User talk:StefenTower: Difference between revisions

click here to leave me a new comment.

BY COMMENTING HERE, YOU SHOULD EXPECT THAT I WILL REPLY HERE

PLEASE NOTE: I tend to keep track of my new comments on other user talk pages, so please reply to those on your own talk page instead of here.

Archives
2004 Jan-Jun, 2005 Jul-Dec, 2005 Jan-Jun, 2006 Jul-Dec, 2006 Jan-Jun, 2007

Bay Valley Foods

Can you help me save Bay Valley Foods? the deletionists are going after me.

Peeno

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)

Louisville, Kentucky

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)

question

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)

Odessa Grady Clay

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)

Edits to Wendy Whelan article

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)

Biographical article titles

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)

Playing games

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)

Indiana Wesleyan University

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)

Re: No apparent consensus to delete "Rape victims" category

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)

Kentucky Kingdom

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)

South Texas Gospel Music Association

Stevie-

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

God bless, Gerald Lyda

Confederate government of Kentucky

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)

Waverly

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)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

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)

Vacations2Discover links

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)

Image permissions

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)