Talk:Scouting in Maine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Scouting in Maine is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article looks like it is about a non-notable subject. For images in this article, use the picture tutorial. Also, you might want to create an account because your IP address is used by a recognised vandal. --Gareth Hughes 15:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I worked on this article from a school computer, which is where the vandal thing comes in. A while ago I cleaned it up and I am just curious if there is anythign else I need to do to get this fully cleaned up.

During Copyright examination of content possibly useful for the article, copyright status seemed to allow Wikipedia inclusion. Discussion can be read below. Note that this is not a final decision. The case could have been misinterpreted.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems takes care of possible copyright violations.

I was just wondering if the use of a patch, such as the one in this article, fell under the fair use copyright policy. I am asking because I would like to add more patches to different pages and don't want to run into copyright issues. Thanks. --Beefybot 21:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe {{scoutlogo}} would be applicable in this situation. ~MDD 46 96 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

why did you merge pamola lodge with this article? Thats just stupid, I hate these articles that are created just so people can dump a bunch of other articles in it. The old articles were fine, and if this article is going to be created, why don't people put worthwhile information in here and not just dump a bunch of other articles in it. Thats my opinion and just so you all now, I am againts further merges. I am not totally against this page, I just think it should be a almost a list like page with links to other articles (such as pamola lodge) and not the end all singular article on everything scouting related in Maine. --Beefybot 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation-as per longstanding discussion at the Scouting WikiProject, small articles of less-than-council status are being merged into state articles as per agreement. Our intent is not to delete anyone's work or to minimize the importance of any article that already exists on the Wikipedia. Instead our goal is to tighten the information, to make it more relevant and useful for the general Wikipedian. It was agreed that unless an article was large and had contributions from multiple authors, it was not notable enough by itself to meet Wikipedia's standards for a notable subject, and should be merged into the larger state article. If Pamola Lodge had met those criteria, it would not have been merged. Chris 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ps-and if you think something is stupid, you've had ample time to comment and to respond to what people have been telling you about your articles. None of these things have happened in a vacuum. Chris 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over what's happening and I am sorry I called it stupid, although I still beleive linking is better than merging, I will help with this article and help expand it. Sorry about that. --Beefybot 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa I dont really know what happened here, but if someone could please look at the new stuff under KAC that would really help. I dont think its supposed to be in here like this. I'm going to work on salvaging some of the info in it, so if I could get a second opinion on all this, that would be great, same with the camp roosevelt page. --Beefybot 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the noteworthiness of some of this page's contents, I have to say that the article section about the lodge flap redesign seems to clearly violate Wikipedia's NPV policy.Wetzel95 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just like tp point out that it is rather immature and innaproriate to be posting your own thoughst and ideas about things on wikipedia. I removed the following for exactly that case.

"The patch traders have won the day. Instead of keeping the traditional flap that connects them with arrowmen in the past, it has become more important that we have a fancy flap for trading.

For some the OA is the brotherhood of cherrful service, for others it is a flap trading society."

I hope some of the moderators in wikipedia would start to notice stuff like that. I'm going to try and put the KSR patch back on here since its a scan of a patch I have. The KSR merge was probably a good idea though. --Beefybot 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attention tag

This article drips with POV and reads like an advertisement. Can someone please clean this up and make it look like it belongs here? Chris 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it a little and standardized the camp director page. Alot of the information uder KSR was just pretty words so I cut it back alot. --Beefybot 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)