Jump to content

Template talk:Boy Scouts of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Councils

[edit]

You're kidding. Are you getting ready for that many council articles? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the redlinks should be redirected to the state article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at least half of the links are already redirects. I use a CSS hack to see redirects as green links. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects fully populated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers, dissolutions and renames

[edit]

Completed

In process

Monitor

Not passed


Alpha Phi Omega

[edit]

Should Alpha Phi Omega be added? I figure that Epsilon Tau Pi is in the template and it doesn't have any official tie to BSA. I'll hold off adding it for a while to see where the response is here...Naraht (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Perhaps another section for other associations? The BSA does have formal ties to other fraternities such as Phi Beta Sigma and Zeta Psi as well as other organizations, but not APO or ETP.[15] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, neither Phi Beta Sigma nor Zeta Phi are listed in the Boy Scout Handbook and Alpha Phi Omega is. (Yes, I know that isn't a slam dunk argument, but perhaps a start :) )Naraht (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done in this edit from 2011. GoingBatty (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trolling by user:id4abel

[edit]

No one is interested in getting mired in a debate with you on this or any other Scouting topic. You can stop trolling Scouting articles at any time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"no relevance or necessity for the image there” does not apply to Template:Scouting, according to Kintetsubuffalo as shown here, then it also does not apply to Template:Scoutorg BSA. I would like to believe that Kintetsubuffalo is capable of rising above the emotional insults and accusations given chances. The rule of law, where rules apply equally to everyone, matters more to me than to most people so I am willing to put up with far more bullying than most people. Abel (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly cracked. "Rule of law" has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and nobody is going to engage you in your trolling anymore-no editors have come to your side on Scouting issues-go troll somewhere else. If you think I am bullying, wait until I bring up your questionable edits every time from now on when you troll a Scout topic. I'm not at all bullying, we're all tired of you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No editors, because they are afraid of you. Abel (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle. If you go to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, you can see that while yes, he is 145th in number of edits, his User Groups (the "powers" he has here) are pretty "underpowered". AP-Autopatrolled, Eco = Extended Confirmed, F = File Mover, and Rv = Pending changes reviewer. I think an editor could get them all after about a month of rational edits. I'm 1212th in terms of number of edits, but only because of spurt of infobox fixes in the last couple of months. :) I think you may find how Wikipedia *actually* works to be interesting.Naraht (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently you are correct, the rule of law does not exist here, instead insults, threats, and intimidation are used. The Scout Law did not see fit to include insults, threats, and intimidation. I do not find this in anyway interesting. Plenty of groups use insults, threats, and intimidation to control people. Abel (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the main reasons I reject your WP:Competence to mess with Scouting topics:
  1. After I (very politely) explained about Scouting topics being capitalized, and thanked you for your edits to boot (which I now regret) you went haywire and launched [16] .
  2. After that failed, you started a tirade at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/MOS#Very_slight_modification_to_the_wording_in_the_MOS, and became so officious to admin Nihonjoe that he rightly and beautifully told you "I have no idea if you're just a troll who likes to tweak people, or if you really are as dense as you act, and I have no desire to find out. I'm tired of dealing with you.". When an admin is tired of you, that should be your clue that you are a contentious editor.
  3. You have yet failed to explain the notability of Ricardo “Danny” Nieves and Ryan Patrick McCormack in this edit. Anyone who sees these as notable should be editing a blog, as they clearly have no sense of what belongs in an encyclopedia.
One has but to look at your edit history on the northern Virginia articles to see that you are openly infantile, throwing a tantrum, stamping your feet, screaming "But I'm right! Everyone else is wrong! I'm gonna force my edit nobody agrees with!" and lashing out at all who disagree with you. Your operative phrase "matters more to me than to most people" would be a clue to rational editors that their point is not supported, as yours is not.
I have let everyone at the Scouting WikiProject know that you are a troll. There is nothing left for you here. If you think me a "bully" after my watertight case against you here, feel free to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Let's see how far you get. Put up or shut up.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "watertight case" is you throwing insults, issuing threats, and using intimidation. Abel (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating the same tired phrases, just as you you have made unfounded accusations of sexism [17] and racism, red herrings all. Either report me for allegedly "threatening" you and "using intimidation" against you, or Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You've cried wolf too many times. No one is listening to your nonsense.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image.

[edit]

If no image fits both part of BSA and free, then no image should be placed there.Naraht (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then how is it possible that File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg should be a part of Template:Scouting yet File:WikiProject Scouting BSA current member.svg should not be a part of Template:Scoutorg BSA? Abel (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg fits both part of Scouting and free, and was designed specifically for project-wide use. File:WikiProject Scouting BSA current member.svg was intended for userboxes and should not be treated as ersatz decoration in place of the BSA logo.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was a dramatically more useful explanation than “troll.” Abel (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make you less of a troll. When several editors undo you, you're trolling.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&oldid=1228538059"