Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -Seinfreak37 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I had the same problem with my first article, Big Blue Nation. By the way, if you're interested in Kentucky-related articles, consider joining us at WikiProject Kentucky. Hope to see you there! Acdixon 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! We had a barnstar at one point before I got here, but I don't know what happened to it. See my comment at the nomination page. Acdixon 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just done an admittedly quick assessment of your article, Paintsville High School. Looks like you've got a good start. Be sure to cite material that is likely to be challenged (per WP:V), especially statistics. Also, a sharper picture of the campus would really help. For ideas on other material that could help the article, check out these suggestions from WikiProject Schools. Hope this helps. Acdixon 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's where local knowledge is handy. Perhaps you could re-add Loretta Lynn on the Paintsville page with an explanation of the Butcher Hollow/Van Lear/Paintsville situation for clarification. I've got a similar issue with Don Everly of The Everly Brothers. Someone recently changed his birthplace from Muhlenberg County, Kentucky to Brownie, Kentucky. While that's technically right, Brownie is no longer a city, and I never hear anyone refer to it anymore. As you can see from its article, the only thing it ever has been famous for is being the birthplace of Don Everly. I am considering speedying it. Acdixon 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am truly honored that you would consider me a good candidate for adminship. At this time, however, I don't think I'm really that interested in becoming one. The part of Wikipedia that I enjoy most is editing, and I can do that without adminship. The only privilege that would be helpful would be deleting and moving pages, but I can leave that to the current admins. I'd rather not be called upon in policy disputes, etc. since I often still refer to more experienced editors on those matters myself. Again, it is an honor for you to think of me, and I hope I'll continue to be helpful to you in the future. Thanks for being an active part of my major focus, WikiProject Kentucky. Acdixon 14:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What image did you use for this ad? Image:Qxz-ad53.gif We only can accept free use images. Please contact me so that I can make another version of this ad. Thanks. Miranda 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Template:Wikipedia ads --
If you wish to create ads yourself, you are welcome to do so. In order that the template works properly, however, please ensure that the image is: * In GIF (multi-frame) or PNG (single-frame) format. * 468 pixels wide by 60 high. * Named in the format Image:Qxz-ad#.gif or Image:Qxz-ad#.png, where # represents a number to be incremented with each new image. This vastly simplifies the template coding. Additionally, the following requirements must be met to ensure copyright and Wikipedia's image use policy are not violated * If the image includes other images (a derivative work), it must only include images under a free license or in the public domain. * The image itself must be released under a free license or into the public domain. * Some free licenses specify that derivative works must also use that license (for example, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0). If an ad contains images under such a license, the ad itself must also be released under that license. * Non-free images must not be used.
If you wish to create ads yourself, you are welcome to do so. In order that the template works properly, however, please ensure that the image is:
* In GIF (multi-frame) or PNG (single-frame) format. * 468 pixels wide by 60 high. * Named in the format Image:Qxz-ad#.gif or Image:Qxz-ad#.png, where # represents a number to be incremented with each new image. This vastly simplifies the template coding.
Additionally, the following requirements must be met to ensure copyright and Wikipedia's image use policy are not violated
* If the image includes other images (a derivative work), it must only include images under a free license or in the public domain. * The image itself must be released under a free license or into the public domain. * Some free licenses specify that derivative works must also use that license (for example, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0). If an ad contains images under such a license, the ad itself must also be released under that license. * Non-free images must not be used.
Under this direction, I believe I was well within my right to create my own image. Additionally, I also verified that the image itself conforms to all the requirements. As for citing the sources for this particular image, I can admit that I might have cited the small portion of a free image already available on Wikipedia. That was my mistake. As far as the image, I believe that it is quite simple in nature and requires no changes, as there additionally was no guidance as to the complexity or "uniformity" of ad images. I wanted to do the work myself, and I enjoy doing graphics work.
To address the fact that I didn't "bring the issue" to you, there is a simple reason for that. Wikipedia contributors are encouraged to be bold. If every edit on Wikipedia were required to have someone else's approval, nothing would ever get accomplished on the monstrosity that is Wikipedia. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am not going to waste my time correcting an ad for which a person spent time to create if there is not a blatant fair use violation. I have other things to do, such as improving articles. However, thanks for your contribution. Miranda 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
May I ask where you found your image of the Confederate seal of Kentucky? Did you just print the one I linked to, or did you find it elsewhere? I've been looking everywhere for it. Acdixon 20:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you've got the wrong George W. Johnson in your picture. The caption referred to the subject being 98 years old; Johnson was killed at 50. It also refers to "Morgan man" but I can't find any reference of Johnson serving under John Hunt Morgan. I should have another pic this week anyway. Thanks for the effort. Acdixon 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've fleshed out the lead on George W. Johnson (Civil War). For my part, it's ready for a good article nomination. Do you have any more information you're planning to add? If so, just let me know, and I'll hold off on the nom. The two sources you dug up already were quite helpful. When you're done adding info, read over the copy to see if there are needed improvements. If not, let me know and we'll get that sucker nominated.
BTW, I do still have some info on Richard Hawes that I'm going to look at adding, but if you want to flesh out the lead on that article, be my guest. FWIW, I think we should stub in Albert Gallatin Hawes to remove that redlink in the article. It should be easy enough to do from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Thanks for your help! Acdixon 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The article on Albert Gallatin Hawes is fine; that's about all you can do with those scant bios from the Congressional Directory anyway. All we needed was a stub article; thanks for writing it. Hope to have Richard Hawes ready for your review today or tomorrow. Acdixon 11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem on the delay. It usually takes a week or two to get a GA review anyway. I went ahead and reviewed the one ahead of George W. Johnson to get it out of the way. Someone is in the process of reviewing Tony Blair, then Johnson and Hawes are next up. Now, we have to turn our attention to Confederate government of Kentucky. FA review can be pretty rough, but hopefully we can get it started at least by the end of the week. Acdixon 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't think I can be of assistance on this issue. Good luck, though! Cool Bluetalk to me 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've given this article another look and fixed some issues I found. Unless you or someone else identifies a problem in the next few days, I guess I'm ready to attempt an FA nom. Some editors set the bar pretty high on these FA noms, as I found out with William Goebel, so if you see anything that resembles a problem, let's work it out first. Let me know. Acdixon 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the creation of a new article on Hager Hill, Kentucky. I'm vaguely aware that there is such a place, but don't know much about it. The article says (or at least said when last I looked) that the city was the county seat of Johnson County, Kentucky. That didn't sound right, but you're our resident expert on Johnson County, aren't you? :) Just thought you might want to take a look.
Also, on an unrelated thought, would you mind prodding User:North Shoreman a bit to update his opinion on Confederate government of Kentucky? I've already done so once, but he hasn't responded. He hasn't been doing much editing lately, but he has done some, and I think there's a good chance that a decision on whether to promote is on hold pending his response. Just politely ask him to update his opinion so a decision on the article can proceed.
User:Madcoverboy seems to have abandoned the nom, and checking his edit history, he seems to have done that once before. That one is probably irrevocably an oppose. User:TomStar81, User:8th Ohio Volunteers, and User:Sabine's Sunbird are all solid supports. I think I'm also supposed to be counted an automatic support as the nominator, and hopefully, they'll count you as well, since I mentioned you in the nomination. The closing admin should ignore the opposes by User:Coloane and User:Mark Lincoln, as neither is based on the featured article criteria. I'll probably add a note asking him/her to ignore if we can get North Shoreman's support. That would leave only one outstanding oppose, and we can pass FA with that.
It seems the longer this nom stays open, the more it attracts dissent from people who oppose the subject, not the quality, of the article. (Witness the exchange with Mark Lincoln that took a rather nasty turn when it spilled over onto his talk page.) Apparently, you can't get an article about the Confederacy passed unless you adequately vilify and marginalize the subject, and you must be a Confederate sympathizer for even trying in the first place. Acdixon 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed you fixed the dimensions on the Kentucky flag. Cool deal. After I included the legal description of the flag on my List of Kentucky state insignia (current featured list nominee), I wondered if the image was the right size. I didn't think it was. Your graphic-related work (and other work, for that matter) continues to be appreciated. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
