User talk:Gadget850

Archives

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Norman Rockwell, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. THE KC (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have absolutely no clue. My last edit to Rockwell was to fix a reference link, it has not been reverted and you have not edited that article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scout article renames

You have recently recommended the renaming of numerous Scout-related articles. However, you have not completed the process at WP:RM. If you are still interested in these moves, please go through the entire process as explained at WP:RM. If not, please remove the {{move}} (or similar) template from the articles' talk pages. Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am doing it wrong, I'm going to stop putting move tags on pages and simply list them on the Scouting watchlist for discussion. I don't see any other way of doing this without going through an extra process that really is not required. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me Gadget, esp since the ScoutingProject renames/moves rarely get any outside involvement. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there were changes to the guideline in December. As best I see it, the tags are now only for admin related moves. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing regarding the policy or procedure of WP:RM has changed in a long, long time. The only thing that changed in December are the templates that are used. I have removed the {{move}} templates from the articles you tagged. JPG-GR (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM is only for moves that require admin assistance. We can just go ahead and move these articles because the target (as far as I know) is not being used. We do however need to flag this first on the relevant talk pages to see if anyone objects. --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All have discussions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Where's the other pulpandpaper image? Watch the IP trying to add himself (likely) to the Eagle list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mb091c.gif as linked from the orphaned replaced template. We should not have two copies and the other is part of the merit badge set. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted the other one and fixed the FUR on Mb091c.gif. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The discrepancy puzzled me as well, but on further reflection it makes sense. I realised that the two types of links have two entirely different purposes. External links (as in, the ones grouped at the end with no specific citation) are for the reader who wishes to explore the topic further. It's unkind to spur that curiousity and then have it dashed by going through a paywall. References, on the other hand, are there to confirm the factual nature of a claim. It seems sensible to allow editors to cast their net as wide as possible when looking for an external citation to back up a claim. Peer-reviewed journal articles, for instance, are almost exclusively behind a subscription page, and it would seriously damage the credibility of the encyclopedia if we weren't allowed to use those as support for what we write. Orpheus (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

//Note: In your list of Eagle Scout Articles you removed a name that can be referenced. By contacting the BSA and the Eagle Scouts of America you can confirm the legitimacy of the name mentioned and the title he holds. The name I am referring to can be viewed in the recent history of edits on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.21.97 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are referring to:

Anthony R Giesey; Youngest to receive the award in the 21st century.a[›]

This is not "my" list, simply a list that I and other editors maintain. Simply because Giesey is a fellow Eagle Scout does not make him notable. There are clear criteria for inclusion listed on the talk page; when you edited the article you had to have seen the notice referring you to that criteria. If by title you mean "youngest", how is that notable? You added a reference to the Distinguished Eagle Scout list; Giesey is not listed, thus the use of that reference is spurious. If you can establish notability, we will be glad to help you add a properly referenced entry. When you get out of class, you should create an account here. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the FL criteria, notability criteria for wiki, and properly ref it, and we may be able to work this. I personally know a 16-year old that made Eagle at 12y9m back in 2004. I can prove it too. Were you younger than that when you made Eagle and can you prove it? Even if you could, that alone would not meet notability criteria for being on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Have you ever given any thought to going through an RFA? I'm considering nominating you, but want to know what you think first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him that before, but he wasn't interested. He'd make a superb admin and I hope he accepts this time. I'd nom or co-nom too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I do enough administrative work here cleaning up things and not enough writing as it is. I appreciate the thought Ben, but if I become an admin, people will want me do do other crap. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's as much or as little admin work as you want to do, it's voluntary too. Bduke only uses his bit when he wants to. Refer anything else you don't want to do admin-wise to me if you want. Trust me, it comes in very handy sometimes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck. OK. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COOL! Put an accept statement here, answer the questions, then we can transclude it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure it goes online soon. I need to support! Rudget . 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we're off! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peers who were also baronets

Your views are sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Peers_who_were_Baronets - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Miracle Mile.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Miracle Mile.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Nothing wrong on this one. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning of IP 64.105.35.149

A self-revert should not be warned with a vandalism template. That's what Template:uw-selfrevert is for. -- Zsero (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I applied that to the first edit made by the IP; I got distracted while editing the user page, which accounts for the slight time difference. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]