User talk:Pale Horse One

Your recent editing history at Trail Life USA shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Trail Life USA

Please be advised that Scouting is a general term and is not protected in the United States by the BSA charter. 36USC30905 states that the BSA has the exclusive right to and words and phrases it chooses to adopt, but Scouting is not amongst those terms. Please stop your edit warring at this article. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a little research, you are correct that "Scouting" is a registered trademark of the BSA within the United States. However, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the USA Wikipedia. Since WOSM and WAGGGS use "Scouting" differently than in the United States, we use their definition of the word here. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be fine to refer to Mountain Dew as a Coke beverage, since US Trademarks do not apply here? That's the most asinine thing I've heardPale Horse One (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Trail Life is not affiliated with either WOSM nor WAGGGS. Ironically enough, BSA is. Continuing to reference Trail Life as a Scouting organization is dishonest and creates confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs)

You are being willfully obtuse. Mountain Dew and Coke may both be referred to as soft drinks, which is the point Jkudlick has been kind enough to try and point out to you. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and is much more interested in working definitions than single-country terminology claims. You owe Jkudlick an apology.

Since you won't read where I've pointed you, I'll repost it here: "Six international Scouting organisations serve 437 of the world's national associations. There is a seventh that is only for adults. The largest two international organisations, WOSM and WAGGGS, have 362 national associations as members, encompassing 38 million Scouts and Guides. Other multinational Scouting organisations include the Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme, Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe, and World Federation of Independent Scouts. There are over 80 Scouting associations or umbrella federations that are not aligned with any international Scouting organisation, including the Eclaireurs Neutres de France. There are also many single groups that are not affiliated with any regional or national association and the majority of these are in Germany, where Scouting is very fragmented. Membership in non-aligned Scouting organizations worldwide is roughly 300,000 to 500,000 individuals."

Trail Life USA is now locked-out to you for one week due to your disruptive editing. Three established editors have now tried to reach you with the facts as they are. After the lockout, please consider that others may have valid points. If you continue the same disruptive edit, you will be reported and will face a block. A Scout is Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Obedient. Time to be that Scout.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D-A Scout Ranch

Since your contribution to this article was completely unsourced and had a promotional tone, I have reverted them. Also the camp had no evidence of notability, not a claim of importance. Please refer to WP:SCOUT for guidance. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto in D-Bar-A Scout Ranch. Please refer to [{WP:Verifiability]]. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And again. D-bar-A Scout Ranch. Please stop. Kleuske (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at D-bar-A Scout Ranch shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Railfan23 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at D-Bar-A Scout Ranch, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on D-bar-A Scout Ranch. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Pale Horse One. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest other than being a registered member of the BSA. I am not paid nor work directly or indirectly for any of the camps. This is not a conflict of interest.Pale Horse One (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Pale Horse One. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pale Horse One|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. You can't just dump unsourced text and hope for the best

you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I note from your editing history that you are reluctant to follow advice and engage in edit warring instead. I will have no hesitation in blocking you if you don't comply with our rules

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]