User talk:Evrik/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks and Kudos 1.1 Thanks 1.2 Barnstars 1.3 Well done 1.4 WikiProject Vancouver award 1.5 Userbox 1.6 Tip 2 Civil War Related edits 2.1 Regiments and Brigades 2.1.1 Please stop 2.1.2 Tiny stubs 2.1.3 regimental articles 2.1.4 My comments 2.2 AZ/CSA Documentation 2.3 Civil War regiment categories 2.4 Civil war regiments 2.5 Campaigns 2.6 regiment opinion? 3 Opinions on Philadelphia 3.1 3RR 3.2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443 3.3 3rr (boothy443) 3.4 Protection of pages 3.4.1 Philadelphia related articles 3.5 Page protections 3.6 I'm glad someone stands up to Boothy443 3.7 Goings on 3.8 Blocks 3.9 Hmm... 4 Mediation Archive 5 Images 5.1 Image removal 5.2 speaking of grinches 5.3 Image:Atlas_award.jpg 6 lightbulb 7 Scouting 7.1 Scouting userbox 7.2 Schiff Scout Camp 7.3 Scouting barnstar 7.4 Project 7.5 List of notable Scouts 7.6 List of Eagle Scouts 7.7 Eagle list 8 KUCI 9 Alan Cranston 10 My Talk 11 Userbox problems 11.1 A request for help 12 SAR 12.1 SAR Wikipedians 13 Salesian 13.1 Category:Salesian (again) 13.2 Chocolate?! 13.3 John Bosco 13.4 St John Bosco and LGBT edits 14 Barnstar, Other Awards and PUA 14.1 Wikihalo 14.2 wikiballooon 14.3 Barnstars... 14.4 no idea 14.5 Archiving - heads-up 14.6 Comments about the wikihalo and its proposed deletion 14.7 Wikihalo - Archived Pages 14.8 Wikihalo 14.9 Re:Awards 15 Ribbons 16 Miscellaneous Conversations 16.1 Note 16.2 Hampshire College 16.3 KC 16.4 Re: Your helpme request 16.5 Chicano 17 Welcome to Esperanza 18 Geocaching 19 Barnstars 20 Image:AtlasAward.jpg 21 Barnstar proposal guidelines 22 Personal User Award 23 Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1 24 Userbox Barnstar 25 Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I 26 New Catholic Collaboration of the Week!

[edit] Thanks and Kudos

• Wow, thank you for the barnstar -- my very first! I'm curious what led you to notice me; I do a lot of low-profile work around here but don't get a lot of attention (although I may well hit my 10,000th edit this week). Anyway, thank you for the appreciation; it looks from your talk page and contributions that you do a lot of great stuff around here as well. Keep up the good work! I'm gonna go move the barnstar to a place of pride on my userpage now.  :) — Catherine\^talk 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How many featured articles do you have to your credit? evrik
    • Sorry I missed this question on my talk page; only the one for now, I'm afraid. Although I've worked on many that I'm proud of, I don't think any others are of featured article depth. Thanks for inquiring! — Catherine\^talk 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

• Thank you for the best wishes! I'll try to make it a good one. :) Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for your comment. I did indeed vote on the Halo page. Nach0king 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia. WashWest 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

• Thank you for the barnstar! I will hang it proudly --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the fact that you disclosed the barnstar. It wasn't meant to compromise your objectivity.evrik
    • I never thought you gave it to color my opinion. I hang it very proudly. Disagreement of opinion is no reason for incivility. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for the compliment. Hal Jespersen 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

for your work on the Teaching Orders - the categories don't mean anything without good content. Do you feel like doing anything to Gabrielite Brothers' Schools? I've just noticed the category up for deletion, for lack of content. I'll trawl for some myself when I get a a chance.Staffelde 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm really impressed with what you've achieved regarding Saint John Bosco - I thought it was a lost cause. Well done too for sticking to your guns on that. All best, Staffelde 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll answer on your page! evrik 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For sticking to your guns and for your work on Teaching Orders Staffelde 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the wrapround on this, but probably you can work it out to suit! All best, Staffelde 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Vancouver award

Thanks for the Canadian Content Award for WikiProject Vancouver. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Thanks for the nice userbox for the Catholicism Project. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tip

Thanks for the heads up. South Philly 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War Related edits

[edit] Regiments and Brigades

[edit] Please stop

I notice you are creating multiple entries for apparent military units and tagging them as stubs. But there is no content at all in them! Please write something rather than simply create blank articles which will more than likely just be deleted. Ifnord 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I went back and started backfilling.evrik 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny stubs

Hiya, you may find that things work out better for you if you don't save articles until there's (at least) a decent stub there. Articles with no content (Ahl's Heavy Artillery Company or 15th Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, for example) are subject to deletion. Hopefully they'll get expanded first instead, but you never know. If you need time to prepare an article, you can do so in your /Sandbox and nobody will bother it there. Friday (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanksevrik 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regimental articles

I see you have been adding a large number of articles, links, and categories regarding American Civil War brigades and regiments. In general, there have been very few Civil War regiments that warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. There are certainly some famous exceptions, such as the 20th Maine, 54th Massachusetts, or 1st Minnesota. I have done a lot of editing on Civil War articles and have studiously avoided the wholesale linking of regiment names, since most of them will be stubs and all that linking is just a distraction.

Do you have a plan for fleshing out all of these articles that you are creating? I would call them stubs except you don't have enough information in them to even warrant that designation. What I would suggest to you is that you spend less time on creating the links and more time on creating a track record of writing interesting articles about some of those regiments. A reasonable standard for a regimental article would include a history of the organization (activated, reorganized, deactivated), a list of the commanders by date, a list of battles and campaigns they fought in, descriptions of heroic actions in some of those battles, and other notable individuals below the command level.

Assuming you do that, would you also take care to use a common naming convention? I would suggest number, state, arm, unit. Examples:

• 1st New Jersey Infantry Regiment
• 3rd South Carolina Cavalry Regiment
• 9th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment

Although I am aware that there is considerable variation in the names used in historical documents, using this convention is predictable and understandable to readers, rather than, say, Third Regiment of South Carolina Cavalry Volunteers or some such. In the article you could point out any specific variations on how that unit referred to itself during the war.

I created a style guide for all of my editing on American Civil War articles: User:Hlj/CWediting You're welcome to take advantage of it and match the styles used in the hundreds of articles I have created or edited. Good luck with your editing. Hal Jespersen 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My comments

Thanks for all your comments about my work on the civil war regiment pages. I appreciate the advise on the sandbox, and the advice on how to uniformly frame the content- not so much the twitchy trigger finger of the user who recommend the pages be deleted. In terms of an explanation of what I was trying to do …

I noticed that pages for many of the units were already ou there, but that they weren’t being grouped together uniformaly, if at all. I also noticed references to many units in exisiting articles, and they weren’t uniform either. I decided that it would be of use to put them together in a uniform manner, and in one place – so I created state sub-categories to be placed under the category, “Union Army regiments.” As an example …

7th Regiment Maryland Volunteer Infantry=>Category: Maryland Civil War Regiments = > Category:Union_Army_regiments

I appreciate that some may think that it is not productive to group the articles in a category, and that more time should be spent on writing articles. This will remain to be seen. I also disagree that linking them is a distraction. I agree that a reasonable standard for a regimental article would include:

• a history of the organization (activated, reorganized, deactivated)
• a list of the commanders by date
• a list of battles and campaigns they fought in
• descriptions of heroic actions in some of those battles, and
• other notable individuals below the command level.

There was a comment that, “there have been very few Civil War regiments that warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.” That may be so, but I hoped that by creating some of these stubs it would draw others into writing more about them. Using the above standard would be a good idea and can actually be found on numerous webistes outised wikipedia. A good question would be, how do we bring that information into wikipedia – or do we just want to link to the exting pages?

I have no problem with a naming convention. In creating I created the state sub-categories under the category, “Union Army regiments,” my goal was two-fold, put togtehr in one place, and find a unit from each state so that all the union states would have an example of a unit in the group. As was stated in one of the comments made, “there is considerable variation in the names used in historical documents.” I tried to avoid getting into this when I was searching for the pages, but if otheres feel strogly about it, there are mnay articles out there that use mnay different styles in naming the units. That would be a significant project to go and edit them into one style – something I’m not up to at this time.

evrik 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

My suggestion is that you stop editing other articles to add links until you find out whether your experiment becomes popular and people start fleshing out the regimental stubs you're creating. I, for one, feel free to add stub links in articles I create, but would not consider adding them wholesale to others' unless I had a strong inclination to write the empty article myself in the very near future. I also feel free to remove gratuitous links from articles in which I have played a major role in writing or editing.

There were over 3,000 regiments that served in the Civil War and, as far as I know, fewer than 10 of these had Wikipedia articles before you started adding stubs, so the categorization you are performing is strictly speculative, not organizing large amounts of existing data.

As to naming standards, there are fewer than 300 Wikipedia articles on the Civil War that contain the string "regiment". A large percentage of these have been edited by me, and I have been slowly making sure that there is a consistent naming standard used in those articles. So if you do not propagate a number of links and stubs in nonstandard formats, I will have less trouble continuing my efforts. Thank you. Hal Jespersen 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good suggestion if it were true. However, I have not gone out and created pages where no reference existed, and I did not limit myself to just the word regiment. I also looked for infantry, volunteer, cavalry and artillery. All of the stubs created were referenced elsewhere. I should also note that i didn't create new stubs for every reference, but limited it to one per state if that state had no other units already listed. As a point of fact, I linked 16 already existing pages, and created 27 stubs. I think that gioven some time, you'll see those stubs fleshed out and more new regimental pages created.

I support your efforts to standardize the listings ...

evrik 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AZ/CSA Documentation

Not sure what you were looking for, but we do also have this: Arizona Territory (CSA)? Does that help? jengod 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was interested in seeing documentation of sources that were not from the internet.evrik 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War regiment categories

The Civil War category is clogged up with a couple of dozen state regiment categories. These do NOT need to be in "American Civil War" and in '"Union" or "Confederate Army regiments" because the latter two are categories of the former. That's putting one category in a parent and grandparent category. I would be better to put them all in "Civil War regiments by state" and then you can make other categories at the same level for Union, Confederate, Regiments involved in xxx battle, regiments still functioning in 1864, etc. without clogging up the main category.

I tried to fix this but somebody is undoing it. See the article on wikipedia categories THB 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• That would be me, reverting the edits you made.evrik 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil war regiments

Hi, I asked this question and got this answer: Regarding your question about regiments, I am not much of an expert on Civil War history. Perhaps you should ask User:Evrik. However, I think Missouri and maybe Kentucky and Virginia (eventually West Virginia) had organized troops fighting on both sides. — Eoghanacht talk 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Is this correct? Did some states have regiments fighting for both sides? Also, what about groups smaller than a regiment, such as xxx Guards, and larger groups, divisions, armies, how should these be classified?THB 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, the quetion was what to do about military units smaller than a regiment, like the xxxx Guards? What category do they get? There are Armies, and Regiments, they get their own categories. What about divisions? Thanks

THB 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigns

The reason I deleted the "Category:Campaigns of the Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War" tag from the Department of the Pacific is because that category is used for classifying battles, not organizations. If you would like to create a category for all ACW topics related to the Pacific in some way, go ahead. Also, Sibley's NM campaign is already in the Trans-Mississippi Theater and should not duplicated in the Pacific. And those two battles you've listed in the Pacific category, which are not in the NPS classifications for some reason, should have articles or stubs written, and should not be added directly into the category file. If you do so, adjust the stub Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War accordingly. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regiment opinion?

Would you look at this page? Category:American Civil War regiments by state evrik 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I went to that page and the link claiming there was a discussion of the CfD request had nothing. As you know, I am not a big fan of the innumerable Categories in this space, so have no strong opinion. However, it would seem to me that a single Category that encompassed all regiments by state would be good enough, rather than breaking down Union vs. Confederate. Yes, there are a few exceptions, like MD Confederate and VA Union regiments. But I keep asking myself, "Why would someone go to look at the Category page? What information are they seeking?" After all, Wikipedia is not a relational database. Keep things simple. Hal Jespersen 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions on Philadelphia

Hi there. Thanks for your message here. Actually, I am not familiar with these editing disputes, so I am not sure what opinion I can give you. For now, I am just going to focus only on the article Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, so check back on that talk page in a bit. --HappyCamper 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been an edit war going on over these pages. Could you freeze the others as well?evrik 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I am going to refrain from doing that, as I am not familiar with the context in which the edit warring is occuring in the other related articles. If more extensive page protection is necessary, I'd recommend that you place a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you have not already done so. --HappyCamper 06:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back late. I will definitely keep a watch out, but if I miss something feel free to let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. You can still edit this talk page. Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Boothy is a bully. He is unreasonable and has refused all reasonable efforts to come to some sort of agreement.evrik 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr (boothy443)

• Please read up on WP:3RR - its 4 *in 24h*. Also... exactly *what* does this have to do with the arbcomm case. Do you expect the admins to guess? William M. Connolley 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I responded on your page.evrik 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of pages

I've protected 3 of the Philadelphia pages Boothy443 and you have been reverting for most of last month. I deliberately did not add protection tags to the pages because I do not want to see two productive editors actively monitor those pages only to revert each other. I will periodically lift the protection so that others can edit the page, but if the reversions continue without some significant dialog, I will be inclined to issue reciprocal blocks. The reversions have gone on long enough, and it is time that both of you initiate some generosity and graciousness towards the other party. --HappyCamper 06:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia related articles

Evrik, in the past month, have you tried to approach Boothy443 about those articles, either on his talk page, or on the article/category talk pages? It is clear that commenting in the edit summary during your reversions does not suffice to end the edit dispute between the two of you. I'm quite aware that at the moment, you and Boothy443 have no inclination to communicate with each other - but if you intend to revert those pages, it would not be an unreasonable request to make yourself approachable to others. --HappyCamper 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protections

I'm trying to get back to you on this edit you made on my talk page earlier. No, I don't think I'm going to protect the page this time. It is a given that the two of you will revert each other on sight. Those 3 pages have unfortunately been reverted again - but I am not going to protect the pages - at least for the next little bit.

If Boothy cannot show you that he has the discipline to stop reverting, then show him that you do. Come back and revert in a week if you have to, but don't do it right now. I am keen on seeing the frequency of reversions go down. Can you do that?

Neither of you have to agree with each other, but at least show some courtesy for article by keeping the page history clear of reversions. I will take a closer look at the posts that you and Boothy made earlier to get more background on the matter. At the moment I am not creative enough to suggest a reasonable compromise, and in this case, I may consult an external resource for their input into the subject matter. --HappyCamper 06:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Their is no policy regarding city and county colisidations, in which has been explained to you numerous times Philadelpia is not a compelet considlation, and their categories. You have stated the same thing over and over like a broken record, as well as trying to force a deletion/megere of the category over the objection of several users including my self, you edits and actions in the matter have show that you yourself and not acted in good faith, as being uncivil for what ever these policies are worth. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia lists Philadelphia as a consolidated city-county. Any article that doesn't belong directly in the Philadelphia Category and is related to the County, probably belongs elsewhere (like Philadelphia History Category)evrik 06:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm glad someone stands up to Boothy443

• Thank you.evrik 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Did you see how Boothy burned your olive branch ? South Philly 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • SIGH. evrik 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goings on

Yep, quite a few things happened actually. Nothing too important I think. If I miss stuff let me know, since it looks like other people are starting to take interest in the articles that we're looking at right now. --HappyCamper 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

Well, I was about to put a 48 hour block on you and Boothy443, but as luck would have it, the blocking function stopped working! I left this message here for the rationale. See this: [1] - I would like to see the edit warring stop, but it's probably not for me to decide that. If it still doesn't work, well, I will step aside and do something else. I've done all I can. --HappyCamper 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Hi Evrik. Just to get back to you here. Well, I don't quite understand why Boothy's edit would bother you. What I wanted to impress you two with, was that I am willing to block based on the context of the revert war alone - it would be something that I am prepared to stand by.

Nevertheless - sometimes Wikipedia can be quite mysterious :-) - I have an inclination that it would not be productive even if it had occurred - it would simply defer the problem into the future. I talked to a historian the other day, and I still don't understand the persistence of the reversions. Anyway, in a few days, I'll probably decide to move on. I think I've done all that I can. --HappyCamper 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Archive

How come this request didn't make it into the archive?

• Philadelphia County and other Philadelphia Pages

evrik 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Evrik: Before we changed to having individual subpages for each mediation request, the process of cutting and pasting of closed entries went a bit awry sometimes - Archive 1 is pretty incomplete and there are lots of cases which weren't archived. There isn't a great deal of point going and creating subpages for all of the closed ones, though, because nobody much looks at them; as a consequence, I haven't done anything about the incomplete archiving. The medcab page was in total disarray before I redesigned the system, and so all sorts of strange things happened the process of old cases. I hope this explains it somewhat. If you see any such cases which you think should be in the archive, perhaps you might be so kind as to add them to the old-style case archive (Archive 1) for me? Thank you very much. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

[edit] Image removal

Jamesday, our lead database administrator, has requested that we avoid the use of "decorative" or "icon" images due to the server load they create. Images on stub templates, unfortunately, are mostly decorative ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speaking of grinches

The image file has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. It is a copy of a well-known character from the illustrated book by Dr. Seuss. You are not the creator, and should not claim to be. Respecting copyright is very important to Wikipedia. If you are not sure what kind of images can or cannot be used, you may find our Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ helpful. FreplySpang (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Image was hand-drawn and scanned by me, to look like famous character. evrik 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Atlas_award.jpg

I uploaded a version of the original image at Image:Atlas.jpg; perhaps you might nominate your version for speedy deletion? Ral315 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• If I don't get to it, be my guest. evrik 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lightbulb

I have moved your page to User:Evrik/Sandbox/lightbulb/Geographical or ethnic variations.

You probably know it but: How many psychiatrists ...? Just one but the bulb has got to want to change. -- RHaworth 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't realized I missplaced the page. evrik 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting

Pls see talk on UN on my user page. You are more than welcome to join the Scouting Project if you like. Rlevse 18:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ref'd link for WOSM does not show it's the Scouting rep. Do you have one? Rlevse 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the scouting barnstar, but think the design could be a bit better: the purple fleur-de-lis could be changed to green or perhaps incorporate more elements of the world scouting movement patch. It could even be a spoof on existing patches within the scouts. Anyway, given the existence of other awards along the same lines, I support its creation. Nbruschi 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the Scouting Barnstar. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The bronze barnstar merit badge is now available. Mang Kiko 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting userbox

I actually like the Scouting userboxes being in their own section. It appears you are the one that did that. However, as these are heavily used by the Scouting WikiProject and you didn't tell us, next time when something similar comes up, could you at least tell us if not discuss ahead of time? I discovered this move merely by chance. Now I have to go change our instructions on our project page, which is not hard, but it'd be nice to have had some communication on this. Rlevse 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hadn't realized that anything pointed to them. I didn't change the content, but only their placement on the page.evrik
  • Understand. Glad to keep collaborating. Thanks for helping. Rlevse 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiff Scout Camp

The link you put in Wood Badge to Schiff camp ref'd the wrong camp--the one named after the son John Schiff in NY. The one where Hillcourt start WB is named after the dad Mortimer Schiff and is in NJ. I fixed this for you and turned it into a wiki footnote per guidelines. Rlevse 15:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting barnstar

• You should at least give a couple of minutes for the other person to preview and save his edits to the talkpage ;). Please understand that the scouting barnstar as pointed by at least two users, including me, is not a broad enough topic for a topical barnstar. Please see the threads related to "Did you know" barnstar and "Wikiwings" on WP:BAP. --Gurubrahma 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I answered here Wikipedia_talk:Barnstars#Removed_the_scouting_barnstar. evrik 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I don't mean any disrespect to scouts, having been a scout myself a while ago, but Scouting is a limited area. There are well less than 200 articles about Scouting, and many of these are stubby or sub-stub. I have no objections to using the award, but I think using it as an official barnstar is pushing it, when there are only around 40 Wikipedians signed up to WikiProject Scouting. Category:Harry Potter and WikiProject Harry Potter have more members and articles, but would you agree that a Harry Potter barnstar would be unnecessary and a bit pointless, despite the popularity of it? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for drawing my attention to it. As always the battle rages on the other side of the world while I sleep in Australia. You have done a good job in pushing the barnstar, but in the end it is no big deal. If there are objections to anything other than a PUA, go for that. Other projects have PUAs. We can live with it. --Bduke 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project

Evrik, thanks for all your hard work on Scouting issues. Please join the project by putting your username in the project member list. Rlevse 17:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Evrik, where is this "barnstar of diligence" page you refered to? For your articles, templates, and such, keep in mind that the Scouting project is NOT BSA, WOSM, or WAGGGS specific. I edited a few of your things to reflect this. Rlevse 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Scouts

If you're going to name it "List of notable Scouts", then you need to get rid of...." but did not complete the Eagle Rank in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)." as that definitely makes it BSA centric. Rlevse 09:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Eagle Scouts

Evrik: Thanks for working on the footnoting on this page, but it whacked out the numbering; specifically the "incorrectly regarded as" section. Pls fix it. Thanks. Rlevse 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Converting those to cite.php fixed that problem. I combined the three separate cites using <ref name="lawson">: you might want to check how that works.

Please see Lists and cites on the talk page for discussion on the merits of using lists as cites. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle list

Hi evrik: My famous Eagle page does not have as high a standards as our Wiki page. So, I wouldn't use my Eagle page as a guide for Wiki. However, my DESA page was built from an official BSA/NESA list, so the DESA page is valid for the Wiki DESA page--and of course, someone is either a DESA or not, so there's no wiggle room there (except for recent recipients I don't know about). 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KUCI

Are you/have you been associated with the station? Saw your post to Talk:KUCI. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I answered on your talk page, but yes.evrik 14:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah! I'm a current DJ, been doing it for 7 years or so now. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Cranston

This quote should probably go to wikiquote. Rkevins82 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am moving it. What is the source? Rkevins82 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that the quote has been moved. My comments are on the talk page.evrik 19:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Talk

Thanks for the welcome. Did you write it in my talk page or was it automatic? Improfane 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary Please use it, especially when you are moving comments. For a moment there I thought you simply blanked my comment...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox problems

User:Mang kiko and User:Jfingers88 are now in the category (their pages required a dummy edit becasue categories have trouble updating sometimes). If that all you wanted help with?--Commander Keane 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! I may get back to you later if I have any more problems!evrik 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request for help

How do I resize my user page so it doesn't run off the edge? evrik 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know how to wrap it, so I'll leave the template up. However, you may want to consider using less columns. Pepsidrinka 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is perhaps not what you wanted to know, but it looks fine on my browser. - nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I patterned my page after this one, Azatoth. On my browser, his doesn't run off the page, whil mine does. evrik 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you still looking for help, if not, please remove {{helpme}}. Thanks Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi evrik. If you are still looking for help with this rather technical problem I recommend you ask at the Help desk.--Commander Keane 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAR

Thanks for your interest in the SAR. I researched the organization to determine if I was eligible for membership (I am). I have not yet submitted an application. Great Scott 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks.. I live in Western Pennsylvania. Great Scott 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAR Wikipedians

The self reference occurs in Category:Sons of the American Revolution because the Category:SAR Wikipedians subcategory introduces something about the Wikipedia project into the regular encyclopedia. JonHarder 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The main idea is that one should try to not refer to anything about Wikipedia from within the main set of articles and categories. Anything which mentions Wikipedia, including Wikipedians, is in a kind of separate, parallel universe. Theoretically, one should be able to start browsing through articles starting at Category:Fundamental and follow all of the links and categories and never once see a mention of Wikipedia (except for a very few articles about Wikipedia).

In the avoid self references explanation, there is a paragraph that addresses user pages:

User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not under Category:People.

and then goes on to list some exceptions. I interpret the guidines to mean that user pages (and by extension categories) should be categorized under "Wikipedians" or one of its subcategories and not under a category among the regular articles.

If I was recategorizing the Category:SAR Wikipedians, I would replace [[:Category:Sons of the American Revolution]] with [[Category:Wikipedians]] and then perhaps reference Category:Sons of the American Revolution with a See also: [[:Category:Sons of the American Revolution]]. This keeps any reference to Wikipedians out of one of the article categories.

I hope this makes some sense. JonHarder 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salesian

I disagree with your action in changing the page, but you obviously care more about the subject, so I won't oppose it.evrik 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Evrik: Thank you for your restraint, which is much appreciated. I changed it back principally to keep it in line with the other categories on religious orders, which all now follow the same pattern. My principal interest is in German Benedictines, but as with most things on Wikipedia, one thing leads to another. Best wishes, Staffelde 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I owe you an apology - when I looked at it again this morning, i saw that you were right about this category, and I have withdrawn the CFD nomination. I am too trigger-happy sometimes - sorry. In fact, both Cat:Salesian and Cat:Salesians are necessary and I've sorted the articles between them along the same lines as the other Orders.Staffelde 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much! I am delighted with the indulgence (and link): very much appreciated - AND it was in German, which was an added cherry on the cake, so to speak! All best, Staffelde 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Salesian (again)

I thought I should let you know that this is nominated at CFR again, in the context of an effort to get some consistency across all the religious orders categories. The proposal is to rename it to "Salesian Order", which seems much clearer, while leaving all the sub-categories alone. Staffelde 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the head's up. evrik 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate?!

I don't get it. Is that a slur of some kind? I am sure that you are as clearly aware as I am that you cannot just pronounce something "NPOV" and walk away as if your word was gold. My work is referenced. How do you justify its deletion? Haiduc 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? Since the work that is being referenced in this exploration of Bosco's motives is that of a historian, basing himself on the work of other historians, your personal opinion seems out of place. Instead of arbitrarily deleting the discussion, perhaps you should open up the topic on the discussion page so we can resolve this. Explain what your problems with it are, and let's see what can be done. But don't attempt to turn the tables here as if you owned the article. Haiduc 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bosco

• Are you accusing me of posting this non-NPOV comment?? Pkazz 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • umm no. I'll anser on your page.evrik 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Portrayal of purely Roman Catholic saints is of little concern to me, as I am not Roman Catholic.Dogface 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've contributed to the debate on the article's talk page. --Spondoolicks 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St John Bosco and LGBT edits

Hunh?, Who are Don and St John Bosco? I galnced at that page. I have a hard time accepting the notion of "pedagogic love" leading boys to "Christian values." Like many Christians, I have a hard time distinguishing "pedagogic" from "pedaphillic". Cheers, Mikereichold 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(Later) I think I see. I removed a reference to the Salesians that was ungrammatical and looked suspicious. I could not see how it fit in with the article. But no, I know nothing of the man nor the discussion over his sexuality. Cheers.Mikereichold 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your annoyance, but having looked at the additions, regardless of whether or not one feels personally that they add anything to the article, they seem to be entirely properly sourced (a principal plank, indeed, being a quote from St John DB himself). Spondoolick's suggested amendment seems a very fair one in the circs, and you will probably have to settle for that. All best, Staffelde 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the talk page and believe me I don't like what's going on with the edits regarding St. John Bosco. Of course I'm heavily biased because I personally believe that an LGBT agenda is going on whether or not people like to admit under the guise of "speculation with references". Whether or not we like it though, it'll probably remain and nothing can be done. A similar argument happened with the President Lincoln article when a scholar speculated that he had homosexual tendencies. Even though this has been refuted by most historians, a statement on the article remains. Obviously I would be in favor of total exclusion, but I would be accused of POV unless I can come up with a scholar who says he wasn't. But unfortunately who would actually research a saint's sexual tendencies anwyay? I don't think there's anything I could say that can change anything especially now that admins are involved. By the way I think it's interesting that you also went to UCI and went to a Salesian school. Same here. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of figured you went to DBTI when I saw your edit about notable alumni. Class of 1998 here. Lookin forward to the 50th anniversary celebrations and all of the changes on campus. Thanks for the Salesian userbox. Where'd you get that UCI userbox?

--† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I supported your position. You owe me a beer. South Philly 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar, Other Awards and PUA

There is now a conflict about your act moving the non-barnstars in WP:BS to WP:PUA. I'd like to ask two questions:

1. From which project did you get the concensus that those awards are to be moved?
2. What's the use of moving them?

--Deryck C. 09:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I had reverted your changes to WP:STAR as I could not find consensus for your moves. Please understand that the FA medal and other awards are not PUAs, but related awards. You may want to continue the discussion on that talkpage. --Gurubrahma 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Evrik, you cannot keep on changing comments that you'e made sometime back, especially after others have commented on them. That is considered bad form and I had already asked you to desist from doing so. Repeatd acts such as these waste time of other editors from the primary purpose of working on Wikipedia and could get you blocked. If you want to change your comments, you should strike old ones out and leave your sign. --Gurubrahma 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I will comment on your page.evrik 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just as you do not have time, others also do not have time. While I do not have time to explain you all the subtleties and niceties, I can guide you to WP:BP which says that users who exhaust community's patience repeatedly can be blocked; please see WP:ANI as well as some arbcom rulings where people have been warned for lesser offences. Also, past conduct does play a role. I see from your talkpage that you have been blocked already once for violation of WP:3RR. If you do feel that your comments were offensive, it would be much better if you apologise to the editors involved rather than massaging your edits. --Gurubrahma 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't want to be a pain, but if you are going to threaten me by having me blocked, you could at least back it up with some specifics.evrik 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihalo

• I had to cleanup your nomination, so please add your support again. Thanks. The Neokid talk 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination

Sure, I'll nominate her. Va girl2468 20:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't spam me

I don't know you and I don't know Catherine Munro. Please don't spam me. Zora 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiballooon

Yes, thanks for that. Although I am no longer giving out this award, others may continue doing so of course. But keep in mind that the 5 year balloon isn't uploaded to Wikipedia, and I lost the picture on my harddisk in an accidental deletion a few weeks ago.SoothingR 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Go ahead.SoothingR 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sure. No problem at all.SoothingR 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars...

Did I step on your toes when I reverted the page? If so, let me say I'm sorry. Looks to me like a mis-edit, nothing serious. :) joshbuddy^talk 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no idea

Hi, wrt ur latest msg. on my talkpage, I hv no idea. Why not try the talkpage of WP:STAR? --Gurubrahma 18:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am a native speaker of Telugu, but I am not able to work extensively on either this or the Hindi wiki due to font problems with Indic scripts (I work on a shared comp and do not have the admin rights on that). You may want to try the talkpage of WP:INWNB but I doubt if it would be of much help, 'coz most of the members are active here rather than in Indic languages. --Gurubrahma 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving - heads-up

Hi, you archived Wikipedia Talk:Barnstar and award proposals to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive9. I believe it is inappropriate. Talkpages should have their own archives, such as Wikipedia Talk:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive9 etc. --Gurubrahma 02:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I answered here ... Wikipedia talk:Barnstar and award proposals evrik 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about the wikihalo and its proposed deletion

• Put them here, even if you're a grinch. evrik 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihalo - Archived Pages

What do you mean when you say "the archived pages that show how the award was developed"? I hope the following points will allow some insight:

• The idea for the award was the result of involvement in the Kindness Campaign and the Barnstars projects. I decided to create an award of a less trivial nature - one that would show the community's appreciation of certain users' efforts.
• The award was never mentioned on barnstar and award proposals. It was the result of my original Wikihalo idea and the improvements by other users.

I get the feeling that you were hoping that you would be able to prove that the Wikihalo was the result of the collaboration of the community and that it was supported by the community during the proposal. However, this might not be so. If it is, then I am sorry if this has an effect on the deletion debate. The Neokid talk 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihalo

Please see Wikipedia:Wikihalo nomination/Bkonrad! Thanks, — Catherine\^talk 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Awards

Hi, Evrik. I don't know about the others, but I did notice your changes to the Guidelines ;). Since I was ok with them, I didn't say anything. About your proposal for organizing the pages: if you go back in time a little, you'll see that the Barnstars on Wikipedia and the Other Related Awards pages were once in one single page (the Barnstars on Wikipedia page). I believe that they were dismembered because the BoW page was getting too long and too heavy to both load and edit. I believe that if we link the contents of those three pages in the Awards page, two problems might arise: 1) It will become even heavier than the original BoW page was; 2) One of the things we are constantly advising unexperienced users about over at the Proposals page is the difference between a "wiki award" and a PUA. If we create a page where the two are listed together, we might be sending out the wrong message and making it a little more confusing for newcomers (to the award designing activities, that is).

Alternatively, we could use the Awards page, which I too believe is underutilized, to explain about the variety of types of awards that exist, the difference between them (how they are created, the need for consensus or lack thereof, etc.). From the page, we would link the respective award page (BoW, PUA, etc.) as well as the Proposals page. But we wouldn't link the images/templates of the awards themselves as it is done at the BoW, PUA and ORA pages. We would make it a explanatory page, with links to the appropriate forums. Well, that's my two cents. Regards, Redux 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with the second paragraph. evrik 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• My 2 cents

Hi, I noticed your changes to the barnstar pages and was okay with them. However, I think the process of giving a wikihalo mis taking the hues of a RFA. Those pages are already up for deletion, and I have given my comments there. btw, I don't think I know Catherine Munro. --Gurubrahma 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbons

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Ribbons. -- evrik 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, you may find the template I used on that page most interesting. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous Conversations

[edit] Note

I have replied to your questions on my talk page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks.evrik 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hampshire College

Why did you remove the categories? Rkevins82 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'll answer on your page. evrik 19:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KC

Hi evrik, thanks for the link. I knew of the kindness campaign before itself and I practice my own version of it. I have not signed up on the campaign as I find it already has great support. I don't see any discussions happening as such on the page which is one of the reasons I don't track that page. I must have given at least ten barnstars so far. Anyway, thanks for the link. --Gurubrahma 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your helpme request

The use of the {{helpme}} tag is meant to be on one's usertalk page, questioning syntax of wikipedia or general help of how wikipedia works, rather than article content.

As such, I'm removing it. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicano

I re-edited the page and left the sentence; my initial goal was to simply correct the formatting error (running off the page) caused by the space, but the unusual suffixes of Chicano/a and Chican@ roused my attention as possibly being character errors, so I simply removed the whole sentence, seeing it had no relevance to Tejanos.

Looking further into it, however, I see that they're valid and apologize for removing it. C.J. 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza

Thanks! - nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geocaching

I've met you through Geocaching! It's always nice to see someone involved with multiple similar interests! Happy caching and happy wikipedia-ing!

-John (SearedIce...one of the two teenage geocachers in the area)

SearedIce 17:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Regarding the page Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes, I commented on a few of the barnstars; however, is it ok to request that some of them be grouped? As there are lots that talk about similar things. M ^o P 20:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the PUA page should be for just that, personal awards created spontaneously, like my Welcomers Star (I got quite surprised when some people actually used it). Real barnstars need to be more encompassing. M ^o P 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AtlasAward.jpg

Hi Evrik. Could you please provide a summary and licensing information for Image:AtlasAward.jpg? Something like this:

== Summary ==
I created this image to replace the fair use image used for the Atlas Award.

== Licensing ==
{{PD-self}}

I presume you created the image, so you can choose the license which you wish to use (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators). ~MDD4696 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar proposal guidelines

I know the proposal guidelines: I wrote them. :) – ClockworkSoul 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal User Award

During the PUA discussion you said at one point I was taking it too personal...you were right; I didn't keep my cool, but you were gracious enough not to lose your temper. I apologize and reward you with the Cool as a Cucumber Award. Why not have a nice cup of tea and a sit down too?(scroll down until you find my message to you...) Rosa 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Note from the editor Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log) Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Barnstar

Whoops, i didn't know that that was what you needed to do to get a barnstar. i just thought it was up to people to create it and so i decided to "be bold". --Preschooler.at.heart 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Catholic Collaboration of the Week!

I just wanted to make you aware of the new Catholic Collaboration of the Week, and invite you to participate! --Hyphen5 20:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Catholic social teaching was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!