User talk:StefenTower/Archive 12

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 &bull; 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 &bull; Work 10:50, 16 February 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 &bull; 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 &bull; 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 &bull; 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)

Non-Free rationale for File:LouisvilleMetroCouncilDistrictMap.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LouisvilleMetroCouncilDistrictMap.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MorgansRaidBrandenburgMarke.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MorgansRaidBrandenburgMarke.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:GRClarkStatue.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GRClarkStatue.jpg, which you've sourced to Bryan S. Bush. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I could comply with this request, I am not going to as this request is kind of absurd and a waste of my precious time. If that means the photo goes, it won't be the end of the world.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)