Talk:Goshen Scout Reservation

message: A one paragraph article from a local paper about a local scout troop going to Lenhoksin is a very poor source.  I am not getting into an edit war with you but anyone can see that it is a poor source for any article except maybe if that troop had its own web page.  Hopefully you will have the sense to self-revert your change. Marauder40 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A short article about a scout troop trek at a specific place to support the claim that scouts trek at that specific place.Abel (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not notable and does not support the line that it is referencing.Marauder40 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You finally got around to reading the notability criteria and now need to delete all the references in order to have the article fail to meet the criteria. You would think that it would be easier to change your mind about your earlier stance, but for many people that seemingly small act is often impossible. Abel (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what the notability criteria is.  Please assume good faith.  Just modifying an article puts things on people's radar. You need to expect people to check things you are adding and if it is sub-par to remove it.  This source is extremely poor for use in WP.  If you cannot take people critiquing your work, then may be WP isn't the place for you.Marauder40 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating "poor source" over and over is not so much a critique as it is a cry for help. Abel (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears at 3rd party opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard disagrees with you.Marauder40 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

text: As many people do, you are confusing notability for an article with notability of something added to an article. "... notability guidelines here: 'Notability' is a requirement for article topics, not for content within articles." Originally posted by Jeh. Copied here for reference by Abel (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be much more comfortable if you'd quote the relevant P&G, not me. Jeh (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I know the policies.  All I said to do is get one other Scouting Wikiproject member to agree that the source meets WP standards, you do not own the article.  And the RSN said it didn't meet criteria for what was quoted before.  It still doesn't meet criteria.  I will repeat what RSN said the last time you included this same source. "At best, this is a form of WP:SYNTH, and at worst, this is straight up deception, thinking no-one will check the source." Marauder40 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Needing to throw around accusations to protect your ego is embarrassing. Abel (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss the article not the editors.  I quoted an editor directly from RSN.Marauder40 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the source is just a one paragraph human interest story.  Kintetsubuffalo seems to agree.  Based on what I said earlier I won't remove it since another member of the Scouting Wikiproject thinks it should be in, but honestly I think the source stinks of as Kinetsubuffalo said "a vanity add" at worse or just adding a poor source to claim there are outside sources.  I doubt that source would ever hold up to GA review.  I also personally don't like the "rough terrain" portion, because that is highly subjective and smells of "ad speak".Marauder40 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations on recruiting someone who is also fond of throwing around empty accusations to intimidate people. Abel (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop throwing around accusations.  I properly followed procedures for getting a third party opinion.  I contacted all the people that had previously commented on either this page or the National Capital Area page.  It is clear that you think this is a battlefield and are here to win an argument instead of working together with people of similar interests to make an encyclopedia.Marauder40 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to discuss this article, but am leaving any further discussion on this one source to you two to argue over. --evrik (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Goshen Scout Reservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2010/09/03/113007.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Goshen Scout Reservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://fallschurchtimes.com/30361/falls-church-scouts-complete-backpacking-trek/comment-page-1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would it be kosher to included as sighted planes ones that are no longer in the inventory of USAF/USN?  When I was a staff member at Olmsted back in 1990, I do remember an A-6 flight doing a training run.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolfballDM (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older sighted planes