User talk:Scarmudgeon

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Endless Ages has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket2.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket2.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket2.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket5.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket5.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Blackmarket5.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Blackmarket.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Blackmarket.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aaron boucher
A tag has been placed on Aaron boucher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Abce2 | Access  Denied  17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Evil Core box.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Evil Core box.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material to articles
Hi Scarmudgeon, your recent edits to the Endless Ages article (see here) are not good for the article as a whole. For all edits you need to ensure that, particularly for negative material about companies and people, you follow the neutral point of view in editing, source all controversial statements to reliable sources and do not write your own thoughts on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, you removed an entire section of a page for no reason at all. Please have the decency to put your rationale for this on the talk page instead of the cursory explanation you gave. I will revert in the absence of any reasonable discussion. Thank you, --Scarmudgeon (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You also deleted all the pictures on the page which had no copyright infringement issues. I find your editing to be entirely unwarranted and in the poorest sense of 'bad faith'. Please do not edit this page again in this fashion or I will ask that you be sanctioned for vandalizing my work. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And in response you added an unsourced and grossly unflattering image, and unsourced and potentially defamatory text about Jason Lee Chambliss and Brandon Brophy. Yes I did not discuss the matter but I will leave notes later today on the talk page as to why. Suffice for the moment that the OTRS system has received communication about this article and I consequently acted in what I saw as the best interests of the site - Peripitus (Talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did add the image you describe as "grossly unflattering", so maybe the images you deleted that had been there for months should have been left alone? If you want to do the right thing discuss it because maybe you don't have any better information than I do, but at least I did provide sources for some of what I said. I was actually in the process of adding sources when you deleted all the things you did. It was the rapidity with which the deletion was done which I found especially offensive. The truth will be told about this matter one way or another.

Hello, Peripitus, I happen to disagree with you in your allegation that the article is unsourced. The fact is that the subject complained about a minor point without going into detail and you took upon yourself to delete ALL the images and large, pertinent sections of the article with little more than cursory explanation. I will not accept this and have therefore reverted. If you wish to get the article right then ask the guy who complained what exactly it is he finds wrong because I have asked him and he just does't want anything said at all. That's not satisfactory at this point because the article meets notability criterion and recent events need to be included. If you want to research these latest events and rewrite the article please do, but until then don't be wiping out whole sections without proper rationale. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Scarmudgeon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Blackmarket2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Blackmarket2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. – Quadell (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Evil Core box.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Evil Core box.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
I will not get dragged into an edit war, where you revert without discussion over what seems to be highly dubious material. Kindly stop adding it until you get consensus on Talk:RuneScape that the edits are acceptable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop whining, you're not a victim of anything but your own narrow mind. "Dubious" is just not a good reason to undo my edits.
 * Insulting me won't help the situation. We require sources to be reliable, and I don't think your sources are reliable or even acceptable as links. If you disagree, you can always explain why at Talk:RuneScape. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Nolelover  It's football season!  14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit
Does you have reliable sources backing up what you have stated? Otherwise that section will be removed.  Nolelover  It's football season!  14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

you and your crew of paid jagex editors have been busy deleting everything and calling it an "editing war." don't worry, we'll get it all worked out.--Scarmudgeon (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at RuneScape
Hello Scarmudgeon. You appear to have broken the WP:3RR rule at RuneScape. See WP:AN3. There may still be time for you to avoid a block, if you will reply there and promise to stop edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Posts were deleted wholesale by what appear to be a crew of paid and professional Wiki editors. I have nothing to apologize or atone for. If Wikipediea wants to take facts over the money of some scheming UK gaming company...well, I can't do much about it.

already ref'd everthing i posted. did i use all the pretty little wiki codes and links? well no, sorry about that. but i did reference everything to outside, relialble sources before this crew of what is apparently a bunch of profession Runscape defenders came along and deleted everything and decided afterwards how they'd plan the attack.

no, i have nothing to defend or apologize for. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

you want to stop the edit war?
then stop deleting paragraphs and sections wholesale without even a word on talk. you wipe everything out, get your buddies to back you up, and then decide what was wrong. you don't even know what you are doing. you just don't like what you read and are acting like a bunch of thugs. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not buddies with either of the other editors that opposed your additions, and I don't work for anyone. I don't see much talk page input from you other than your attacks on the motives of your fellow editors. Please assume good faith. --Onorem♠Dil 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept. I just don't see alot of it around here when I have 10 guys from a company trying to protect its image. Oh well. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10 guys from a company. Who are these guys and what proof do you have? Not liking your edits doesn't make them employees. --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

funny, now that i'm advancing a legal argument that Jagex is a lying POS everyone STF.
well hold on to your Christmas drops, boys and girls. There's much more to come. But in the meantime, instead of playing the "lets delete everything" game, you might try to actually edit something. just a thought. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted your recent edits to Runescape for the following reasons: You removed a page-protection tag when the page was still protected, and because you added NPOV, original research ranting on Jagex. Some of the text you added appears to be good, but as others have said may be more appropriate at Jagex, minus your opinions on law or Jagex. OSbornarfcontribs. 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

hello, i reverted them back --Scarmudgeon (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonshine & Other Memory Burns
Do you have a specific reason to remove this prod? Prods can be removed for any reason, but this one appears to be WP:HOUNDING-related given that no edit summary was left to explain the removal. --Onorem♠Dil 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at RuneScape
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Endless Ages. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

February 2014
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Aaron Boucher. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Aaron Boucher for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Boucher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Aaron Boucher until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aaron Boucher (8-10-2001).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aaron Boucher (8-10-2001).jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)