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.

Well done on revising the PHP page. Converting the en-dash HTML named entities to em-dash was something I must've overlooked—good eye.

Thanks. My pleasure. -- Stevietheman 04:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, great article! I followed your link to it on your user page and I'm impressed by the quality of your research. I think this is almost ready to go to WP:FAC... however I was thinking of placing it on peer review first. Also, I was thinking: can we remove some of the lists and replace them with prose? That would help readibility and we'll most likely get this to featured article status.

Anyway, I guess I just want to thank you for a great article. If you ever get a chance, be sure to have a read and comment at my own Australian municipality article: Municipality of Strathfield. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I'd wait a bit, though, before submitting Louisville, Kentucky as a featured article. It needs a History section and as you said, perhaps some lists could be rewritten with prose. Also, thanks for telling me about your article... I'll look at it as soon as I can. -- Stevietheman 04:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of nominating Average rule for deletion on the grounds that it is a neologism and original research. This article has existed since August 2004 without anyone questioning it or proposing it for deletion. Do you think it's legitimate? Do you know of any reasons I shouldn't nominate it for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know whether or not it was legitimate, but I did some work at some point to clean it up. I think the original author of this article also created other works and contributions to articles I've been unsure of (like to Majoritarianism). I don't see why you shouldn't submit Average rule for deletion. It may well be an article that doesn't belong here. -- Stevietheman 17:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good evening. Could you please source the term "Minoritarianism"? According to the edit history, you created the first version of the article but I have been unable to independently verify the use of the term. A google search turns up almost nothing except Wikipedia and mirrors. It's not a term that is in any of my textbooks.

It is highly suspicious in light of the recent allegations against user:iasson who, among other things, recently boasted "I have created 11 voting theories in Wikipedia. Go find them and delete them all!" If that is true and not an idle boast, we have quite a bit of work to find them and clean out the original research.

I do not claim that my search was definitive. If this term can be independently sourced, I apologise for my suspicion. It would help if you could add a comment to the article's Talk page, though. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I of course have nothing to do with Iasson's work on articles. I will see if I can source my material, and then I'll add the info to the article's talk. At any rate, I'm convinced it's a real term, being the antithesis of majoritarianism. -- Stevietheman 01:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good rewrite. One concern. It seems the new paragraph has conflated the two concepts, "supermajority" voting thresholds and "consensus", when these are significantly different in practice. True consensus decision-making processes never perform "votes" -- most don't even strictly require supermajorities. It is certainly possible (and common) that a proposal might be adopted via "consensus" with less than a majority of active support, the rest being either passive acceptance or "stand asides". It is only in the consensus/voting hybrids where supermajority thresholds are usually found -- and some might disagree about whether these hybrids are "true" consensus processes.

Fair enough. Feel free to copyedit. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. A little unsure about the proper ettiquete here. I took a stab at splitting up the concepts.

...with your judgement concerning the removal of the entry to the link to Committee to Protect Bloggers. How much more encyclopedic are Persian blogs, or podcasting, than a group formed to protect bloggers from state repression? (Some of whom are Iranian) Would you prefer that the link be in the External Links section rather than see also? Perhaps the collaboration between CNN/Harvard/ NKZone's Rebecca McKinnon and the Queen of the Sky makes the subject of encyclopedic interest? If bloggers being acreddited to cover the DNC and RNC is of encyclopedic interest, then I would think a web source dedicated to news and action concerning bloggers facing state repression would pass the test as well.

I ask you to please reconsider your decision to remove that link. It's not my blog, I don't work with the people, but I think they are doing important work that is worthy of being "on the record" of wikipedia. -- Mdog 06:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the work of this committee is and will be very important. However, it's too new to be encyclopedic. Something existing for days isn't the material for an encyclopedia article. I do think an external link would be more appropriate, and I'd leave that alone. The article should be deleted however. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 06:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, I get the RSS feed of all the new articles and so I know that there are numerous pages that are far less worthy of entry than that one. I actually think that one is quite interesting, and fits in well with the blog entries written so far.

I put the link in External Links, but with a link to the page as well. Perhaps you would be willing to trust the Wikipedia community to keep an eye on the group and change the entry in it later to read, "The committee ended up being a flop and folded after 6 months" if that ends up being the case. Of course, the committee article would be most likely to be properly observed if it was linked to from the weblog article. :) -- Mdog 06:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not the role of the Wikipedia to promote new entities, no matter how worthy they are. Further, those numerous pages that are far less worthy of an article should be deleted as well. Just because Wikipedia policy isn't being followed with some articles doesn't give any other article any special license. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 07:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there was any mention in my discussion of using Wikipedia to "promote" this new entity, but rather to ensure its inclusion in the collective knowledge of wikipedia. I think that its newness is outweighed by its importance. -- Mdog 07:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Importance is not key; notability is, and it's too new to deserve an article. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all possible knowledge, and certainly not of info about new entities. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 07:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Neither your edit nor Stirling's was vandalism on Weblog. You've now both accused each other of vandalism where there is none. You're in a revert war, nothing more. Please use Talk:Weblog and discuss your changes, it's a much better approach than reverting. Rhobite 17:36, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please watch the reverts for a practical reason - you could be blocked for violating the three revert rule. Rhobite 17:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for violating the rule, which I rarely violate. But I must say there's nothing to discuss with Stirling at this point, as he's unwilling to accept that his position is not the correct one. Please do bring in some mediation if you can so that this can be resolved.

Also note that two persons are in agreement against Stirling that his content is incorrect, and we've stated our reasons why. Certainly, wikicracy should decide this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've reverted the Weblog article four times now. Please desist. Rick K 01:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Newberry is causing destruction to article content. He needs to be stopped. Please Start a mediation now because I'm not stopping the reverts. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 01:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After a few deep breaths, I am calm now. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 01:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Weblog, as was User:Stirling Newberry. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the spanking. I deserved it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had always understood that the standard was for interwiki links to go at the bottom. Can you direct me to where it says they go above category tags? -- Paul A 03:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's one of those unwritten standards I've noticed in most articles I've come across. At any rate, if you don't like it, change it back. Be bold. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 14:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. :-)

However, I (of course) checked and at the instant I write this it is still the top-ranked entry. (It used to drop during the once-a-month "Google dance.") Of course, search.msn.com doesn't know I exist. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we assume that Robotwisdom is the real Jorn Barger (assume good faith), then there is no question that he coined the term "weblog". I don't think it would hurt you to be a little more civil to him. Your response is the kind of response that drives experts away from Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

When someone plows into a topic claiming they're an expert, I have great suspicion off the bat. That's just me. It seems to me that a true expert would show their expertise with their writing rather than proclaiming it w/o evidence. I am an expert on many topics in here, but I don't go around acting as if I'm the supreme expert on anything or that I'm the supreme coiner of a term. I don't feel I did anything wrong. I'm getting sick of running into these kind of people. When it comes to self-proclaimed experts, I will not assume good faith, but rather assume a fat ego with the intention to rip to shreds the hard work of contributors who came before them. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Boy, was I a little pissed when I wrote that!  :) Anyway, with a calmer frame of mind, I do believe that the Wikipedia needs to find a consensus on how to treat experts. If we bow too much to them, though, we could end up with an array of new issues we don't experience today, such as elitism and contributors pulling the "I'm an expert" card even when that statement has no merit. We perhaps should have a Welcome page for experts that explains in detail a process for them to begin working within this framework, including providing some guidelines on how to prove their expertise and working their knowledge into articles without upsetting the previous contributors to those articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the pendulum would have to swing far in the opposite direction before Wikipedia is charged with deferring to experts too much. Thanks for your updated response. Rhobite 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I, Suffice, award you a cheeseburger for your work on the cheeseburger article: -- User:Suffice, Mar.13, 2005

I, Stevietheman, humbly accept this honor. I hold this cheeseburger high for the all the editors who dare tread on articles that most contributors would deem irrelevant to high knowledge. And I lower this cheeseburger to my mouth to eat it. Whoops, award gone. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you're the de-facto head of the various Louisville articles, I thought you might be interested in this pathetic stub needed, um, a talliwhacker enhancement, or something. Theater of Kentucky. It needs anything you can throw at it, I'd guess. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( sleuth)} 21:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did a little cleanup for now. Perhaps I'll think of some new content for it later. Thanks for coming up with a good idea for an article. As for being a de-facto head, it needn't stay that way... as anyone can edit these pages. I'd love for others to come into these articles and beef up the content. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 02:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?

I saw your many edits on Athens. I am sorry to report that she was a Republic under Solon. Solon was an admirer of the Doric Greeks. I think you need to rethink your knowledge base and I point you to User talk:WHEELER/Confusion over the term republic and ask you to take a good look at the references to the classical definition at Wikinfo. WHEELER 15:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Athenian democracy refers to the democracy that took place in a specific timeframe in Athens. There's no dispute on that. As for the other remarks, if I can find time (of which I have very little), I might take a look at that. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 16:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you have been doing. Hoekenheef 22:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ref MySQL article:

last changes not displaying adequately under IE6/XP

That's because of IE6/XP's substandard font-handling. Do we really have to support non-standards-compliant browsers?

please use IPA features of WP if you want to enhance the pronunciations

What does this mean? Is there, as with TeX-maths notations, some facility that converts IPA transcriptions to images? If there is I'll use it from now on. -- Shlomital 09:37, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

See Louisville, Kentucky#Pronunciation and Wiki#Pronunciation for examples. These will display adequately on all the major browsers, and besides, it's the Wikipedia standard. I had placed in the MySQL what I did because I hadn't studied IPA as of yet, but rather used the "Webster's style." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 15:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see it all now: it's an instruction that states the CSS font-family for the browser, thus telling Incontinent Exploder to do the work it was supposed to do from the start. I'll go and change that now, thanks! -- Shlomital 17:37, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

You did a great job with that. Thank you. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 19:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just removed Category:Performing arts centers that you have tagged with: “{{delete}} reason.” You can use {{deletebecause|reason}} (or {{db|reason}} for short) which puts the reason inside the template. See: Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion. Rafał Pocztarski 12:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I had forgotten about deletebecause. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 16:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to try to get Kentucky Derby on the front page (either Selected Anniverseries or In the News) on May 7, but since it's not a national holiday and doesn't occur on the same day every year, I'm not sure about the chances. Sayeth 16:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Steve-

The U.S. Bullion Depository and the Patton museum are in, not near the post, isn't that true? I lived in Louisville as teenager, and have been to the post then and since. I realize the U.S. Bullion Depository is on Treasury property, not Army property, but it is surrounded by Army property. Rogerd 18:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not totally sure. If you strongly believe you're right, I don't have any problem with the article being corrected. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like User:Kevyn already did! Rogerd 18:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that at Jay Adler you changed a section heading from "References" to "External links". These are, indeed, the references on which I based the article, and I have no others. Shouldn't they be cited as such? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but what I've seen in most articles here is that "References" are used for bibliography-style entries and "External links" are used for links to other sites to extend the information in the article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 02:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, as someone who has contributed to Internet forum, I thought you might be interested in knowing I've rewritten the article. Please could you give it a glance over and make any corrections you deem necessary? Thanks! Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, me again. Could you offer your opinion on the images that could be used on Internet forum? The choice is between the current image (of Gaia Online), or two different screenshots of 2ch, one of the main website (not of the forum) and the other one of the forum. Talrias ( t | e | c) 10:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've nominated Internet forum as a featured article candidate. Just letting you know! Talrias ( t | e | c) 13:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Stevie - thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had my prefs set to have all edits as minor by default, because when I first joined Wikipedia, that was pretty much all I did. Guess I never got around to changing it. Whoops, forgot this - Zellin 00:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) I guess that qualifies as minor!

I noticed that you plonked for First and only choice in the preferential survey on style-prefixed biographical entries. I only want to note that in voting this way, you are expressing no preference between the other alternatives. Whig 18:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to rank the other choices as I find them illegitimate. I have no "second choice." If the voting method doesn't want to take that into account, there's nothing I can do about that. On top of this, I'm unaware that Wikipedia currently recognizes this method of voting for determining a consensus. Please correct me with a policy reference if I'm wrong. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to rank any other choices, and the voting method does take your unranked alternatives to be lower in preference to your first choice, just without any specific preference between themselves. Also, the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines make clear that preferential voting may be used where three or more options exist, and the sample survey provided uses preferences. Whig 19:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing mentions "preferential voting" on this semi-policy page, except that consensus must be reached about whether multiple choices can be made by those voting. So, this rings an alarm bell for me: Who decided what the choices were, and did a consensus approve of the choices in advance of this vote? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion preceding the survey took place on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and you may review the entire record at your convenience. Whig 12:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You just removed the link to the talk page of the dollar voting article. The text it referred to was previously on the main page; I put it there a few weeks ago, but realised now that that was not appropriate. So I thought of this solution (and gave the article its first links from other articles). I was about to shorten the reference, but noticed I was already too late. I understand that normally there shouldn't be a reference to the talk page in the article, but this is a stub. What it says now is little more than a dictionary entry. Now a normal user (not an editor) would probably like a little more to think about, to make up their own mind - the information in an encyclopedia should not only inform but, if possible, also have that effect. But they won't think to look in the talk page. So I put the link there. This will have the added effect that a user will get to understand a little better how Wikipedia works. Of course, that shouldn't be done too often, but under special circumstances, like this one, the advantages outweigh the 'sloppy' looking effect of not following the rules. I'd say. DirkvdM 06:25, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

It's definitely highly unusual. I'm wondering if there's a more succinct way to refer to the talk page in a case like this. What was there just didn't work right as a part of the article, in my humble opinion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since you are one of the people currently voting a "First and only choice" I am hoping to encourage you to vote a full set of preferences in the ongoing survey before May 14, in order to prevent a deadlock which will result in no consensus. Whig 12:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Deadlocks are not unhealthy things. It would just demonstrate that there is no consensus, and another approach is needed. Or it may suggest that things should be left as-is for now. I see no reason to change my vote. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, the topic being deleted is related to the topic, not the article or its content. My deleting it follows exactly the same proceedure as occurs e.g. on Talk:Evolution for discussions of topic that aren't discussions of the article. That's really not controversial elsewhere, I don't see why it's considered controversial on this page. Joe D (t) 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's vandalism, pure and simple. While the approach was peculiar, that topic was indeed related to the article. And, talk isn't held to the same standard as articles--they are more free-wheeling, and that's OK. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

What? Do you care to actually give a reason? So far, since I've given a good reason for my edits and you've just bandied about the word "vandalism", giving absolutely no counter arguments to my edit justification, I'm tempted to use the word myself. The deleted discussion wasn't related to the article, it was related to the use of the term meme elsehwere in Wikipedia, which is a matter for the policy pages. Joe D (t) 15:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My position is clear: Talk stays, as it's related enough, and talk doesn't have to conform to same standards as articles. That's all the reason that's needed. And your removing of talk is indeed a form of vandalism. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw the changes you made to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, and wanted to say thanks. Also, since you are interested in articles on the Louisville area, I thought you might like to check out Cathedral of the Assumption. Essjay 06:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Great work! I just did some cleanup to help out. Cheers! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Although I've done a bit of editing on articles about Roman Catholic doctrine, the Cathedral article was the first article I actually wrote from scratch. I got a nasty bite from another user, however, over the music files...That'll take a couple of days to heal. Thanks for helping and being nice about it. Essjay 06:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to relax my work here in the Wikipedia from now until Fall, so I can concentrate more on other things, like my web development freelancing and outdoorsy stuff. Also, this is a necessary stress-reduction measure. Immediately, I will:

1. Dramatically reduce my watch list (I won't say however what articles I won't be watching!). :)
2. Freeze participating in Village Pump discussions and other Wikipedia process discussions/votes.
3. Freeze working on items in my to-do list (however, please feel free to take on my work items for yourself!).
4. Reduce the amount of daily checking of watched articles, probably to just twice a day at a maximum.

Which articles are infested with this douloi-are-not-slaves meme? I am prepared to help surpress it. Septentrionalis 21:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Douloi and Athenian democracy were the key ones affected, although there could indeed be more. I'll look into it more tomorrow. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. It was the second article that I started from scratch, so I know it was rough. ;-) -- ghost 14:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hiya Stevietheman, as you've contributed to internet forum in the past, could you please read this part of the talk page, and offer your opinions, so we can reach consensus on which image to include? Talrias ( t | e | c) 09:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess today was one of those days when I wondered if all the hard work I've done in the Wikipedia for well over a year has been worth it.

For the past few days, I've been dealing with two other gentlemen who are contributors to the weblog article, and it's sad that they have been taking honest disagreements over the article content to such a personally destructive level. I made all my arguments based on merit and common sense, while they used personally destructive language like "egomaniacal" and other condescending turns of phrase. I've also been charged with "bad faith" when making honest editing mistakes or simply disagreeing with their infactual content. I contend that they are acting in a peculiarly immature manner, and that ultimately, common sense will prevail in this article, as it ususally does in most Wikipedia articles.

Defending one's ideas does not make one "egomaniacal", and anyone who knows me knows that my handle/signature is 100% tongue-in-cheek. Further, these gentlemen reject my computer science background as if it has no meaning, while they insist in so many words that they are the "keepers of the concept" of what a weblog is, while defining it inaccurately. In particular, one of these gentlemen contends he was the originator of the weblog, without ever providing any proof whatsoever. Folks, these are signs of an article descending into moronism if others don't join in to help out with it.

It's all a rather shameful affair that I think would shake most people. But not me. I will continue my efforts to make Wikipedia based on fact, rather than the fiction that some immature people would perpetuate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 03:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the weblog edits, but I do know you've done a massive amount of good work on the Louisville pages. I know you'll be missed if you leave. Sayeth 19:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the stuff you've done for the Louisville area, even though you are a U of L guy :). Go Cats!-- Rogerd 22:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm sticking around, for sure. This project is very beneficial to humankind, and I'm honored to be associated with it, even when running into issues in particular articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Now, I realize what was causing all my "wikistress": Keeping weblog on my watchlist and dealing with the "personalities" in there. Now, I'm definitely breathing easier and it feels a lot more like smooth sailing. Life is good. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my original "summer break" idea didn't hold. I've realized lately that I've been spending way too much time contributing to Wikipedia and frankly, it's been detrimental to other work I'd like to accomplish. So, I'm going to take a real break. I'm going to drop watches of everything except my personal pages. In fact, the only thing I will probably edit will be my personal pages. So... see ya back in the Fall. Oh, and try not to break anything, kids. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. I understand you're basically on a break for the summer, but if you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)