User talk:Stevietheman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of map[edit]

You removed my map on pizza hut explain please — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 (talkcontribs) 02:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Because of aesthetics. If you want to place a map in an article (that's not already there), put it in an appropriate spot with an appropriate size. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 10:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There's also the issue that the maps have no references. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest for a Louisville related article[edit]

Steve, can anyone post a request for new article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Requests? The reason that I ask is that you appear to be only person that edit that page and was not sure if it is appropriate for other persons to place suggestions there.

If that is not an appropriate place to make suggestions for new articles, can I make a suggestion of adding article for the Ben Snyder's Department Stores Chain, the only department store chain that was headquartered in Louisville that currently don't have a WP article.

There are many citation references (~10) for Ben Snyder's that is on List of defunct department stores of the United States#Kentucky which could be use for starting a stub.

BTW, I like the recent improvements that you had made on Benedictine (spread). Is it close to point of advancing to the next level since it appears to now have a lot of hard references to national publications, some of which were not initially easy to find. Keep up the good work! (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your question. Absolutely yes -- please add all the articles (including Ben Snyder's) you think are missing to the Requests page. I am the only one editing that page merely by happenstance -- it's open to everyone to add to. As for Benedictine (spread), I'm thinking it could use some more historical context/content and a better picture (one showing it used as a spread on a sandwich). After that is added, it would probably rate a 'B' and be possibly worthy of GA. I've been meaning to improve that content but other wiki-tasks (and external to-do's) have been distracting me. I agree it's been much easier as of late to expand the article because of all the attention it has gotten -- its notability is undeniable now. Feel free to add content there yourself or suggest content additions on its talk page. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice requested[edit]


Could you provide me with some advice?

I made what I thought was a valid edit to the article on William M. Branham. It was referenced to a book on William Branham that is quoted elsewhere in the article.

I have tried to edit this article in the past but it is guarded by someone that appears to be a rather fervent follower of William Branham. His username, Rev107, is a reference to Revelation 10:7, a passage in the Bible which Branham's followers believe that he fulfilled.

In my last attempt to edit the article, I gave up as Rev107 resorted to wikilawyering and I simply did not have the time to involve myself in what had all of the makings of a protracted dispute. I tried to engage a couple of members of the New religious movements work group but gave up when no one responded to me.

The article needs some balance and I am willing to work to get the article improved.

However, my last edit was immediately reverted by Rev107. I have no desire to get into an edit war, but what am I supposed to do when faced with someone who does not appear to be interested in factual balance? He reverts any edit that is not in line with his view of Branham, even when there is sound external support for the edit.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Taxee (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Taxee:, after some consideration, my advice is to start a new discussion about the specific passage in question in Talk:William M. Branham. If you and Rev107 can't work it out after some back and forth, then seek a third opinion. If that fails, then let me know and I'll review what happened, and provide some additional ideas. Good luck! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will proceed as you suggested. Taxee (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

William Burke Belknap[edit]

Stevietheman, this is the first time I have used Usertalk. I noticed on the history page for my article on William Burke Belknap, which is apparently going to be deleted, that you have Louisville interests. I think you may be the same editor who suggested that a separate article should be written for Belknap Hardware Co. I agree about the separate article for the hardware company. However, I think that William Burke Belknap is himself a notable Kentuckian and world figure and is deserving of his own place in Wikipedia history. What do you recommend to preserve the William Burke Belknap entry? Many of the changes I've had to make relate to COI. I have used my own name and do not deny my relationship to the people about whom I have written. I have edited extensively and contributed much to the article on my husband Thomas M. Humphrey, which was begun by another Wikipedia writer/editor. I have also created the entry on Joel Root. In working on those articles I have discovered how so many notable figures are missing and how difficult it is to incorporate oral history and previously undocumented history into the history that is being written today. I appreciate your previous suggestions which I read in View history. Do you have any ideas about how I should act to prevent deletion of the William Burke Belknap entry?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mitzi.humphrey:, I would mostly recommend creating Belknap Inc. and including some content on the family behind the company. This is all given that secondary sources (newspapers, widely published books, etc.) can be provided as references. As for William Burke Belknap, if he has done notable things indicated by secondary sources and you can locate them, the best approach would be to show them in Talk:William Burke Belknap. From that, other editors can determine if there is enough material available to save the article. This would need to be done fairly soon, in case the article ends up being deleted. Also note that as much as primary sources (oral histories, diaries, etc.) may provide interesting information for research purposes, they are inadmissible as references. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Would citing links such as this help? This link refers to a Kentucky Derby horse raised at Land O'Goshen Farms, which is the horse-breeding farm begun by William Burke Belknap. I still would like to make a case for William Burke Belknap as a notable entry apart from the Belknap Hardware, elected office, and public service associations.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That reference doesn't mention W.B. Belknap as far as I can tell, so no. If he was elected to office, that is normally considered enough for notability as long as it wasn't an insignificant office. If he was a mayor or held a state or federal office, you can stress that, and the article would likely be kept. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Talbott Tavern[edit]

Hello, I'm completely new to Wikipedia (as a member), so please feel free to correct my errors. I'm the great-granddaughter of the George Talbott ran the Old Talbott Tavern in Bardstown (it was actually owned before him by his father, John Cotton Talbott, who was murdered in the Tavern in 1859 by a gent named Hynes Slaughter). I can assure you that none of George's children hanged themselves, either for unrequited love or any other reason. This is something I first read in a collection of ghost stories compiled by a nutcase named Patti Starr who lives in the area and calls herself a "ghost hunter". It seems to be picked up and passed around by other folks compiling KY ghost tales. Also, if it should ever come up, my g-grandma Anna is not currently floating around the tavern as an "orb." Only four of her children lived to adulthood but this is likely due to typical childhood illnesses and a lack of penicillin, rather than any spooky mysterious reasons. I did try to remove the "hanging" passage in this wikipedia entry, but couldn't figure out where to write my explanation for the edit. I'd be glad if you can tell me how. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SutcliffeTalbott (talkcontribs) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@SutcliffeTalbott:, welcome to the Wikipedia! Here is a page that helps with providing an edit summary: Help:Edit summary. Also, note that removing referenced content because you personally think it's incorrect is generally frowned upon. What you need to do is show that the reference provided doesn't back up the content before removing it, or give another policy/guidelines-based reason for removing it. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Louisville Metro[edit]

Thanks for your work on Louisville-related pages! See my reply to your comments here, the new redirect and move request here, and the new redirect and hatnote here. — LlywelynII 02:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Discretionary Sanctions for Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bio tags[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message; I have updated the (offline) templates I use to say WikiProject Biography so that in future that won't happen. I hope it's not too difficult to fix the ones that I've already done; if I see similar ones as I'm editing, I will fix them. FYI: In some cases, there are duplicate bio tags on some talk pages and I just took out the one that was easiest to delete. I am systematically going thru Category:Biography articles without living parameter and doing my best to mark them as living or dead. I am also sometimes able to add authority control to the article pages; especially if the person has written books. Thanks again and apologies for the problems caused.--FeanorStar7 00:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


I did not mean to imply that you personally had a "fetish"

it has just been my experience in the great majority of the many articles that I am involved in editing that the article devovles into single sentence "paragraphs" each in their own subsection - that people are too stupid to read without the main point of each sentence being called out in a bullet point section header for them.

For this specific case in point, the body of the Michael Dorris article fits on a single screen on the default settings of a laptop and so claims that it is "so long that it is difficult to read" ring extremely hollow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it's difficult to read per se, but rather a matter of content organization. The Biography section is longish, and usually such sections are broken down into periods or especially notable career developments that deserve sectional treatment. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)