User talk:StephenLaurie

Sorry[edit]

Sorry 'bout that, thought I was on a main space page. Mybad - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet and Bluemarine[edit]

As you have tagged multiple IP users as being sockpuppets of Bluemarine, you may want to explain why, with evidence, under Comments by other users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I have opened up another case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohummy. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were not notified per requirements[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TharsHammar. Thank you. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance you should have been notified by the filing party, but you were not. I have moved that the case be closed with prejudice. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on this harassment. --StephenLaurie (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterical screed[edit]

Funny one. I wouldn't want my gross hypocrisy pointed out either... Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the frank admission on your part. --StephenLaurie (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa![edit]

You seem to think there is some kind of conspiracy going on and that I'm involved. I can't speak to the first part but the second is nonsense. Furthermore, your research is lacking. I was recently blocked for making an incivil NPA remark to another editor (obviously after what I considered provocation), not something which is related to any article, political or otherwise. Now, as I mentioned earlier on that article's talkpage, I know how frustrating it can to an article's regular editors when the same matter comes up repeatedly. However, for those who continue to participate in the discussions, the frustration is something that has to be dealt with, without taking it out on newly arrived good-faith editors. Please accept my assurances that my only interests, when editing any article, is to see that we have the highest quality of writing and references, consistent with WP's official policies and the MoS. Sincerely, Doc Tropics 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my comments to reflect your edit history. Thanks for the clarification. While I appreciate your comments, the sudden appearance of editors with a markedly conservative (and in some cases, malicious and combative) slant -- all within a very short span of time, is troubling, especially considering the history of that Talk page. I hope I'm wrong, though. And, if I am, I will certainly revise my comments today to remove mention of you. --StephenLaurie (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your amenity to reasonable discussion and your willingness to modify your comments, I really appreciate both and look forward to working with you towards article improvement. FWIW, I honestly think the lede would be better without the third sentence, but regarding Sanchez's response - I haven't actually seen anything from a Reliable Source so far. I would only support including his remarks if:

They came from an RS.
They were a direct, on-topic response to Coulter's remark.
The majority of active editors agree on the inclusion, the sources, and the exact wording to be used.

I hope this gives you at least some assurance regarding my intent. Thanks again, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_StephenLaurie. Durova²⁸⁰ 14:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That entire report smacks of histrionics on your part. I asked you a direct, appropriate question regarding your allegation of "spoofing," and you replied with yet another version of your long-running "I have super secret evidence that must be not be discussed" dodge. Then, after issuing threats, you went straight to arbitration enforcement. Please. In the future, you might consider working on articles where you have no conflict of interest. --StephenLaurie (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notification[edit]

Please note that due to your ongoing behaviour at Matt Sanchez and related pages I have filed a report here requesting Admin scrutiny. Doc Tropics 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation regarding you[edit]

I don't see a notification for you of this investigation. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary. Ladyof Shalott 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]