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.

Hi, Stevie. What's going on with this article? Seems the neocons are gunning for it. Well, I've got your back... Rhinoracer 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits? The first about the churches I removed the sentence because it was fluff that didn't really mean anything. The second about alternative papers was incorrect, only one serious alt. weekly is published now and that's LEO. -- Purple hills 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I undid the edits because they were not explained using the edit summary, and therefore, I had no information to make sense from them. I will re-evaluate the changes based on what you just said. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much restored the alternative paper change, but I disagree with the removal of the introductory sentence to the Religion subtopic. It's a fair introduction to religion in Louisville. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The language could describe any city in America. Is Wikipedia to be written by Greater Louisville Inc. or by those of us not on the payroll? Also why did you remove the "wet woods"? That's what it was called. -- Purple hills 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed on the first sentence -- Religion has a major presence in Louisville, including a notable megachurch and a major Christian denomination's headquarters. And the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Every city has megachurches. The sentence seemed just to suggest there were just a lot of churches in Louisville, there are a lot of churches in every American city. But whatever, I will rewrite the whole paragraph, to cover religion in a better way. I will try to explain when I do so you don't delete it. As for the "wet woods" it was one of the edits I made that you took out. The wetlands around the airport, UPS, GE, and other stuff around there were called the "wet woods" once. Fern Valley, Ashbottom, the names there indicate it used to be a swamp. -- Purple hills 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as far as I know, I didn't remove any edits related to "wet woods" (maybe this was something not recent?). And as for a rewrite of the religion text, that's fine, but other editors will naturally review it. I am troubled by your response though -- it's not just that Louisville has a lot of churches -- we also have two major seminaries, host a Catholic archdiocese, and have the Presbyterian headquarters -- this isn't just a bunch of churches. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just found out that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me reverted the "wet woods" clause, and I agree with him -- it was a piece of info that calls for a reference, which wasn't there. This is a featured article, and several of us are working to make sure it stays that way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why is there no reference for a claim like "Louisville has a large number of private schools, particularly unusual for a city of this size"? Brags don't need references, but historical facts do? -- Purple hills 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said brags don't need references. Nobody owns articles here. Don't go thinking that article is all my work. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I quote this in the transportation article: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/OPINION01/707160331/1016/OPINION it took up 1/2 a page in Monday's editorial page. -- Purple hills 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reader opinions don't suffice as references or content. Sorry. However, if somebody's opinion has a way of pointing you to factual sources, then go to those sources and use those. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I jumped the gun and added it. Isn't it worth mentioning that they ran a 2 full column editorial on this, though? Just quote it and let readers decide? I don't know where else to look right now. -- Purple hills 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This was the print edition, just to be clear. From the link it might look like it's some blog thing. -- Purple hills 17:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's unclear (from the web version) whether or not the writer is a notable figure on the subject, and it's also an issue that the writer wrote from personal experiences and opinion -- basically an essay. That's certainly good to read about, but it doesn't seem to contribute anything encyclopedic to counteract local biking developments. If the paper runs a report to follow up on this writer's opinion, that would more than likely qualify for inclusion. Or if other fact-based articles elsewhere talk about the woes of biking in Louisville, that's likely usable as well. Hope this helps. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any other articles and it seems unlikely the CJ is going to launch any big investigations against the wishes of Emperor Abramson. This is the best source we have, right now. It seems no less biased than the current links to city webpages and an internet radio report? Also, is this just your opinion that the editorial is out of bounds, or is there a rule that outlaws this? -- Purple hills 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a compendium of non-notable opinions. Do you honestly think it's all right to quote a reader's opinion in an encyclopedia? Further, certainly, you realize that what you want to quote is a reader-contributed editorial, a writing that is not fact-checked by the newspaper. I am very confident that if I were to obtain third opinions on the matter, exclusion of this material would be backed up. Further, various guidelines related to reliability and neutral point of view suggest that to balance facts you need other facts, not reader opinions. Last, you might want to examine why you want to add it -- is to push a point-of-view, or is it to add verified encyclopedic facts? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an accurate viewpoint. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to be accurate... do you really think the existing bike paths are a useful way of getting around Louisville? They don't go many useful places and are poorly planned, as the article says. I don't see why we have to censor accurate facts from the article. It's funny that you don't remove the other claims I've added to the article, which are facts. -- Purple hills 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are. The other claims you added appear to be good-faith historical facts, which probably should be referenced, but we don't always jump to challenge such things. You could probably add something like "Bike paths are provided only on a minority of primary roads in Louisville at this time" and I doubt anyone would remove that. If you have a reference for the percentage of primary roads covered, that would be even better. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You also do not answer my question as to why the city is allowed to express their viewpoints about how great the bike paths are, but people who actually ride them are not. -- Purple hills 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If it comes from the official city's website, it's an official statement by the government. However, we do tend to remove POV from such material, unless they are being quoted outright. Also note that I'm not required to answer questions from anyone, and I'm not paid for this time. So, I need to get back to paid work. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's in a news article, that's fine to cite and source. But that was an editorial at best, filed under the Opinion section of the C-J, and cannot be realistically used as a reliable citation. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken the liberty of starting this article for you after I read your comment. It's a bit out of the range of my expertise, but I enjoyed doing the research. Jack1956 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

She sounds like a great woman, but according to encyclopedia standards, I don't see how she is notable, except that she's the mother of Muhammad Ali. I have a feeling this article will ultimately be deleted. Relatives of notable people aren't automatically notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but her other son Rahman Ali is only notable for being Muhammad Ali's brother, and his article has survived for years unscathed. I've got to think that being the mother of one of the 20th centuries greatest figures [ not just a sporting figure but an inspirational icon] confers notability Jack1956 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't agree with this assessment. The Rahman Ali article at least makes a decent attempt to confer notability through means other than his relation to Muhammad, but the Odessa Grady Clay article does not. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Just a short one to say thanks for edits and additions to my Wendy Whelan article. Just a couple of comments on them. I prefer to organize my categories based on size. For example: Living people -> Dancers -> Ballet dancers. I have not come across a standard wiki way of doing this so since this is my article I have reorganized it that way. Let me know if I'm completely wrong and alphabetical organising is the only way to go on about it. I have kept your Louisville stub category since it is obviously relevant to the article. One more thing, repertory and repertoire are completely interchangeable (ref: http://www.bartleby.com/61/93/R0159300.html). It's rather common in the ballet world to use both (I do throughout my articles, mostly to avoid repeating myself) but I have left "repertoire" in the article unchanged for the sake of formality.

Thanks.

Tanya

I don't think there's a hard standard for organizing categories. I just tend to order alphabetically (except that "Living people" goes after birth year) and I exclude redundant categories. Ordering alphabetically seems the most common approach that I've seen. Some Wikipedians order categories more subjectively, like by what they consider the most applicable categories first. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved the article on the racer from Daniel John Sullivan III back to Danny Sullivan. I had figured that disambiguating people is made easier by titling articles with the full names of the subjects, amongst other reasons. Does a standard exist on this topic, and perhaps guidelines that you could direct me to? ENeville 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it's obvious he's Danny Sullivan, as he's famous and that's what he goes by in public events -- look up any race that he raced in, and you'll see "Danny Sullivan". We don't need guidelines for common sense, but check here for the guideline we go by. Disambiguation for names often is done by creating disambiguation pages for three or more people with common names. In this case, however, there appears to be just two, and the race car driver is by far the most famous, so the "Danny Sullivan" article will be the race car driver, and at the top, the reader will be directed to the lesser famous Danny Sullivan. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Desist your personal attacks against me, it looks like bad faith on your part, SqueakBox 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous charge. Stop playing games with Wikipedia articles, as you are with Mia Zapata. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent 5 hours compiling the information on the IWU page - don't even think of deleting any of it. According to your profile, you are only sanctioned to edit pages linked to Louisville. Thus, I removed the vague link to Louisville from the IWU page, removing it from you jurisdiction.

-englandfan7

Ummm, what you just said has no basis. I am not limited to any set of articles. Should I report your inappropriate tag removing to an administrator? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, IWU didn't have anything posted on its page until today. Funny how you didn't give a shit about it then. I mean, why do you care about my alma mater's page? Everything I posted is taken from a listed online source, primarily www.indwes.edu I don't care if you make minor changes here and there, as long as you don't delete anything and remove your damn tag. However, if you delete major sections, I'll report you to the administrators.

-englandfan7

Sir, you need to calm down and start working with others. I'm only trying to help get the article into a better state. Currently, there are issues with how the article is developing, and it's my (and every other Wikipedian's) prerogative to push for that. It matters not that the page wasn't touched by others before recently. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup man, it looks good. I was just worried that you were going to delete something that I spent hours compiling. Is there a way to fully protect the IWU page, because it has been attacked and deleted in the past. Prior to my work yesterday, there was nothing on it. I just don't want that to happen again.

Thanks,

-englandfan7

I never stated any intention to remove content, only that the article needed cleaning up. In the Wikipedia, we have a policy " Assume Good Faith" which basically means it's better to react *after* an intentionally negative action rather than assuming that somebody else is up to no good. In good faith, I said the article needed cleanup to be brought up to Wikipedia standards.

In most cases, pages will not be protected unless they receive persistent vandalism. Since this doesn't appear to be happening at this time, protection would be most likely considered by many to be a premature action. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wouldn't be so cagey about you if you didn't keep coming up with new shit on my page. Chochy, you're the one who edited my page (and I noticed that you made several spelling and grammar errors - ooops, a mistake - "RED FLAG" on Stevie!!!), so why did you just post additional flags?! You're starting to look REALLY anal man.

-englandfan7

It's not your page. Nobody owns articles in the Wikipedia. See WP:OWN. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, you know what I mean - I did basically create 99% of it. You just really need to chill with the flagging bud. No one's commiting a fellony here.

-englandfan7

It doesn't matter at all how much anyone created of any article. There are many articles where I'm the predominant editor too, but I don't own them. I will make the appropriate changes to any article I see fit in changing according to the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. You may want to consider the judgment of someone who has been editing articles for more than three years versus your being new here. Nobody is going to back away no matter how nasty your words are. And if you think I'm anal, you just haven't been around for long. Heh. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, there was no consensus arrived at for this, considering that the positions, most of which were explained well, were about even. Also consider that the tail end of the process looked like an organized flood. I hope you will investigate this. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given a pretty comprehensive explanation of how I closed the debate in the notes there. If you disagree you are welcome to challenge the decision on deletion review. -- bainer ( talk) 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the extensive explanation, and just about all the reasons provided were capably refuted in the discussion. This removal was, in effect, a POV-pushing affair and un-wiki. But alas, this is not important enough for me to pursue beyond my criticism of it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you, in concept, regarding your comments on the Kentucky Kingdom article. In practice, however, I think we've both seen issues with overzealous editing taking place in article A after article B already has coverage on said topic. This is normally due to either i) someone not realizing that the second page exists, or ii) someone believing that their information belongs on the first page, regardless of anything else. Should the Tower incident receive more prominent mention than the blurb in the ride description? Sure -- but the way the article is currently written, doing so doesn't lend itself to a nice read for the end user. Look at how other parks' articles that have had major incidents (Great Adventure, Mission:Space, and the Tower of Terror are three that come immediately to mind) have handled it there and see if those solutions would apply in this instance. As I've said to others who have brought it up -- yes, it's a tragedy what happened, but from an encyclopedic viewpoint, you have to take (a) the emotion out of the article and the editing, and (b) focus on the picture outside of local Louisville's take on the situation. Ideally, a very small one-sentence summary goes onto the Kentucky Kingdom page (and on the Tower page if it ever gets created), with full coverage on the Incidents page. IF the Tower situation warrants it, then the incident gets slightly summarized on the Incidents page and then gets broken out fully onto its own page ala the Great Adventure Haunted House fire. SpikeJones 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevie-

Relative to South Texas Gospel Music Association, your prompt reply is appreciated. Your reasoning is logical and accepted.

God bless, Gerald Lyda

Thanks for giving this article a look and for your support. I hope the rest of the excellent editors at WPLou will review it as well. The only oppose at this point just said it needs a thorough copyedit. (Seems to be a running theme for my FA noms.) Maybe enough supports will change his mind. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that "thorough copyedit" oppose is empty rhetoric without examples. I think this article will pass into FA. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. We'll be good as long as User:North Shoreman stays away this time. Ugh! Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I did have some words that didn't fit. I had originally written that to put in the discussion area and failed to edit it befor posting in the main article. However it should be made VERY clear that the legend of the "bleeding room" is very much FICTION! I did add a section for this topic in the discussion area, as well as much more info to refute the 63,000 deaths legends. John 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. If this article was one of my priorities, I'd help firm it up much more. All I really have time for is occasional surgery and watching out for vandalism and outright nonsense. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me if anyone else has the Waverly article higher on their priorities? I definitely understand about the limited time. I hope all is well with you. John 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article is important to somebody, you would know it by their presence in editing the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you're one of the more frequent editors...lol Let me know if you have any suggestions, I can try to help. I'm just not near as familiar with Wikipedia standards. I'd really like to see some of the false info gone or better yet put on a seperate page or at least a well labled area. I don't think the casual reader is having it presented clearly enough that they are false or at best have no proof.

After all, It was Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, who said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." John 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya, but properly developing a article is much more time-consuming than doing cleanup edits. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveler1 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Stevie, you wrote that our website vacations2discover.com is not the official website, but it is. We are payed by the St. Augustine Convention and Visitors Bureau - so as all other clients where i posted the links. Please do not remove the links again.

• Err no, good job on removing the links. Regardless if they are official or not it is still advertising.—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I know for a fact that a number of these cities, including my city of Louisville, have their own official tourism centers. Nice try, but you crossed at least one editor who can see through your nonsense. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not be able to answer this, but you've been around Wikipedia longer than I have. If I wanted to contact the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives to obtain permission to use all of their portraits of Kentucky governors on Wikipedia only, how would I verify to interested parties that their consent had been given? I can tag the image with "The copyright holder has given their permission for this to be used on Wikipedia" but I could do that now and no one would know the difference. I'm sure some method of verification is involved, but I need to know what method that is. Can you help or point me to someone who can? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think User:W.marsh has worked on something like this before. If not, he might know of somebody who can help on this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me save Bay Valley Foods? the deletionists are going after me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BmikeSci ( talk • contribs) 23:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The source for the first 'ambulance' comes from this:

That's not all. Long before EMS came about, Grishwold equipped police vehicles with medical supplies and trained officers to give emergency care while en route to the hospital. He also developed auto-transfusion (in which the patient's own blood is used) and helped establish Louisville's first blood bank.

I know this isn't a great source, but it's all I've got right now and it does indicate the first forerunner of today's ambulance. I may try to email the city or U of L to see if they could find a better source. Angry Aspie 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, seemingly incredible claims need hard sources, especially in a featured article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, but from the New York times. You can look at the interview on youtube yourself. Then, why delete the rest of it? Cheers. Hetoum I 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles about living people cannot be used for bias pushing, especially when the content was as overwhelming out of balance as it was, including, yes, a good deal of your personal opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ellen Churchill Semple page needs to be expanded and marked as part of Wikiprojects Lou. and KY. That page does not do justice to one of America's most influential geographers. Angry Aspie 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazis like Anne Coulter, the Coultergeist, deserve attack, even here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to crop images once they've been uploaded? Angry Aspie 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LewisClarkMeetingStatue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, do you have a source for the numbers you restored on the Louisville page? Those numbers seem wildly inaccurate to me. Angry Aspie 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

They are based on the numbers listed in the Louisville, Cincinnati and Lexington metro area articles, which come from the U.S. Census Bureau. Simple math isn't original research. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are in Louisville, could you please take the time to find any data regarding the naming change that KFC is currently embracing. Any hard data would be greatly appreciated.

Also, please do not get into and edit war over the KFM link on the KFC article. I have a feeling that Thumperward may seek an editing block if you do.

Jeremy Jerem43 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, due to being too busy with other things, my Wikipedia work is severely constrained. I really have zero time for research right now. Sorry. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of this template, I'm a bit reflexive. My only goal is to make the tool as thoroughly useful and concise as possible, and Hal and I are both committed to keeping the standards high at this particular pass. Stewardship, not ownership. From looking at your user page statement, I suspect we're actually similar in many ways and practices, especially as it regards the overarching goal of transparency and the way fullness of knowledge this can improve all of us. I find myself disagreeing with other wikipedia users' actions all the time, but watching this self-corrective process occur (if rife with minor contextual conflict) has become one of my great joys. Arguing to higher truth demarks real friendship. Thanks! BusterD 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Beck's Mill article deserves to be B-class, but I thought I should get your opinion on it.-- Bedford 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I guess you're more acquainted with the subject, just use your best judgment. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I added an RfC at talk:Strom Thurmond regarding edits made by WatchingYouLikeAHawk ( talk · contribs) (WYLAH), who has taken a point to Wikistalk my edits. The original additions were at Robert Byrd regarding the fact that Byrd recanted his views on racism (addition not by me), which were later removed by WYLAH and reinstated and cleaned up. WYLAH claims that the Slate is an op-ed piece.

I added the citations and some text regarding Thurmond's own admission that he never recounted racism fully to Strom Thurmond. I followed up with another citation: the interview that Thurmond gave in the Charlotte Observer, which is considered a reliable source.

WYLAH began corrupting the latter citation template by removing portions of the references and rendering the sources unreadable throughout the page. He later began to do this elsewhere in the page on my other addition, and rendered the references unreadable as well.

He removes the messages I leave him. He all but ignores the talk pages elsewhere, sans lying out vague threats to track my edits and report me for intimidation and etc., and ignores (like every admin so far) my case at WP:AIV. I opened up an RfC today, but this is pretty much the end of the road -- not much left go on here. A rewrite of the offending passages may be in the best interest, but I'm afraid that WYLAH would only revert it. Prior notices and warnings were left on his talk page regarding his conservative edits throughout, so I'm sure that he is coming from this on a biased viewpoint. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stevie,

• I was wondering if you could help with the Fort Knox article. It has recieved some vandalism over the past month and unreferences material.

Jahnx 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that you committed yourself to doing something about the Houston A. Baker, Jr. article. The article needs some positive and truthful content to balance out the negative content related to the Duke scandal. So far no one can really come up with something nice to say about HAB. We're all depending on you! -- Anthon.Eff 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project. Please feel free to work on the article. I am personally too busy to work in the Wikipedia that much at this time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know I started this. If I can find a copy of Baird's book, I can easily get a DYK out of it.-- Bedford 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of web applications, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of web applications satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of web applications and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of web applications during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of collaborative software, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of collaborative software satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collaborative software and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of collaborative software during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey good sir ... been a while. Do you think "The Connection" in Louisville is notable enough to merit an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M-BMor ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what makes it notable... perhaps that it's the largest gay bar in Louisville, or that its theater is unique for the region? Not really sure, but if you want to go ahead, it might stick. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started the Legion's article; thought you should know.-- Bedford ( talk) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you for starting that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing my inclusion about Ali/Clay collectibles? It is certainly as germaine as comic books and also quite often a connection that millions of Americans have to Ali. How can this not be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.39.74 ( talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stevie, please see the note I sent you directly. How you can suggest that the inclusion of VIDEO GAME and COMIC BOOK references is relevant but not much sought after trading card appearances or even more popular autographs is completely bizarre. They are the very definition of pop culture well beyond video game or comic book references. Moreover, your contributions not withstanding why do you get to make unilateral decisions as to the content of the page?

My authoritative submission as a certified expert in the field should be a welcome inclusion. It's hardly vandalism and adds to the page.

Worse yet, this willy-nilly editing style you've chosen to dispense is injurious to the future of Wikipedia and the attraction of professional writers or others in the know.

I take the time to write and submit something to the community and you without merit or reason get to simply kill it with a succinct and unexplained "disagreed."

Doesn't sound too 'wiki' to me and I'm not giving up.

Kindly let me know what doesn't fit WIKIPEDIA's rules, not Stevie, or stop vandalizing my contributions.

Be well,

Kurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.39.74 ( talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cry, baby, cry. It's junk and it's not being accepted for obvious reasons. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering if there were any natural caves or caverns in or under Jeptha Knob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.69.245 ( talk) 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an user named TableManners that is deleteing the Museums in Louisville category from any that are in Indiana. I am going to need assistance with this newbie that has already made self-righteous comments on my talk page about it.-- Bedford ( talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the fifth solution Category_talk:Museums_in_Louisville? You previously supported the second solution, but you might like the fifth better. If you do not, could you comment on the fifth solution why? Thanks. TableManners ^{U· T· C} 04:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)