User talk:StefenTower/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:StefenTower. 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.

Hello Stevietheman. I recently reverted your addition of the phpbbhacks.com link to the phpBB article. My main reason for doing this is that the link in question is still in a dispute over on the talk page, and since a conclusion of the dispute hasn't been reached, the link shouldn't be added. You're more than welcome to put forward your views as to why you think the link should be on the page, but do read the arguments put forth, as they may be enlightning.

Keep up the good Wiki work, NeoThermic 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Some input desired here, please! [1] BenBurch 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your relations to the SAR?evrik 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No relations at this time. Why the question? Curious. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You helped edited that page.evrik 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But none of those edits were new content, just cleanup changes. Editors will often work in articles they know nothing or little about in order to fix links and do other cleanup work. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised that I am no longer resposible for the Open Source, which is in a sorry state if I moght add. My original article has been moved to Open Source Software. User talk: AL SAM

Because you are recognized as an active contributor to the Louisville, Kentucky Article, I thought I might inform you that I have changed the image concerning the Velocity Newspaper. It is now only the insigna. The previous picture had an automobile within the background with the words "Wash me please" depicted on it. If you find a problem, you may revert the image. Thank you.

J.Steinbock ^(Talk)

Sorry, I thought I was editing my own copy of it. I normally make copies of pages and test my edits on them before I place them on the article itself and I name my edit "Article". (For proof see Copy of Polyethylene). I guess I edited the article. I will just revert the page. Thank you for the notification. By the way, did you see the message I sent to you about the picture of Velocity (newspaper).

--J.Steinbock ^(Talk)

I just reverted the page, but I kept the image. The image is not very clear and its length and width are not proportional.

--J.Steinbock ^(Talk)

What you did with the picture mod is fine with me. And thank you for addressing the Actors Theatre article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to add a "see also" section to the newest article I am writing, Governor's Cup (Academics). This is an academic tournament. I was thinking about adding the list of schools, but I was curious if you knew about other lists or sources of information that would be good to internally or externally link to.

-- J.Steinbock ^(Talk)

I can imagine See also's for High Q, Scripps National Spelling Bee and other academic competitions. I don't know of any references or external links offhand. I wonder if there's a list of academic competitions yet... Hmmm.... — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not allowed to delete material off of talk pages. That is a big no-no.WHEELER 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Says you. You placed material in an improper spot and you know it. It will stay removed. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the Talk:Republic where there are links at the top of the page. The purpose is to give information to readers. Sometime in the future, you will archive that page and that link will not be easily accesible. Archiving moves things out of range. I think that article is quite informative for the readers and editors of WP. Can you see where I am coming from? Sometimes, "Archiving" is used to "cover up" info we don't want others to see. I believe in educating people, not in obscurantism. I hope you can reconsider.WHEELER 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that information gets "lost" in archives is not one I can agree to. If you already posted information about the alternative resource, it should be treated like any such listings from anyone else. It would get archived. And if people are looking for that type of information, they will find it. They find it using the Search mechanism or Google/Yahoo!/etc. That should be good enough... it's good enough for everyone else, from what I've been able to tell over the past couple years. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if your resource is sufficient "further reading" on the subject of democracy, then consider listing it in the article proper as an External Link. I wouldn't remove that. Of course, I don't know what others would do. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My stuff is always reverted. I am blacklisted. So I leave it as is. And if you want to make it an external link you may do so. I dare not and if you do, it will be reverted. I forgot Wikinfo is also blacklisted here at Wikipedia. We are both blacklisted.WHEELER 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, I am looking for Wikipedians that are interested in the topic about Link Spam to express their opinion about this. After checking some other Talk Pages and Votes I think you seem to be one of them :)

Talk at at WikiProject:Spam Talk Page: How to save hundreds or thousands of hours by spending just a few

Here is the original Article at my User Talk Page.

thanks --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steve, thanks for contributing. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added an entirely appropriate Arkansas Derby link to the Kentucky Derby page and I seem to be catching flack from some users over it. Can you help me understand this? --Dgrim85 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with that entry. I'm not sure why anyone would oppose that seemingly appropriate entry. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have actually expanded on the entry since I posted this to include several of the main prep races. --Dgrim85 21:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I did a little cleanup.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that some of the graphics appearing in the Courier Journal (like the ones for Museum Plaza, River Park Place, or parks expansion could be used on Wikipedia by claiming fair use?

Also, I don't see an article yet about the greater Highlands nightclub and eclectic area, so I may try to create one today.

I was also wondering about dividing up the cityscape article by defining the city by 4 regions: South, East, West, AND "Inner East side" (The area from Old Louisville, Germantown, the Highlands, and Crescent Hill which is predominatly young profs.) While the Highlands and Clifton/ Cres. Hill are on the east end and Old Lou. is on the S. side, I feel that they are culturally and physically different from other parts of town and associate more with each other. Any suggustions?

Brando03 17:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Brando03

I'll try to answer this by sometime on Sunday. I'm a little too busy right now and through tomorrow. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: fair use, that's a very sticky wicket. I think a lot of it depends on who actually owns the image in question. It's possible that the C-J was given permission to show a picture, like of the Museum Plaza--where that permission doesn't extend beyond that. I do know there is a "bent" here in the Wikipedia against fair use and in favor of open content licenses. I have to admit that I don't understand this issue well enough to provide a definitive answer.

Re: the Highlands area you speak of, I am not even sure that area has a specific name. Perhaps the information you're thinking of adding should go into existing neighborhood articles.

Re: discussing the "ends", I already saw what you added to the Louisville, Kentucky article, and while it looks very good, the Louisville article is growing too large, so I moved most of the new content to Geography of Louisville, which is the article that was created to accept the overflow of this sort of content. Hope that's acceptable. We really need to slow down adds to the main Louisville article and try to divert most new content to related articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

hey... whatever you decide is fine with me on the louisville article. i'm not going to argue the changes i made, but please take the time to give it a more objective review and consider the end result. when i read the original article i was struck by the statement that louisville was 'one of the largest cities in the country' and was also being compared to lexington's figures at one point. first, louisville is a wonderful city and plenty big -- but i think it's reaching to say it's one of the largest in the country. second, i always think of louisville as the largest city in kentucky and don't think lexington should really be included as a comparison point because it just causes confusion. sometimes people get bogged down in statistics and miscellaneious facts, but lose site of the overall message. Randella 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not reaching. It's one of the top 50 cities in the U.S., therefore, reasonably, one of the largest. And when the next Census update appears, Louisville should be #16 or thereabouts, due to expected adjustments. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but if it's not in the top ten then it's reaching. louisville is not a new york, los angeles, chicago, miami, or san francisco. i suggest you state it's exact rank based on current census figures so people are not left with a false impression. Randella 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article already states the city is ranked 26th according to US Census figures. What else do ya want? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reigniting the controversy over Ruby as a Major Programming Language. You may want to help. Ideogram 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about your thoughts as to the top down, bottom up democracy disambiguation. My quess is that what you are thinking is that those two articles should be deleted? I have the opinion, that until the day that they are actually deleted, that they should remain on the disambiguation page. BruceHallman 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer they don't go on the page, whether or not they are deleted. They are _not_ encyclopedic kinds of democracy and especially not worthy of disambiguation. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleaning up of my Ohio River Bridges Project contribution. I ported it over without much revision when I was at work. I have some more information for that and other projects that I will tend to soon as I can get them from my notebooks! Seicer 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your contribution! I (and I'm sure many others) very much appreciate it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

David Oberst 07:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting the addition of what seems to me to be a fairly obvious idiosyncratic entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page (diff). I'm trying to get some additional comment on this - please also see User_talk:FredrickS#Emancipation. - David Oberst 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears an admin just T1 those userboxes. (See here) I'll try to sort it out ASAP, and so is many others. Talk about this in GUS page I think I am going to post it in DRV. Sorry for any inconvenicence caused. --Hunter 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrrg, WP:GUS was supposed to solve all of this :( —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be doing it anyway in spare cases. All links should be direct. Redirects are of a temporary nature that should be corrected eventually. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are not sacrosanct. If you don't like an edit, revert it. And stop trashing my talk. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stevietheman. I have replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19/Wikipedians by politics, and I'd appreciate it if you take a moment to consider that you may have mistaken the arguments being offered for deletion. If it were as you suggest, I would arguing for keeping those categories, but please read my comments there, and please be open to the idea that this is not about fear, or suppression, or denial, or any of those negative things. It's about building the best reference work ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated that knowing people's biases is a good thing with regards to building an unbiased encyclopedia. There is nothing about these categories that detracts from "building the best reference work ever." —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 01:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm agreeing that knowing people's biases is a good thing... so I'm not clear that you know why I'm arguing for their deletion... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change my position. Please stop lobbying me. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll leave you alone. I just tend to react to being blatantly misunderstood with attempts to communicate better, but I can see you don't want to talk about it. Happy editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my vote was in no way a comment on your individual position. I'm sorry if you saw it that way. My vote is independent of your vote on the matter. Yes, I made a general comment about those in favor of its removal, but there's no need to take that personally. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not explaining the "balances" issue sooner in our discussion. I had already discussed the issue more thoroughly at Talk:List of United States cities by population and assumed that you had been following the discussion there as well, but I guess that's not a good assumption to make. My apologies. Kaldari 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your changes over there haven't "dried" as of yet. Expect a major war over there over your changes (not from me though). I'm still waiting for an official ranking of cities as a source, and that goes for official city populations as well. The source you are using is just not enough, as there's too much room for questions from those who are protecting their city's formerly higher ranking. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevie, I apologize for offending you Stevie, I just gave my opinion, that's all. If I have offended you tell me. --Moreau36-comment; 1608, 24 June 1006 (UTC)

No offense. I just needed to clarify why I was asking for an explanation for the changes. I'm always concerned when somebody makes a major change without explaining it. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 16:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See my response at Template talk:USLargestCities. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Seems like I offended you again Stevie. All I want is to make everyone happy with a compromise, but seems like no one is satisfied. I didn't appreciate that attack on me. For now on, you, Caesar, and other can do whatever you want with the template, I'm washing my hands on this issue because this is a very small piece compare to other articles of my interest that I can spent time editing and improving to the best of my ability. No offense. Thank You --Moreau36 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to offend me. I'm puzzled as to why you're taking the discussion this hard. What's happening there is light fare compared to many other conflicts I've seen in the Wikipedia. Disagreement isn't a disease, ya know. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 06:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies --Moreau36 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While having wikilinks in disambiguation entries seems intuitive, it does seem the person who removed them from democracy (disambiguation) has MOS:DAB support that wikipedia usage has evolved against them:

• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
  • "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
  • not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

It probably doesn't matter either way, and any need in this particular article is probably the result that it is trying to be a study guide to a large number of articles, not a standard disambiguation page. I'm becoming more and more convinced that a radical reduction on this disambiguation page is desirable. The problem is making sure the few articles it does point do the job (they probably don't right now). - David Oberst 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the point of the dab's size, I thought that the way the page was developed originally was adequate, as it pointed to predominant 'democracy' concepts, plus democracy (varieties). Regarding guidelines, there are so many, I honestly don't have time to consume them all, and this one in particular seems a bit overdone. I like guidelines, but I also don't consider them sacrosanct. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 16:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might want to lend your wisdom to the RFC currently underway. BenBurch 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)