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.

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Any idea of Louisville's relevance to the Knights of Columbus? (see e. g. Ferdinand E. Kuhn) Cake ( talk) 18:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@ MisterCake: Sorry for the slow response. I don't know of any hard historical connection to the KoC, although certainly they have a presence in Louisville because of its sizable Catholic population. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries; take your time. I've seen your commitment to WP Louisville, and found it interesting how Louisville was treated like the Mason-Dixon line for the KoC. Doubly so now that I see the large Catholic presence of Louisville is also a large German presence. Cake ( talk) 19:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to know the reason why people keep changing the article America's Got Talent (season 3)? Stevietheman, you were right, MediaCorp re-edited the program. I was a former employee of MediaCorp. Lucas Chow, the CEO of MediaCorp the time when the show was broadcast, had watched episodes of season 3 of the show online before the show was broadcast on Channel 5. His favourite act in this competition was the ZOOperstars!. He did not like the fact that Neal E. Boyd won the competition instead of the ZOOperstars!. He also did not like some of the acts such as Kaitlyn Maher (he changed her name to "Kathlynn Meear"), Donald Brasswell and Eli Mattson. Hence, he would order the program editors (I was one of them) to re-edit the show such that Neal E. Boyd was eliminated in the Top 40 on November 12, 2008 and the ZOOperstars! went all the way to win. In case you're wondering, sound effects and voice-overs of the contestants, host and judges were added to make the re-edits seem real. After the show was re-edited, the version broadcast would feature similar results as the vandalized revisions, with the ZOOperstars! winning the competition on the season finale aired on January 28, 2009. After all the episodes were broadcast on Channel 5, Chow wrote a check for US$1,000,000 and sent it to the ZOOperstars!. What's your name? We are the ZOOperstars! ( talk) 07:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The same goes for season 1. Chow did not like Bianca Ryan and thus changed her name in the show to Beeyansha Ryan. His favourite season 1 act was quick change duo David and Dania - Quick Change. He also did not like some acts especially the kid acts such as Taylor Ware. He would order the program editors to re-edit the programs such that Beeyansha Ryan was eliminated in the semi-final part 3 results show on November 11, 2007 and David and Dania - Quick Change won the competition on January 13, 2008. Once the show was re-edited, the version broadcast on Channel 5 would feature results similar to the vandalized revisions. After all the episodes were broadcast on Channel 5, Chow wrote a check for US$1,000,000 and sent it to David and Dania - Quick Change. What's your name? We are the ZOOperstars! ( talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@ What's your name? We are the ZOOperstars!: The articles are about the original U.S. programs. Just because they were cut up to show different results in one country, that doesn't mean those results are legitimate in any way. Also, showing the programs as originating in Singapore on MediaCorp is a flat-out lie. If you want to add content about these Singapore distortions, and if you have reliable sources to back them up, you probably could add this info to the respective articles. But don't change the articles to make it look like those distortions/lies are the full reality of these programs, because that will never be allowed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stevietheman, I know that it is wrong to change these articles. I, along with two other program editors were fired by MediaCorp in 2013, which was when this vandalism started. The three of us would work together to create new accounts to edit these articles. We already know who the actual winner of these programs were. We simply want to expose MediaCorp about what they made us do. If you say that MediaCorp is a company that tells lies, then you probably be right. By the way, MediaCorp would never admit that they had re-edited these programs. Only the three of us have evidence to show that MediaCorp had apparently re-edited the programs. I think foreign broadcasters who acquire the rights to broadcast MediaCorp programs would re-edit them once they know what MediaCorp has done. What's your name? We are the ZOOperstars! ( talk) 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk)

I just wanted to let you know that multiple of your past edits on Allegiant Air have broken the page, and caused multiple sections to dissapear. On your edit summary it says you are using AWB, which I am not familiar with. but it has occured multiple times. So I am not sure what is going wrong to change the page in this way, but please figure out what you are doing wrong, as I am not sure. I will fix it, but please have a look to see what you may have mistakenly done. Thanks! Stinger20 ( talk) 00:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Stinger20: the AWB correction (using straight quotemarks in HTML instead of slanted ones) was correct -- it's the div turning off the display that shouldn't have been there in the first place, so I removed it. So, this is a case of both of us not looking more closely. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Stevietheman: Thanks, did not see that! Stinger20 ( talk) 00:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids -- Moxy ( talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have been keeping me honest with the updates I made recently. I am new to this, and committed to doing it according to Wiki standard. Thank you for any suggestions you have. May I ask what happens to the old text that I am replacing with new text? Haunium ( talk) 04:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC) haunium

What are you talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.29.191.108 ( talk) 06:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France." There is nothing special about this person. A large number of people are known for more than one thing, but when categories are diffused, they are no longer kept in the parent cat. If they belong in more than one subcat, then we move them to all of the subcats they belong in. Aboutmovies ( talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Aboutmovies: since the subject is mainly a comedian, then "People from Louisville, Kentucky" should be the sole choice for now. "Male actors" category is arguably unnecessary. I was hoping we could avoid abuse-by-guideline, but we can settle on this, right? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Abuse by guideline"! Really? That's nice and civil. I'll let you have this because I don't like dealing with people like you who think guidelines just should not apply to their articles. You know, this person is so much more special than say Jerry Seinfeld who is not in People from New York City even though there is no Comedians from New York City category (I am not even aware of a category for comedians by city). Aboutmovies ( talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Aboutmovies: interesting reading of things not in my very civil response. I do think guidelines apply to articles I work on, but as you know, guidelines are not absolute, they are "guidelines", and sometimes there are reasonable exceptions. That's my point. In this case, Pollio's main thing is being a comedian, so unless we have a more refined Louisville category that covers that, "People from" is fair. Also, I don't think we're here to judge who is special and who isn't -- that doesn't fit very well into an encyclopedic framework. We are merely classifying an article here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Was wondering what was changed in this edit. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Shearonink: the diff shows the change, the curly to straight apostrophe change per WP:APOSTROPHE. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. However, I just checked the original American Heritage article and the curly is what is rendered in the original magazine. WP:APOSTROPHE covers keeping either the straight or the curly within the text of a Wikipedia article, but what about artifact titles of references? Shearonink ( talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been my understanding that the guideline applies to everything in the article, whether imported or not. For clarification, you may want to ask at the help desk or on the talk page for the guideline. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was asking you for clarification, since you are the one changing the internal curvy to a straight. This particular issue - what to do about artifact curly's - does not seem to be covered within Wikipedia's help pages or anywhere within the Manual of Style.

If anyone else asks you for a reason on this, it is not directly addressed within WP:APOSTROPHE. The reason for preferring straight over curvy is explained within the Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes subsection of MOS:QUOTEMARKS,

• Wikipedia's search facility treats differently styled quotation marks in unintuitive ways; and the suggestions that appear as users insert text ignore straight double quotation marks, but they treat other quotation marks as significant. They often distinguish straight and curly forms.

To follow the thread of my reasoning & conclusion for usage on artifact content... If the usage of a curly apostrophe would possibly mess up internal Wikipedia searches and mean that interested readers might not be unable to find the original source material then that would violate WP:VERIFY. So it then seems to me that yes, even though the curly was used in the original (and even though I personally dislike changing anything about original content) that in this instance and other similar circumstances, the curly should be changed to straight. Shearonink ( talk) 05:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's the role of Wikipedia's guidelines and the help desk to handle clarification of how to work on this site. I am under no special obligation to explain what I do as long as I'm following guidelines. I pointed you in the right direction, and you saw what I have seen, and that's great. Please consider that my time (like yours) is valuable and that I shouldn't have to explain everything that the Wikipedia guidelines already explain. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we have the capacity tag filled in the infobox ? I know the history is interesting but Louisville is the only D1 program to have it displayed like that and not have a value for the tag. (It s mandatory according to the template). 181.135.220.117 ( talk) 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, a misclick. I didn't even realize I clicked anything. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej ( talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The information I placed about Shawnee Fossil Plant was some of the information that I have taught for the past four years. It has been passed down from instructor to instructor since the plant was originally built. I simply did not know how to reference study material from our training program. If it was improper to post information of this type I apologize, and will not try to add any additional information about the station that I have operated for the past 30 years. Thanks and apologies again John Jewell1 ( talk) 20:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@ John Jewell1: It's important to realize that these article pages aren't places to dump unformatted text for others to clean up. We expect clean, encyclopedic copy (as best as you can do) from the start. If you have questions about how to add references for the material, or how to wikify it, that should be done before adding the material. Start here, or for information about citing sources, see WP:CITE. Your knowledge is very welcome here, but to work on Wikipedia articles seriously requires some self-training and asking questions. Beyond what I've already said, please feel free to ask me any specific questions. The WP:HELPDESK is also available. Also check out WP:COI if you continue to have a close relationship with the subject you are writing about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 363 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

 
Buster Seven
 Talk 14:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

About the previous deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey and Edward William Cornelius Humphrey: I am confused by these deletions which appear in Wikipedia's record of articles I have created as two deletions (not by you) with the comment that one appears to have been copied from the other. Although related, these two men are not the same person, and I have tried to distinguish between the two articles and the two different men. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 20:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your comment yesterday that I should refrain from posting categories on my current article-in-progress on Edward Cornelius Humphrey, so I think you are familiar with the article. I don't think I have ever yet submitted it. I have been having trouble finding documentation of his military record as a United States Army medical officer in the French theatre of WWII and am holding off submitting the article until I can access that record. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 20:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you have done quite a few edits to this article. Over the years I have made a couple.

One of the sources being used as a IC would not pass WP:RS. I am talking about "Beverly Hills Supper Club: The Untold Story of Kentucky's Worst Tragedy" which is IC 5 and 12 and are used multiple times during the article. The book is self published. More information about its publisher can be found here [83].

What do you think should be done? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@ WilliamJE: I just cleaned up and merged those cites, and we've ended up with fewer of them, as in a couple of spots, they were used twice (!). I agree the cite is less than optimal, but I don't think associated content should be ripped out unless it seems extraordinary. I would recommend a gradual review to see if more reliable sources cover the statement, and if not, insert a {{ Unreliable source?}} tag. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you're wrong my friend. The only source that matters says RTD, it doesn't matter how many sources say TKO, they obviously don't know the difference (there isn't much, its still a technical knockout and counts as a knockout on record). Also the rules of boxing would mean its RTD which I've already explained but I'll do so again. Frazier's corner pulled him out between rounds while the clock was stopped, that's RTD not TKO. TKO is when its stopped mid round while the clock is running. If you want the page to be wrong then ok leave it as it is but trust me I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzo9378 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Lorenzo9378: it doesn't matter what you or I think, reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media reports about the fight) say it was a "technical knockout", and therefore that is what the encyclopedia should say. If you can find a reliable source (mainstream media report) that shows the TKO was revised to a RTD, then we'll have something to negotiate. As I said in an edit summary, all you need do is google "Thrilla in Manila" "technical knockout", and there you will see the sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, BoxRec is a volunteer-edited site, which typically makes it not the most reliable. It may do for backing up stats listings in general, but ultimately we have to look at what the Wikipedia calls reliable sources. BoxRec is not an official records site for boxing, and it has been criticized for inaccuracy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Stevietheman: Its obvious the mainstream media would have reported it as a TKO because RTD is still a stoppage and a techinal knockout, but its easier for them not to have to explain RTD.

Boxrec is actually what is normally used as the main source for boxing stats and results on Wiki. Yes its volunteer edited (like Wiki infact), but its edited by people that are closely involved in the sport and used by professionals. It's the biggest database and most accurate site for boxing, particularly for fight results like this. It's not official but its the closest you're going to get and I can't think of an occasion where it has been wrong, this result included. Boxing Hall of Fame also has the result as RTD.

Sorry but the mainstream media has also been criticized for inaccuracy and is certainly not an offical records site for boxing. Therefore its not the most reliable source to be accurate on this, no matter what you think. Although as you say, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Why don't you look up the rules of boxing (which you have so far disregarded) and you will see a TKO is a mid round stoppage and RTD is a between round stoppage. That makes this result RTD.

@ Lorenzo9378: We are required to go with what the reliable sources say, and they say TKO. If you would like to get a third opinion or start an RFC to resolve this matter toward your conclusion, please proceed. Until then, reliable sources back up TKO. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A big thank you! Jacona ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to ongoing RfC discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

I was confused on the what I had read in the text box with the stars I had a friend show what it was I was seeing because I didn't understand but to be on here doing what I am doing your a big help to me thank you, was wondering what part of town you live in, in Louisville I live near Churchhill Downs and also work there and I am huge fan of basketball, movies and sports here I was hoping to do more research on Return of the Living Dead and why they choose Louisville in the story of the movie and wanted to find out if it was filmed here before I start any kind of editing on it? TY Alteredstate502 ( talk) 18:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

how was it POV. honestly i did not refer anything to my own opinion on the matter but other peoples. i do this because it is the view of people that the criticism made to her. i would like to see your argument as to why you removed it Danielstretton ( talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Danielstretton: The specific problem is you state your own opinion on top of whatever you're sourcing. The bad grammar and structure make it even worse. Overall, it appears you are trying to make the subject look bad as if you have some axe to grind. You need to keep it all balanced and neutral, and strictly according to reliable sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

i did cite every claim. when it comes to rape it is always going to look bad, especially when it is talking about potentially dismissing potential victims of the crime. the views of some feminists and MRA's would only be unreliable if it was not there opinions. i cited one for feminists and one for MRA's. since the claim i made was on there opinion and not my own. Christina Hoff sommers is a well known feminist and a voice for men is arguably one on of the most well known men's rights organizations.

Do you have access to archives of The Courier-Journal that would go back to at least 1975? I'm trying to track down a bit of info, but not having much luck. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Acdixon: sorry, no, I do not, although that would come in handy sometimes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't much available time these days, but I do have access to Louisville Courier-Journal archives in Newspapers.com, via my Ancestry.com software. I may be able to help with some of your research from time to time. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 14:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the Jamie Eads wiki page. As a brand new user, your help was instrumental in getting everything sorted. I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.224.232 ( talk) 00:37, 7 April 2016‎ UTC

20:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This month:

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{ Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{ Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Stevietheman, today I uploaded my first draft into my sandbox. As a new user, I'm bound to make a lot of mistakes so please forgive me if I shouldn't contact you--or in this manner. For the past 7 years, I have been researching the lives of Joseph and Arthur McCormack, both of whom were long-time heads of the Kentucky Department of Health (1883-1913 and 1913-1943). I'm writing to you because I'm trying to use your article about Luke Blackburn as the model for mine. And because you are interested in Louisville history. (BTW, Blackburn appointed Joseph McCormack to the Board of Health in 1880 and I'll be linking my article with yours.)

I'm finding it much more difficult to write an encyclopedic article than to write academically. I have so much material that it's hard to know what to include or leave out of the Wikipedia article. For example, McCormack was the lead physician attending to Geobel after the assassination attempt and is the physician who signed his death certificate. That's not really important to my story, but I have included it so I can link to the article about Goebel. Somehow, that feels like cheating even if it does help illustrate McCormack's reputation as a surgeon.

I posted my first question to the Teahouse this afternoon and will be using that resource a lot. Still, it would be nice to chat with someone familiar with Louisville/Kentucky history. (I no longer live there; I've retired to Asheville via Atlanta. I seem to have been following you around the South. ) What I've written so far mostly concerns McCormack's activities on the national scene. I'd like to make my article more relevant to Kentucky.

I'm hoping you'll be willing to "adopt" me while I get the hang of things. Again, I'll use the TeaHouse for my routine questions and would direct my "Kentucky" questions to you. And, again, please accept my apology if this is an inappropriate request. The email address I use for my research is McCormack1847 at gmail in case we should communicate via email. For now, I'm going to start adding my citations to the article. Cordially, Valerie Drvalsummers ( talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Drvalsummers: I'm busy working on my garden and yard through this weekend, but perhaps next week I can take a look at this. I'm sorry for the delay. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand about the gardening; I'm doing the same thing. I apologize for the duplicate entries to your talk page. I'm still learning the ropes. Drvalsummers ( talk) 23:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So as not to engage in an edit war, please suggest how you would like to have the issue resolved? Dr. Boyce Watkins has released a video in which he directs comments at Lil' Wayne and explicitly suggests that Lil' Wayne is condoning violence in return for payment from a "White and Jewish overseer". You have repeatedly removed the citation expressing that it is not noteworthy. Notability is neither a requirement nor an expectation for citations [see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability] . Furthermore this quote helps provide context as to the nature of the Lil' Wayne/Boyce Watkins controversy which is itself notable. Please explain your reason for having this citation removed and suggest a solution. Starting edit wars is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.181.194 ( talk) 17:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The resolution is to stop adding it back unless you can find reliable secondary sources. Content based on a primary source that appears to be an incendiary personal attack on the subject violates WP:BLP and therefore we cannot allow it to remain. Also note I am not referring to "notability" but noteworthiness as determined from reliable secondary reporting. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)