User talk:Steve Smith

• Archive 1 (May 2007–May 2008)
• Archive 2 (May 2008–March 2009)
• Archive 3 (March 2009–May 2010)
• Archive 4 (May 2010–present)

Need help with another policy violator

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with an editor exhibiting behavior similar to Asgardian. Although his behavior doesn't extend to nearly the level/depth of Asgardian's, the individual behaviors (article ownership, refusal to talk on the talk page, fabricating false accusations and then refusing to provide evidence when asked, distortion and dismissal of others' words and statements, and outright contempt for basic polices) are the same. I don't believe a ban is necessary, but rather, having someone politely inform him that his behavior is unacceptable, would suffice. I just wasn't sure where to make the case. I'm loathe to start a formal ArbCom case on it, but I don't want to go to the Admin Noticeboard either, since I've repeatedly observed in the past that the people there are ineffectual. If I outline the case on the talk page of the disputed article in question, and then invite members of the ArbCom to participate, would that be okay? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the relationship between that and Wikiquette alerts? Is one better than the other? Nightscream (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dick Ebersol photo

Hi Steve-

There is currently no picture up for Dick's page. Would you like me to send one to you and add? Let me know, would be happy to. Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again- I definitely have a photo you can use... how do we go about this then? Shall I send to you somehow, what kind of file works? Let me know what is the easiest and we can get a photo up there! Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Don't have all of that info handy, do you need it in order to put a photo up? Let me know, if so, I'll ask around... thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an NBC photographer, and NBC holds the rights to it. Will that suffice? Let me know and I can send on over, or I'll try uploading it. Thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Never heard back from you about the above. Let me know, thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Steve, I see that you have protected Don Murphy. The two accounts who have been reverting it appear to be sockpuppets - the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. I don't think the article should be fully protected (certainly not on the current version which wiped out numerous edits made over the last six months); if you can help to resolve the sockpuppet issue speedily that would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an edit war as we'd ordinarily count it. Take a look at the editing history of Jean Santeuil (talk · contribs) and Dave Chaparral (talk · contribs). They were both created during a period of intense disruption of the article, they've both been inactive for a substantial period and judging from the behaviour and edit summaries they're clearly being operated by the same person. The other accounts are just regular editors who have presumably got the article on their watchlists. I know it's kind of a "wrong version" complaint but unfortunately you seem to have given the sockpuppets what they wanted. If you want to protect it while the sockpuppet investigation is underway, might I suggest reverting the last edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the two accounts mentioned above have been blocked as sockpuppets. Could you please unprotect the article per your comment on my talk page? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt response. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, another sockpuppet has appeared - Ludwig Beethoven (talk · contribs). I expect it's the same person, and he will probably try to edit war again. The socks are getting past semi-protection by making just enough edits to qualify for autoconfirmation. I've raised a request at WP:RPP for the article to be put under pending changes protection - now that we have that feature it might be worth trying it on this article. Are you able to implement PCP yourself? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:MacDaid

I hope the blocking of MacDaid was a typo-like mistake. I see no information about this, apart from the "edit"-comment. Nothing on the talk-page or user-page. MacDaid is a very productive and cooperating signature, as far as I can see exactly the kind of editor we want to attract and keep. --Ettrig (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes... what in the world is this? EEng (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir Peer Review

Sir,

I am contacting you via the volunteers list to ask for your assistance reviewing this article. al-Bashir, having been recently indicted by the ICC on three counts of genocide, has had his page undergo a flurry of updating and editing and I believe that this article now has the potential to meet the WP:FA criteria. I figured that this article would be of interest to you given your stated focus of political history/theory as well as social science. Thank you in advance for your time, and if for any reason you are unable to participate, I understand. Feel free to contact me at any time and for any reason and I will do my best to respond promptly and in the affirmative. Thank you sir. Cwill151 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you so choose here is a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your FAC

I see the Brownlee FAC is short on reviewers. You might try reviewing Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (also at FAC) and see if User:Acdixon will do the same for you. Just a thought. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replying to your message on my talk page, can you look at my suggestions? RIPGC (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

If you could drop by and comment at the RfC here, regarding date styles, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah^talk 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Need an arbitration hand

Hi. Unfortunately I can't yet edit this page, so I'm asking you for a help in resolving a dispute. I nominated the article for second the time, but the case was closed way too fast (one hour), without even letting anyone to object on such a controversial matter (there are people who are against, it was nominated already so it can be considered as controversial already), and it was closed by the same wikipedian who closed the previous nomination. So I want at least to keep the nomination for another time, so there would enough time to make an objection (I'm myself was late to make it as it was closed already, damn). And it seems that interested persons so immediately took part in it, thus were biased. The previous nominator was warned by me. Dramadeur (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent SPA, and quacks loudly. Dram -- out of curiosity, given your nom which has been closed as POINTy, and the nature of your five edits, have you ever edited under a prior name or IP address?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Why are you asking it in front of an arbitrary? You should have asked it in my page, it's not relevant to ask it here. Anyway, yes this ip belonged to me, when I had gone trough procedures it was revealed that I need an account to leave my "thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Dramadeur (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've indef blocked that account. Fences&Windows 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision on clarification issue is stalled

Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Carcharoth, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. [[1]] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like [[2]]. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

You seem to be online, so I am making you aware of these procedural notes I made at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Camel's nose

In my experience, one sign of a disruptive editor is that if you give any leniency, they take full advantage of it to resume their agenda. You may need to rethink the matter of Brews, Count Iblis, and Hell in a Bucket. I see no signs of comprehension or compromise. They have an agenda, and are taking full advantage of whatever cover anybody provides. Now Ncmvocalist has gotten into the picture, which inevitably will complicate the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)