User talk:Scoundr3l

Hello Scroundr3l and welcome to Wikipedia! I apologize if my edit seemed to be an indictment of yours. It truly was not meant that way. I guess after a long day of combating vandalism, I grew lazy. Instead of clarifying the sentence myself, as I did here:[1], I simply reverted yours. Again, I apologize. Though it is my understanding that such a question would be better placed on the talk page, or by reverting the edit that placed the info there and using the Edit Summary to ask the question. I sincerely hope my haste and laziness does not prevent you from contributing to the encyclopedia. Luckily, there was no warning placed on your talk page that needs reverting.Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!} 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is probably in the text - what is it that makes it look as though 20 years was suspiciously fast? Did you see footnote 3, Romer suggests 14 years. Romer is my edit but I thought I'd put it in the main text, not as a footnote, so someone else may have moved it to a footnote. Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoundr3l. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

for getting the source on slurs

Scoundr3l, Your diligence and vigilance makes me wonder if you have been tasked by Endurance. Please do not accuse me of creating an edit war while you are standing vigil over your repeated removals of content; especially when the reasons for the removals were disputed. Since I am the contributor of the content in question, and because that content does not have anything glaringly wrong with it, I feel that you should be the one to back down until this issue is resolved in some other manner. Respectfully, Storyfixer (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your content has quite a few things wrong with it, that's why I changed it. I noted exactly what was wrong in my summary and the discussion page I created. I've linked the relevant articles on what was wrong with your content, but I'd be happy to provide more. Perhaps we can discuss it on the article's talk page.Scoundr3l (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messing with my comments like you did here and here. It is a fact that editors do not have to vote twice, as is clear by the RfC itself and as discussed on my talk page. Doc James recently blocked an editor for messing with my and his comments. I would have no qualms about seeking the same block for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got you started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Campus_sexual_assault_RfC. Best of luck. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't need it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've heard of it. I don't think it's being cited as the source, however, highbeam.com was. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, joining the dots: the source is the Sunday Herald, which is hosted by Highbeam; the Sunday Herald article is talking about a ruling by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Complaints Board; you can see other mentions of it at the Google link above. (They are better than the Herald's article, IMHO.) Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found a good one from nzherald that I added, plus we got the quote from the Sunday Herald, too. Thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sabine (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://olt20.com/Sabine#&panel1-3. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I created the Sabine (musician) page to resolve a disambiguation issue at its previous location of just 'Sabine'. The content was copied over from that page as-is and I apologize if it violated any policies. I take no responsibility for creating the content, just moving it. The user most involved with the creation and updating of that page is user:Husseinajamii and I will ping him on his talk page regarding the speedy deletion. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read our article on the AVGN, or on Rolfe, but the three are certainly not the same thing. Rolfe is a filmmaker best known for the creation of the AVGN, a fictional character portrayed by Rolfe. Cinemassacre is the name of his studio, website and YouTube channel. The recent comments on Ghostbusters and the media attention surrounding them have nothing whatsoever to do with the AVGN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. The sources identify him as aka AVGN and the host of Cinemassacre. The first may be less accurate than the second. But it is at least factually accurate to say that he is the creator of AVGN, as reflected in the sources, and helps identify him in context of the controversy. As long as we're clear that it was Rolfe, not AVGN, making the statement, do you have an issue with that identification? It should be noted that Rolfe is most prominently identified on his Wikipedia page as the creator of AVGN. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources that say "AKA" are not reliable, because they are simply wrong. I don't think saying he is the creator of the AVGN is even a good idea, when we have an article on him to which we link. Identifying him in the context of the controversy by something that has nothing to do with the controversy is not really helpful, even when unreliable sources that variously identify him as "AKA the AVGN", a GamerGater, a misogynist, etc. do so. I don't really have a problem with the prominence of the AVGN on our James Rolfe article (he is best-known for the AVGN), but the fact that a large number of sources think the AVGN and Rolfe are the same person (essentially confusing fantasy and reality) and mischaracterize Rolfe's view of the film mean that we should be extremely careful about how we discuss it; until my edit last night, the article heavily implied that Rolfe was a GamerGater, and saying things like that he was opposed to a "reboot" "without the original cast" in a broader discussion of how misogynists are opposed to a "reboot" with a female cast, and citing sources that explicitly question whether Rolfe was sincere in his not saying he was opposed to an all-female cast, is borderline BLP-violation. Rolfe is a private individual and independent filmmaker.

He is not a professional film critic, and he has no professional responsibility to pay to see this or that film, even if he wants to create video essays about said films' context within popular culture. Bob Chipman (a relatively obscure sort-of acquaintance of Rolfe and a professional film critic who was very skeptical of the film pre-release, but wound up liking it when he saw it because it's his job to watch new films) wrote on his blog (a self-published source, but still apparently with as much tact and editorial oversight as most of the semi-accurate opinion pieces cited in the article) that it looked more like Rolfe was trying to promote an upcoming unrelated project about the cancelled sequel to the original films and the Real Ghostbusters cartoon than "pre-judging" the new film or talking about women in popular culture (again, something he didn't even mention).

Heck, I still haven't seen the film (it just came out in Japan a few days ago), and I have probably written a lot more about it on Wikipedia than Rolfe did in his six-minute video. Do I deserve a swath of pseudo-reporters on various websites jumping down my throat speculating on "why" I haven't seen the film and whether I am prejudiced against it because of its female cast? No. Do I deserve the Wikipedia article on the film lumping me in a section about the "controversy" surrounding the film, subtly implying that I am a misogynist opposed to a reboot "without the original cast", and citing said questionable websites as their sources? Hell no.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from and I can relate. It's a hot political issue and a lot of people have been implying things and using their opinions to create narratives that may or may not be true. I see a lot of it and I'm inclined to try and keep it neutral, but sometimes in the context of Wikipedia policy, you have to repeat the narrative given by reliable sources. I'll do my best to ensure Rolfe doesn't get erroneously lumped into the gamergaters if he's not one of them. Still, in the context of this paragraph, I think it helps to have some sort of identification, especially one oft-repeated by source and (let's face it) not a lot of people know who he is, so the question may come up, haha. Scoundr3l (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciated your comments. :) Hayscole (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Ghostbusters 2016
	Thank you for thanking me for my revision on the Ghostbusters 2016 article. I really appreciate it. Sincerly, VintageVHSTreasures. VintageVHSTreasures (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	One of your comments aiming to resolve conflict regarding BLM has been quoted directly by the Washington Post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How cool! Thank you for pointing it out. I'm honored to be an example in such a positive portrayal of the project. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your clarification request on this article. The link points to potato chip which is the intended and correct meaning. I don't see any need for clarification. I don't know why you claimed potato chip linked to crisp. Meters (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that crisp redirects to potato chip. I think the possible need for clarification is inthe previous sentence where chips is equated with french fry. Meters (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was because someone had piped "French fries" to "chips/French fries". I removed the pipe. The article seems to be written from the US side, so we should refer to "French fries" or possibly "French fries/chips" (but definitely not "chips/Frenchfries"). And yes, ketchup is a common flavour for potato chips in Canada. It has been in use since at least the early 1970s. I'll add a source if you think one is needed. Meters (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to be a niche market I don't see this as really belonging in the lede. Feel free to yank it or reword it. Meters (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't meant to refer to French Fries. I'd never heard of Ketchup-flavored potato chips before. As long as they're common elsewhere, no source should be necessary in the lede, though we may want to reference them in the body somewhere. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it. Sorry for plastering your page with so many edits. Meters (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Melanie and I'm here on behalf of Endurance International Group to propose updates to the Wikipedia article. I am hoping to find a neutral editor to review the proposed draft mentioned here. I'm not editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but hope you might be able to help since you've worked on the article before. I am leaving talk page messages for the other editors I pinged in the edit request, too. Thanks for your consideration. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoundr3l. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoundr3l. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoundr3l. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reverse racism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the weight of a fortune cookie and nearly as sincere. If you're interested in collaborating, please begin at any time. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the article is unbalanced, the burden is on you to show where a consensus of published authors diverges from what's in the article, as per Due and undue weight. Please suggest specific, concrete improvements based on such sources, for example in the form "Change X to Y", before you re-add the {{Globalize}} template. If you are not satisfied with discussion on the talk page, you are free to seek dispute resolution. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been re-added. Please see the discussion on that page if you're interested in how you can improve the article. Using my talk page shouldn't be necessary for a simple content dispute. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Your behavior here is less than ideal. You templated this editor with a 3RR warning then broke 3RR with a 4th revert. Be grateful you weren't reported, follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion before reverting or you will be. 109.99.99.2 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the IP who vandalized the page with gibberish and broken refs. Reverting such vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR. Using sockpuppet accounts, on the other hand... —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this discussion to the article and off of my talk page. And Sangdeboeuf, I sincerely hope you aren't accusing the IP of being my sock puppet. Don't get me wrong, I get it. But you know better. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I doubt it's your sockpuppet. But the IP seems awfully familiar with Wiki-jargon for someone with less than ten edits. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Reverse racism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scoundr3l, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I get it. I'd probably be suspicious too, in your case. But it isn't me, so I can't do anything about it. I welcome the results. The real question is whether you'll be willing to collaborate when you find out that more than one user disagrees with the state of the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the block log for that IP, including the block for "trolling". If it isn't you (which may be true), you might want to re-think your approach given the kind of allies you seem to attract. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of trolling? As far as I know, the IP wasn't blocked because of anything on the Reverse Racism article, so I'll ask you to keep the conversation relevant to my actions and not the actions of another user (which it is and which you should be assuming until you have evidence otherwise). So unless you have something that pertains to me, leave it off my talk page. I could offer you a theory why more than one editor doesn't seem to like you, but suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with me or my actions. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you genuinely for your recent comment. It appears it was dated but without your name. [2] Cheers, A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, must have missed a tilde. Sorry. Scoundr3l (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]