User talk:NThurston/archive1

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't realize there was a formal process for resolving these issues and thought I had addressed the concerns raised initially. NThurston 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed a large number of {{mergeto}} tags appear on my watchlist for articles that I created, added in the order that I have them displayed on my user page. I want to remind you that you should always prove a point through discussion not experimentation. Specifically targeting only pages that I made concerning Ender's Game, not other articles concerning the exact same subject matter started by other authors, leads me to believe that you are acting in bad faith following my nomination of Pulp and Paper Merit Badge for deletion. Behavior such as this, often called Wikistalking, is highly discouraged and can be grounds for disciplinary action. Please remember that there are rules regarding what Wikipedia is not, and the article that you created breaks several of these rules. There is definitely a usage for this how-to information, but the place for it is not Wikipedia. If you are wondering about other places to post this information, I would look into other WikiProjects, including WikiBooks. Thanks. — Scm83x ^talk 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad-faith at all. See explanation on talk. NThurston 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the image of the knot, as it's fair use. You can find criteria at WP:FU. Fair use images are, for legal reasons, prohibited from the template and user namespace. In other words, you can only use them in relevant articles. Trust me, I really liked the userbox when I originally designed it - but I'll have to revert back to the non-copyright-violation version. Also, head over the the deletion discussion for Pulp and Paper, I've made a few comments regarding either finding a standard format for these kinds of articles or perhaps creating a list for encyclopedic merit badge data. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Seems odd to me to distinguish template and user namespace, but I won't quibble with the legal folks. I suppose I should do an original drawing, place it in the public domain and we'd be good to go. Is the whole knot design a problem, or just the scanned image? I could do a drawing if you think that'd work. NThurston 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of those namespaces are valid. The point is that images are copyrighted, and fair use is using someone else's image for some kind of commentary. Placing a fair use image in anything but an article, such as a userbox template (the userbox is in the template namespace, which is placed on the user namespace), isn't commentary. An original drawing is probably your own to release under GFDL, Creative Commons, or another free license (the validity of releasing your work into the public domain is actually questioned), but remember that tracing or redrawing a copyrighted logo isn't exactly coming up with your own stuff, either. Basically, copyright law is necessary, yet completely confusing and a complete pain. ;)

OK. I have a solution - I made my own image - not a great one, but it works for now until I have more time. NThurston 23:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about speedy keep — there are three criteria: if the nominator withdraws, if the nominator suggests another course of action, or if the nomination was vandalism and everyone agrees to that. The first two conditions can't be changed by you, and the third criteria is invalid as soon as the first person questions a possible delete. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, as a lot of people use "speedy keep" regardless because they don't know exactly what it means. People aren't usually going to care, but I just thought it's best to clarify and choose our words carefully.

Thanks. NThurston 23:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'm sorry if you think otherwise, but I still don't think my original comments were "inflammatory" or "insensitive." If you'll look at the article for deletion page, I currently am not holding a strong opinion in either direction. When an article is nominated for this, if it's worth keeping - it's going to be kept. Closing admins know that if they haven't seen enough input, they'll have to relist and ask for more community input.

Thanks, that was just how I interpreted them in the context of what was going on. NThurston 23:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After all, how much is there to say about the merit badge? Information about pulp and paper already exists in various articles. Lists of requirements don't belong on Wikipedia. Merit badge pamphlets don't belong on Wikipedia." Those are the exact issues being discussed right now - notability, scope, and transfer to Wikibooks, respectively. How else did you want me to bring those up? I'm not trying to "bite" or be insensitive — I simply pointed out some issues of contention with the article that were completely valid. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ok, now. Hopefully, this little exchange will actually get people pointed at the real question - how should this type of information be presented (if at all)? I think we're making progress. Good to work with you. NThurston 23:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually really simple. Just add a /archive1 or /archive2 to the end of the address for your talk page, like http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NThurston/archive1 http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NThurston/archive2, etc. Sorry, I forgot this is the first edit. Also, you have to just copy paste the information into the archive page yourself. There is no automatic feature for user pages, like there is for some WP pages. Glad I could help, again. — Scm83x ^talk 19:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Operation On-target? It's not an article yet, so unless you're creating it soon, it does no good to adopt it. Rlevse 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't tell me what OON is. I have no idea. I'll assume it's Scouting related, which means, for a non-existant article, it goes in the "articles needed" section of our todo page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Todo Rlevse 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Operation On-Target, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! AJR | Talk 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) for a peer review, and I welcome your comments. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we were editing at the same time. Let me look and see what the differences are. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like perhaps some style differences. I'm trying to keep a consistent format across the divisions, as you may have noted. That was my major edit for the day, so copyedit as you see fit. You might also want to look at User:Gadget850/Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) for my proposed troop level article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm don't think that it is useful to add all of the pin images. This would be like adding all the merit badge images to the Boy Scout article. I think one representative pin is fine with a reference to find the whole set. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like having all the pins there, and support having images of all merit badges somewhere on Wiki. The argument really boils down to whether it is "useful" information. Unless there is some other compelling argument, I am hesitant to declare any information "not useful" so my tendency is to include additional information until there is some other reason not to. Of course, I don't force this view indiscriminately on others. In reality, I don't even have all of the pin images, and I do think that it is interesting and informative to see which pins correspond to which activities. So, I am inclined to include the currently available images. I would be interested in exploring other ways of formatting the images, but for now, I'd like to keep what we have. NThurston 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it for now and we will see what happens. I like the way you did the box. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NThurston, itis great that you are going to upload some images. We sorely need more images reflecting scouting.

1. Assuming you took these yourself, I would suggest you go to upload them at Wikipedia commons: [1]. Putting them on the commons makes the available to all language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English version.
2. I suggest that you choose the licensing option "Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)", which is available from the drop-down menu. IANAL, but from what I understand, this option gives a lot of flexibility to whoever uses the image in future works, but it does require them to acknowledge you as the original creator.
3. Please give your image a distinctive name (For example, not "hike2.jpg" but "Boy_Scouts_hiking_in_thunderstorm_in_Canadian_Rockies_2005.jpg") and as detailed a description as you can. Here is a great image with a good name and a great description: [2].
   
4. Finally, don't forget to categorize your images so that future editors can fing them and use them. (Category:Scouting, Category:Camping, etc, as appropriate).
5. If you don't have time to categorize and describe them fully, you can always upload now and come back and add to your categories and descriptions later. The filename and licensing are a little harder to change after the fact.

Thanks in advance for the imgaes! Johntex\^talk 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, thanks for uploading the pictures. I would put them all on commons, as that makes them available to all Wikipedia's. For the future, it is not necesary to upload them here at all. The main reason (in my opinon) to have an upload area here is for fair use images, which are not allowed on commons. The photo of the two people by the tent and the one with the people about to set out on a hike, are particularly illustrative of scouting, I think. Thanks agin! Johntex\^talk 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent! Just like here at Wikipedia, pictures can be tagged on commons with more than one category. There are also "articles" on commons, although they are really just picture galleries, so I don't understand the advantage of an article over a category. Anyway, we can add extra categores like "Camping" or "Hiking" or "Firearms" and that would allow the pictures to also be used in non-Scouting topics where they would be appropriate. I'll go over to commons and see what category tags I might be able to add. Thanks again, Johntex\^talk 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with Commons for sure. The pages look weird today and I can't edit the decriptions to add more categoris. Check it out though:

1. Muzzleloader
2. 50-miler award
3. Camping
4. Backpacking (wilderness)
5. Varsity Scouts
6. Boy Scouts of America

3 pictures - 6 articles! Johntex\^talk 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mb015c.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mb136c.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)