User talk:Scoutguy138/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Scoutguy138. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome!
Hi Scoutguy138! I noticed your contributions to Nicole Malliotakis and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Advice
Common words such as "studio album" don't need to be linked, people already know what a album is (MOS:OVERLINK) and don't use VisualEditor with your edits especially in the track listing section, it make errors. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the advice and for correcting any errors I made on my previous edit, I appreciate it. I’ll make sure to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines more carefully moving forward. Scoutguy138 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Also there is a guideline for album-related articles (WP:ALBUMSTYLE), if you interested in getting some articles to good article status in the future. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
US gubernatorial election
Wait until 99% turnouts and clear statements by Official Election Commision to be denounced officially elected for next Governor
Could you please put some more reliable source more even? In such under pledged source would be chaotic editings. Raden Maksim (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you want a source just look here, you can even click on individual states and see that the races have been called https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-governor.html Scoutguy138 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not right to put in the Tribune or News Times that are still unrealiable and would be chaotic. Only a reliable source in such in Official Election Commision that officially to confirm. Please, change it into TBD. Raden Maksim (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is okay to use a source like the New York Times, they are accurate and reliable. And if you're concerned that the numbers from the NYT are not coming from election officials in the various states, I can assure you that they are; and election results are typically not certified by election officials until weeks after the fact. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers to not list who won an election when we very clearly know who did Scoutguy138 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Just need to be wait and patience, and not being surrealist about [1]. You should seek and rangely put this official [2] Raden Maksim (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
(Ping Vif12vf) Raden Maksim (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Scoutguy138 is acting quite questionable. Thank you. (Notifying you on behalf of the OP.) Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Scoutguy138 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that my edits to Opium (record label) yesterday violated the WP:3RR, but I believe my actions fall under exemption 8. The edits I reverted were made by User:Snvrk, who also has another account, User:LILSNVRK. Snvrk is a rapper, and his accounts have been used to write articles (see: Special:PermanentLink/1137491152 and Draft:Lil Snvrk) that seemingly exist only to promote him and his music. His attempts to publish the aforementioned draft have been denied twice, with the reasoning both times being that he failed to provide "independent sources" establishing his notability as an artist. In the draft, he cites his Spotify page, his TikTok account, his YouTube channel, and the websites of artists ASAP Rocky (AWGE) and Playboi Carti (Opium), neither of which ever mention him or his music; in reviewing an earlier version of the draft, one editor described these types of sources as "spam" and "completely worthless".
His edits to the Opium article served the same purpose, and in my view they constituted "unambiguous spam". In edit summaries, he claimed to have "recently signed" with the label (diff 1, diff 2), that he has a "legal contract" with the label, and that he was providing "conclusive" evidence that warranted his inclusion in the article. His "conclusive" evidence was this link, which points to an album on his Spotify profile, supposedly distributed by "Snarkotics/Opium/AWGE". He provided nothing WP:Verifiable to support his claims that he was affiliated with Opium. I understand that the focus of an unblock request should be my own actions, and not those of any other users. However, in order to justify my edits falling under exemption 8 of the 3RR, context regarding why I interpreted Snvrk's edits as spam was needed.
The cited Spotify link is not a WP:Reliable source. Seeing this, I performed a Google search of the terms "Snvrk" and "Opium", and found no WP:Independent sources linking the artist to Opium; really the only result Google comes back with when searching for these terms together is the album cited by Snvrk in his edits, or other songs/projects published by him. With no way to verify that Snvrk was a member of Opium, I reverted his edits, and wrote a summary saying "Stop acting like you're in Opium". It was clear what Snvrk was trying to do by inserting himself into the Opium article, and I told him to stop; another editor also recognized that Snvrk was not a member of Opium (diff), and that his edits constituted WP:Promotion (diff). Looking through Snvrk's contributions, a clear pattern of promotional and spam behavior emerged. If the draft written by him was a standalone article in namespace, it would undoubtedly be eligible for deletion under criterion WP:G11. And if his edits to Opium (along with the insufficient Spotify source) were instead included in the draft, they would be seen for what they are: "exclusively promotional".
I felt it permissible to revert any further edits from Snvrk that restored the poorly sourced addition to the Opium article. When I told Snvrk that no independent sources existed which established a connection between him and Opium (diff), he told me to "do [my] research" and that he was willing to "undo this 24/7" (diff). As previously mentioned, I had done my research, and came to the conclusion that nothing warranted Snvrk's inclusion in the article.
I take full responsibility for reverting Snvrk's edits more than three times, for not leaving a notice on his talk page regarding my concerns with his edits earlier on, and for not following the guidance available at WP:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors in seeking to resolve the dispute. In hindsight, it was inappropriate to leave a WP:Vandalism notice on Snvrk's talk page, and I think that a WP:Disruptive editing notice would have been more appropriate in this case. I also recognize that my edit summaries and interactions with Snvrk were too confrontational, and that I did not WP:Assume good faith in my initial revert of his edits. I should have saved my thoughts for a discussion between Snvrk, myself, and potentially other editors. I understand why my actions were seen as a violation of the 3RR, but I believe they fall under exemption 8. It was never my intention to disrupt the Opium article in reverting Snvrk's edits. Instead, I wanted to prevent a user from promoting himself and his work on Wikipedia. From now on, I will exercise greater caution and follow the appropriate guidance in dealing with content disputes such as this one.
Thank you for you time. Scoutguy138 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is too long to dive in to. Please keep your request to two short paragraphs. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Scoutguy138 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand my edits to Opium (record label) violated the WP:3RR, but I believe my actions fall under exemption 8. The edits I reverted were made by User:Snvrk, whose other account is User:LILSNVRK. Snvrk is a rapper. He has written articles (Special:PermanentLink/1137491152, Draft:Lil Snvrk) that promote himself and his music. The draft is poorly sourced, linking to Snvrk's social media accounts, his website, and other websites that have nothing to do with him or his music; his attempts to publish it have been declined because no WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY, or WP:IS exist online that establish Snvrk's notability as an artist.
His edits to the Opium article served the same purpose. They were "unambiguous spam". He made claims in edit summaries (d1, d2, d3, d4) not supported by the source he was citing (a link to his album on Spotify). A Google search of the terms "Snvrk" and "Opium" did not provide anything that would WP:VERIFY a connection between Snvrk and Opium. Another editor also viewed Snvrk's edits as deceptive and WP:PROMOTIONAL (d1, d2). Snvrk continued to restore his poorly sourced, "exclusively promotional", additions even after being told to stop or provide an additional source (d1, d2). I felt it permissible to revert any further edits.
I take full responsibility for my actions, and apologize for not being proactive in seeking to resolve the dispute. I was too confrontational, but my intention was never to disrupt the Opium article in reverting Snvrk's edits; I wanted to prevent a user from promoting himself and his work on Wikipedia. I will be more cautious and follow the appropriate guidance in dealing with future content disputes.
Thank you for your time. Scoutguy138 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block appears to have naturally expired. SQLQuery Me! 02:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.