User talk:StefenTower/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Louisville Events Question

Stevetheman, I noticed that you said that the event the Danger Run is not considered a significant event in Louisville and I am trying to understand why you don't see the event as "significant". Please tell me how I can help you understand the relevance of the event so that you can consider it to be a "significant event". What are the qualifying factors of a "significant event"?

Dangerrunguy (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant not significant enough to take up a full paragraph in the main Louisville article. There has to be a cut off at some point, and I'm sure you would even agree that Danger Run is a minor event compared to those covered. We can't just keep expanding the main article or it gets too long to read. Danger Run is already listed in the Attractions article and that should suffice. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it appears by the creation of Danger Run and the addition to the main Louisville article that you see Wikipedia as a promotional device of some sort. It's not. I'm pretty sure admins will back me on keeping the material out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, StefenTower/Archive 12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky: American State Litter Scorecard

The Scorecard is a study; All states that performed poorly were notfied of the study, inclusing Governor Beshear and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet of the results. People want and demand transparancy from government. I have no grudge--As a Public servant, I leaned to serve the people without grudges! Good luck with improving the Bulegrass State Environmental Quality Status!

---

stevewonder2, April 25, 2011

OK, so we know Kentucky is bad off in this department -- but it seems you're trying to score some political points, and the Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. "POV pushing", as it's called here, is normally reverted, and admins will back up these reverts. Further, it's not my job individually to fix this problem, and this isn't a discussion board. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sir, I'm not a politician, and the information is indeed public record, for public consumption--presented at American Society for Public Administration national conference on March 13. Please, I request you have a nicer and professsionally polite day!!! Stevewonder2 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)stevewonder2, April 26, 2011

I'm being as polite as I can be while trying to get across to you how an encyclopedia works. It's not a platform to push an agenda, whether one is a politician or not. The text you had added contained significant subjective text. Encyclopedias don't include subjective text. Let's stick to straight facts here -- this is the rule we all live by. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky

As per my suggestion on the article talk page, I've removed the unsourced content that was added in earlier this evening. There really is no justifiable basis for admitting more unsourced content. Whil I accept not every unsourced claim needs to be tagged, I have added a general "ref improve" tag at the top of the article. I really don't think this is unreasonable given the issues in the article. The article is now as it stands before any of the dispute, bar the general reference tag. If you want to add back the material I removed, I suggest you either provide a reason on the talk page why we should ignore Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability issue in this particular instance, or add it back in with sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be more advantageous to request this of the user who added the new content. It wasn't me. I responded further about this matter on the Louisville talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor who added it is a new editor who added in lots of unsourced content on other articles, and clearly hasn't learned the ropes yet, which is what brought me to this article. Some editors don't like tags, and fair enough, part of it was down to me making a point. We're all talking on the discussion page now anyway, so the dispute has moved in a positive direction. Any further edits by either of us on that article should be constructive i.e. prohibiting further unsourced content or sourcing what is already there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)