logged in within the browser window in VandalProof (in the upper right hand corner, as in your usual browser). I corrected the error with the instructions to install popups; thanks for pointing that out. In the future could you please post bugs such as this one at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs, where you'll see that this is the most common problem that users have had, and advice on fixing it is also there. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism??

I (131.247.224.53, before I created an account) was recently cited for vandalism by you on the Converse "Chuck Taylor" article . I'm new to contributing to Wiki, so perhaps I was in error, regardless, I would just like to ask why you think I was vandalising the article by adding a mention of hemp Chucks. I'm wearing a pair of hemp converse RIGHT NOW. I don't know why this is vandalism...maybe you just didn't do the neccessary research before accusing me.

I've noticed now that you aren't really accusing people of vandalism, you just don't know how to operate the software Vandalproof. I would recommend you look over all the changes you made and make sure they are really necessary.--Lwieise 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Like this one: [[1]] where you deleted 1 quarter of a seemingly normal paragraph.--Lwieise 07:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the hemp, you are correct, I misread the edits. I am sorry. I've restored that and removed the tag from your (IP) page. It's not that I don't know how to use the software. For the Norway article, that user, 196.204.96.18, was reverted multiple times by multiple people in just a few minutes and if one good edit gets caught up in reverting a repeat vandal it always can be added back in. Rlevse 10:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting it. I'm really new at Wikipedia so that was a big step for me. I'm working on a article right now for Moe's Southwest Grill, one of my favorite places to eat. I figured it would be a good way to get my feet wet since it is not an ultra-important article. You're welcome to provide any help or tips that may make it easier or a better article. Thanks! --Lwieise 17:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Springbok

Thanks, I made a small change. Regards, Zaian 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User Templates

Thanks for the tip on my article! I was wondering how to get the templates like you have for your user page and whatnot. Is there a WP article for them? If I like yours can I just copy and paste them?--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can copy the code from any user page you like to use whatever template they use (just don't change someonelse's user page(s), except their talk page). There is not article for it that I know of, but there are userbox pages you can use to choose userboxes. My setup is a little more complicated because you have to make subpages of your userpage, but it's not that hard. Give it a whirl. Rlevse 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Vatican City

Thanks for the heads-up. Right now it does not look like there is any numerical superiority one way or another, but... Shows you what happens when the tiny minds with nothing better to do get bored. Chris 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back on that, how is the WOSM rename fight coming? Chris 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Campfire

Hi,
I took a look at your changes. Honestly, I don't like them. They don't resolve the article's problems. In fact, some of them just make things worse; for instance, the statement "Tipi fires are excellent for producing heat to keep you warm" shouldn't use second-person pronouns. In addition, your "cross fire" looks an awful lot like the log cabin, which has been in the article for a long time. I know that my complaints don't count for much, because I haven't even logged in to the wiki in two weeks, but you asked for comments, so I figured I would give you some. --Smack (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look

at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo#Possible copyright infringments. I fear that this problem is related to more than 50 articles. YiS --jergen 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, he may well have gotten a lot of his info from here. Since there have been no changes to the source in 5 years, he may not even be able to contact anyone. He should at least cite the source though. Rlevse 11:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not intend any plagiarism, the source he used is actually a book from my own library. Not heard back from him. Would citing the original book help out? You know I am not the guy to be underhanded, just often overeager. Chris 16:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, Chris. I think it best to cite the most original source you have, both if you don't mind. Rlevse 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of BSA Councils

Quite frankly, the Scouting WikiProject needs to get over itself.

The purpose of WikiProjects is to facilitate collaboration on related articles, but they do not have any authority above that of anyone else to outright dictate content.

Clearly, there is a dispute as to whether the article in question should be a list or a redirect. The members of the Scouting project do not get to decide that question among themselves. If there is a dispute that the interested participants are unable to resolve themselves, then an RfC should be filed (this is what RfCs are really for--resolving content disputes, not user conduct disputes) and the input and consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole should be sought. That's how things work.

I'm not claiming any sort of special authority for myself; I'm just trying to get you to stop asserting authority you don't possess. Kurt Weber 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your authority is no stronger than ours, so where do you come of deciding this all on your own? At least we had a consensus whereas you declared yourself the sole decision maker. You are doing exactly what you are accusing us of doing. Rlevse 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You did NOT have a consensus. The agreement of two or three people does NOT constitute "consensus". And again, I am asserting no special authority for myself; I'm just trying to preserve the status quo as it was before you asserted authority you do not possess. Kurt Weber 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. But if it means that much to you, put it back the way you want, I have better things to do. Rlevse 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There was an edit conflict, so I'll respond to this and then post what I had originally posted: I do know what I am talking about. You are acting out of process, and that is a bad thing.
Here's the thing--arguments over whether an article should be a list or a redirect should take place on THAT ARTICLE'S talk page and nowhere else. General guidelines and standards should be proposed and debated in the main Wikipedia namespace, not on a subpage of a WikiProject. That way, the input of the entire community can be sought rather than of those who happen to check one particular Wikiproject's page.
Wikiprojects are not entitled to make policy themselves. There are various arguments as to whether or not this is a good idea (and in fact I have made a proposal that would have a similar result), but for the time being this is how things are. Process is important. Kurt Weber 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who first left a msg on a user talk page, not me, now isn't that calling the pot calling the kettle black? Rlevse 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. My posting here is in regards to your individual conduct in general, not about the specifics of that article. Note that I have made no argument on this page as to why the page should be an actual list rather than a redirect; I have simply commented on your out-of-process actions. The discussion over whether the article should be a list or a redirect indeed belongs on that article's talk page.
Finally, calm down a bit. Have some foil dinners (we always looked forward to those on our campouts) and "chocolate doughnuts" (long story) and let's work this out. No need to take it personally. While I believe you acted improperly and have explained why, it's not an attack on your character. No need to treat it as such. Kurt Weber 18:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you've said that. Your conduct has hardly been proper, but I'm sure you'll never see it that way. The problem with people not involved in the Scouting project trying to change a cat/rename an article/etc, is that they don't see the gestalt of the entire project, they only see the one piece they are concerned with. Rlevse 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's the whole point. The project is not entitled to make those decisions on its own. Kurt Weber 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


That's the whole problem, you don't see the big picture. Not seeing the project as a whole defeats the purpose of having a project; otherwise, why have one. You should have seen the Scouting categories before the project people came along; the categories, the rank articles, and council/state/region articles were a total mess -- disorganized structure multiple ways, etc. If it weren't for those people and their initiative -- and I'm talking on an international level here, they'd still be that way. But if you want to revert the Scouting articles into that state, go right ahead. Rlevse 21:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, with all due respect to you, Rlevse, remember that you're dealing with Scouters. We don't like to be called wrong, and Lord knows that every good Scouter on the Wiki has every little shred of evidence to support his viewpoint and can quote every word, phrase, diagram, and page number from the books he uses on a regular basis. Once again, I think that part of the issue is that "consensus" is formed based upon three or four opinions, and then action is taken. I know I could write a heckuva article just on my council that's ten times more helpful than the Scouting in Indiana article, talking about history and so-on, but that's beside the point. I would urge everyone to seek true consensus before moving to act, and I think that Kurt brings up a valid point in regards to using the talk pages to settle dispute. I don't think it's fair to use three or four points of view to create consensus, and I think that's Kurt's main point. KC9CQJ 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
'You just called others and I wrong, so what's the difference? If you want to add to Scouting in Indiana or any other article, please do so. There aren't enough of us to work every single article to the fullest. Rlevse 10:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)'

Rlevse, you're reading too much in between the lines. I was saying that NONE of us like to be proven wrong and can support his or her view from whatever angle possible. My point is that this is an instance where consensus has been created off of four opinions, from what I can see, and perhaps consensus needs be actively solicited before action is taken. My comment to Scouting in Indiana specifically refers to the point that I could write a full article on my council alone, but I haven't, following Scouting WikiProject guidelines which have been established. Frankly, I don't see how you can have the standing of accusing anyone of being short or un-Scoutlike with some of your comments to other members of the Scouting community here, myself included, especially when every communication that I've had with you has been in the most positive light that I can articulate. I don't appreciate you attempting to turn me into a bad guy and taking your attitude out on me when I'm trying to help you out and understand someone else's viewpoint in the first place, and perhaps it's that very thing that keep Scouters like me away from active participation in the project. Check your facts, I'm the one who gave you props for doing a good job creating a standard at Order of the Arrow. KC9CQJ 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into this. But now you're doing some of the same things you're accusing me of but I see no reason to belabor the point. I know I'm not perfect but neither is anyone else. I am well aware of your help on the OA article and you have no reason accusing me of not knowing so. I appreciate any help you provide to the Scouting articles. It's impossible to please everyone on Wiki. I think everyone should take a wiki break here. Rlevse 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Touche. Point taken and accepted. Why didn't you respond on my user space ;-)? KC9CQJ 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't respond here last time because I don't like broken or "doubled" threads. I only do that sometimes to ensure someone reads a message. YIS, Rlevse 09:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More tools

I have a toolbox on Wikipedia that you'll be interested in. Go ahead and make a copy of the tools and other links. Martial Law 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Acusation of vandalism

I apologize. I did not realize that I could not edit that and I will not do it again in the future. However, I am wondering why you just re-added me to the log. My edit of the Suzanna Sherry article was in line with wikipedia policy on verifiability (I provided a more detailed explanation on the talk page). When a user provided a cite for the challenged assertions, I did not attempt to revert again. Thus, my actions were in good faith. Moreover, although your comments on my etiquette have been duly noted and I will not edit your vandalism log again, I wonder why I received a vandalism warning for editing this log -- I did not in fact vandalize intitially and was simply reverting what I, on a good faith basis, believed to be false informaiton about myself that anyone could see by clicking "what links here". In short, I apologize and I request: 1) to be removed from your vandalism log; 2) that you remove that vandalism warning from my usertalk. Thank you. 129.59.135.52 22:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I made an honest mistake in marking the edits as vandalism and for that I apologize. The vandalism software has a process for marking bad reverts as mistakes and by manually editing my page you threw that out of whack. Please let us know on our talk page in the future. I'm in the middle of fixing all this right now. I'll undo the vandal notice from me in a minute. But, be advised you are logging in as an anonymous user from a school and ANY vandalsim by ANY user from that school will show up on that same user page, whether it was done by you or someone else. This is one reason to get a wiki account. Again, I'm sorry for my honest mistake and let me know if you have more questions. Rlevse
No worries. I am sorry I threw the software out of whack. 129.59.135.52 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List or redirect

Thanks Randy, that guy's full of... himself. Chris 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I would support an afd for it, absolutely! Chris 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BSA local councils and districts
ps-this guy's a list nut-check out the unWiki List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges which really needs to be merged into the individual state articles. Chris 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
afd'd it-this is the second time this list has been put up for afd, The result of the debate was Delete all first in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_26#List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges.
If the result was delete, why is it still there? Rlevse 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So... I plan to begin adding information about OA groups (lodges, chapters, etc.) to the Scouting in California page by council; so each council I add to would have a subsection on OA. Is this in keeping with the deletion and discussion of the List of lodges page? Please comment on my talk with your take. Scoutersig 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

It made 21 separate edits on my talk page creating the paragraph 27 times. Was that deliberate testing on your part? It is a nice idea. Thanks for the thanks! --Bduke 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting

I think its great that you add scouting-related AfD and CfD's to the Announcements. However, please refrain from suggesting a specific vote on the project page. I think it is inappropriate for you (or any other project member) to present their views as those of the project. I left it unchanged as a curteousy, but I would recommend that you remove it yourself. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Rlevse 22:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note at my talk page. I have been happy to help out with a few articles and I definitely plan to work on other articles in the future. YIS Johntex\talk 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh-oh, I hope I don't make you regret that I came by... I clicked on your Image gallery because I am always interesting in good images. I notice, however, that some of the images (E.g. Image:ISCAJournalNov2004.jpg) are ones you show are ones that you have uploaded under fair use. It is my understanding that fair use images are OK in articles, but that fair use rational does not extend to letting us keep them on our User Page or User Talk Page. You may want to consider replacing the fair use ones with linklines such as "Image:ISCAJournalNov2004.jpg used at International Scouting Collectors Association". It doesn't have quite the same visual impact, but it will let you keep a record of what images you have found and contributed without running afoul of fair use guidelines. Best, Johntex\talk 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. :-) Evercat 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge or No Merge?

Last night I tagged a bunch of local council articles that were outside of their respective state articles looking for a ruling on whether or not they are to be merged into their proper state articles. One of them was one of the ones that you and Naha took a look at. Might I suggest adding something to Rules/Standards to clarify so that another well-meaning bonehead like myself doesn't tag the articles for merge? LOL :-) KC9CQJ 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mic-o-Say

I've hopefully answered your question. Talk:Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say#Mic_O_Say_and_OA. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Insular Scouting organizations

Have a look at Category:Insular Scouting organizations.

Shouldn't the text be something else? ;-)

--Lou Crazy 02:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I tweaked it. Let me know if you don't think it's better now. Rlevse 10:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Better. But I'm not sure the name is appropriate... --Lou Crazy 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked really hard for a good name for this category--nothing quite fit, but this was the closest. Rlevse 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cedric Griffin

Good catch on the "Benson". Cedric Benson was also a UT football player. I get them confused sometimes! Thanks for fixing that. Johntex\talk 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Baldy Picture

Responded at Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch#Baldy Picture. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 08:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merit badges ^ Campfire

I would appreciate it if you would let me know what contents boyscouttrail.com has that is not already in the article, could or should be in the article, or is in one of the other links? Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And the following, too, I guess:

My removal is based on WP:EL, specifically, under "Links to normally avoid", #2, #3, #4, #5. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


    • a) provides lots of amplifying additional relevant content data on MBs, only some of which is in the article

b) agree, a French language site doesn't need to be in there, I've removed it c) has camp recipes, which are not in the article and amplify it, and is additional meaningful data d) additional data source as above e) additinal data, but agree it's similar to the article, just more detailed

None of this is spam; it's primarily additional data. See "What should be linked to" #6. I don't feel your #3 and #4 apply. Your #2 and my #6 often conflict. Rlevse 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you're missing an important part of "What should be linked to" #6: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." So far as I can see, that only applies to the campfire recipes. If material is "suitable for inclusion in an article", then the material should be rewritten and added to the article.
Merit badges are clearly your field, but given that for each badge, the article links to the official US Scouts page for the badge, I fail to see what the external link addes. For example, for American Business, the link is to [2]. This appears to be the same text that the external link takes you to for the same badge ([3]). Isn't the official site sufficient?
As for the Campfire recipes site, it seems to me that a.) the contents are basically irrelevant to the subject (one can, after all, cook almost anything on a campfire) and b.) the site clearly "primarily exist to sell products or services."
www.rogueturtle.com is spam that has been removed from dozens of pages. It is classic spam-- it was placed on those pages by a single user who has done nothing else except place rogueturtle links to articles, in order to increase traffic to the site.
www.campfiredude.com is similar. Take a look at the user's contributions [4].
I'm really not trying to bust anyone's chops here-- I'm just trying to make this a better encyclopedia. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
While we don't agree on everything, I will agree that IF rogueturtle and campfiredude are being placed on multiple pages by one user then that would be spam and would not object to those two being removed. I did not know that fact. I did look at the web pages themselves though, which of course do not reveal that fact. Rlevse 20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And the usefulness of the Merit badge links (which, btw, were added by the same guy who did the campfiredude link)? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Boyscouttrail.com is actually an extremely useful site and used by many in Scouting. The fact is was added by the same person doesn't make it spam. This was added in Feb. The Campfire article was modified in April. I have to leave now to go out camping with my troop now and won't be able to discuss further until sometime on Sunday. I removed the two links from the Campfire article. Rlevse 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mafeking Cadet Corps

Thanks for the suggestion - I've added a picture and nominated it for DYK. Zaian 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And further thanks - it featured on the Did You Know? list on the Main Page today! Zaian 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! Rlevse 17:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal proof problems

Are you still haveing problems loading VandalProof?? If so please post a message as such on my talk page and I will get AmiDaniel's attention back onto that thread. ThanksEagle talk 23:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Left handshake

Hmm, I've never heard of the left handshake coming from Southern Africa. I can find quite a lot of references to a West African (Ashanti) origin ([5], [6], [7]). Even the South African Scout literature refers to it as coming from West Africa. Incidentally I was the one who edited the first bullet point to refer to West Africa, and added the {{fact}} tag to the second. Perhaps I should have updated the second one to refer to West Africa too. Zaian 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof... agian

Can you please tell me in detail what your problem is. Also include operating system, and version of internet explorer (IE). Please be as descriptive as possible... thanks:-)Eagle talk 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Post on my talk page please.
This means what?? eventhough I'm already logged into VP via a separate browser window, and I assume that SP2 is XP.
If so, your spec's match mine exactly. Give me a couple minutes... and a few more questions and this should be solved:-)Eagle talk 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I need you to clarify this, eventhough I'm already logged into VP via a separate browser window, thank you. Eagle talk 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Response 1

Ok sorry about that, please make new messages a new line, else I can't tell just glancing at it. Thanks.

Being that we both seem to have the same operating system and version of IE, I am going to start at the begginning.

1)Verify that you are accepting all cookies.

2)I have already double checked your popups, they are fine.

3)Is IE your main browser, or do you use firefox?

I have more info, pending your responses:-).Eagle talk 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me

Please excuse me if I am a bit slow tonight, I am trying to debug a nasty runtime bug in a program of mine... I need a nuke or something...:-)Eagle talk 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Response 1

1) How do I verify if I am accepting all cookies? 2) OK 3) I only use IE. Thanks for the help, Rlevse 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Let's use your page or mine, not both, it'll get confusing if we use two. it doesn't matter to me. Rlevse 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap... For the record, I watch only a select 20 pages or so... If I watched every user I talked to, There would be no point to it:-). I don't care, if you want to watch my page, post on mine, and I will post there too... but what ever you do, leave a message on my page:-) Uh... now let me read the rest of what you wrote:-)Eagle talk 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MoH category - USAAF

Thanks for your comment. Do you have a reference to show that USAAF Medal of Honor recipients are credited to the USAF?

The U.S. Air Force wasn't officially founded until 1947. Those in the USAAF were a part of the U.S. Army at the time. I wasn't sure whether USAAF should be USAF or USArmy (see my question on Military History WikiProject/US Task Force talk page. I held off on moving the USAAF into categories at first, then decided on USArmy based on date of establishment of USAF.

I am happy to revert the few that I've recategorized.... I'll wait for your reference. In the meantime, I'll hold off on anymore USAAF folks. —ERcheck @ 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which gets credit? Army or Air Force?

I'm not an expert on the Army, Air Force, or the USAAF. The USAAF was part of the Army.

I realized that Femoyer was in the USAAF; his MoH citation ends with "The heroism and self-sacrifice of 2d Lt. Femoyer are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army." He did receive the Army version of the medal. (The USAF version was not authorized until 1960.) There have been 17 USAF receipients - 4 from the Korean War and 13 from the Vietnam War. (Louis Sebille was first USAF member to receive the Medal of Honor - August 1950.) This army site credits Sebille as first USAF recipient - "The first Air Force aviator to receive the Medal of Honor ..."; as opposed to Major Bernard Fisher, who was the first to receive the Air Force version of the Medal of Honor.

The Congressional Medal of Honor Society, in their FAQs, gives the number 17. Since the CMOHS is made up of actual recipients, does this take precedence?

On the other hand, the USAF links that you provided show that the USAF is "taking credit". However, I've seen one of their publications that is USAAF and USAF.

If we go strictly by defining the <SERVICE BRANCH> category as for those who were a member of that <SERVICE BRANCH> at the time of the action, then USAAF were in the US Army.

So, where does that leave it? —ERcheck @ 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving it some time

All good points. I'm going to take some time to ponder it; and in the meantime, perhaps some additional discussion will be generated on the US military history task force page.

If you don't mind waiting a few days, I'll get back to you as soon as I decide which way to move forward. In the meantime, I'll leave the USAAF for last. —ERcheck @ 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Rlevse 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding last night

I crashed my computer:-(. Lovely runtime bug... but anyway, I am posting this here to let you know that instructions for you are on my talk page. (Please wait about 3 minutes after the timestamp on this post.Eagle talk 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Check in on my page every 10 minutes or so, I will be responding fairly rapidly for the next 2-3 hours:-)Eagle talk 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I respondedEagle talk 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm on for the next 2 hours, so just check up every 10 minutes or so:-) oh and I responded agian.

Thanks and USAAF / USAF choice

Thanks for your comments on the Portal discussion. It is nice to have support from a respected Wikipedian.

On the USAAF / USAF discussion, I'm going to go ahead with putting USAAF Medal of Honor recipients in the Category:Air Force Medal of Honor recipients. I'll put such a note on the respective AF MoH and Army MoH category pages. Thanks for the comprehensive discussion. —ERcheck @ 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Using VandalProof for content revisions

I'm not familiar with VandalProof, but I infer from its name and your recent use of it to revert an edit to Babylon 5 that it is a software tool like AWB that can be used to automate or simplify reversions. Might I be so presumptuous as to ask that you not use it for non-vandalistic reversions; e.g., content disputes? The result of the B5 reversion seems to have been to unnecessarily bite a newbie (namely Koweja/71.50.210.224), who took reasonable exception to having his/her edit implied to be vandalism simply by the inclusion of the tool name in the edit summary. (I think I agree with your reversion, but it's important to keep content disputes separate from vandalism accusations.) Thank you for your consideration. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bite a newbie. You do make a valid point and I shall endeavor to be more careful next time. My apologies. Rlevse 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do

A sash full of Scouting Barnstars
For reaching your seventh month of never-ending and utterly relentless hard work on Scouting-related articles. For never losing focus like the rest of us do, and still having the energy to dabble in other areas of Wikipedia. And because a third copy of the original Scouting Barnstar would look too repetitive on your user page! — Rebelguys2 talk 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

misplaced comment on your userpage...

Dear Rlevse, how else do I add an article for X2?

Thanks

PS. I am not trying to vandalise this page ;)


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.9.152 (talk • contribs) .

Tornado

Looks like I didn't revert back far enough -- thanks! --Mhking 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coker

Thanks for the note. I've appreciated our Wikipedia interactions.

I hope that you find the two changes I made to Coker article were positive adds (the Military person infobox and the Navy Cross citation). He seems an amazing man. I was touched after reading his statement from the POWnet.

I tried to keep his DESA award picture prominent in the article. I tried various previews to find a way to put the picture alongside the infobox. In the end, at least on my screen, it ends up alongside the Scouting section. (Are you able to find a Navy photo that might be used as an image in the infobox?)

—ERcheck @ 02:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley & refs

Thanks for your suggestions on the Chew Valley page - I've looked at the references again & can't see why the error is occuring - any help would be appreciated. BTW do you think the section moves improved the article? Rod 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help reordering refs but it still does help with the numbering in Geology section where 2 umber 7's show in the text pointing to different refs & I'm unable to discover why Rod 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I've now resolved this issue by running User:Cyde/Ref converter on the page - thanks for the suggestions Rod 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! LINUXERIST@ ~~~~~

Thanks!

Appreciate the revert of my user page. -- TBadger 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User: Tbadger

I think it should be left, because it's funny, and true.

Eagle medal

Hi Rlevse-- I've taken a picture of the back of my Eagle medal, and the card which accompanied it--the picture is here, http://www.chabuduo.org/wp-content/eagle.jpg . I got my award in 1990 in the United States (Redmond, Washington), but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the different types of medals to know what type it is. Hope this helps.Pixel23 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's from 1990, it'd be a Stange 5. Thanks. Rlevse 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OA article

Hey, Rlevse. I read your recent message and I'll take a gander at cleaning up the adult verbage. In the meantime, the recent edit you did concerning Freemasonry hits the borderline on ceremonial progression by mentioning specifics from the ceremony, which may hit a nerve with some of the folks on the article (and slightly goes against the consensus agreement). Let me know if you need help tightening it up. KC9CQJ 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All done. Ceremonial progression is now met, plus all of the adult-centric junk is now out of the article. Sounded like some professional Scouter or Council Executive added it in the first place....*sigh*KC9CQJ 00:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Rlevse 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to say how impressed I am on the Honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow article!!! It makes more sense to combine everything, instead of sep ones for Ordeal, Brotherhood, and Vigil, etc. Nice job, blended smoothly *and* you kept my blurb about the First Degree, etc. Keep up the grand work! Robhmac 19:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't do it alone. Rlevse 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

I guess I really have to work on this "be bold" thing. Scoutersig 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a judgement call thing. To me, in this case it was an obvious no-brainer. Otherwise, I'd have waited for the debate. Rlevse 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

setting the standard

Hey Randy, check out what Dep369 has done with Scouting in Connecticut. It's not precisely what I would have done, but it's classy, informative, and by far the best-developed state article. I would set it up as the standard for the other states to study. I have asked Dep369 if he would collect the Girl Scout Council info for the other states, I have no way to access that myself. Think barnstar? Chris 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but sort of still at the beginning stage as many sections have no info or only a few lines of info. Also, the TOC is ridiculously long. Remind me about a star in late June if you like. Rlevse 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry for the late response, as I haven't been around lately, but thanks for the Barnstar! — Rebelguys2 talk 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Scout box

FYI, your Scout user box points to an old title of the Eagle Scout article. It's now called Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America). Rlevse 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. I also noticed several BSA ranks went AFK (merged somehow). I restored those too. --Cat out 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
They were mereged for a reason. I wish you hadn't done that. Rlevse 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish I was informed about this merge in march. The merged article is in my view a mess and I am quite experienced with featured lists. --Cat out 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not anyone's job to inform you personally of a merge. It's your responsibility to set a watch on an article of interest and respond to changes you see. I and others do not think they are a mess, it puts the info in one spot. You also took this action without any discussion and accuse Gadget, et al of no discussion, yet there was lots of it if you'd watched the articles, etc. Rlevse 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok here is how I will do this. I am going to forget about this issue for a day or two untill things cool down. This is being highly unproductive. --Cat out 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat

Randy: User:Cool Cat did all of the individual rank articles a year or so ago. He's just reverted all of the merges done in the last few months. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of scounting...

I am sorry I caused stess on you guys... As inexcusable my action is, I apologise. Ok, let's talk about it as I feel both of us have calmed down from the unpleasant encounter we had. I will take the liberty on explaining my actions.

I believe every scount rank has the potential in growing into a complete article. If you take a look at the history section on Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America), you'll see the history of the insignia alone has enough information to prompt an individual article. Also, each rank insignia has a meaning of its own such as the loop visible on second class, first class, etc.

In my view merging all of the ranks into one article limits the potential and reduces them to being 'meanagless scout ranks'.

--Cat out 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted...let's move along. I can see your viewpoint, but only to a point. The reason the Eagle page has so much info on it is that there is so much info available that has been tracked over the years. For example, is there a book, akin to Terry Grove's Eagle medal and badge book, on the other ranks? Not that I know of. Do the other ranks have the status that Eagle does-hardly. I don't see them growing much, if any, beyond what they were before Gadget850 merged them; and a good chunk of them at that time was rank requirements, which change often and tracking every requirement change is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Rlevse 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly true. If you take a look at List of Oh My Goddess episodes closely, you will notice that season 2 of the tv series is dynamic content. The last episode (10th) will air in about 23hrs 9mins 37secs. I will update the page tomorow for the next episode as TBS announces new episodes without a recognisable pattern. I am quite proud of that article as it is perhaps the most referanced page for the series. What you suggest is true for a paper encyclopedia, wikipedia isn't paper and articles can and should be updated with new data.
Eagle is a distingusihed rank in BSA no doubt but even though I never acomplished up to that rank, I know all the previous ranks ranging from tenderfoot to life prepares the scout to Eagle. The distinguished status of Eagle makes it an easy article to write, after all as you point out there are books we can refer to for the eagle rank. The other ranks would be much more challenging to write. The stub pages are designed to "grow", an expert on scouting history won't stumble on the stub articles if they don't exist. We may even ask BSA for the info we need to write the articles. I am sure they would not object to some extra publicity.
I also would like to point out that the articles existed in a stub form for less than a year (less than half a year for that matter) from february to march. I'd call that too brief of a time for stubs to be noticed. Many articles often exist as stubs for a year or even two and then they expand. All of the articles with a few exeptions stared out as stubs.
--Cat out 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Re Cool Cat's talk input of 7 June...I offer my talk page as a single point for this discussion. Rlevse 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well, but if you do not mind, I'll make a copy on my talk page (so I can recall the discussion much easier if necesary from my archive). --Cat out 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let take a look at some points:
  1. I initally campaigned to keep the articles separate, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized how much they build upon one another.
  2. Comparing this to anime isn't really valid: if you miss one show, it's not a big deal. A Scout has to progress from one rank to the other.
  3. The BSA article was split: Boy Scouts of America covers the national program, Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) covers the the troop level program. (The Boy Scout rank articles currently link back to the national article). Thus, we now have a separate article on each program element: Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), Varsity Scouts and Venturing (Boy Scouts of America). With a separate troop article, we can have more information that was previously lost when the national and troop level information was rather jammed and mixed.
  4. The signifigance of the emblems is consolidated under Ideals/Emblems. Currently this only goes up to First Class and needs to be updated for the rest of the ranks. Putting them together in this manner allows the reader to see the symbology of how each emblem builds upon the previous in a manner similar to the progression of the Scout.
  5. Take a look at the Youth Advancement section. I probably wrote most of this, and it does need some polishing, but I think it's a good frame to start on. Scout to First Class should be considered as a gestalt: these are phases in one process of development that is hard to show in separate articles.
  6. The major changes in the ranks are the swap of Life and Star, the Improved Scouting Program (skill awards, etc) and the introduction of Scout (I still don't have a date on that). These are noted in the history section of the troop article. I am not aware of any other notable changes.
  7. We decided to only give an overview of the requirements, with a reference to the US Scouting Service Project. In this manner, we do not have to update requirements, and we aren't copying source material. When you cut the requirement list, those rank articles get a lot shorter.
  8. After discussion, we decided that Eagle Scout is notable enough to keep as a separate article.
Enough for today. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I ask you to reconsider that standpoint.
  2. Missing a show is a big deal if you want to keep the article a featured list. The point is it is posible to have articles that require weekly "maintanance". Its not like scout rank requirements change every week so it is easily managable.
  3. Yes, putting all ranks together would chram them and should be split for the exact same reason.
  4. They are interconnected, thats why there is the nav template that navigates between previous and next rank. The meanings of emplems and symbols can be expressed in a section. The history of the emblem in another section. Significance of the rank in scouting another section. etc etc and you have an article.
  5. I am not suggesting we delete the thing you have done there. I suggest we have them both. Yoth advancement focuses on the "advancement" rather than details about the rank. Which as I see it is fine. My intention is not to scater the "merged"/"simplified" version
  6. I am sure there is more to every individual scout rank's history than a few lines. Stubs allow it to expand further.
  7. A general overview on individual scout ranks wouldn't hurt anyone. The more detailed, the better actualy.
  8. Eagle is signigicant on its own. Other ranks in my view deserve the same coverage
--Cat out 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
None of these were a list as I see it and certainly not "featured" as far as I know. Rlevse 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Cat out 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
A list is like the List of Eagle Scouts, the adv articles in question weren't. Rlevse 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely that is not a criteria for ranks to have articles. Like I said, Eagle is distinguished on its own. Other ranks are also distinguished, just not as distinguished. --Cat out 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was required. I just don't see why you referred to the older versions as lists. Rlevse 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure they'll grow. Rlevse 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Scouting articles

CC: We've posted a message about the advancement articles on our ScoutingWikiProject's "Current Issues" section, here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Todo#Current_issues to see what others think of what the state of the advancment articles should be. We'll wait a few days to see what, if any, input we get and go from there. FYI, the main project page is here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting and the portal page is here Portal:Scouting . Rlevse 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An excelent idea. Is it ok if I join the project? --Cat out 11:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Any interested Wikipedian can join the project. Rlevse 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know...?

Did you know that Medal of Honor recipient Richard K. Sorenson was involved with the Boy Scouts? —ERcheck (talk) @ 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. I just saw the article part about adult involvement. Do you know if he was an Eagle Scout? Rlevse 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
BSA headquarters, specifically the Eagle Scout Services section, has a record of all Eagle since the very first one. The national number is 972-580-2000. Rlevse 10:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
they have been known to answer questions about deceased persons. I am not sure about living ones. It's possible since Sorenson is deceased. Rlevse 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They wouldn't tell me; he's probably not an Eagle becaue if he was, they'd likely mention it where they say he was an adult Scouter.Rlevse 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking. So, the info on his involvement in the Boy Scouts will stand as it is. (Though I am more curious now about this piece of his history.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 17:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Silver vs Gold

CC: Silver comes before gold in Olympic medals, but not Eagle Palms--read up on it. The reason is that when palms were created, silver was worth more than gold, so silver was made the highest palm and BSA has never changed that. r/ Rlevse 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh... silly me :) --Cat out 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to butt in: It's actually from a military tradition: see U.S. Army officer rank insignia. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, I'd always heard the value version before. Learn something every day. Rlevse 10:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A full explanation is at The Institue of Heraldry. I knew there was something about epaulettes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

Thanks for the revert! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thanks for reverting

Many thanks for the revert to my talk page. I suspect that the IP concerned is a sockpuppet of User:Karldavid and User talk:Karl Vincent D. David who seems to be upset with edits I made to Don Bosco Tarlac. I appreciate the help with this situation. Best, Gwernol 17:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits don't work

I followed these instructions: his tool does not work with Internet Explorer. 

  1. Open your user javascript file (most often monobook.js).
  2. Edit the page and copy-and-paste the code below.
  3. Go to User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js.
  4. Press the "control" and "F5" buttons on your keyboard at the same time (the page will now refresh).
  5. Enter your username into the box and choose "submit".
  6. Your edit count should appear!

and when I refresh (if FF or IE) all I see is code. Can you help? Rlevse 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The back-up edit counter doesn't seem to currently work with Internet Explorer, although it should be fixed soon. In the meantime, you can get Firefox or ask someone else to check for you. --Gbeeker 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I got FF and got the Interiot tool working. Rlevse 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) But, one last issue. On the article tab of my monobook, the code looks "broken" (ex: you can't see the refresh directions, dotted lines are there, etc), but if you view if by selecting it in history, it looks fine. What is causing this? Interestingly, the programs work. Rlevse
I'm not really sure what's causing the "broken" look. I only copied the code that Interiot wrote. Then I liked it so much that I created a userbox. Although Interiot is on a project right now, you may want to post this message on his talk page. --Gbeeker 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

edit count

Username	rlevse
Total edits	9793
Distinct pages edited	3276
Average edits/page	2.989
First edit	15:25, 15 November 2005
	
(main)	4447
Talk	967
User	666
User talk	1567
Image	296
Image talk	57
Template	54
Template talk	26
Category	84
Category talk	52
Wikipedia	990
Wikipedia talk	133
Portal	421
Portal talk	33

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ulster and Delaware Railroad

The reason I don't mention any dates in the article until the fourth paragraph is because the first three paragraphs are about what the railroad was like, not about it's history. I delve into that later on in the article. --Kschwerdt514 07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sethna article

Hey there. Just wanted to take our chat on this out of the arena a little bit. My point on this issue is that sometimes people spot something that appears to be inappropriate, and our instinct is to kill it right off the bat. Someone inappropriately nominated it for speedy delete and at least one other project member concurred with the decision. The reality is that none of us knows much about this guy. I'd prefer to let Arzan make a better case for notability before we just say "well he only helped one troop" and afd it. Arzan makes a decent case in the talk pages that Sethna was a Scouting activist that used his influence with B-P to open Scouting registration to all units, regardless of class or caste. If that's true and verifiable, it may have had a lasting influence on more than just a little part of India and I might feel differently about the notability issue. However, that aside, I would like to advocate for a more patient approach in dealing with this sort of stuff. Letting the process work should include notifying someone before you afd an article. The person who feels this way should let them know what the concerns are and give them a chance to fix and expand. That's what this is really all about. --NThurston 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is valid only if he can take Sethna's importance way beyond the unit level. I don't see it yet. If it's there, he needs to put a hangon tag on the article and build it up and wikify it. Rlevse 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response

As you see, I am on a forced wikibreak... 'real life'. Bug me about the interiot code next week:). If it works, don't mess with it! If you have a problem with the functionality, bug me sooner, else remind me in a week. I am sorry. Eagle talk 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

About my nominated article...

I have added dates to the first three paragraphs, although I am not sure if there are enough of them. Express your thoughts, but I'd preffer if you post them on my talk page. Kschwerdt514 07:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Rlevse!

Dear Rlevse, I am truly flattered by your extremely kind words regarding my very modest creation; I've been reading your wonderful Portals and I believe the one I just made is extremely far in terms of quality and depth from the ones you maintain. I could really benefit from your experience and advice in the subject, in case you don't mind me bugging you ;) I currently have many projects and very little time, so I guess I'll wait until this weekend, and I'll try and make some heavy beautifying and rearrangement of the Oklahoma Portal; and if you don't mind, I'll ask you to have a look at it and hear your thoughts about it.

You know, hun, I always take a bit of pride in my memory, so I'm ashamed to admit I don't remember exactly where we met before. In any case, that's unimportant, as long as we keep in touch from now on - as Shakespeare sayed, "All's well that end well", and I always celebrate the chance to meet good, kind and talented people like you. Warm regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More on my article

I have fixed the red cite errors, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore. --Kschwerdt514 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Beach schools

Magnet Schools

I may be wrong but I dont think the schools in Virginia Beach are Magnet schools John R G 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links you may like AAA Eastern Region and AAA Beach District John R G 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bayside High School revert

I reverted it because you put in <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki> [8]. ... discospinster talk 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

no need to reply here and on your own page. See my reply there.Rlevse 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Assesmemts

This is interesting: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Re: Bradley Haddock

You wrote: "You can't see why someone who is a company VP, Distinguished Eagle Scout,etc is important? I know you're brand new to wiki, with 45 edits, but there are far more senseless articles for you to speed your time trying to delete. Also, I just created this an hour ago, give it a chance.Rlevse 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

As I pointed out on the Speedy Delete page, he is a VP. One of tens of thousands nationwide. Lawyer? Ditto. Eagle Scout. Now, there's the rub. I understand prejudice for members of a group but, being a successful Eagle scout does not translate to being notable on a Wikipedia level. And, while I don't edit that often, I have initiated the speedy delete of several hundred articles. Very few didn't get deleted. If this person did something notable enough for inclusion, you should have put it in the original article. Nothing there even now really seems notable on more than a local level to me. Dipics 04:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) If you'd marked hundreds of articles for speedy delete, your edit count would be way above 45. I also find it interesting you did not address your tagging of the article a mere one hour after it was created. Articles need more time than that to get fleshed out. Rlevse 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had done it yourself, you would know that if you mark an article for speedy deletion, it only stays on your "edited" screen until it is deleted. I go to the new articles screen for an hour or so each day and, along with many other Wikipedians, sort through the "Gus is a cool guy", postings for new bands that haven't released anything, companies that try to post every employee, etc. and flag them for quick deletion. I kept count last night just for you. In the hour and a half that I was on, I flagged 173 articles for quick deletion. One of the most common is Non-Notable people. This is from the Wikipedia guidelines: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." And, well, A guy that is a stand up Eagle Scout is really only known INSIDE this constituency. As to allowing an article to "get fleshed out", most articles that are deleted per the "Speedy Delete" guidelines are done so within an hour of them first appearing.Dipics 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Michael Crescenz - thanks

Thanks so much for the heads up. I'd finished editing and/or creating all of the WWI and WWII Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients, but was still working on the Korean War and Vietnam War veterans. I'll attend Crescenz today. —ERcheck (talk) @ 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I just completed some cleanup, expansion, referencing, etc. The article creator had created two virtually identical articles, with and without middle initial. I've made the other a redirect. BTW, the article had an inconsistency in the intro. Michael Crescenz was in the U.S. Army; his brother Charles was the Marine. —ERcheck (talk) @ 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts

I've been fiddling with this on my sandbox. Therer are two different versions. What do you think? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the one with the lines around each name, it is easier to read and the names stand out more. Rlevse 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Best place to report them is WP:AN/I on the administrator's noticeboard. They will give you guidance from there. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article in Good Article nominees

Hi, Randy, there's an interesting article listed in the Good Article nominees. Perhaps you'd care to give it your attention? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Wim: No problem, glad to help you, a Wiki-friend. Rlevse 12:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your GA support. The recommendations have been dealt with. I'll look into footnotes (your e-mail recommendation) too, but as the references have been used for all over details, this is difficult. Minor point: the [[1961-07-12]] and [[12 July]] [[1961]] are both correct wikidates, as you can see here: 1961-07-12 and 12 July 1961. And thanks for the kind announcements on the wikiproject. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

The IP you reported

I posted to the IP's talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Scout FAC

Thanks! I responded.... --JohnDBuell 00:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The workbook you reference [9] is rather different from the BSA workbook [10]. (And I hate editing with a laptop keyboard.) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The RTF version is closer in layout and most of the info is the same (materials list, photos, changes section, etc). I haven't seen people use the PDF version in awhile because it's non-editable and most everyone does them on a a computer now for neatness. I suspect this is another case of BSA putting out a form and it morphing differently in various councils. You can change my ref to the BSA RTF version if you like. The version we use here is all good sense and practice, but it would be better to ref an official version.Rlevse 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) PS, I'll change it since you're suffering with a laptop....;) Rlevse 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of. I'm not overly familiar with users' FA contributions. I now have two FAs that'd help qual me. If you know of anyone, let me know. Rlevse 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther TOC

First let me say, I really do appreciate the help and none of us take the change personally. It is a bit frustrating to not get anywhere after hours of working on it. Yes, its easy enough to return to the default state. Now what do we do with all that white space? It looks tackey, which is what set us forth on this goose chase in the first place. Do you have some thoughts? --CTSWyneken 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've been there with FACs of my own, so I know it's frustrating when people don't agree. There are other FAs with white space by the TOC, though. I'll see if I can come up with something. IMHO, it looks way better with the default than below the first section. Rlevse 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Coker GA nomination

I'm new to the GA process.

  • Am I reading it correctly that it only requires a single review to agree that an article meets GA criteria and then that reviewer may follow the steps and "promote it"?
  • Reviewer are not supposed to have contributed "significantly" to the article. I made a few edits, the biggest being the addition of the infobox (which is a summary of information already in the article) and adding the Navy Cross citation. Does that disqualify me as a reviewer who can promote it?
  • I re-read the article with a critical eye — keeping in mind the GA criteria. I see a few changes that I would suggest. Should I make them to you here? On the article's talk page?

—ERcheck (talk) @ 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one person can review and promote it. I don't consider the infobox major editing, it merely capsulized pre-existing info; but you may want to ask someone else to look it over if you're uncomfortable (I reviewed it today with GA in mind too, so did Gadget850). Or, you could leave it on the GAC list and let whomever do it. Either way is okay with me. Any improvements would be appreciated. Rlevse 23:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I leave you my suggestions for improvement, then I can promote. Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer that I make some improvements and then ask another to review? One of the suggesttions will take a little bit of research - re: military career dates, etc... beginning of involvement in scouts (cub scout?).... —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think if you get someone who hasn't edited it to do the GA part would be better--avoids any chance of partiality, you know. George was a Cub Scout too. He served in the Navy from Oct 30 1963 to Sep 30 1986 (I know this from doing his DESA research). Rlevse 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
A few questions:
  • Do you know when he joined the Cub Scouts? I think the section on scouting would be more complete if you gave a full start to now history of his involvement — Cub Scouts, when and in what role he first returned to scouting after 1973 (since this is mentioned in the intro).
  • His joining the Navy — from the dates, it appears that he left Rutgers to join the Navy; then completed his degree after his return from Vietnam. Do you have a little more info on this? Did he go in as an enlisted sailor, or as a commissioned officer?
This is info I don't have. Other edits I can make myself ... some rearranging/rewording/more precise GA formatting....
Since this is the biography of a living person, I want to be especially careful not to include any information that may be an intrusion on his privacy. But, I think all of the above information is pretty straightforward....
—ERcheck (talk) @ 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he left Rutgers to join the Navy via an aviation officer cadet program, he was never enlisted. After his cadet training he was commissioned an Ensign. I don't know exactly when he joined the Cubs or how he got back into Scouts after the POW time. I'll ask. He usually answers within 1-2 days. Rlevse 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It would help if you could provide some references to the above. Perhaps it could be put in as "Personal interview", June 2006. Thanks. I'll make some edits; await some of the other info; then make final edis. I will ask a Military history member to review when the edits are complete. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Those bits are also in the Robin Brinkley article, I'd just use that cite more than once. I'll work on that and changing the cites to the newer format tomorrow.Rlevse 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made the first round of edits, and added some "Further reading". I've not put in the college or cub scout info. I'll return tomorrow and revisit after you've made your formatting and citation changes. I think the article is almost there for GA. —ERcheck (talk) @ 03:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Did ref reformat. Is there a ref for his Navy Cross citation? (full length and online)Rlevse 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I haven't heard from George yet. Could you have someone in the military group do the ratings in that box on the back? Rlevse 09:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Request made. —ERcheck (talk) @ 11:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I told George by phone his article made GA. He says he's working on some info for us (sounded like more than we asked for) that he'll send us next week.Rlevse 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The assessment/importance ratings have been made. —ERcheck (talk) @ 20:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5: Education, etc

Hi, thanks for your work at Version 0.5, and also checking about the situation with these B-Class articles. For Core Topics, Core supplement and Countries of the world/global cities, we are allowing decent B-Class articles, where "decent" means no edit wars or other serious disputes and no serious copyright problems. Fair use images will be dealt with all together, after we have the pool of articles. We will have to allow some omission of material, and some clumsy English (if it's not atrocious) if we are to cover these topics we consider to be of the highest importance. With vital articles, we might consider a good B-Class, but for things outside such lists we aim to get A-Class or FA-Class. Many Good Articles are A-Class, but a few are not.

Another quality exception comes from the need to have complete sets. A good example is the planets of the Solar System - high importance, and most are GAs or FAs, but Saturn is weak. We can't realistically go to press with all the planets except Saturn, so we include it. We'll see a lot more of this when we try to fill in gaps prior to going to press. But that's why we need to have a manual review process for every article, with kind folks like yourself helping us through! Thanks again, Walkerma 17:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for top-importance topics (only!) it's OK to pass articles with no references or citations at all! Remember, it's understood that this is a "test run" for 1.0. If you feel uneasy, ask User:Jaranda or User:Titoxd for a second opinion. You might also do what I did with {{Unsourced}} here, you can see in this case it got a positive response (check the article, which is NOT a core article and so needs to be A-Class). Thanks, Walkerma 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Twilight Zone "Unfootnoted Quotes"

You put the The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) on hold from being a good article. I expanded the heading and and put the italicized info about the other TZ articles (still have to improve the rationales), but how do I footnote the quotes? You might be away while I write this, so please respond when you return. Thanks. - Zone46 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

your .02

Randy, please take a look at Talk:Scouting in Ontario. --Chris 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume you meant the merge issue. As I'm briefly back in town, I responded. Rlevse 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Randy, that's it precisely. :) Chris 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am honored!

My little stub is of "High" importance . . . I'd never have thought it. Squamate 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_2&oldid=1043523964"