User talk:LARS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi LARS, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding the time to contribute to our little project. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

And some quick tips:

  • When discussing something on a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~
  • Remember to use the 'Show preview' function before saving a page
  • It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or the Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– TPK 11:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Editing of Scouting article

Lars: I know you are on the list of members of the Scouting WikiProject, so we welcome your interest in Scouting and helping with the project. But I would like to discuss your recent editing of the Scouting article. I feel it was way too agressive. Some edits were legit (like BSA being in "see also" and the text, so you removed the "see also" listing); but then you removed two Eagle links, a Queen Scout link, some text on Traditional Scouting (which has gotten big in the last 10 years; all because you apparently felt they were "unimportant". I don't see how the highest ranks in two very large Scouting associations can be unimportant. There were some other links removed too. I ask that you give more thoughts to such edits in the future. I'm putting some of these edits back in. Thank you. Rlevse 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer under User_Talk:Rlevse. LARS 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Being the coordinator of the Scouting Portal and Project, I sometimes get stuck in the middle. I agree "see also" that are in the text can be deleted. But I also see nothing wrong with a see also that relates to the text. I think if you'd cut less out or done it one or two at a time and left notes in edit summary, it'd have caught less attention from Chris. But, I also see his point. Yes, let's keeping collaborating well. Rlevse 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The whitewashing of B-P's sexuality

Hello, I agree with you that it is a mistake to try to eschew the main point of that section, which was not to be a discussion of the Jeal book but rather a discussion of B-P's sexuality and the part it played in his life and his focus on boys. It is unfortunate that a co-ordinated group of people with ostensible ties to an anti-homosexual organization have been able to expunge from the article on their own founder information which does not suit their political agenda. I am not sure that I see a solution here, since it is not strength of reason but power of numbers which seems to rule the day. Haiduc 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. LARS 14:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was too fast here. I find the current version of the section a good compromise. LARS 14:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

LARS: You added this statement to the subject article: "The European Region of the World Organization of the Scout Movement formally condemned BSA's policy as discriminatory." Do you have a citation for this statement?--Jagz 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Our International commissioner to WOSM once told me so. LARS 08:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)