This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Something is apparently flaky with the WikiProject Kentucky project banner. Some of the code is being displayed on the template itself. Is it just me, or are you seeing it too? If so, can you fix it? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 19:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There's apparently a bug in Template:WPBannerMeta, and it's already been reported. I'm sure it will be taken care of soon. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive been a little busy, but it should be the format that you need now. Canis Lupus 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the article on Zachary Taylor, you appear to be a notable contributor to it. As a result, I thought you might like to get involved in a discussion I have started on the talk page concerning a proposal to change the main picture in the infobox: [1] If you do get involved, thank you. Terrakyte ( talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve: In my article about the Southeastern Greyhound Lines, you've changed my en dashes (most but not quite all of them) into em dashes. I much prefer en dashes -- because in my view they present a more attractive appearance. To me an em dash looks a bit too long. Those in charge at several major publishing houses share my view. The Wikipedia Manual of Style expressly allows the use of en dashes as a stylistic alternative -- provided that a given author consistently uses either one style or the other -- as I do. Although I'm an old hand in academia (and in my outside interests), I'm still a newbie at Wikipedia. Naively I've sought to achieve en dashes by typing double hyphens (as in Word and WordPerfect) -- because I don't know any other way to do so -- not yet. The Wikipedia computer seems to have interpreted my attempts by inserting en dashes as my double hyphens (not immediately but shortly afterward). Have I not done that right? If not, how should I in the future correctly type an en dash? Further, how can I properly change your em dashes back into en dashes? Thanks for your guidance. Doc -- Dr. D.B. "Doc" Rushing. DocRushing ( talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of attractiveness, but proper grammar that em dashes should be used in those instances. It's best to keep them as-is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve:

Typography does indeed involve attractiveness.

As I mentioned to you in my first note, the Wikipedia Manual of Style (in item 8.9) expressly and specifically allows the use of spaced en dashes -- as I use them -- as an approved and acceptable stylistic alternative.

It says this:

Spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes.

Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article.

With due regard to that statement from Wikipedia, by what authority do you insist that your way is "proper" or the "best" way?

I've noticed that (in my articles about the Greyhound operating companies) you've also changed several italicized words -- which I use sparingly -- but which I used in those few instances for a good and defensible reason -- to emphasize the important contrast between pairs of notions.

My use of those italicized words was correct -- from both the typographic viewpoint and the pedagogic (that is, educational) viewpoint.

The use of spaced en dashes and the conservative use of italics are both well within the latitude of my use of my own "author's voice".

If you have a personal preference to use em dashes and to avoid italics, and if you follow your principles while composing your own articles, that's perfectly OK, and I'll not object.

However, I respectfully suggest that -- according to the Wikipedia MoS -- my preferences for spaced en dashes and for judicious italics are also acceptable -- and that you should not s-- DreamsAreMadeOf ( talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)-- DreamsAreMadeOf ( talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)eek to impose your preferences on my compositions.

Again, please: How can I correctly type an en dash at Wikipedia -- other than by typing pairs of hyphens?

Thanks for your help.

Doc -- Dr. D.B. "Doc" Rushing.

DocRushing ( talk) 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. You've labeled my judicious italics as "unencyclopedic flourishes". As I've mentioned, my conservative use of italics is completely consistent with the norms applied in business writing, educational writing, technical writing, and otherwise. Your choice of those words seems to indicate something other than a neutral or objective view of my compositional work. Please refrain from forcing my work to conform with your personal preferences. Thanks. Doc. DocRushing ( talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles in the Wikipedia. If I or others believe that the article has problems, I or others are going to change them. I believe my changes are correct. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, operative phrases are "can be used" and "consistently". Em dashes are the regular intra-sentence constructs used in contemporary English, and that's what I go by. And I made it consistent. On top of this, while your "compositions" are apparently well-researched, a grammar that requires such frequent need for any kind of dash calls for serious rework. Any English teacher would say this. I'm not going to help you further corrupt the articles with en dashes. Geez. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the sockpuppet issues on the Ali (and other) articles. However, Rumble74 is back to editing the article. I am unsure how to handle this problem and I would like your input. He doesn't technically violate any policy by editing, but his back and forth edits are disruptive. Thank you. -- DreamsAreMadeOf ( talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Stevietheman. I'd like to publish an article about The Lex, Lexington's largest mixed-use apartment and retail development, a complicated project that has taken three years since it was announced three years ago. Thing is, I just published a similar article about The Foundry at Eddy Street Commons and it was immediately deleted -- even though it's part of very substantial economic development project going on in South Bend. Don't want to spin my wheels here. Would it be best to submit it to you or someone else for review before publication? I'm not that good in Wiki yet and want to observe the rules. Thanks so much. Klasalle ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you are inactive, but if you could say something at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 13#Louisville.-- King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Abbas Husain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Husain. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies ( talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Urban forests of the United States, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AliOlympicTorch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Rockfang ( talk) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will need specific instructions on what this means and how I may rectify it. The issue is too vague for me to parse. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is claiming you don't actually have permission. -- Chiliad22 ( talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:LouisvilleViewFromBelvedere.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:LouisvilleViewFromBelvedere.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:LouisvilleViewFromBelvedere.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AliOlympicTorch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle ( talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of what? What should I write exactly? I don't have any time to investigate this matter, so I need to be given the words to say. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, as you are not the taker of the photo, permission have to be conveyed by your friend Bryan Bush to the OTRS. Please see and follow the process outlined in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to work on this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, per WP:SEEALSO, we generally don't include links in the see also that are already included in the body of the text and in the infoboxes. Also, the hatnote is improper per WP:RELATED. -- Smashville ^talk 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They need to be restored. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It all violates WP:MOS. It absolutely does not need to be restored. -- Smashville ^talk 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was fine as it was. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind explaining how the 2009 Kentucky Derby is not related to the Kentucky Derby and thus makes the hatnote not violate WP:RELATED and explaining how adding the links a second time does not constitute repeating them, I would be very interested. -- Smashville ^talk 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it there. It's not worth arguing over. I don't have the time for this stuff. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone reading, this individual doesn't know what they are talking about with regards to See also's. He did a wholesale deletion of them, as if all of them appeared in the article, which they don't. My position has been correct all along. Also, the hat note claim is spurious. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could discuss it civilly with me, as it is a collaborative project. I honestly don't even think you've looked at what you are reverting or what the remaining see also links actually link to. -- Smashville ^talk 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are causing severe damage to an article. You are the one who isn't paying attention to what you're doing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to just call it a compromise at the version we have now? I don't agree with some of them, but it's better than it was. -- Smashville ^talk 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi StefenTower/Archive 10! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You sent me a post saying to stopping editing the Louisville page. I was told by Wikipedia that this was OK. You, sir, have several mistakes in your article, Louisville, first of all is not in the mid-west, but that is only one of many. You must be from Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a native Louisvillian. I believe the article is in good shape, and essentially accurate. Further, I didn't say you should stop editing the page. If you're going to be upset about someone calling you out on your inaccurate edits, at least be truthful about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Most people who class Kentucky in the mid-west are usually from that region and would like for the state to symbolize their own chilly "state's" personality. No, I will not accept the fact that Kentucky is in the midwest as Acdixon and Stevietheman want to make it. The article they have written on Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky's role in the Civil War and so are factual and much of the writing I must agree with, but there are wordings and items printed that simply are far fetched and inaccurate. In many cases writers such as these are confused because of Kentucky's status during the Civil war and thinks that gives the definition of the geography of the state. There are so many things that make Kentucky southern and many cases more so than some of the deep southern states. I just do not see any midwest features in Kentucky, except that of what the Yankees are now brining into the state. I do think the Kentuckiana jargon has brought many people like Stevietheman to write what he does. My fear is that children will read his bias views and believe it true to fact. Misouri is the gateway to the south-----I think Indiana and Ohio wants this midwest statue to keep them from being actually called a northern state. Can't blame them there! But, they are not midwest--Maybe in the 1800s they could be given that title, but not today. Upon researching, I discover a poll conducted in the midwest asking citizens if kentucky was a southern or midwest state--over 90 percent claimed it to be southern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how my name got dragged into the "Kentucky is a Midwestern state" club. I personally believe it to be southern, but I've been abiding by what appears to be consensus for the moment because, frankly, I'd rather improve less controversial articles than spend a lot of time arguing about this. Just want to be clear on that. Acdixon = Kentucky is a southern state; Wikipedia consensus (for now) = Kentucky might be sort of midwestern, too. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 13:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, these kinds of discussions need to be left on the articles' talk pages, so that others can more easily join in the discussion. I myself have little time for the Wikipedia these days, so this talk here won't do much good.

That said, as Acdixon said, what's in the article came from a consensus, and if you don't think the real references for Kentucky occasionally being treated as a Midwestern state aren't good enough, that sounds like a basis for discussion. I refuse to debate anything though, as this isn't a discussion board. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)