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.

Please review Wikipedia:AWB#Rules of use, particularly item 4:

Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits.

Your recent edits to the North Carolina article definitely fall into this category; please don't make further edits of this type or your use of AWB could be disabled without warning. These sorts of edits are fine when making other, substantial edits to an article; but they are really frowned upon if they're the only edits to the article. It's quite possible that this is a development that has occurred while you were away from editing. Welcome back; this is meant as a friendly "heads-up".— D'Ranged 1  VT^alk 11:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is unusual compared to the changes I made in most cases using AWB. But I think using the correct current template is a useful change. It's not like I just removed extraneous white space. Further, this was a review of pages linked from a few specific articles, which I don't intend to run very often. Thank you for your concern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing a valid redirect template {{ cn}} to the target template {{ citation needed}} isn't necessary. Again, note that the prohibition is for edits that don't affect the appearance to the reader of the article. This might be a helpful edit when making other, more noticeable changes to an article, but as a stand-alone edit, it's not required, nor wanted.— D'Ranged 1  VT^alk 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your further discussion on this matter. It would be nice if AWB would make it clear (in a honking loud way) that no visual changes will result from the set of recommended changes for a page. At any rate, I will try to pay more attention in the future. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you go to the "Skip" tab in AWB and select "Only genfixes" and "Only cosmetic changes are made", an article requiring only these types of fixes should be skipped; you won't have to worry about whether changes make a visible difference.— D'Ranged 1  VT^alk 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to anyone else reading: I just did my last AWB run for a while. My future use will be more restricted, as that was my intention all along. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Steve Magruder, I hope things are going well for you and you're enjoying your return to Wikipedia. I found your account while perusing the edit history of Kentucky; you seem to be actively involved with pages on Kentucky features, landmarks, & institutions.

Thus I would like to tell you about Wikipedia Summer of Monuments, a campaign to upload images of historic sites in the U.S. There are prizes for the three best photos. We are trying to put together a really good inventory of illustrations for sites on the National Register of Historic Places.

You can find monuments near Louisville — and see which have been photographed — using this map tool. (Or, here is a sort-able table with the same information.) It looks like the center of the city is pretty well photographed, but as you go south there are more places to go. Churches, schools, a library, a Wagon Works, and more. :-)

Well, I hope this project interests you. Maybe, too, you know other people in the area who might want to get involved. We also want to work with local institutions, such as historical societies, that might be interested in uploading or digitizing some of their collections. If you have questions you can contact me at monuments@wikidc.org or of course communicate on here.

Salutations, → Monumenteer2014 ( talk) 12:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to 2014 IMF estimates gdps used for all countries as criteria Russia is with 2,092 trillions $ is only 9th behind Italy with 2,171 trillions $ that is 8th. In Russia article Russia is ranked 8th This is a big mistake to correct.I've already posted it on the talk of Russia.Thanks. 151.40.12.61 ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 151.40.12.61 your wrong, Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe [1].

Here's the facts http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

http://thebricspost.com/russia-ranked-5th-largest-economy-world-bank/#.U7x7oE1OXnM

http://en.ria.ru/business/20130715/182248723/Medvedev-Lauds-Russias-5th-Place-in-World-Banks-GDP-Rating.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-takes-5th-place-in-world-gdp-rankings/483190.html

http://www.bne.eu/content/moscow-blog-russia-overtakes-germany-become-5th-largest-economy

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/emerging/russia-now-worlds-fifth-largest-economy-in-gdp-terms/1075160.article

http://rbth.com/business/2013/07/17/russian_economy_becomes_biggest_in_europe_28149.html

-- 204.15.111.27 ( talk) 23:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, with all due respect, keep this on Talk: Russia as it has nothing to do with my work. I guess this is what I get from doing a minor cleanup. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was only relying to 151.40.12.61 , he was just blocked for POV pushing. I agree, thanks-- 204.15.111.27 ( talk) 23:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! I note that you saw my photo additions to the Jefferson County NR list. Could you try to help fill the gaps? I have photos of almost 80% of the county's NR sites (and of course, other people have uploaded photos for some that I've not visited), but I'm soon to be moving away from Indiana and won't be able to fill the remaining holes. Nyttend ( talk) 12:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nyttend for the welcome and for all your fantastic work! I will definitely keep your suggestion in mind as I try to refresh and enhance Louisville's array of articles in the Wikipedia. Also, I hope you will continue to work on Louisville-related articles after you move -- we will continue to need the assistance. Please take a look at WikiProject Louisville and consider becoming a listed member. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please only use {{ Louisville-struct-stub}} for structures which are actually within Louisville, Kentucky. I see that several of your edits added the tag to places in Indiana, and other parts of Kentucky. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Louisville stubs pertain to the Louisville metropolitan area, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville. I appreciate your concern, but I feel it is misplaced in this case. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is the stub category for Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky - anything which wouldn't go in that category (or its subcats) shouldn't get a {{ Louisville-struct-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's really no hard requirement for such. These stub categories correspond to Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville and should work as such. If the name of the category isn't exact, then let's change it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stub categories aren't based on WikiProjects - they're based on content categories. Feel free to propose a rename at WP:CFD - but I'll oppose it, and I believe that other stub sorters (e.g Dawynn, Redrose64, Grutness) would also. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not exactly true. Oftentimes, a stub will not exactly correspond to the exact category an article will end up in, such as a subcategory. At any rate, corresponding to Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville isn't the full thought -- as this project corresponds to Category:Louisville metropolitan area, an actual category. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution is to create a separate metro area stub structure to cover what's not in Louisville Metro proper. That may satisfy both our issues in one shot. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict)We're currenbtly discussing Category:Louisville, Kentucky building and structure stubs, which corresponds to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky - and not to Category:Louisville, Kentucky stubs (which, by the way, is a subcat of Category:Louisville, Kentucky, not of Category:Louisville metropolitan area). If youy want, you can propose Category:Louisville metropolitan area building and structure stubs - the place is at WP:WSS/P. The presence of a single well-populated category (which I'm in the process of supplying) would actually help. Personally, I'd propose it as a parent-only category, with separate tags for the various other counties (e.g {{ BullittCountyKY-struct-stub}}, {{ FloydCountyIN-struct-stub}}) - no idea how well that would go there. For now, please stop placing these non-Louisville articles in a Louisville stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stub categories have to be proposed before creating them? If they make sense, and they do, let's just create them, per your suggestion. For now, I will agree to stop stubbing altogether until these are created. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the way things work - largely because of users who tend to be over-eager to create them without knowing how to name them or that categories need to have at least 60 stubs to be considered worth creating (30 for a main stub category of a WikiProject). In this case, I'm giving you a well-sized category - and subcats count. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you submitted a proposal and went ahead and created it before getting any feedback, apparently. Again, if they make sense, let's create them. If the Louisville metro area-wide stub gets too full, and it will, we can then break that one down by county. This may not apply to structures, but certainly to the overall stub tagging. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will propose {{ Louisville-MSA-stub}} (and a corresponding category) to start the process. This will lead to substantial reductions in Category:Louisville, Kentucky stubs. Then, that can be broken down as necessary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the stub tag name would be {{ LouisvilleMSA-stub}}, since it isn't a type of {{ MSA-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stevie - it might be worth you having a read of this - it might explain why stubbing is done the way it is. I know it sometimes seems weird and arcane to members of specific WikiProjects, but there is a logical reason for it. Grutness... wha? 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't realize it was missing a talk header and wasn't sure why it was doing that. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Talk pages don't have to have a talk header, but I figured this was a good reason to add it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stevie, you are indeed the man! Thanks for all your efforts! Jacona ( talk) 22:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your concerns now. Thanks for the review. Wizardman 03:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mitch McConnell. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please do not ask abstract questions about seemingly hypothetical situations in order to justify your conduct in a slow-motion edit war. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your very active imagination. There is no "edit war" going on at all. Also, I've been a Wikipedian since 2004 - I think I know all these rules by now. Jeez. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, it's fascinating that in this "edit war", there was actually no reverts by myself at all. At all. This gives me some pause to wonder what's really going on here. I think I'm going to have to seek an admin's assistance on the obvious abuse going on with this accusation which has no basis. I encourage everyone to look at the edit history and decide for themselves. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon:, since you will see in the edit history of Mitch McConnell that there has been no reversions and not even any partial reversions by myself, I would like to request a retraction of this accusation in all the places you have left it. While I'm not currently interested in escalating the content-related matter (it's really small potatoes), I am interested in having my name cleared of this. I have not engaged in any "edit war". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am neither reporting you nor withdrawing the caution. You re-inserted the phrase "billionaire investor in coal..." after it had been removed. You did not use the revert function of Wikipedia, but it was a revert after there had already been a revert. You didn't breach 3RR, but, as the edit-warring policy says, 3RR is a bright line, but edit warring at less than 3RR is still discouraged. And, as I said, at the Help Desk, you were posing an abstract question, and abstract questions are too often asked in order to get an answer to justify conduct. In Wikipedia, it is preferred to look at the overall pattern than to ask an abstract question that wasn't abstract. If you think that the characterization of Ross should be added, discuss on the talk page, and possibly post a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: The edit history shows otherwise. What was there before was a clumsy, subjective phrase ("coal billionaire"). I added an objective description which had references in the Ross article. I will continue to expect a retraction as your accusation is completely baseless. There was absolutely no edit war on my part. Also, I used the Help Desk for the intended purpose, and your colorful essay about it is inapplicable in my view. I was asking for help with how the Wikipedia is expected to be edited. That makes what I did there perfectly all right. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I also have monitored your non-entry of the same warning on CFredkin's talk page. He engaged in two partial reverts and one full revert, to my zero reverts. It's not going to look good if and when I bring this up for wider discussion. I suggest a retraction. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When I cautioned you, he hadn't reverted a second time. He has been cautioned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit history again. I'm not referring to what just happened. The revert stats I gave apply to yesterday and your caution to me came after those. If you're cautioning people, you at least need to be fair about it. And I do continue to stand by my actions yesterday. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article back. If you really feel that it should be moved, start a discussion on the talk Page. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Nobody will search for the article under the title you changed it to. This is no different to finding the article about Yusuf under the title Cat Stevens. Nyth83 ( talk) 21:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum Also see that article Wikipedia:Official names. In Particular: People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. Nyth83 ( talk) 21:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started the Move discussion on the article's talk page. Per your remark, I fully understand the policy involved here, and the burden of course is on proving the common name. That was not done at all during the original move. The original move may well have been on the mover's whim, as all that was given was their assertions. At any rate, please discuss further in the new Move discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You removed my map on pizza hut explain please — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Because of aesthetics. If you want to place a map in an article (that's not already there), put it in an appropriate spot with an appropriate size. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the maps have no references. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve, can anyone post a request for new article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Requests? The reason that I ask is that you appear to be only person that edit that page and was not sure if it is appropriate for other persons to place suggestions there.

If that is not an appropriate place to make suggestions for new articles, can I make a suggestion of adding article for the Ben Snyder's Department Stores Chain, the only department store chain that was headquartered in Louisville that currently don't have a WP article.

There are many citation references (~10) for Ben Snyder's that is on List of defunct department stores of the United States#Kentucky which could be use for starting a stub.

BTW, I like the recent improvements that you had made on Benedictine (spread). Is it close to point of advancing to the next level since it appears to now have a lot of hard references to national publications, some of which were not initially easy to find. Keep up the good work!

99.186.235.6 ( talk) 02:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your question. Absolutely yes -- please add all the articles (including Ben Snyder's) you think are missing to the Requests page. I am the only one editing that page merely by happenstance -- it's open to everyone to add to. As for Benedictine (spread), I'm thinking it could use some more historical context/content and a better picture (one showing it used as a spread on a sandwich). After that is added, it would probably rate a 'B' and be possibly worthy of GA. I've been meaning to improve that content but other wiki-tasks (and external to-do's) have been distracting me. I agree it's been much easier as of late to expand the article because of all the attention it has gotten -- its notability is undeniable now. Feel free to add content there yourself or suggest content additions on its talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve,

Could you provide me with some advice?

I made what I thought was a valid edit to the article on William M. Branham. It was referenced to a book on William Branham that is quoted elsewhere in the article.

I have tried to edit this article in the past but it is guarded by someone that appears to be a rather fervent follower of William Branham. His username, Rev107, is a reference to Revelation 10:7, a passage in the Bible which Branham's followers believe that he fulfilled.

In my last attempt to edit the article, I gave up as Rev107 resorted to wikilawyering and I simply did not have the time to involve myself in what had all of the makings of a protracted dispute. I tried to engage a couple of members of the New religious movements work group but gave up when no one responded to me.

The article needs some balance and I am willing to work to get the article improved.

However, my last edit was immediately reverted by Rev107. I have no desire to get into an edit war, but what am I supposed to do when faced with someone who does not appear to be interested in factual balance? He reverts any edit that is not in line with his view of Branham, even when there is sound external support for the edit.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Taxee ( talk) 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Taxee:, after some consideration, my advice is to start a new discussion about the specific passage in question in Talk:William M. Branham. If you and Rev107 can't work it out after some back and forth, then seek a third opinion. If that fails, then let me know and I'll review what happened, and provide some additional ideas. Good luck! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will proceed as you suggested. Taxee ( talk) 07:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Stevietheman, this is the first time I have used Usertalk. I noticed on the history page for my article on William Burke Belknap, which is apparently going to be deleted, that you have Louisville interests. I think you may be the same editor who suggested that a separate article should be written for Belknap Hardware Co. I agree about the separate article for the hardware company. However, I think that William Burke Belknap is himself a notable Kentuckian and world figure and is deserving of his own place in Wikipedia history. What do you recommend to preserve the William Burke Belknap entry? Many of the changes I've had to make relate to COI. I have used my own name and do not deny my relationship to the people about whom I have written. I have edited extensively and contributed much to the article on my husband Thomas M. Humphrey, which was begun by another Wikipedia writer/editor. I have also created the entry on Joel Root. In working on those articles I have discovered how so many notable figures are missing and how difficult it is to incorporate oral history and previously undocumented history into the history that is being written today. I appreciate your previous suggestions which I read in View history. Do you have any ideas about how I should act to prevent deletion of the William Burke Belknap entry? Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 13:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Mitzi.humphrey:, I would mostly recommend creating Belknap Inc. and including some content on the family behind the company. This is all given that secondary sources (newspapers, widely published books, etc.) can be provided as references. As for William Burke Belknap, if he has done notable things indicated by secondary sources and you can locate them, the best approach would be to show them in Talk:William Burke Belknap. From that, other editors can determine if there is enough material available to save the article. This would need to be done fairly soon, in case the article ends up being deleted. Also note that as much as primary sources (oral histories, diaries, etc.) may provide interesting information for research purposes, they are inadmissible as references. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Would citing links such as this help? This link refers to a Kentucky Derby horse raised at Land O'Goshen Farms, which is the horse-breeding farm begun by William Burke Belknap. I still would like to make a case for William Burke Belknap as a notable entry apart from the Belknap Hardware, elected office, and public service associations. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That reference doesn't mention W.B. Belknap as far as I can tell, so no. If he was elected to office, that is normally considered enough for notability as long as it wasn't an insignificant office. If he was a mayor or held a state or federal office, you can stress that, and the article would likely be kept. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm completely new to Wikipedia (as a member), so please feel free to correct my errors. I'm the great-granddaughter of the George Talbott ran the Old Talbott Tavern in Bardstown (it was actually owned before him by his father, John Cotton Talbott, who was murdered in the Tavern in 1859 by a gent named Hynes Slaughter). I can assure you that none of George's children hanged themselves, either for unrequited love or any other reason. This is something I first read in a collection of ghost stories compiled by a nutcase named Patti Starr who lives in the area and calls herself a "ghost hunter". It seems to be picked up and passed around by other folks compiling KY ghost tales. Also, if it should ever come up, my g-grandma Anna is not currently floating around the tavern as an "orb." Only four of her children lived to adulthood but this is likely due to typical childhood illnesses and a lack of penicillin, rather than any spooky mysterious reasons. I did try to remove the "hanging" passage in this wikipedia entry, but couldn't figure out where to write my explanation for the edit. I'd be glad if you can tell me how. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SutcliffeTalbott ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@ SutcliffeTalbott:, welcome to the Wikipedia! Here is a page that helps with providing an edit summary: Help:Edit summary. Also, note that removing referenced content because you personally think it's incorrect is generally frowned upon. What you need to do is show that the reference provided doesn't back up the content before removing it, or give another policy/guidelines-based reason for removing it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Louisville-related pages! See my reply to your comments here, the new redirect and move request here, and the new redirect and hatnote here. —  LlywelynII 02:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions for Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message; I have updated the (offline) templates I use to say WikiProject Biography so that in future that won't happen. I hope it's not too difficult to fix the ones that I've already done; if I see similar ones as I'm editing, I will fix them. FYI: In some cases, there are duplicate bio tags on some talk pages and I just took out the one that was easiest to delete. I am systematically going thru Category:Biography articles without living parameter and doing my best to mark them as living or dead. I am also sometimes able to add authority control to the article pages; especially if the person has written books. Thanks again and apologies for the problems caused.--FeanorStar7 00:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that you personally had a "fetish"

it has just been my experience in the great majority of the many articles that I am involved in editing that the article devovles into single sentence "paragraphs" each in their own subsection - that people are too stupid to read without the main point of each sentence being called out in a bullet point section header for them.

For this specific case in point, the body of the Michael Dorris article fits on a single screen on the default settings of a laptop and so claims that it is "so long that it is difficult to read" ring extremely hollow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it's difficult to read per se, but rather a matter of content organization. The Biography section is longish, and usually such sections are broken down into periods or especially notable career developments that deserve sectional treatment. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no issues with the revert in and of itself, but I'm starting to pick up some possible spam/paid editing going on with those expert reviews section. Look at the contributions of Kalexander11 ( talk · contribs) and WellsWiggins ( talk · contribs). While not dismissing Murphy, if you wanted expert reviews, you'd probably start with some from Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible. Kalexander11 has added essentially the same section to 20 different bourbon articles, all from the same, just released book. That's spam to me. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the comment you left on Kalexander's talk page - thanks. Still not totally sure. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Ravensfire:, I reverted your change to Jim Beam before fully considering it, sorry. So, I reverted back to your version. I sense, like you, there's a spam/promotion going on, but if it starts a useful section that can be added to, I think that's all right, and like you say, we probably shouldn't dismiss Murphy's review. Since these sections are being created, the more expert/useful reviews can be added. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I'm not totally sure about the review section when it may be better to add comments from some reviews into the article. "Jim Beam as been described as smooth by XYZ while PDQ thought it was harsh and unbalanced". A review section could be a magnet for lots and lots of reviews, especially with the number of whiskey blogs, books and other publications that have exploded in the last few years. It gets more complicated for dealing with the annual, limited release bourbons (Four Roses Single and Small Batch limited editions, Old Forester Birthday Bourbon, etc) which are extremely different year to year. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think of it like critical reception to movies. Sure, the section can be a magnet for blog reviews, but editors will just have to keep out the non-notable reviews. If it's kept in a prose style rather than a list, it will be less magnetic. I appreciate the complication with regards to differences from year and year, and special batches, so I imagine editors would have to make sure that reviews listed be as specific as possible. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My biggest problem with the reviews, besides that they have all been coming from the same recently released book (which is likely not notable) is that they are valid sound bites that lack any subtlety and have been nothing but a quote. Seems very much to be spam to me. Also, food reviews are inherently subjective in a way that movie reviews are not. At least movie reviews are made in relation to the well-established forms and aesthetics of the art form. Also, at lead one of these reviews has been already shown to contain factual errors, so I question the reliability of this source, which appeared out of nowhere from someone who hasn't been shown to have any expertise in the field. So I must object to the reinsertion of these reviews. Their very inclusion sets of my internal spamming alarms far too much, and even if it isn't spam, it's just not notable for one book's reviews to appear on so many articles. Jim Murray this isn't. (And even he I would object to.) oknazevad ( talk) 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the initial insertions were spammy (that's never been disputed), but I look beyond that to ask the question of whether they are notable enough for a "Reviews" section. The author is notable enough to have an article here, and the reviews are descriptive, if not positive. And, like I say in the edit summaries, these sections can be expanded. If the Reviews section was started off with something negative, I would give more pause. As far as whether food reviews are more subjective than movies reviews misses an important point: We're not here to judge that. Articles in general include all kinds of subjective things said about a subject either by a notable person or through a notable publication. So, the bottom-line question is whether it's notable enough. I think they are, although as such sections get larger, reviews of less weight can rightly be dropped off due to WP:UNDUE. As for whether a review is factual, there were a couple cases where they seemed to apply to a specific product of a brand rather than the overall brand, and I think those all have been removed. Other than that, I don't know what the factual issue is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also noting an objection here. I've no problem with seeing some review quotes in these articles, some subjective descriptions seem very useful, but these should be selected without bias. We should have neutral editors go through the articles and dig up some reviews for these whiskeys (some of them are over a hundred years old, so there must be plenty of writing out there), rather than having a single person who is most likely Morgan or his publisher going through and for each one deciding that hmm, the best and only quote to use here is Morgan Murphy in his new book published two days ago available from all good bookstores. Whiskey isn't my drink of choice and I don't have any books to reference, but I'd be happy to help out by searching for snippets online (the Jim Murray book mentioned by User:Ravensfire seems to be quoted here and there on websites), if you want to rally a few editors together. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to expand, not remove. Otherwise, how do sections like this get started? I don't think we should be discouraging starting such sections. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Replacement is also a fair solution. I agree that we shouldn't discourage starting such sections, but we should discourage an author or publisher of a new book from plugging it across dozens of otherwise solid and (I would hope) unbiased whiskey articles. Wikipedia has a very strong policy about how conflicts of interest risk undermining article content. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree about dealing with spamming in general but in this specific case, the content was useful and notable enough and should be kept and the section expanded. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Something that may help - I left a note on WellsWiggins talk page about this and as part of it asked him to go back and identify which specific bourbon was the subject of the review that was added to the brand pages. He responded that he would and commented on my talk page this morning that he agreed what was added was on the spammy side and would do better.

For additional reviews, aside from the Whisky Bible, suggestions on good sources? While I read a fair number of whiskey blogs, I'm hesitant on using them as I don't think most meet RS (sorry, Sku!). Cowdery should be okay to include. I know that some of the limited releases will get writeups in magazines and newspapers and some of those should be okay. Other ideas? Ravensfire ( talk) 14:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever anyone wants to do to expand these sections is fine with me. I have other things I'm working on right now. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevie-

We have communicated a few times over the years and I have liked your writings and your style. You were the first person to post to my talk page nine years ago. I am a formerly from Louisville and very interested in Louisville topics as well as a Yankee fan. I see you put Joe Torre in as a Louisville related article. Huh? He was there for a couple of months in 1961, and that is about all I can see. I certainly won't revert your edit, but do you think that makes sense? Thanks. -- rogerd ( talk) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm glad you've stuck around.  :) Anyway, project coverage like this can appear tenuous sometimes. Joe Torre played for the Louisville Colonels, and players on Louisville pro teams are now included in the project. The way I look at it is... if someone is on one of Louisville's pro teams for any significant length of time (enough to be noted/categorized as such), they are important to coverage of the city, at least in terms of its sports history. The basic question is... was it ever important to Louisville that he played on the city's team? I default to 'Yes' because I can't speak for his fans in Louisville at the time he played. It's a historical sports connection to the city. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That request has been archived here.

The arbitration committee has chosen to close this request, noting that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS. For the arbitration committee, -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Throwing any form of "OWN" at me - or any other user is failing to observe WP:AGF, it is casting aspersions on someone's motivations (which you have no clue about) it is rude, irresponsible and completely obnoxious. The operative policy is WP:BRD. So let me make myself perfectly clear: the WP:BURDEN is on YOU and if you are getting resistance to your changes, it is YOUR responsibility to discuss your reasoning for your project tagging, which appears to be overkill. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Montanabw:, it should be clear that the shortcut of the section I was referring you to was not created by myself. I didn't mean to say that WP:OWN was necessarily the issue. I apologize if there seemed to be a tone I didn't intend. The issue really is that you were making a decision for a project you aren't involved with to my knowledge, and that according to the guideline I referred you to, that should have cleared up how to proceed. As for burden, the only burden is if I as a member of WP:Lou thinks that article should be included (and if I was mistaken, a consensus of the project can overturn my decision). But on top of that, the article clearly relates heavily to the subject of Louisville. There is no overkill that I can see. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm not going to edit-war over a project tag, but we probably should collapse the project boxes now, as the size is getting unwieldy. Per my comment there, I do think that if the article is worth any city project tag, it would be a courtesy - on that article only - to also tag NYC and Baltimore. It's only three cities. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just saying I am noticing your work wikignoming the horse racing articles and I appreciate all you are doing there. I was a little worried about you at first, but looks to me like you are a solid and good egg. Sorry for my previous snark! Montanabw ^(talk) 02:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The need for a source still applies, per WP:V. 107.15.192.226 ( talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but it's best not to cite a guideline that applies to living persons for a dead person. I didn't dispute the need for a citation. Just trying to help you in future edits. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

IPs are allowed to blank their talk pages, especially a static IP. If you disagree, provide a link to the policy that applies. Other editors, on the other hand, are not allowed to repeatedly restore a message, per WP:HUSH. 107.15.192.226 ( talk) 15:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is something that is generally frowned upon, but ultimately an IP editor, who wants discussions removed, can do so. But I will always restore at least once. Also I would advise you to stop acting so negatively about something I've been helpful about. It's not good for building community. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:HUSH applies to user talk pages, not IP talk pages. It may pay for you to read guidelines before applying them. We have two cases of misapplied ones at this point. I'm only trying to help. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide a link that it is "frowned upon." And provide a link that WP:HUSH does not apply to IP talk pages. I am asking for links to wiki policy, not your personal opinions about what is frowned upon. If you want me to "stop acting negatively", consider this: First, I told you that "citation needed" applies; do you disagree? Secondly, did I argue with you about a simple copy-paste error on my part about WP:BLPCAT? Third, you gave me a false warning because you think something is "frowned upon", but you have never provided a link to that. Fourth, anyone can cite the policy WP:HUSH when it is violated. Fifth, I would advise you to stop WP:WIKILAWYERING and move on to more important matters. IPs are not second class citizens here, especially those who have edited for many years. Now, please consider this an official request for you to stop messaging me unless I violate a policy, which I have not. Feel free to remove my messages from your talk page; it is not a violation of policy, for you or me. I would say "thank you", but I fear that you would somehow consider that a policy violation or "acting negatively". 107.15.192.226 ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I am dealing with a person who's not willing to work with others constructively here. I am done. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that after I informed the IP user of the obvious misapplication of WP:BLPCAT, he went and did it again to Jack Lord. At this point, I throw up my hands, and have a hearty laugh. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP user is now resorting to doing null edits in a not exactly constructive manner. Just because I pointed out a misapplied guideline (and obviously misapplied at that), I am a "wikilawyer". I am not the one who blew this up into a seemingly federal case. See above. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And he's continuing to leave nasty remarks in subsequent edits. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline about that. LOL. He's actually providing accuracy for the "personal attack" I removed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And now he's leaving unconstructive remarks about this matter on Talk:Colonel Sanders, where the discussion was about references for a piece of data, and he wanted to make it "all about Stevie" and the "personal attack" (half of which is demonstrably true at this point) I removed hours ago. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And now he's threatening to report me to an admin board. LOL. He's been edit warring today, so methinks it's far more likely an admin will take action on him. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't encourage continuing disruptive and off-topic discussion (as you did when you unclosed the discussion at the Sanders article talk page). That is why I closed it, plus, you had already come to a good and beneficial conclusion that brought the discussion full circle to your original post in the discussion. The discussion as HiLo took it was going to move the positive end of the discussion nowhere but back into non-beneficial back and forth. The IP you were tangling with would have likely joined back in and it would have gone back to where it was no longer going at the time of close. See what I'm saying? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I don't think it's over, and others are continuing to add things, it is not closed. I'm afraid I will have to report this to the noticeboard. I've never seen this before. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you think is right. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's done. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Stevie- Thanks for all of your work on Louisville-related articles. As an active WP:Basketball editor, it is great to have someone who looks at the sport through the lens of a city with such proud tradition in the sport. I noticed that you recently created the category "Basketball players from Louisville, Kentucky." I wanted to advise you that over the years we have had many, many discussions about sport-specific categories (basketball and otherwise) at at the city level and the consensus has consistently been to not segment these categories below the state level. A couple of reasons for this: 1) the designation tends to not be defining, which is a requirement of categories, and 2) state categories are sub-categories of "American basketball players," which serves as the nationality category for those whose notability comes from basketball and going in effect two levels down is getting too far away from noting someone is an American (especially for readers living outside the US). I wanted to let you know that I will be putting the category up for deletion and ask that you not create any other similar categories (for other sports, cities, etc). Thanks. Rikster2 ( talk) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Rikster2: Thank you for the courtesy. I do disagree on this designation not being defining, as I'm clarifying what kind of sportsperson from Louisville they are so that that category won't become over-full. Perhaps a solution will be to have both Louisville and Kentucky categories for these sports? As you can see, there are plenty of articles for baseball, basketball and football players at the city level. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

what categories are you referring to? These categories below "Sportspeople from City X" in the US don't exist except the ones you just created. Deletion has been upheld for Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, etc. I'll get to this sometime tonight and let you know when I have posted it so you can weigh in. Rikster2 ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Rikster2: OK, so I have to keep what is essentially a big ol' blob category that mushes together all these different sports (Sportspeople from Louisville, Kentucky). I am referring to the categories you would like to see deleted -- they have plenty of entries for keeping as a a category under normal circumstances. I don't get what makes category diffusing a wiki-booboo for sports people and not for everything else in the entirety of the Wikipedia. I don't buy the idea that having categories "two levels down" is especially difficult for users compared to any other categorized articles. I will oppose this despite the precedent for the simple reason that disallowing this is un-wiki. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

easy. People having differences of opinion on things isn't "un-wiki." At this point it'll be tomorrow before I CfD the categories (as life has gotten in the way as it sometimes does), but I'll be sure to let you know so you can give your opinion. Which is very "wiki" by the way. Cheers. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to take part in a discussion about these categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Sport players from Louisville, Kentucky. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex ( talk) 05:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not well versed on Wikipedia style, grammar, etc. It is my general understanding that the lead paragraph should be in the same vein as an executive summary, and while that aim had not been achieved as yet, it is on the agenda. Having any genuine deficiency corrected is welcome, but I will strenuously oppose any alteration of facts. I am therefore sure we can find a common ground that will do "justice" to this terribly abused story.

Quarterdeckgeneral ( talk) 18:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as "doing justice" to the article is done in an objective, well-sourced manner, I'm happy to see any improvements, to this or any other article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Steve,

My effort to document Nelson was slowly getting there until I ran into material that had really been screwed with; the kind of thing that completely defeats all that was done to make his story accurate and useful. As I continue to try and fix this insult, any advice or help you can offer with keeping the new material accurate and useful would be most appreciated.

Thank you Quarterdeckgeneral ( talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Quarterdeckgeneral: My advice is to stop doing mass removals of content you don't like for the sake of future reconstruction. You can use your own user space for reconstruction. Believe me, there's universal agreement on not allowing mass blanking like that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Great job!! I will no longer support Wikipedia. After spending over six hours rewriting Nelson. When I tried to post it, all was lost because someone placed an edit before I posted. This person obviously believes they are better qualified to address a biography of Nelson by trying to make Davis the focus. I now understand why so many people see Wiki as a bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarterdeckgeneral ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This reads as if it were written by an out-of-state liberal who has no understanding of Kentucky voters and why they vote the way they do, which I suspect is the source. Further, the whole section only cites sources that would generally be regarded as moderattely to far left-leaning and therefore anxious to see McConnell go down in flames. This entire section has no place at all in Wikipedia as it is not objective. Or at minimum it needs to balance the leftist quotes with an equal number of quotes from sources that are more nearly centrist. No conservative would ever make the argument that what "Salon" somehow says about Mitch represents in any way, shape or form an objectivwe analysis that ever belongs in a encyclopedic bio. It's a quirkly left-wing attempt to analyze Mitch's personality from the perspective of a liberal and make that part of a bio as if it were objective. Implicit in this is also that Kentucky voters are somehow ignorant if they voted for Mitch. None of this beloings in an encyclopedia. Can't we just dump it entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.31.8 ( talk) 15:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, such material may be useful, but I agree it should be balanced. At any rate, I'm not getting involved directly. I just don't like people playing politics in edit summaries, or in any aspect of the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're doing well and just taking a Wikibreak. As someone interested in Louisville-related topics, you might be interested in the titling discussion I have started at Talk:I Am the Greatest, and in the new article at I Am the Greatest (Cassius Clay album). — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it's just a burnout break. I have other things I need to spend more time on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. I was getting worried about you – take care of yourself. — BarrelProof ( talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For a category to be a valid subcategory of a parent category, all people who fit in the sub-category MUST also fall in the parent category for it to be valid per WP:SUBCAT. Sean Casey is legitimately in the category "Sportspeople in Louisville" by virtue of his playing for the Louisville Bats. However, he is not in any way, shape or form "from" Louisville - he is from New Jersey. There are hundreds of these cases, so "Sportspeople in Louisville" can not be a sub-category of "Sportspeople from Louisville," which is for people actually hailing from the city. The Bay Area category was wrong too, so I corrected it. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I understood this logic 100% already, even before I originally made this a subcat of "Sportspeople from..". As you saw in my revert edit, I was mimicking what was done elsewhere as it appeared to be the normal structure. And I can understand that approach -- If someone is looking at those "from", they may also want to drill down to those "in". So, basically, my stance is "whatever". At least you are striving for consistency here, and I commend you for that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just ran across this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Swope (businessman) and thought you might have better sourcing since you are in Louisville. I have access to the Herald-Leader archives, but not the Courier-Journal. Still, it looked to me like this guy might have been borderline notable. If not, so be it; you'd know better than I. Just looked like it might be potentially salvagable if you're interested. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stevietheman! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, — DerHexer  (Talk) 12:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@ DerHexer:, I am trying to unify, but I can't get into my account at meta.wikimedia.org. I don't remember the password and it's not letting me reset it. Is there anything I can do about that? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. My second try at resetting the password at Meta worked. My accounts are unified now. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Cheers, — DerHexer  (Talk) 21:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, by the way. If it weren't for your watchful eyes, that would have likely remained there. O.O Cheers, -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and Happy New Year. I just wanted to mention that it would be nice if minor tweaks had edit summaries that at least slightly indicated their nature. Your edit to natural history was headed "clean up articles linked from Louisville, Kentucky for Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville using AWB" which didn't tell me anything about what you did. I can appreciate you've cut yourself some kind of tool support, but maybe 'minor copyedit' could be fixed up somehow. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're asking for, but in practical terms, when I'm doing semi-automated cleanups, I just put in descriptions of significant changes that's aren't basic cleanups. Doing more than that would make the process take far longer. Beyond a number of particular changes, such as typos, AWB doesn't add what specific changes are being made. At any rate, I don't do these cleanups very often. I guess just be happy that I had an edit summary at all, as a lot of editors don't even bother. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK so I edit on some sections of the post-grunge wikipedia and I found out that you made a edit on that page because of the history, now, there are three sections of post-grunge, one is first years and mainstream popularity which lasted from 1994-1999 and the other one which I am not really a fan of is called second wave and is from 2000-2009 and then, it shows decline 2010-present. What can I do to changed the second wave of 2000-2009, is the section of mid 2000s, from 2003-2009 more accurate than the second wave of 2000-2009. What can I do? By the way, I didn't edit the second wave thing from 2000-2009 but I do want to changed that but I need some advice, can you give me a good advice? Is the mid 2000s, from 2003-2009, a good section? I will also find sources to support my information. I already told Sergcross73 but he say that he doesn't like it but we need a right information to change it. Is mid 2000s from 2003-2009 a good idea instead of the second wave that is from 2000-2009.

Please feel free to go to the post-grunge wikipedia and if you have a advice please tell me so I can changed it. I already told Sergecross73 but he said he will find other users for different opinions. I need your opinion and others as well. Please feel free to reply back and please, don't reply with a rude comment, I am doing the best I can. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeis1996 ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman, I'm not sure if you intend to get involved in all of this, but if you do, you may want to read over this conversation first, FYI. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to be back (in some capacity), and good to see you are still around! seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and same to you. I had taken a three-year break (with only a few intermittent edits) that effectively ended May/June 2014. Then, I took another break starting in early November (with one heavy edit day in the middle) and ended in the new year. It's really hard to totally stay away (sez the wikiholic).  :) Too much work here to do. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed on several occasions that you sometimes do things like replacing "[[Louisville]]" with "[[Louisville, Kentucky|Louisville]]", and today you replaced "[[The Villebillies]]" with "[[Villebillies]]" with the explanation "avoid link redirect". Although you're obviously a very experienced editor, I wonder whether you're aware that making edits on Wikipedia for the purpose of avoiding redirects is discouraged, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Moreover, even when it isn't a separate edit, using a pipe for a Wikilink unnecessarily is also discouraged, per MOS:NOPIPE. Looking in your Talk page archives, I saw a previous somewhat-testy exchange about that nearly decade ago, but it seemed worth raising the topic with you again. What are your current thoughts on the subject? — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, I try not to overthink these things, and guidelines are just guidelines. I'm happy to explain specific edits, though. In the case of "The Villebillies", I changed it because they are not called "The" Villebillies, so I did it mainly for the sake of precision for the reader. Avoiding a redirect is just my stock way of describing the edit. I don't use edit summaries to write a book about why I'm making the change.  :) Basically, I don't go around changing links to avoid redirects for the giggles of it; otherwise, I would be changing a lot more of them. So, in general, I follow the guidelines, but I also apply common sense to some cases.

As for the Louisville case, which is a very specific case done for a defined purpose, I will just point to the description for why that is done. If you have any questions about it, I will be happy to explain and/or amend the description. Basically, this is done to make it easier to trap the misuses of Louisville (which admittedly used to be far more prevalent in the past than they are today). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, re: the 8-year-old exchange, I no longer hold the view "All links should be direct." (and I can't remember actually holding that position) but that apparently was my unfortunately snippy manner of responding at that time. Since that time, I have developed the special case rationale for that particular case, and nobody complains about it any longer. And in general, I leave redirecting links as they are unless I have a common-sense reason for changing it. And that common-sense reason doesn't always make it into my edit summary, unfortunately. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado for the info. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that only ten bands are listed in the "Indie scene" section of the Louisville article. Has there been any fussing about who should be listed and who shouldn't? I'm sure that list could easily get out of control – especially if we include defunct bands. That might merit its own list article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia-wide issue: how to best limit lists of examples. I don't have the ultimate answer. We could decide to not list any examples. We could decide specific criteria for what is listed. Or we can play it by ear like we're doing now (which hasn't seemed to crash so far). My basic rule of thumb is that the list should be short, reasonably representative, and each item notable enough to have an article to link to. I'm open to suggestions for a different approach. Of course, the best place to discuss these kind of suggestions is Talk:Louisville, Kentucky. Also, having a list article is a decent idea. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I was just thinking about adding Bodeco to the list, but realized that if every drive-by editor adds one or two pet bands, it could get ugly. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of the extra formatting is to remove the italics. All items placed in the "work" part of the reference that are not items that should be italicized.. they are all now italicized after your edit. By placing the extra markings around their names, it removed the italics which is necessary for non-print works. G loss 13:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Gloss:, OK, fair enough, thanks. I'll revert myself, and redo the cleaning with an eye for that issue. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, thank you vm! G loss 13:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The obituary will be in the times union jacksonville Florida paper tomorrow and you can go to jacksonville memorial gardens and see the obit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joybryant ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Joybryant: - thank you, I will look for it. Please understand we can't add death info to biographies unless we have proper references. That is to avoid creating issues for living people in the case they are not actually dead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am very sorry for your loss. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel the redirect should be the other way around, to clarify I feel typing "Aegon Turf Sprint Stakes" into the query should redirect you to "Turf Sprint Stakes". I do not think the name of a sponsor should be incorporated into the name of the formal event title. Either that or when people search "Kentucky Derby" they should be redirected to "Kentucky Derby Presented By Yum!". A corporation title should not be included in a title unless someone is specifically searching up that corporation. Sponsors are prone to change, (although it appears Yum! isn't leaving the KD anytime soon :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis taylor92 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Alexis taylor92: - that makes sense, but we would want to keep the edit history for the original article. Thus, it may be best to "move" the old article to the new one, which essentially changes its name. I'll see what I can do there. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a request for the article to be moved, since the move tool won't do it directly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Stevietheman: Thanks for getting on it! I think it will be a beneficial change, and prevent the title from having to be changed or for it to be moved every time it gets a new sponsor, which should be more efficient. Alexis taylor92 ( talk) 03:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Alexis taylor92: You're welcome. Turf Sprint Stakes is now moved and open for your update edits. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your watchful eye! It is greatly appreciated. Taxee ( talk) 16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LouisvilleYorkStatue2.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Wsiegmund:, what is the specific problem here, and how can it be remedied? This pic was taken by a friend I was with at the time, and given to me to upload. The statue is a public one, and stands in a public location. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman, my understanding is that you must provide evidence that the sculptor has granted a free license to his work. "If the original artwork remains in copyright a license from the artist is nearly always needed."( Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter) Freedom of panorama does not apply in the US. De minimis does not apply to this image. You may be able to satisfy the requirements of fair use. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have decided not to defend this image's inclusion in the Wikipedia. Like with previous removals, I don't see the point with spinning my wheels in the face of Draconian U.S. copyright laws (or their extreme interpretation here). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help. I appreciate your attention to the Louisville-related articles. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:NationalQuiltMuseum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi steve I just sent you a note. It seems like the agency, ngic, wants to control the ngic page on Wikipedia . Is that what cia and dia do too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A London 1995 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, just wanted to let you know that I weighed in on your proposal for Counterculture of the 1960s. Sorry for the delay, but there's so little activity on that talk page that I don't check it much. Is that talk page the best location for you to discuss? I'll be watching it now. Thanks! Learner001 ( talk) 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with the categories. I am new to this and have no idea how to do it. Underneath my picture in the facts section, it says there needs to be a citation that I'm an entertainment reporter. The citations are at the bottom but I don't know how to add them. Can you help me? 3, 5, 7, 10, an 11 would be the proof needed. Thank you so much! Mrskosters ( talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Mrskosters:, I can look at that later today. I have an errand to run shortly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it very much, thank you! Mrskosters ( talk) 20:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it would actually be 2, 3,6, 8, 11 and 12 Mrskosters ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Steve, I hope you are well today.

I noticed that you also think I need a better citation for my birthday. Famousbirthdays.com contacted me directly and I told them when it is. I found this : http://happybday.to/Michele-Mahone The funny part is most of the pics aren't me but the info is right. I am often confused with Austin's Mahone's mom, we have the same name and spelling so all but two of the pics of of her.

This: http://www.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_Michele_Mahone

Other than calling my mother (and she loves to talk) I just can't find anything else. Is it THAT big of a deal? I promise you, it's December 10th 1971

Can you help me out? Thank you Mrskosters ( talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Mrskosters:, the only thing I can think of is to give an interview to a reputable news source where they ask you when you were born, and they include that info in the article they publish. Then, that article can be used as a reference. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to consider these two U.S. Supreme Court case articles for Wikiproject Louisville: Buchanan v. Warley (1917) and Thompson v. City of Louisville (1960). — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@ BarrelProof:  Done thanks for the suggestion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Steve much of my information doesn't have sources because most of the accounts of the night riders came from locals, hence how reinactors reenact these events. Also if need be I can use the source on bended knees by Bill Cunningham. I know Bill personally and have my whole life but he is much too busy being a supreme court judge to write the account himself. I do not know how to source tag the article nor have the considerable time to figure it out. Anything I sourced I included in the article itself and still had it immediately taken down. As I said to you the other day. I'm from there, grew up there, heard the stories, lived in the aftermath, I'm not just some schmuck who doesn't know what he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlward1970 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Tlward1970:, I'm sorry but as a general rule, first-person accounts and other such primary research cannot be placed into articles. All content must rely on secondary sources, such as newspapers, non-self-published books, magazines, etc. Read Wikipedia:No original research for more details. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the hatnote with a link to Joe Koenig. I originally put in the author's link because of the redlink in List of books set in New York City#1980s to an writer of the same name. Nyth 63 11:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. It coincidentally comes at a time when I have decided to remove most of these from articles I wrote, so this will probably save me a step (well, about 200 steps). At one time I would have strongly opposed this proposal, but over the last couple of years I have been able to devote very little time to improving and maintaining Wikipedia articles, so it is not appropriate for me to jump in on the subject. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -- Calidum 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What I have done is no different than what the deletion discussion starter for {{ Maintained}} has done in secret. At least I am transparent about it. But nevertheless, I will cease. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I see this warning as harassment, personally, and a form of power play. And you are correct, Stevietheman, if we all were to contact each other via email, who would be the wiser? But, you're right, transparency is the way to go -- sadly, there will be those who continue to be underhanded and dishonest while claiming moral and ethical high-ground in public. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. In the milhist example, I thought I was more informative than trying to canvass for one side, but as far as notifying individual maintainers, I can see where there is an appearance of crossing a line. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at what you put on those editors pages. It was no different than the canned "There is a discussion you might be interested in at..." notification. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)