- 1 Scouting sex abuse cases
- 2 Sexual harassment in education
- 3 re:Scouting and sex abuse
- 4 Aircraft spotting
- 5 Legion of Christ
- 6 Hermann Leopoldi
- 7 Scouting sex abuse cases
- 8 Apostrophe?
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for August 4
- 10 Roger Hollis
- 11 Re Beatrix Campbell
- 12 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 13 Talkback
- 14 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Scouting sex abuse cases
- Thanks for getting involved - and for your comments. I have limited interest in scouting but am v concerned about censorship on W. Reading between the lines of a number of edits on various scouting pages (including personal abuse I received when raising the issue) suggests there could be a problem here.Testbed 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Testbed
Sexual harassment in education
re:Scouting and sex abuse
you're welcome. also, i didn't add that sentance, i moved it from an area of the article where it had even less of a place, i was just skimming and found that sentence to be more like the random placed protest of some editor. i didn't read it, just skimmed, but i agree: it is horribly bad. i'll work on it
- i just removed that sentence entirely. the catholic twin of this article provides a number and i think the scouting article could wait untill an editor also came up with one. youre welcome for my promptness (also i am one of the scouting folk: so we'll see how this plays out in the end!)Ryan shell (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology Testbed I could have been clearer when I reverted your addition with the not relevant, I just saw what looked like a book promotion being added to the article. But I have no problems with the paragraph from your last edit. Regards. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Legion of Christ
@ADM What is your reasoning for removing all the critical information and setting up a new article? Seems like a POV fork to me. I would like to undo this. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just seen this, having reverted the same editors removal of material in contravention of WP:Lead section. I put a note on Talk:Marcial_Maciel warning about NPOV and certainly support undoing the fork. Testbed (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I think the fork is appropriate is that I suspect that the Legion of Christ will somehow survive Maciel's abuse scandal, much like the Archdiocese of Boston survived the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese under bishop Bernard Law. Soon enough, the abuse affairs will seem like a thing of the past and the so-called fork would merely record that past with appropriate historical sources. ADM (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I too have limited time to apply to this project at the moment. I am concerned, however, at your use of the term "the dib dib dob fraternity". I make three points on that front. It would seem that you are using it as a pejorative. Not a wise approach, especially if you are seeking my help. You see, I am a member of Scouting myself. And I don't know where you're from, but that terminology disappeared from Scouting ceremonies in my country, Australia, decades ago. And Scouting administration varies dramatically across the globe. Different countries - very different approaches to sex abuse. So, watch out for your own POV.
My broad view on the article is that because of its sensitivity, everything in it must be very well sourced, and it must deal fairly and sensibly with the variations in approaches around the world. Timing is an issue too. If a sex abuse case occurred twenty years ago, it should not be mentioned in isolation without extensive coverage of what that country's Scouting administration has done about sex abuse in general since then. In many cases, that's an awful lot.
- Don't worry. While I am a member of Scouting, it's my second time round. I was a member in my youth, and now I'm doing it again as a very much older person. The area of Scouting for which I'm responsible is currently running very successfully, but I have a reputation for being somewhat blunt if I see problems within Scouting. Too many Scouting adults are more interested in their own "career" within Scouting that in making it fantastic for the kids, which should be the only reason we do it. As I said above, when time permits, I shall again get my teeth into that article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has just raised my use of the apostrophe - apparently to attack my professional credentials - in that I say on my User page that I am in my "40's". Colleagues and I have had an interesting discussion about this. Although there may be variations (e.g. US vs UK) the simple guide seems to be that as it is slang (I might more properly have written "forties") the abbreviation takes an apostrophe. Other examples found online are 'cuz, ain't, o'clock. That is not to say some people don't feel strongly the other way so I would be glad of a definitive reference if someone knows of one. Testbed (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gräfin Mariza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hans Moser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Testbed, Thought you might like a look at Talk: Roger Hollis page. A very late in the day comment, which is very much POV, I have deleted - as way out of date order and POV. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Re Beatrix Campbell
Got your note, I agree article is unsatisfactory, a lot of required content has been deleted. But I see no recent edits by you on the article, so don't know what you might propose doing about it. The SAFF source seems unsuitable. BTW, when I was looking thru your edit history to see if you had done anything on the article, I noticed your post on the fringe board that mentioned Gurdjieff. Out of curiosity I went to the article. It is a bit of a mess too - but I decided to delete the article's issues tag since there seems to be no discussion about any content that would justify having the tag. Maybe you might want to add something to the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)