This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Welcome to the complaints department! Please click the word [show] on the bar below that most closely represents your complaint: (This is NOT an original. I admired original creator's talents and adapted them to fit my own. Complete in homage and respect to the original. If only I remembered who is was...)
SenatorSteve is stalking me!
Possibly true. If you have engaged in seriously disruptive editing practices (vandalism, libel, etc.) recently, I may have taken notice and made a mental note to follow-up on some of your edits. This is common practice, and is even recommended by Wikipedia Policy in many circumstances. Please don't take it personally, as I have nothing against you; it's the disruptive editing that irks me. If you feel that my extra attention to your edits is unwarranted, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you.
We also may crossing paths because we share an interest in some of the same subjects. If so, hello I am Senator Steve! Nice to meet you, let's be friends! Maybe we can both benefit through a sharing of information and ideas.
SenatorSteve is not assuming good faith!
You are right! As a general rule, I try to avoid making assumptions. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. As taught to me by wikipedians of elevated standing and poor judgement when I first started editing here, , assuming bad faith is the norm. I will base my 'faith' on available evidence only.
SenatorSteve is edit warring!
You are mistaken. Please go back to the article in question and review the discussion page. You will find there a perfectly reasonable explanation of my edits. If you disagree with me for any reason, simply explain why on that same discussion page. If we both have the well-being of this Wikipedia project at heart, then we should be able to put any conflict easily to rest.
If our disagreement concerns your edits to a biography of a living person, you should be aware that I will not compromise on issues involving libel or sources.
SenatorSteve broke the Three Revert Rule!
Wrong. I never have and (barring some technical glich or lag) I never will.
SenatorSteve is canvassing!
If I have done so, it has been limited, transparent and in a neutral manner. You are allowed to do the same. More eyes on a discussion, and hence more voices contributing, will likely bring good results for all concerned.
SenatorSteve is being uncivil!
No, I am not. You have very likely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I will admit to coming off a bit snarky at times, and I have been known to misjudge the level of informality I can apply to a particular discussion -- but please understand that I meant no disrespect; I intended no ill-will. If you feel seriously slighted, drop a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can't muster up a sincere apology.
SenatorSteve is not editing from a neutral point of view!
As long as Wikipedia has a 'Watch Article' function, it may certainly appear this way. There are some tests you can run to determine if I own a particular article. (1) Try improving the article. If nothing happens, then you have found an article I definitely do not own. Conversely, (2) Try vandalizing the article. If I promptly revert your edits, then you have found an article I definitely do own.
My complaint about SenatorSteve is not listed above.