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.

Sorry about my error! And thanks for assuming good faith. YoPienso ( talk) 00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

...the reversion at the template discussion, unless you take your concerns about what you feel is a violation of NPA to an admin noticeboard, you might as well let it go. That particular pair of editors will stick together like glue in order to defeat what they see as an opponent. They are very experienced at playing word games, Wikilawyering, and backing each others' play, even to the point of dishonesty. Just so you know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All the deletionists have are word games, as they have no argument. At any rate, your suggestion is well-taken. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can fix AWB typo problems, I am delighted to find you. Can you change Anal to not change Analy to Anal? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Dthomsen8:, it's better to make such requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, in case there needs to be a discussion about it before proceeding with a fix. As part of your request, it's helpful to provide examples in articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can do.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You got that right. Wikipedia editing and discussion has become a free-for-all when it comes to the "lack of good faithers" and those who believe the place is more about ramming an agenda through than what is best for all editors, especially newcomers. Territorialism runs rampant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already had my say in the TfD, but I will say that none of the Delete voters should ever come 'round here ever expecting any assistance from me on anything. I'm not good at turning the other cheek on such devastation to the one of this site's pillars. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Get over yourselves. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to sit idly by while one of the pillars of the Wikipedia is attacked, you're not a true Wikipedian, and so are none of the Delete voters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Who's failing to assume good faith now? Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you, when you said "Get over yourselves", and as I said, the Delete voters, because their arguments were presuming bad faith. And those who presume bad faith are not true Wikipedians in my book. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I did read your comments, but promises of improvement don't always materialise. Since you seem to mean it, I'll restore the text here shortly for you to improve. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Well...I like your user page. Add and Got ( talk) 15:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Stevie, It strikes me as ridiculous that you put a big ugly tag on the Wooton Presbyterian Center article saying it needs more links, when it is just a 2 sentence stub, with about 80 links (in the NRHP box at the bottom). Why not just do some research on the subject and improve the article yourself, rather than tell other people to improve it? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 03:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a volunteer site. The tagging is accurate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. It is my feeling that contrary evidence to the citations I offered is needed to prove that Papa John's was not involved in the studies I cited, which is not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Papa_John%27s_Pizza&oldid=660235221&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. The content wasn't about Papa John's in specific and therefore belongs in a more general article about the fast food industry. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. However, I would like to point out that given there are,"...over 3,200..." papa John's in the U.S in all 50 states, I believe it would not be unsound inference to assume that papa John's workers were involved in the Berkeley study of public assistance, especially since the payouts to workers in new york, (see below), which should further affirm the other study I cited from Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. Best. http://nypost.com/2014/10/17/ag-sues-papa-johns-franchisee-for-stiffing-workers-out-of-2m/

Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa ( talk) 03:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That source indicates something specific about Papa John's and it's already covered in the Papa John's article. But overall, there's are myriad other fast food chains, and citing a general study in one of those chain's articles doesn't work in an encyclopedic sense. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, thanks for the edits of Bellarmine's page. I deleted Quentin Letts because I spoke to someone in the Alumni office and they have no record of him in the system, and I couldn't find a reliable source saying he went. As for Oladapo, I couldn't find a source for his accomplishments so I thought it was better to leave him off. What do you think? Dbilodeau ( talk) 18:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Dbilodeau: it's probably best to challenge these facts in the articles for those individuals, as the articles currently say they received degrees from Bellarmine. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wind power in Kentucky is new article that I would have listed on project page, but noticed that you were only really active person. Hence FYI. Djflem ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

then why does it have to be removed? I simply applied formatting. Now, I'm adding a new section, and have added no spaces before "If it's useless spacing", let's see what Wikipedia does. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Spaces on both sides of the text. I guess it's not so useless. Try that experiment here or your sandbox. Just "add new section" at the top. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Any spacing reduction I apply comes along with actual useful edits, such as typo fixes or other things that are generally deemed useful to the reader experience by most Wikipedians. Just because automatic section creators put that spacing in doesn't mean it has any beneficial use. If you're making an edit simply to add heading spaces back, that edit didn't do anything for the reader experience, and is generally frowned upon. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pony!
Congratulations! For saving American Pharoah from an overeager bot, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Hey Stevie - Wanted to thank you for your work on the Jefferson National entry (COI disclosure, I work with them in a marketing capacity). Saw you were seeking sources and to satisfy notability and reference requirements, so I've left some information on the Talk page. If you'd like, we can always provide more news references or information. Kristen sald ( talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get to it in the next couple of weeks or so. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thank you very much. Kristen sald ( talk) 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lexington, KY Wiki Loves Pride 2015

Lexington Pride Festival : June 27, 2015. Location: Lexington Pride Festival venues. Take photographs of the Lexington Pride Festival and upload them to Wikimedia Commons.

Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon : June 30, 2015. 7:00 pm. Location to be determined.

Lexington, KY/Wiknic 2015

Meet up for a picnic with other Wikipedian in Kentucky on July 25, 2015 from 12:00-3:00pm.

Sign up on event pages. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this article I created a few days ago. His father may be sufficiently notable to have his own page as well. His brother too, if he were a Confederate chaplain, but I am not sure. They were Baptists. I create his page because one of his sons owned Mount Holly. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your change at Talk:Nathaniel G. S. Hart... Maybe the "DYK?" template shouldn't go at the top of article talk pages?, but should follow the Wikipedia:Talk page layout guideline that puts DYK? further down the page (in the middle of the article history templates & WIkiProject banners etc.) Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The cleanup is following that guideline. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is? I guess on the Hart talk page it looks like the cleanup is putting the DYK? at the top of the talk page. So what you're doing is putting the DYK? after the talk page guidelines and before the WIkiProject boxes.... hmmmm. Not that it is according to the guidelines but, oddly enough, I guess I have mostly seen the DYK? being put lower or even last at the top of article talk pages... Shearonink ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. DYK comes before WikiProjects, as shown in the guideline you linked to. It's possible that admins or bots aren't following the guideline when they place it originally. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-prodding" in the edit summary to this edit, but if you mean that you think that I posted a PROD after one had already been removed, one was a PROD and the other a PROD-BLP. Despite the similarity of names, they are two quite different things, and the removal of one does not in any way preclude the posting of the other. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@ JamesBWatson:, at any rate, it's removed for the same reason as before, and it needs to go to AfD. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi i'm nocompromise16 i edited Bobby Petrino,but did not remembered to write summary, you asked, "Blanking of content including a complete section without explaining why". sorry for not writing the summary but i edited it and removedsome content because it was reason of harresmant to an indivisual, so i request to move it back to my edition-- Nocompromise16 ( talk) 12:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

@ Nocompromise16:, that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is therefore an insufficient reason for removal. It appears to be notable content that is based on references. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I can read "Airport plans to use old Highland Park neighborhood, reroute traffic" without any subscription...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.196.213.72 ( talk) 22:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It requires a subscription to read the full article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm free to remove messages from my talk page especially if it is a questionable message. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#OWNTALK -- 76.107.252.227 ( talk) 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not your talk page. It is assigned to that IP address through which potentially many users access the site. Therefore, I'm free to restore the warning messages. But I also won't back-and-forth over that. So, have fun removing messages that need to stay there. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain how to use the website template for Court Listener.

Also, does it work more effectively than just a [www.xyz.com Court Listener] citation?

Thx. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@ PraeceptorIP:, which edit in what article? I don't have a photographic memory.  :) Also, I'm unaware of the existence of a Court Listener template, so you may want to link to that so I can review it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stevie: In Thompson v. City of Louisville, the last ref was to a Court Listener tabulation of number of citations (According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.). It was originally in the format

According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.<ref> [https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=362+U.S.+199&type=o&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=dateFiled+desc Court Listener]

but was changed to:

According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=362+U.S.+199&type=o&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=dateFiled+desc |title=Search Results for 362 U.S. 199 |website=Court Listener |accessdate=July 18, 2015}}</ref>

The edit was: 10:00, July 18, 2015‎ Stevietheman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,527 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Subsequent developments: use cite web for ref)

PraeceptorIP ( talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ PraeceptorIP:, edits like this are done because of the guideline WP:PLRT. Go here for info on how to use the cite web template. If you have a more specific question, I'll be happy to help. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at PLRT. This problem has nothing to do with link rot. This was not a bare URL. The ref had as much information in it before as it did after your edit.

Your edit did not improve the quality of the citation or preserve it from link rot. You put the same URL in the edited version as it had before, with the same background source information. Why didn't you just leave it alone? All you explained was "because of the guideline." The guideline is about bare URL cites; this wasn't one. [I am perplexed ;-) ]

PraeceptorIP ( talk) 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the standard way we cite web pages across the Wikipedia. And the information I added was the accessdate, which is part of helping to avoid link rot. I will never leave refs like this alone. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in question again, I also added a title that wasn't there before. Titles help in restoring potential dead links as well. I kind of feel funny arguing this, because you'll find that all experienced editors will agree with what I did, and I/we will continue doing it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, great. As I had prematurely removed the deprecated persondata before (I think we had a conversation about it), I was trying to undo those edits. But great if I don't have to do that now. Thanks for telling me. Quis separabit? 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Rms125a@hotmail.com:, my understanding is that the only caveat is that removing it is considered cosmetic and therefore should be done only with other true fixes. But if you've already done recent fixes to a particular article, removing it by itself should be all right. Also, IMHO, it's not worth getting into any edit conflicts about, in case another editor insists on keeping it around for the time-being. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I had largely decided to discontinue the practice so there shouldn't be any conflicts. I still may, from force of habit, update or correct persondata with incomplete or inaccurate info, though. Quis separabit? 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally make that edit. Must've accidentally hit "rollback" on my watchlist without realizing. Sorry. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it might be a boo-boo. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Stevie:

Please do not re-space articles that are already consistently spaced internally: [1]. The Michael Phelps article is the fourth or fifth article on my watch list which has popped up with your re-spacing edits in the last several days . . . .

Consistent internal spacing is permitted by MOS, and permits editors to review infobox text at a glance, find the beginning and ending of sentences more quickly, and review the text and coding of templated footnotes more easily. Separating headers from the text of the following paragraph also makes for easier review. And, FYI, the infoboxes of all 660 U.S., 260 Australian, and 220 Canadian Olympic swimmers are all spaced consistently per the template's example. It's not an accident, and the remaining 2500 articles that use Infobox swimmer are targeted for clean-up in the near future. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1:, thanks for the note. It's important to note I am not merely doing space reductions -- they are tagging along for other guidelines-based technical fixes. I don't do space reductions by themselves, unless I have clicked 'Save' by accident.

As for infoboxes, I will be willing to avoid doing space reductions for established types of articles where editors generally don't want it (if you don't mind, let me know which types of articles where editors are sensitive -- so far, you're the very first editor to raise a concern). But just because a template example has built-in spacing isn't enough of a reason to not remove the extra spaces. As you say, they are there for the example, but not necessarily for all time. To me, and I say this as a very long-time editor, the extra space is unnecessary clutter.

As for headings, in general, I don't remove any separation from the following prose, although it's possible I've done a little of that in manual cleanup. If you have any examples where I've done this, please show me at least one so I can correct my cleanup code.

As for consistent internal spacing, that's part of what I'm fixing, as almost all the articles I deal with have inconsistent spacing. I tilt toward removing extra unnecessary space. Outside of infoboxes, I'm not removing any spaces that have any particular use as far as I can tell.

To repeat, I don't do any space reduction unless I'm doing other guidelines-based technical fixes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please address the problem - you cannot add unsourced content about a living person to a Wikipedia article, per WP:BLP; you shouldn't do that with any article per WP:VERIFY but it is even more important with living people. Thanks.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bellarmine University‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 16:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Jytdog:, I'm reporting this baseless message to an admin, as this post has nothing to do with reality. I have not been doing anything as you describe. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah - I thought you were the same as the IP editor. My apologies. In any case, this has been fixed by another editor - problem solved. Jytdog ( talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to note for posterity, there really wasn't a problem to be fixed in this article because Jerry Abramson already backed up his former/current positions. There's no necessity to copy over references in cases like this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for trying to keep User:66.94.206.60 in check. This editor's biggest issue is usually not using the edit summaries and altering franchise histories. They also occasionally switch IPs but the style is always the same. They are always unresponsive to messages and warnings but many of their edits are very nitpicky (such as removing the inactive from the Cyclones). Although many times they do seem to be attempting for consistency since in this case Cincinnati was the only franchise history I have seen that directly states when it was inactive (also shouldn't the hiatus in the mid-2000's have had the same statement?). However I still find myself having to re-edit all of theirs. I thought I should at least explain why I left the inactive off of my re-edit since you seem concerned with it. Thanks for your effort anyways with trying to deal with the possible vandal/poor editor. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Yosemiter:, Thanks for your work and the explain. I'm one of those weirdos who just doesn't cotton to editors removing content without explaining why. Your explanation makes sense. If only the anon could take a moment to use the danged edit summary. Their "bull in the china shop" approach is going to get them blocked if they keep it up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring to your attention that some removal of stub tags on some Louisville articles ( example). My gut says the user is trying to make a point with their edits, but if you feel strongly that the stub templates should be on these articles (if you or someone else from the project actively works them for example) I thought I'd bring it to your attention. No action required unless you feel so compelled. Rikster2 ( talk) 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rikster2:, thanks for the report. I did an exhaustive search and found only one de-stubbing instance from this IP on a WP Louisville file. The IP also edited two other files from the project, and I actually agree with the changes on one of them. Is there by chance another IP making changes like this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. Please do not remove spaces between sentences and after section headers. Consistent internal spacing is permitted by MOS and makes it easier for editors to find the beginning and end of sentences, to quickly distinguish between paragraphs, to review footnotes, and to find and fix things that require substantive editing. Removing spaces after section headers also screws up the ability of article editors to use diffs to compare text before and after your removal of the spaces -- it turns the article into one giant addition and deletion, making it nearly impossible to compare without doing a line-by-line, character-by-character comparison.

It may seem unfair to you that I reverted your entire edit; what you fail to appreciate it is that restoring the consistent internal spacing would require the other editor to spend an inordinate amount of time to restore those edits manually, when you are doing it with the click of a button. It is extremely discourteous to your fellow editors, and presumes your time is worth more than theirs. It's not "clean-up".

Bottom line: don't re-space articles to your personal tastes. I will now be restoring the article to the status quo ante; please feel free to constructively edit the substance of the article without removing spaces. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1:, I can only surmise you didn't read my response to your earlier inquiry above. Please do read it. I do not ordinarily remove spaces after section headers unless I've made a mistake. Also, I reduce space for the sake of consistent internal spacing, as in much more cases than not, the spacing is not consistent. I will be happy to thoroughly discuss this, but I will not be taking any orders from one editor. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve, here's what the diff looks like when a gnome re-spaces an entire article: [2]. Would you like to try to find the substantive changes in a diff which shows that the entire article has been deleted and replaced with something else? Imagine the frustration of the editors who actually maintain the article on a regular basis, especially when after 20 or 30 minutes of doing line-by-line comparisons of that article, they discover that there were no substantive changes, just re-spacing the article, but now they can no longer use the compare function to compare future changes to the article with the article as it existed before the respacing. Do you understand the problem this creates? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1:, You don't seem to get what I'm doing. Please, again, read my response to your earlier inquiry above. In that, I state that I never do space reduction by itself. Never. I make technical fixes (and sometimes some copyedits), and space reduction comes along for the ride. As for the issue you bring up, I agree that can be frustrating temporarily, but I don't think it's a strong enough reason to not reduce space clutter or making spacing consistent. In the review of one of my edits, the user should be able to find at least one technical fix, or at least trust that there's one there because I've been an editor for over 11 years, ffs. I'll need a better reason to not do this, or at least you can tell me what kind of articles where the editors are especially sensitive to space reduction, and I'll try to avoid reducing those. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are calling "space clutter" is what other editors are doing intentionally to more efficiently edit articles. If there are worthwhile substantive edits, "technical" or otherwise, mixed in amongst your re-spacing of these articles, I'm missing them: [3]. What was the necessary "technical" fix in the Southeastern Conference article? What "technical" fix equired you to respace the entire article? And why are you respacing infoboxes, like this: [4]? Do you understand that many, if not most of the example infobox templates include those extra spaces to intentionally align the input data for quick and time-efficient review and update by editors who mantain these articles? See, e.g., Template:Infobox swimmer, Template:Infobox NFL player, and many, many more. When you remove the alignment spaces from infoboxes, you are removing something another editor did intentionally, not accidentally, in order that they might quickly changes to infobox input data and update it when necessary. Did you look at the diff of the Tracy Caulkins when another editor did vitually nothing of substance but respace the entire article? Do you understand why such edits are problematic? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1:, some responses... I'm sorry if it's not thorough enough, but I think they encapsulate where I come from:

1. Re: the Tracy Caulkins edit, I don't have to answer for what other editors do. Obviously.
2. Re: "What you are calling "space clutter" is what other editors are doing intentionally to more efficiently edit articles." -- this appears to be an opinion, or at best the opinion of a few. I find they add nothing for the sake of editing, and almost nobody has complained about their removal. Also note that many articles have this extra spacing taken out way before I got there. And rarely do people try to add it back. Why? Because they don't need it, that's why.
3. Re: "What was the necessary "technical" fix in the Southeastern Conference article?" -- check out my subsequent edit without the space reduction.
4. Re: "When you remove the alignment spaces from infoboxes, you are removing something another editor did intentionally, not accidentally, in order that they might quickly changes to infobox input data and update it when necessary." -- I'm not buying this, sorry. Those are actually built-in spaces from the original layout for example and doc presentation, not necessarily meant to remain for all time. And again, in many articles, this extra spacing was removed way before I got there. Editors mostly get they were from the example.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So, the bottom line is you're going to keep doing what you're doing -- respacing infoboxes and the entire text of to your personal preferences, using extremely minor technical fixes -- such as trading <br> for <br /> -- as the justification for respacing infoboxes and article text? How about instead you just perform the minor technical "fixes" and not re-space the articles? Does that somehow interfere with your performance of your technical "fixes"? If so, I would be grateful if you would explain that. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1:, Changing <br> for <br />, like space reduction, is considered "cosmetic", and I also don't make those changes unless there's a guidelines-baesd technical fix to make. It seems to me you are trying to make a point that you can't find a technical fix easily among cosmetic changes, but IMHO, the diff editor highlights the technical fixes better than you insinuate. For instance, if I straighten an apostrophe (per WP:APOSTROPHE), the whole word the apostrophe is attached to is highlighted. I will only agree that me doing space reduction on top of this can be temporarily frustrating for some, but once space is shrunk, it's shrunk.

Not doing space reduction doesn't interfere with other technical/copyedit/cosmetic fixes. I can easily disable those as they are separate.

I don't want to be obstinate, but it seems to me I'm being treated to a hardened opinion about spacing that I've poked a few holes into. I.e., in my experience, very few editors seem to want to preserve example spacing in infoboxes. And that spacing between sentences really isn't usually consistent, and a reduction to a single space makes them consistent. Also note that HTML only respects one space between words anyway unless there's a non-breaking space involved. What it boils down to is visual clutter (stuff for the eyes to roll over that isn't substantial), but if you want to get even more technical, we could talk about article size misrepresentation due to an extra bunch of nothing (that affects some wiki tools), and the space that's used up in databases (although this is optimized to an extent sometimes). If I stop reducing space, I'm doing it for one or a few with a vocal opinion, basically. I'm just not convinced that the extra spaces are essential for most editors.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Just came here to comment that some edit summaries you were using were not at all what you were doing (said you were changing links to Kentucky but were only changing apostrophes), but then saw this discussion and I have to comment re the spacing in infoboxes. I have seen whole long drawn out discussions planning for how the spacing in specific infoboxes would be done. So you would be incorrect in stating that the spaces in infobox examples are not intended to always stay there. In a number of cases they are. I can't point you to a specific one because its been awhile. But I just thought I would comment since it was an interesting discussion. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries do not say I'm changing links to Kentucky. They say I'm cleaning up articles that are linked from a Kentucky-related article. As for "long drawn out discussion", without a link of one or more examples, there's not much to discuss on that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then that pretty much proves my point. They aren't in any way clear what you are doing. Seeing that edit summary on an article that had nothing to do with Kentucky was very confusing. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

But they do have something to do with Kentucky, as the article being cleaned up is linked from a Kentucky-related article. The main point in the summary is "clean up" and the rest is just explaining what's in my list for the cleanup run. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, I'm open to suggestion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(Follow-up; not a response to latest comment, as this was decided beforehand) I have decided to do a temporary moratorium on the most extensive semi-automated space reductions, but only for technical reasons - I'm trying to develop/test additional technical cleanups while resolving issues, and having to review all the additional space reductions is taking up too much time in these cycles. This should mean that after I've run through all this, the most extensive space reductions should be a lot more sporadic because all the technical issues I'm looking for in my various AWB lists will be found/fixed and thus I won't have as much pretext for additional cosmetic updates. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. The sections currently titled:

• <br> line breaks incorrectly changed to <br />
• References are not supposed to be in alphabetical order by <ref name=ABC>

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter: Already have seen those, and answered them. I reverted back based on my answers. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please allow discussion to finish before reverting again. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter:, I obviously will not be edit-warring over this, so for now, have it your way, although I believe you are reverting without understanding the edits. There seems to be a misunderstanding on your part about the reference order -- it's not by abc order -- it's by footnote numerical order. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter:, I just wanted to note that I've tried very hard to keep this discussion over at AWB on-point. But so I might contest your overall complaint/accusations against me, let's review:

1. You violated WP:3RR. I didn't want to be a WP:DICK, so I didn't report you.
2. I accepted the consensus on the subject page that insisted on a particular ordering of citations, without asking for proof, as I was assuming good faith.
3. I thoroughly discussed this matter with you, and we came to some agreement that there is a genuine conflict between AWB's recommended change and the idea that one citation was much stronger than the other, in one case, for the first time you or I have ever come across. Even borne of a minor edit conflict, we came to an understanding.
4. We don't agree on all the possible solutions, but it's not rude for me to disagree with you on that, or anything.
5. It also wasn't rude for me to revert a couple times, as indeed, you didn't provide any non-vague reason for disagreeing with the change. I did nothing unusual here.

I would suggest that the best strategy here is to not expect some major solution for one edit disagreement while you have three workarounds available:

1. Drop the least strong citation between the two.
2. Add an HTML comment asking editors to not rearrange a particular clump of cites.
3. Put an HTML comment between consecutive cites to avoid AWB even suggesting the rearranging.

I think it's pretty clear that I and many others have reached out to you and have tried to help. This is even while I've had to answer your accusations. If you are complaining about all the extra time involved in this discussion, perhaps stopping the accusations and overall negativity may have helped. I know you are flabbergasted by my reverts - OK, so you're flabbergasted. Move on. Also, consider the workarounds. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

When AWB encountered this task it left a cite error remaining. I've noticed that when extended dialogue is insrted within some citations, this type of problem often happens. Regards CV9933 ( talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- I reverted myself. I'll look into this later to see if any rework of that cite is necessary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that tabular information is to be discounted when assessing whether an article is a stub. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder: There is also no rule that tabular info is to be counted. It's just two paragraphs and I rule it a stub. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong about this. There is no rule suggesting that tabular information is to be ignored in assessing whether an article is a stub. Please have a look at Stub Rathfelder ( talk) 20:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder:, I fully know what a stub is and what is not. I am right about this. Please stop de-stubbing obvious stubs. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How are you blessed with this special knowledge? Is it written down anywhere? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder: We don't build articles out of tables. We build them out of prose. How is an article with just two paragraphs of prose above a stub? My special knowledge is editing Wikipedia for 11 years. I won't use that as a reason for not de-stubbing, however. The reason is because the article is obviously a short one. This should be as obvious as "1 + 1 = 2". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Some articles are essentially tabular. That doesn't make them stubs. If this policy is obvious it would be written down. It isn't. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder: As far as policy and guidelines are concerned, you have nothing backing up your position, so we may as well be equal there. That's why I'm using reason to explain the obvious. The article is short. Hello? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the only tabular articles without much prose that are also not stubs are called 'lists'. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that words are to be counted either. The article must be judged as a whole. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder:, so you judge it not a stub and I judge it a stub. Perhaps ask for a third opinion on the talk page. I will abide by the third person's opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK Rathfelder ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder: An alternative idea would be to de-stub it but tag it with a request for expansion of the prose. I can accept that as an honorable compromise. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like third party assurance that I am right in counting tabular content in assessing whether an article is a stub. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, have it your way. But there's a possibility you won't get the result you want. With the alternative idea, it's de-stubbed.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The guidance I have is, essentially, that there is no guidance. It's a matter of judgement. But there is a policy that an article which is just a list is not normally categorised as a stub. So I am happy to accept your compromise. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Rathfelder: OK, but other articles like this have more prose, so we shouldn't want them to be limited to just being lists. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the stub tag being removed as long as there is a tag calling for more prose. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the Wikipedia work and I appreciate your attentiveness to my edits. I am wondering though how one would add the Mike Huckabee response to Kim Davis and the situation surrounding her. I added it in a completely unbiased way (as all Wikipedia users ought to do). We won't to be fair and comprehensive and the Kim Davis article is seriously lacking in balanced facts. So, in order to balance out the bias, I added a viewpoint from someone on the other side (Mr. Huckabee). Please let me know how I can do this without getting removed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiselightmedia ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Praiselightmedia:, you will need to figure out due balance to the various political responses (for and against Davis's actions and the surrounding matter). If you're only going to present the response from Huckabee (for example), that is undue weight. I would suggest taking some time and writing a balanced set of reactions and then adding that to Miller v. Davis or Kim Davis (county clerk), wherever best the reactions fit. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's incorrect. Lots of sources out there point out that a number of Republican candidates are lining up to praise Davis, including Huckabee, Paul, and Cruz. For example, [5], [6], [7]. It's not undue (but the "Western Journalism" website is definitely not RS). And, balance doesn't mean that for every "pro" comment you have put an "anti" comment on something, it means that the tone has to be the same as in the bulk of reliable sources, which in this case seems to be more or less horror and revulsion. Geogene ( talk) 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Geogene:, I am not saying there has to be an exactly equal balance, but you seem to suggest that all that can be put there are Davis-supportive positions. That isn't going to be allowed by most editors here. There is wide opinion not in her favor as well, including leading Republicans saying essentially "follow the law". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd...I didn't suggest that at all. Geogene ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Geogene: I'm sorry if I misread your position but you were talking about presenting what appeared to be one side of the responses. The bottom line is that WP:UNDUE must be followed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about only representing one side of the position. And you seem not to understand UNDUE, as I have provided you three mainstream sources dedicated to these comments. Geogene ( talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Geogene: Again, how I read your remarks above isn't the core issue. I understand WP:UNDUE pretty well having been here over 11 years. WP:RS and WP:UNDUE are both important. Just because you have mainstream sources for some material is not enough to add out-of-balance content. Proceed with what you want to do, but various editors will check you, as always. It's not like you have to clear anything with just me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your help with my recent edits on the KFC - equipment paragraph.

I'm very interested in Louisville area inventors, and that's how I found out about Winston Shelton. I'm preparing a Wikipedia article about him specifically - he earned 77 patents while at GE and later on his own. He refined what has come to be known as the top-loading washing machine at GE and (for better or for worse) kicked off mass-produced fast food with his invention of the Collectramatic pressure fryer. He also charmed Norman Rockwell, getting Rockwell to paint a portrait of Colonel Sander s(for a fee of $850) when Rockwell didn't want to - and that kicked off Rockwell painting portraits which are now worth millions of dollars each.

My question -= I have an image of the Col. Sanders portrait being accepted by Shelton from Rockwell in Rockwell's studio - what kind of permission do I need to show in order to add the image to a Winston Shelton page? I'm told the Shelton family owns the portrait.

As an aside - there are so many Louisville area inventors - I created the Wikipedia entry for Ferdinand N. Kahler, who owned two automobile factories in New Albany - I am working on entries for John Colgan, a Louisville druggist who apparently created the first flavored chewing gum in 1870 and the Tway family who founded Kentucky Trailer, which started the whole national push for "tandem trailers" - they invented and refined what became the "tractor trailer" we know today. Plate glass was invented in New Albany - the list goes on and on...

I understand I'm nowhere in your league on Wikipedia (and won't be) - I greatly admire and thank you for your work, and I would appreciate your advice. Thanks! William WmArbaugh ( talk) 12:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@ WmArbaugh: Dealing with fair use images is a weak area in terms of my experience, but "Fair use" is what you would have to declare for the image. The image uploading wizard should walk you through that. You will basically have to assert that this image applies to content you are inserting it near and that there's no free similar image that's available. Good luck. Thank you for your work on Louisville area inventors! I am always heartened by folks taking the initiative on new Louisville-related content. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey man just doing a job for someone, updating Bobby Petrino's wikipedia. No false information man and they are all relevant links. Dont re edit it please. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbaldwin93 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Tbaldwin93: you shouldn't be editing the article as you have just stated a conflict of interest. Besides that, your work is messy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Tbaldwin: Actually, you can edit as a paid editor as long as you disclose your status on your user page. A statement to the effect of

This user is a paid Wikipedia contributor, having been paid to edit <thus and such article or topic>, but respects the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and will strive to work within them.

This will alert other users to pay your edits in those areas extra attention. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ WikiDan61 and Tbaldwin93: WP:COI states:

COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked. Editors with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, are advised not to edit affected articles; they may suggest changes on the talk page and must disclose their COI.

Unless a COI editor is doing copyedits and fixing typos and the like (minor changes), they are expected to request content additions on the talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged, but not outright banned, per the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@ WikiDan61: to me and I think many others, "strongly discouraged" means they shouldn't be doing it. Besides, in this specific case, the changes weren't done well, like adding a duplicate "Personal Life" section and placing it too high in the article, as well as likely WP:UNDUE content. Also, whenever someone adds a lot of external links, it is a bit suspect. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree that the edits were badly done, or that your reversion was proper. I just disagreed with the blanket statement about paid editing. It is a matter of some controversy at Wikipedia, and it is discouraged, but it is not disallowed. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned about your undoing of my recent edit of my Wikipedia edit. I deleted attributions that are unverifiable (note Wikiledia rules and standards are clear that self referencing sources do not count as verification ; a rumor does not gain validity because someone reports in the fact that someone started a rumor with no basis).

You're undo of my edit violates this fundamental standard. I assume that you did in good faith.

It is just inappropriate to label a man and his father as being bought with out a proper citation and verifiable citation. The fundamental sources that started this wasn't even actually the paper so cited but rather a blog associated with one of the reporter. Hence you will note that the sources are not original but archives that have no affirmed verification .

It opens up Wikiledia to a lawsuit for libel. In addition and more importantly it violates the standard of good faith. We have to be fair and honest in our dealings with this gentleman.

I trust you therefore will agree with my chance and will take all actions within the next 48 hours . If you don't I will further assume that you want me to make all necessary and appropriate corrections

It has been an absolute pleasure. I am glad to clear up any confusion you have had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonmusic ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Brandonmusic: Please take this to Talk:Anthony Davis (basketball) and explain there exactly why you think a citation should be removed so that all the article's editors can see your position. I reverted only because you broke a reference that re-used that citation, not because of any particular value of that citation. Please don't leave any additional replies here, because this is about the article, not about my work, per se. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your response but it was about your edit per se. My philosophy for editing is that before you make ANY EDITS of any sort you should disclaim any potential biases. You being involved with Louisville gives me concern that you made your edit merely because you favor a basketball team that he played again (Louisville Cardinals).

I commend you for being here for nearly 11.5 years, but the appearance of impropriety is a concern to me. I saw no disclaimer before you made edit. I trust you will correct this. Brandonmusic ( talk) 02:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Brandonmusic: I have no conflict of interest in editing that article or any article on the Wikipedia. Otherwise, nobody is required or even expected to disclaim any biases before editing. As a Wikipedian, we are all supposed to assume good faith of other editors. My edit was exactly because of the reason I stated above and nothing more. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you have your own good reasons for your categorisation edits, but you are wrong in saying that she "wrote a famous rock and roll tune". She didn't. She rewrote some lyrics of a rock and roll song. Not the same thing. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Ghmyrtle: They're not my reasons. Category:Songwriters is categorized under Category:Musicians. A songwriter is a type of musician. I didn't invent this. As for the degree of how much she has contributed to rock music, there could be room for discussion, I suppose, but categorization is mostly based on what they're notable for, including cases of seemingly narrow achievements. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't really want to pursue this, but (1) it's debatable, to me, whether someone who only wrote lyrics, not tunes, should be categorised as a musician; and (2) it's also debatable, to me, whether someone who contributed at the start of "rock and roll" should be categorised within "rock". There have been long debates elsewhere about whether "rock and roll" (c.1951 - early 1960s) includes, or should be differentiated from, "rock music" (post c.1964). This isn't the place to have those discussions, I know. Was she a "rock and roll lyricist"? - absolutely, yes. Does that necessarily make her a "rock musician"? - in my view, that is very debatable. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted my revert based on #1. It's debatable and I don't want to prolong the debate. Don't get me started on #2. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please AGF and remain civil. I'm well aware that maintaining a collaborative spirit is not always easy! I'm human too, and I know all about frustration. Note that I have not suggested that those who hold a POV in opposition to mine should be hampered, so please don't do that to me or others with whom you disagree. That's ownership behavior, and I know you're better than that.

Collaboration between editors who hold opposing POV is what produces the best articles and ensures that NPOV is approached as nearly as possible. I normally appreciate your comments because I can learn from them. Please keep commenting in that spirit by taking the moral high ground. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: I always assume good faith until an editor gives me a significant reason to question their behavior. Also, I have stated my concerns in very civil terms -- I have not used expletives or engaged in name calling. And the idea that I've engaged in "ownership behavior" can only mean you don't know what WP:OWN means and that you don't realize that your ongoing filibuster and insistence that your view is more important than others' views fits that bill. I stand by my remarks on the page I assume you are referring to. Last, don't bring your filibustering here, because I can delete -- I'm not interested in a discussion about this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"hostage-taking" and "filibustering" are purely subjective and insulting epithets. They do not AGF. Please refrain from such language. We should be able to disagree agreeably. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I described what I saw and I stand by these remarks. I will continue to describe what I see when I see it. Stop engaging in these kinds of approaches and then you won't see me providing such reactions again. In short, stop acting like you own the joint, because you don't. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. If you're so sure that you can provide us with some urgently needed help as an admin and are sufficiently qualified, if you read this and then read this and can more or less check all the boxes, you are almost guaranteed a clean run through RfA and a pass with flying colours, and I'll nominate you. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Kudpung: Thank you very much for this suggestion, but like I stated in the Signpost discussion, I am not interested in becoming an admin for three particular reasons that I listed. Upon again pondering the high vault involved in the RfA process, even though I think I would be a reasonable choice to become an admin, I don't think I would pass such excruciating muster (e.g., sometimes I have been too honest/direct/stern with a few Wikipedians where I saw being honest or direct or stern was right, even if others might disagree with my approach). Really, though, I am interested only in using a few of the admin tools, such as block to deal with obvious vandals. But barring that, I am happy to merely leave warnings and request blocks as necessary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for jumping in and working on this article with me. The sections you marked as being awkward are quite that way. The problem is that a newer, and I mean a recently registered user when in and inserted a quasi-quotation from a recent journal article that used all that 'awkward' language. I have my hands on the source from which the awkwardness comes, but I have been waiting to here back from the editor who put it in for an explanation. It seems that the reference is not so great and since the new editor created an account for the sole purpose of editing the Stephen Foster article, I am questioning the inclusion of the 'awkward' stuff, myself. In the meantime, please feel free to improve the article as you see fit. I have some excellent secondary sources, based upon the University of Pittsburgh Library System's Stephen Foster collections. If you are interested, I can send them your way. For the next week or so I will be deleting some of the unreferenced material that I can't find references for. But thanks again for editing the article. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiihab. Since you had some involvement with the Wiihab redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst ✈ 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that the article America's Got Talent (season 3) has been continuously vandalized with excessive false information about the show and the winner. Can you please protect this article and block all users who try to vandalize it? Thank you. EODos21 ( talk) 05:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@ EODos21: I am not an admin, but I have requested indefinite semi-protection for the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a new category to Kentucky's 7th congressional district. The category is Category:1993 disestablishments in Kentucky. While the article links to the category page, the category page shows no article belonging to it. I don't know what's wrong. Can you help me out? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@ WilliamJE: I fixed it by doing a null edit on the subject article. Apparently, there's a bug with Hotcat where some of the cat adds don't show up on the category page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:SVSP - "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines..." - Please can you point me to the policy that states you must leave two blank lines (and why this must be done). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the customary way to do it and is standard across the Wikipedia. I don't have to explain the rationale behind what is customary. I imagine this is so the stub tag stands out better. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In your edit summary for the revert, you stated "it is a nice to have". If it's that, why not keep it? I'm befuddled by this and wondering if this is being reverted not exactly for the purpose stated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The national language of India is written as none. But in India it is publicly declared that "HINDI" is our national language .So please see this make this change asap. Thank you Regards, CHANCHAL MISHRA INDIA. CHANCHAL96 ( talk) 10:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is simply no point in making edits like this, as <br> does no harm, is compact and readable, and functions exactly as the longer and uglier <br />. I'd be really grateful if you'd not do that, honestly I would. Thanks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not the only edits made in that change. Also, everyone is entitled to their opinion on what's ugly. I go for what's most consistent and easy to see. "Ugly" stands out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Businessman and political candidate Matt Bevin.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. January ( talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stevietheman,

I suspect the following two accounts, Piers Morgan, Sharon Osbourne and David Hasselhoff and Queen Emily was eliminated in the Top 20 as sockpuppets of Bobzz1133. Can you please block them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EODos21 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

These two accounts have been creating cut and paste articles from AGT articles in season 3 and 4, with obvious hoax information. I have requested the deletion of them. EODos21 ( talk) 06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@ EODos21:, I am not an admin, so I don't have access to the blocking tools. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville		What's New in WikiProject Louisville? (Nov 2015)
		Thank you for your continued membership in WikiProject Louisville! Our project is still alive and mildly kicking after over 9 years in operation. If by chance you're not up-to-date with what's going on in the project, here's some of the more recent goings-on: We have over 6,100 articles included in the project and almost 17,000 pages (including talk pages) overall. Our list of project tasks have been moved to a project subpage. This was done because the project's main page was getting rather long and perhaps difficult to digest. "One-stop shopping" for our project's tasks! Our Membership department has been revamped. A lot of membership-related things have been clarified. Did you know: You can patrol recent changes to any page included in our project? Great for stopping vandalism and more! You can see which of our project's pages are the most popular? You can easily focus on and fix specific kinds of problems (such as cite date errors) within our project? If you would like to opt out of receiving WikiProject Louisville newsletters, please add your name to the "Opt out of newsletters" list on our Active participants page.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on All:Fredrick Douglass requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's strange. I have no recollection of creating that, and I can't think of why I might have created it. Maybe someone hacked my account? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Go Hokies ( talk) 04:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

-- slakr^{\  talk /} 13:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deenhaja ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC) All I have heard, seen are Mr. Muhammad Ali is following Islam. As a follower of Islam, I am pretty much sure there is no sect called Orthodox in Islam. If Mr. Muhammad Ali is really an orthodox of some other religion then it should be 'citation-ed' properly, where Mr. Muhammad Ali agrees himself that he denounced Islam and started following orthodox of some other religion. If you are really come to say that he is Orthodox in Islam. Then I will request and plead you there is no such thing in Islam than Islam itself. The word 'Islam' means 'Unity and peace' within the word, some ill wishers are making sects and divisions among "Islam = Unity". I don't know what you are going to understand by this comment, without the will of the creator there is no guidance for sure.

@ Deenhaja: Muhammad Ali covers his religion in pretty good detail. However, the infobox doesn't support adding religion, especially in the way you added it. "Orthodox" describes his boxing style, not his religion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Deenhaja ( talk) 11:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks to point out my illiterate-ness on this subject. And, further thanks to make Wikipedia a reliable source.

Hello! I've completed another Louisville Inventor entry - please look at

/info/en/?search=Draft:Winston_L._Shelton

and let me know what you think - I appreciate all you do for Louisville entries. Thanks! William WmArbaugh ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@ WmArbaugh:, you have a decent start of an article. All you need to do is address the concerns brought forward by reviewing editors, and it should be approved. Also note that you can create articles directly without going through this process, which is voluntary. Just make sure your subject is notable and don't include any copyrighted material, and your article, whatever it is, will likely stay. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Steve, you are the man to help me! I forgot the process for moving from a User page or a Draft page to posting as an article. I'll be going to Louisville's Cave Hill Cemetery for my husband's brother's funeral this week and have been terribly distracted. I goofed and the article to be called Edward Cornelius Humphrey was speedily deleted. Where is the best place to work on an article before posting it? Is the process the same for all forms of drafts, even the Sandbox? Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 01:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Mitzi.humphrey: The usual options are User:Mitzi.humphrey/Edward Cornelius Humphrey or Draft:Edward Cornelius Humphrey. Note that for this to become an article, it will have to overcome the objections here. You may want to take the article through the WP:AFC process if you're really that dedicated about this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi- thanks again for your help on my Winston Shelton entry. I've been contacted by his family (they saw his entry) and they are going to upload a photo to the commons and I'll add it to his entry - another Louisville inventor!

I noticed you prepare entries for Louisville area musicians and groups on Discogs. I do as well, but do you know about www.albumartexchange.com? I collect records (LPs) and whenever I find Louisville area albums or CDs, I scan them and add the images and info to the album art exchange - thanks to John Timmons and earlier Louisville producers, there are so many deserving acts - I try to do what I can - thanks again for your help!

WmArbaugh ( talk) 20:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stevietheman, there is an ongoing discussion about professional boxing record tables and I would appreciate if you could share your opinion or at least voice you support or opposition. It would be great if you could voice your opinion here in the "RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables" and "MoS:Boxing Final call" section. Cheers!-- Fallengrademan ( talk) 19:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In my adding an additional image to the article on the Kentucky artist Matthew Harris Jouett, I seem to have messed up the formatting on the page. Would you mind taking a look at the sections, e.g. external links and categories which have disappeared? I think this may have occurred when I tried to no avail to add the image to the "Gallery" section and then moved it closer to the mention of the painting in the text. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• The image of the child Catherine Cornelia Prather as painted by Jouett was also added to the article on Edward Porter Humphrey. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)