Talk:Michael Baden-Powell, 4th Baron Baden-Powell

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Baden-Powell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314183257/http://www.freewebs.com/badenpowellguild/ to http://www.freewebs.com/badenpowellguild/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Baden-Powell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909112841/https://www.vicscouts.asn.au/Rovers/Awards/BPLodge.php to https://www.vicscouts.asn.au/Rovers/Awards/BPLodge.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The joke of a last paragraph
Can someone look into it, it's clearly mockery of a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.11.194 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing the reality here. I have fixed it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian descent ???
From WHERE does this spring ? "Category:English people of Russian descent" ??? Someone having a laugh ? Michael's father's mother Olave Baden-Powell's mother's father, George Hill (then 41, and in England!), described himself in the 1861 Census as a "Russia Merchant", as the Hills had been (for at least four generations) in St. Petersburg; but most (all?) had married Englishwomen in England, and most of the children were born (and educated) in England - no "Russian blood" anywhere ! RobinClay (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)  I've now removed it. RobinClay (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

“agent”
“Agents are not always required in wikipedia. In the case of Baden Powell's family caravan, the nickname is obviously used by the family and people who know about the caravan, but even if this wasn't the case, the fact the nickname exists is sourced and so we can use it in an article. The "by whom" tag is not used when a sentence lacks an agent, unless the sentence is a statement of opinion which is not attributed. To illustrate, we could not use a "by whom" tag after the sentence "John Lennon was murdered in 1980", but we could after "It is thought that John Lennon's murder was the result of poor policing". Boynamedsue (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Boynamedsue, You’ve got the argument the wrong way around and referred to the wrong Wikipedia guidelines. See Template:By whom, which specifically refers to use of regarding claimed nicknames. In any event, I have requested more detail about the claimed nickname. You stated “the fact the nickname exists is sourced” but, again, you have the logic twisted. That a claim is sourced does not make it a fact. It’s a much mythologised story but there is no reliable source and it is worth challenging editors to find more detail.115.42.15.148 (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)”

We don't deal in "facts", we deal in sourced statements. The text on the "by whom" tag states "This tag is for placement after mention of a vague, third-party claim that is not sourced, such as "considered", "noted as", "nicknamed", "lauded as the world's ..." (best / largest / finest / etc.), "labeled", and the like.", the statement is clearly sourced. If you think the source is incorrect, it should be tagged better source needed, and your reasons should be explained on the talk page.

I have reverted your edit back to the status quo prior to your addition of the disputed tag, as per policy in this case Boynamedsue (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Apologies, as the tag has been changed to "explain", I have not reverted. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (1) You indicate Wikipedia does not deal in facts but in sourced statements but it was you who referred to “fact” in your statement “the fact the nickname exists is sourced”. My response clearly indicated it was merely a claim, not a fact, even if referenced. Again, you can’t argue straight.
 * (2) Although there is a cited source for the story, there is no direct source attributed for the claimed nickname which is therefore what the tag guidelines refer as an unsourced “vague, third party claim”. The quite apparent purpose is to stop the repetition of hearsay and mythologised stories, even when sourced.
 * (3) You mis-interpret the guidelines for your own bent. The purpose of tags such as is to challenge editors to find material and sources to improve the information on Wikipedia. If the tag serves that purpose, it will usually be valid. Your approach would dumb-down Wikipedia to any rubbish that can be cited from a source and not allow challenges to improve it.


 * Take a break from your bent over uses of the tag. You are not part of any “We” on Wikipedia as you refer to yourself.

I am enough of a part of a "we" on wikipedia to know to sign my posts, you should do the same. You seem to view wikipedia as site of battle where people "challenge" each other. This is not the case, it is a collaborative rule-governed enterprise. The use of the "by whom" tag is governed by WP:WEASEL which does not mention the "repetition of hearsay and mythologised stories". "By whom" specifically exists to signal an unsourced claim using language stating the existence of an opinion, or occasionally a sourced opinion whose author is not named in the text but should be.

The correct answer to a "by whom" tag in the case you placed it would be something like "a caravan which is, according to the website of the registered charity B-P Jam Roll limited, nicknamed Jam Roll." I judge that much information to be unnecessary, but if you want to put it in, you could even resolve your own tag. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Read your comments and realize how pathetic they are. You roam Wikipedia, looking for what you think are incorrect uses of the tag and putting others right. Sit down with a friend and get them to read your edits and ask them if you’re pathetic and should take a break. You’re shown to be wrong (e.g. re “fact” above) and you just move on with new argument. The guidelines on Template:By whom don’t need to spell out the obvious. Instead of being so rambunctious about your own initial opinion, spend some time reading, re-reading and thinking about possible different interpretations of those guidelines and you might just get it.


 * You’ve even misinterpreted the article you edited. You refer to “a caravan … nicknamed Jam Roll” but it is a Rolls Royce car not a caravan. More significantly, you suggest the charity company claims the car is nicknamed but both the charity company and the other attributed source, Colin “Johnny” Walker, (with whom I have communicated on several occasions over years) imply others nicknamed the car in 1929/1930s (long before either source existed to know) but are “vague” as to this “third party claim”. As such, they merely repeat a story. The sources (both fly-by-night self-published websites) retell the story but don’t state the car is nicknamed but suggest it was nicknamed, by someone unidentified at an unspecified time. On the proper construction of the use guidelines, this is the type of “vague, third party claim” that it is to address.


 * I am interested to find out more about the nicknaming of the car and hope other editors can find who gave it the nickname. Your view of Wikipedia as your own petty fiefdom to patrol to enforce your own bent about tags and expunge them won’t help elucidate more information to make Wikipedia even better. By using the  tag, I am simply asking other editors in this “collaborative” effort if they know or can find more information. An academic “challenge” is not to a battle (as you bizarrely interpret). It’s setting a challenge to research and discover something new or more. Do you see a pattern of how you keep getting the stick by the wrong end and twisted arguments? Your bizarre interpretation seeing a “challenge” as suggesting a “battle” reveals more about you, your state of mind and your hostile editing of others’ contributions. Disappear and stop disgracing yourself.
 * I understand that you are very upset, and likely new to wikipedia, given you have not yet learned how to sign your posts (it's four tildes, or the signature looking button). However, the language you are using is not acceptable on a wikipedia talk page. Calling another user "pathetic" is covered by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as is the statement "disappear and stop disgracing yourself". This is despite the fact the second tag which you placed is still on the article, and therefore, the lack which you see in the text is actually highlighted. Effectively, you are arguing over nothing. Friendly advice, I'm not going to report you, but you should probably read WP:CIVIL ASAP, because if you keep editing like this, you are going to get banned. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Up to date images of MBP
Greetings chaps,

As a styling, profiling, gun slinging, hoe winging, grandmaster scoutsman, MBP should be shown in the most recent light possible. It is unacceptable, dare I say, immoral, to depict him in a likeness as old as that which currently lies on this page.

We should see that this error is corrected immediately.

That is all,

Regards,

Lance Corporal Paulie "Slick" Mullet 2A02:C7F:C08:C600:1CDA:5760:9675:29CF (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)