User talk:Munvo

Your recent edits to Scouts Canada

I know that these accusations are hard to read, and that such things happen regardless of how strong systems are, but they are in the public domain and currently newsworthy. Deleting the entry is not acceptable as it is currently in mainstream news. The consensus appears to be, based on that nasty little abuse page, that such things lose relevence after a decade or so. I am happy to help reduce the section to something a lot more in proportion (with a link to the main article) - but simply deleting makes it look as though it is being covered up on behalf of SC - and that is not any more acceptable than what you see as hack-job attacks on SC. DiverScout (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about what is and is not newsworthy. Wikipedia is not a news bulletin-board and by simply posting articles written by a single source which has a proven history of libel, misrepresentation and bias, it is hardly justifiable to utilize for suggesting such strong accusation which could damage the reputation of SC. Munvo (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the reputation of SC is not a valid reason to delete the section, and that deleting in order to protect SC is vandalism and is to be reverted as such. Please do not try to go down that route as that makes it impossible to resolve things.

The source is a very valid one - a nation news service. Whatever your PoV on them (or mine) is does not change that matter. They are a valid source and these comments have been made. I am, however, very happy to work with you on reducing that section to a more proportionate entry provided you cease your current blanking strategy.

Only a single, brief sentence needs to be there indicating that these claims were made. The section on the actions of SC (courced only from SC, so the weaker-sourced part of the section) can be retained. This would, in fact, probably improve the look of SC to anyone looking on here for information about them as it shows that they take the matter seriously and are not trying to pretend it didn't happen. Doing our job of reporting the facts would, in this case, help SC. DiverScout (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Deal.Munvo (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. Trust me, I'm not anti-SC in any way. I see this as a way to highlight the lengths that all our associations go to to prevent these exceptionally rare events from taking place. I've changed the title and lead to relate more to the documentary, as that seems to be the current issue, with the abuse cases having taken place over 20 years ago - before current safeguarding measures were available. I've, therefore, flagged the video and highlighted the open way that SC responded to the raised issues. Initially I've left the blue-link to the abuses page, but wondered if you felt that that may be better set as a text-link within the main body? DiverScout (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Original Agreement between Scouts Canada and L'Association des Scouts du Canada.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Original Agreement between Scouts Canada and L'Association des Scouts du Canada.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The file is used as a reference for Scouts Canada. Munvo (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SCOUT eh!

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on SCOUT eh!, as the article has undergone a deletion discussion in the past and is therefore permanently ineligible for deletion under the proposed deletion process. I mainly did this to comply with process, and I am not necessarily opposed to this article's deletion. Your rationale for deletion is not a valid argument for deletion, as it points out an issue that can be resolved by editing. However, if you can make a case that this organization fails the notability criteria for inclusion, then I suggest you bring it back to AfD. If you have any questions please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you KuyaBriBri for letting me know. I do not mean by any means to violate the wiki way or argue fallaciously. I have spoke to a few others and I believe they will be able to assist me in properly voicing my concerns in a constructive way.

File permission problem with File:Youth Participating in STEM at CJ13.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Youth Participating in STEM at CJ13.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Munvo: Alternatively you can change the license of the flickr file to CC-BY-SA and let us know afterward. --McZusatz (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Scouts Canada Official Name Change Legislation.pdf

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scouts Canada Official Name Change Legislation.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)