Talk:Scoundrel

Please add your favorite scoundrels to this list along with your reasons for nomination. if anybody with better wiki skills than mine could make the page prettier that would be nice. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I've also added Palm MD because he once called me an "asshole".--Bob_M (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, I put his reason as goats. I put me in because TK once called me an "asshole".  I made the table prettier.  We could use some non-USA scoundrels too, folks! human be in 14:25, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * You have a remarkable claim to fame human. Your reason for inclusion is biologically improbable. --Bob_M (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Kels: so definition 2 for David Emerson?--Bob_M (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey, it wasn't me who called you an asshole, it was my sock, and that was after scarring his poor self with the beast.
 * Good point. I've included a ref to your sock as well. :-)--Bob_M (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I fixed Emerson, yes, #2. Also, does anyone know how to force the name column to be 30% wide so the names don;t wrap?  I could do it in html, but I haven't figured out the wiki for it yet.  The only thing I could do is throw a BR or two into Emerson's rap sheet to make it "narrower" human be in 14:54, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I would say #2 for Emerson, not sure about PET's many adventures, of which this is only a very small sample. Although in personal life he as as much "magnificent bastard" as much as "scoundrel". --Kels 14:59, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Come on Kels. To qualify as a scoundrel he needs i,2,3 or 4. If he's something else then he's not allowed!--Bob_M (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay, okay. I was just fuzzy on which ones, they were all acts of a scoundrel.  Lying, disrespect, general aptitude for trouble, dating Barbara Streisand, it's all bad! --Kels 15:16, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I see. :-)  But this is a bit extreme isn't it? "Also dated Barbara Streisand. (def 2,4)".  why does this qualify him??--Bob_M (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Because it's funny? --Kels 15:20, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Fair enough.:-)--Bob_M (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Clinton
Did the Mullahs take over America, is adultery a legal crime now? MiddleMan 12:17, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Suspected of having gotten
The pain. The pain. The Americans are coming. --Bobbing up 18:43, 26 January 2008 (EST)
 * Bah. Just because you decided to get rid of a perfectly good participle for some reason. It was good enough for Shakespeare, you know! ;-) -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:25, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Delete
I don't think the concept is very on-mission or well defined, and the examples are very arbitrary. Some of the people listed here fall within authoritarianism/fundamentalism theme but they're better covered for that in other articles rather than discussing them as "scoundrels", which is kind of an ad hominem. & A general list of philanderers, perjurers & anybody else who gave off the impression of being a scoundrel could get very long. & Irrelevant. 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. Is anything salvageable from this? - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. Acei9 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral on this. At Dave, I doubt it.  23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah this takes me back. This was created way back in the day before the mission statement existed.  If I remember correctly it was in response to User:HeartOfGold's  article patriot.  The only possible defence now is nostalgia. I guess it should have been moved to fun when we put all the non-mission stuff in funspace. Hands up all those who still remember HOG? --BobSpring is sprung! 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wait till someone waves a scythe menacingly over Crap: Fun: space - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember. Ah, "good times", to quote Goonie.  14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When you delete an article, it's a good idea to clear up the pages that link to it, so that they don't any more. 11:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)