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.

Greetings. You've devoted much time in the past working on the Louisville, Kentucky article. I thought you'd like to know that it's currently being voted on as a featured article. If you'd like to vote, you can do so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louisville, Kentucky. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( sleuth)} 14:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm on break right now (so I can get other things done), so I can't really delve into this in a serious manner. Basically, I hate to disappoint, but I reluctantly oppose this becoming a featured article at this time--there's just too much work left to be done before it deserves to be featured. Perhaps by this fall it will be ready, given its rate of improvement. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 08:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of a lot of new editors, the Louisville article got to a point where it not only deserved featured status, it achieved it! I had no idea that the article could get so far so fast. It almost seems like magic. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your userpage says "Destroy Microsoft Encarta and Encyclopædia Britannica. Who needs 'em?" Bit of hyperbole here. :-) Mccready 10:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would call it "sentiment". I mean, really, who needs 'em?  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you on the sentiment but as an historian and wikipedian I usually find book burning a little excessive :-) Mccready 06:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Can Encarta be burned? And as for Britannica, why burn them when they will finally become valuable when their copyright runs out in the distant future (thanks Sonny Bono!)?  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Are you by any chance Steve Magruder from BPOT ? If so, the world must be pretty small. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeap, one and the same. Welcome to Wikipedia!  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I should be telling you that. I came here earlier than you, in 2002. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

...and Stevie like to talk about themselves in the third person. Perhaps it has something to do with an excess of male enhancement. Beland has also found it difficult to go on wikibreak. Ah, well. -- Beland 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to add a well-placed link to Viagra (not that I need any of that, yet). :) And yeah, I agree that it's very difficult to stay away, especially when a few articles I was concentrating on seem to degrade without my tender loving care, but I have to say that my sanity is more important than making myself a wikislave. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stevie,

thanks for your addition to Jimbo's and my freelets on Wikimania. I did not know, that already so many Wikis about like How-To and WikiWanna do exist, which are implementing my freelet (for prior art and traditional knowledge). It's great, to have learnt about that. Tom -- Wikinaut 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Stevie!!! Just wanted to let you know that your User page wasn't vandalized--or at least not intentionally :-). I am trying to help clean up the Wikipedians/Kentucky subpage. It has been replaced by [[Category:Wikipedians in Kentucky]]. Thanks! Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist} 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk: Direct democracy. This was a discussion about the direct democracy article and there was no real purpose in the discussion being here rather than in the article's talk. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I think that the fate of the democracy article will be more or less decided by the Arbitration Committee in this case which should begin soon [1]. Or at least the fate of the democratic peace theory, which I feel is the strongest empirical argument in favor of democracy and therefore currently the most misrepresented in the democracy article. It would be helpful if you have the time to read the two versions of the article and state which version you prefer on the talk page. You may have read the article before, but there have been many recent changes. If you have the time, please correct any errors or tell me so I can correct them. Ultramarine 19:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA status for our hometown again!!!  :-) >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist} 07:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Grrrrrrrrrreat! :) Maybe this will help boost the city in many ways. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Now if we can just get a consensus on the 16th largest city!! If there is anything I can do to help (in addition to patrol), please let me know. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist} 16:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If we could find a link to a Courier-Journal article (or other resource) that covers the controversy, that would help. Then, perhaps we could write a snippet in the article about it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I had actually started to cite the 16th city reference from the Sweet 16 article the C-J ran after the merger. They have a national data page [2] and a "Sweet 16" article after the merger [3]. Whatcha think? Hope you're having a great weekend. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist} 00:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Those look like good references, but it would also be nice if we had a reference that explains the 16th vs. 26th controversy. Thanks for your work in digging up those links. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't remember seeing anything bantered about like that other than here. But, I'll keep my eyes open for anything pertinent. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist} 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a couple cj links for you to look at in the Louisville discussion page. hope it helps Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the "mad" Kentuckyiana deleter struck again. I was going to message him directly but realized s/he was an aol anonymous user, hence no way to figure out who it is. My guess is, it is someone from Indiana that has a thing against Kentucky. -- K3vin 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, would you please participate in the discussion at the FR talk page? There is a mild edit war breaking out, and we want to work together as editors to avoid that. Hope to see you there. paul klenk ^talk 21:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was merely restoring the neutral text. I don't have the time today for discussion on this topic. I'm out of legal reversions, so my work is done for the next 24 hours. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether the text is neutral is a matter of your opinion. That's why we have talk pages -- so we can talk about it together. When you do have time, please weigh in there. It is an important part of the process. Reverting without discussion is not always very helpful. paul klenk ^talk 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My position is to monitor for compliance with factuality. As long as it doesn't stray from that, we're good. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Purported factuality does not necessarily rise to notability, and the community should talk together to discuss it. I'm not good with taking time to pop in and revert edits, but not taking time to discuss them with fellow editors. We work in collaboration here; not participating in that is anti-collaborative. I realize today you do not have time, but do please stop by in the future. paul klenk ^talk 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There are different approaches to collaboration. I have my own methods for working in the Wikipedia, sometimes the way you see it, sometimes taking a different, yet legal approach. Whatever ensures factuality is what I go after. I will not have others decide for me how I am to operate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it appears you have time for this discussion after all. After this post, I am copying this discussion to the FR talk page. I do appreciate individual styles, but actually the community decides how we operate on a number of issues; we do not have full reign to pick a personal approach. It isn't enough to worry about what is "legal" -- the goal is not to merely avoid breaking a rule or getting blocked. The goal is a community of editors working together. That is one aspect of WP which you do not have the personal option to disregard. One cannot disregard discussions about disputed content on talk pages if one chooses to edit that content. I will look at the text you re-added in light of your stated reasons, and give my opinions on the talk page. paul klenk ^talk 22:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Chill out, dude. I know you're just a freeper trying to play games. And I'm not playing. I have no time for freeper madness. There's actual important articles to work on in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, thanks for stepping in on the side of the truth here. Looks like the Freeps intend to have their way no matter what, though. I saw first hand the sort of things the vile characters who hang out on FR did to try to hurt Andy Stephenson, and it was something I will never forget. There WILL be an Andy Stephenson article here at Wikipedia, and we will make damned sure to make sure that people understand that this terrible thing was done by Freepers. I spoke with Andy just a few days before he died. At that time he was really scared. He woke up blind in one eye. It was the first of the strokes. Also, they had just had an oncology report on his blood, and found that there was cancer all through his system. They believe the strokes were caused by clumps of cancer cells adhering to the walls of blood vessels in the brain. Andy still wanted to live. He wanted to live badly. I told him that I was sure he would and that we would be having lunch together a year from then remembering what a bad patch this was. I knew then I was wrong, but I could not bring myself to tell him that.

You know, I knew there was bad blood between Freepers and DUers before this happened, but I never, EVER thought I would see them doing what they did to interfere with the treatment of a dying man. I would have thought that sort of organized sociopathy was not in their character. I was wrong. BenBurch 19:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your words, Ben--the whole story is sad. I totally support the creation of an article for Andy Stephenson.

It is apparent that today's Republican party isn't just a party of garden-variety conservatives. We know it is a party that actively recruited the most vile of America's racists, theocrats and other fascist elements over the past generation. These are the kind of people who control the "discourse" (read: slime-spewing) at Freak Republic. They will stop at nothing to destroy any progress in this country (in fact, I'm fully confident that they wish to see the republic itself destroyed). They are snakes who are beneath genuine American political discourse. It's a shame they exist, but since they do, what the "reality-based community" has to continue to do is slap them back at every turn, using all the tools at our disposal. And it looks like we're beginning to turn the tide, thanks to Andy's, yours and many others' efforts.

As an aside, DU is definitely a far greater platform for political discourse than FR could ever dream of being. As DU makes technical and community advances, FR languishes under a very old design idiom (read: pathetic). And FR even has the guile to ask their members for $70K+ in donations while they make *no* improvements.

It's proof that progressives are simply much more intelligent than these extreme reich-wingers. It's probably because we're rational and fight for moral outcomes, while they are the exact reverse of this. Our side naturally attracts the best and the brightest. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want sidetrack the discussion on village pump about the general usefulness of slang guides, but, my opinion was this: The usefulness of Body parts slang did not outweigh the maintenance cost. And the truth is, nobody was maintaining it. With GWB, it's clearly a useful article, and many many editors do watch it to keep the junk out. I realize that "usefulness" is highly subjective, but that's why we all have our own opinions on Afd, right? Friday (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain that a great many Wikipedia articles go through "temporary neglect" but that doesn't mean we should delete them altogether. The democracy article went through a period of neglect, but we didn't see a drive to delete it. And, as you say, "usefulness" is subjective, but it should also dawn on those who don't find it particularly useful to themselves that it would be very useful to others who want to better understand the language being expressed by others in their everyday lives.

Further, what is the actual "maintenance cost" of leaving a temporarily poorly maintained article in the Wikipedia? I should say "something close to zero". If it's neglected for a period of time, then so be it. Oftentimes, even articles neglected for months at a time eventually see somebody come in and do some drastic cleanup. Giving up on an informative article that has accumulated some rot (and it's difficult to see the degree of rot now that the article is GONE) is just too extreme IMHO. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right about NPOV/POV links. I think they're okay, as you say for articles about political parties or other topics that in themselves are POV. Also, they're okay if POV links try to balance each other by including links from across the spectrum of an issues (e.g. democratic-leaning and republican-leaning). NPOV is more a guideline or preference when selecting external links, but is a case-by-case judgment. I've removed that 'criteria' as I prefer to stay away from controversy and disputes, and go with consensus criteria. -- Kmf164 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What are your problems with the operations of a full democracy?-- Landen99 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No problems whatsover. In fact, I am very pro-democracy. However, for the sake of factuality in the Wikipedia, I felt the content regarding "true democracy" was unsubstantiated. Until it is substantiated with references, it clearly does not belong in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Some guy named User:The Literate Engineer just removed the whole list, and called it "clean up". In the remarks for the edit he stated it was in accordance with the AFD results. I checked those results, and it was pretty strongly in favor of Keep. Yet he has deleted the whole list. If you are serious about protecting this thing, you need to watch these bastards.

Do you have this thing on your watch list?

Also, the body parts slang removal was a fiasco, deserving reversal.

It's time to fight back.

Find me on the talk pages for these articles, and join in with your best supporting arguments. We need to counter each and every critical opposition, and do it strongly. Bend over 09:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The shit is about to hit the fan. Bend over 16:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not my "sexual slang list". But I honestly don't have the time to deal with this. Sorry. Other things are pressing right now. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree with your removal of these languages from Template: Major programming languages, but I should've noted on that article's talk page that I solicited some opinions about Lasso on Talk: Lasso programming language. The response was unnaturally vehement, many paragraphs from several people — but then, I should've expected that in that forum. As for Lua, I am familiar with it and Lua's article does describe a number of significant commercial applications, but I'm still unsure whether it belongs on the template. Deco 07:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)