User talk:Acdixon/Archive2017

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalized my User Page
This Anon had vandalized my User Talk page, please either warn or block the IP, that's a IP that this account is on, I didn't do it, but someone else in my family did it. If you are going to block that IP, be careful, I have nothing to do with this except reverting the change. Thanks! Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left the warning, as you requested. A block, especially on an IP account that might be used by multiple editors, would be extreme overkill for a single instance of minor vandalism. If the issue persists, we can talk about escalation. BTW, you (or anyone, for that matter) can add those user warnings. They aren't the exclusive domain of admins. See the documentation for uw-test1 for details. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Youtube channel external link on my userpage
Is it okay to place my Youtube channel external link on my User page? Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't cite an exact policy, but given the existence of User YouTube, I'm guessing it would be fine. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky
This article has quite the long list of repeated citations to the same works. Would you oppose my introduction of rp to consolidate these references without losing the page numbers? Please visit White Site to see it in use if you're not familiar with how it works. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My primary concern with references is usually with people wanting to consolidate them in a way that leaves citations dissociated from individual sentences (e.g. citing a whole paragraph with one footnote). If sentences are later moved, it is no longer clear to which source they are cited. To me, this doesn't appear as though it would do that, so I suppose I'm fine with it if you think it would make the references easier to follow. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

GermanGamer77's question
Why can't I be administrator? I want special powers, and I want to be able to help even more. And I like special powers. But, why not? GermanGamer77 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to become an administrator, you have to be nominated at WP:RFA. Last I checked – which was admittedly a while ago – self-nominations are allowed. Your editing history will be reviewed, and other editors will either support or oppose your nomination. Having briefly looked at your editing history, you seem to have only started editing this month and have fewer than 500 edits. In my opinion, the chances of your nomination passing would be infinitesimally small, to the point that I would encourage you not to waste your own time and everyone else's. Plus, I suspect your expressed desire for "special powers" wouldn't play too well in any such nomination. I was asked twice before I agreed to be a candidate for adminship, and I haven't used the tools that often – mostly just rollbacks and hiding edits that violate policy, with a couple of short-term IP blocks or page protections. It's not all you seem to think it is. Hang around a while (like, a year or two), get the lay of the land, and if you still want to submit to the root canal that is RFA, then by my guest. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Eh. How do I sign up? GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Instructions here. Have fun storming the castle. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ken Ham honorary PhD.
Hello Acdixon, are you able to find any reliable source stating that Ham recently received an honorary degree from Bryan College? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this press release from the college would be fine. They should be a reliable source for who they gave a degree to. I don't see this as a particularly controversial fact requiring exceptional sourcing. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." There's no interpretation going on here, just a statement of fact. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just added it to the article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why I asked you. I think the situation here has been sorted out, as I was able to find another source. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the other editor's reasoning. If this were Politician X, the university's web site would have been a good enough source for an honorary degree. It's essentially an award. This shouldn't have required a third-party source, but I'm glad you found one. I did look, by the way, in Newsbank and HighBeam, in addition to a quick Google search yesterday morning. Given the date on your source, I probably searched a few hours too early. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note
Your comment here is a ) inappropriate for an article talk page, as it has nothing to do with improving the associated article; b) pointless because the issue is resolved, and c) Incorrect in any case.  DUE/UNDUE is about content. It is unfortunate that you add badly sourced promotional content to Wikipedia.  I have not encountered your doing that in any article I watch; if you did I would challenge it in exactly the same fashion, and under PROMO/UNDUE/BLP you would not have a leg to stand on. I see the discussion above. The other editor had noted on their talk page that someone had advised them that the poor edit they made would be OK.  Your advice was not good.  Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment was none of these things. It absolutely has relevance to improving the article, as I suspect this may not be the last honorary degree Ham receives, and we could be right back at the same place again. Had your claim that violated WP:UNDUE stood unchallenged, it might be viewed as consensus per WP:SILENCE. I intended to make it clear that consensus does not exist regarding the necessity of a third-party source for honorary degrees, unless it has been reached somewhere else that I am not aware of. I find your comment that "you would not have a leg to stand on" presumptuous (again, unless there is a previously reached consensus on the issue of which I am not aware), but until and unless the issue arises again, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue was already resolved - how could it be possibly be about improving the article? Just drama, and advocating an incorrect reading of policy at that.  If the issue arises again we will deal with it then.  Please be mindful of WP:YESPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, and the ds on pseudoscience topics btw.  Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does adding the fact that Ham received an honorary degree from a Christian university count at "advocacy," and how in the world does it violate WP:YESPOV? The Bryan College source was only used to show that Ham received an honorary degree. There is no inperpretation, opinion, judgmental language, opposing views, or "seriously contested assertions." There is no promotion involved in mentioning this. Bryan College is a notable Christian university. It seems over-the-top to continute listing Ham as having received four honorary degrees when he earned a fifth from another college.
 * BTW, while it may not be any surprise, I do agree with Acdixon on this, and I don't see how any of his views on WP policy are incorrect. It is likely that Ham will receive a sixth honorary degree, and this dispute could start all over. It's not like The New York Times will publish an article about Ham's honorary degrees. It's reasonable to use a primary source for a noncontrovsersial, simple fact and it does not appear to violate WP:PRIMARY. And, there's a difference between citing Bryan's website to Ham's AiG blog. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, beat me to the punch on much of what I was going to say. Warnings about POV, advocacy, and discretionary sanctions over an honorary degree? Preparing to report someone on the edit war noticeboard over a single reversion? Over-react much? Also, its appropriate for you to issue a template warning in anticipation of another revert from 1990'sguy, but my comment in anticipation of a potential future dispute over honorary degrees and sourcing was out-of-line? Methinks thou doest protest too much. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot see the difference between a 3RR notice in the midst of an ongoing edit warring episode, and you making drama over a resolved issue on an article talk page, you should hand in your bit.  Nothing relevant to building an encyclopedia is happening here, so I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a IP
This IP want's to try to edit war when im undoing their vandalism, can you block this IP Address? Thanks! Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that this IP has no other edits besides the disputed ones, he or she may not be aware that their edits potentially violate policy. I'm not seeing any good reason for the section blanking, at least. The best first step is to issue a warning, like uw-editwar, on the IP's talk page. I have done this, and I would encourage you to do the same in the future before asking for an editor to be blocked. I subscribe to WP:DTR, as seen in the discussion above, so let this serve as my admonition to you in lieu of a template warning. In the future, please don't make that third revert without some attempt at discussion, as you have done here.
 * If the problematic behavior continues, let me know. I would consider some temporary page protection preferable to blocking an editor as a first step. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking about disruptive IP users, is there anything you can do about a user(s) who is constantly making unexplained, potentially POV changes to Bruce Rauner? They make their change with a slightly different IP address each time. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this looks like a very similar situation. Even if the editor is IP-hopping, you should leave a warning on each IP talk page used. It appears that you eventually tried to do that here, although the warning issued is about genres, when I think you intended it to be about genders. Again, it looks like the issue has died down for the nonce, but if it persists, a short period of semi-protection to prompt talk page discussion would probably be in order. As to the actual content of the dispute, you might be able to take some guidance from Gender-neutral language, which says, in part, "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." This supports your position favoring "chairman" over "chair" in this case because the Governor is male, non-controversially, I assume. WP:GNL is an essay, not a policy, but it reflects some degree of consideration of the issue by another editor. Also, you might check the talk archives to see if a previous consensus is at play on either side of the issue. In the absence of that, you might start a talk page discussion to see how other editors who watch the page feel. A consensus either way would trump an essay. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to the 50,000 United States edit challenge.
Since you seek improvement to the Kentucky article I invite you to the challenge. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

IP block request
This IP who recently added POV material on several articles was blocked but can still edit their talk page. As you can see, they have been constantly removing a template stating that they removed discussions off their talk page (vandalism warnings -- an apparent attempt to whitewash the talk page). Would you please remove their ability to edit their talk page so the template can be re-added? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that removing these notices from one's own talk page is allowed. The page history will show that they were added, and their removal constitutes acknowledgement (I think) on the part of the user that they have seen the notice, should further sanctions be warranted. I try to be very cautious on my use of the admin tools. As seen recently, some folks resent my having them. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair. But, would disruptive talk page editing be a good reason to remove the talk page editing ability? The user reverted the template several times. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLANKING, that behavior is allowed (although I find it annoying) and not considered by policy to be disruptive. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Then I'll defer to you on this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you edit this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niko Seksi (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin action request
Hello Acdixon, would you please hide this slanderous edit? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have hidden this revision under criterion WP:RD3. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a chance you could hide this edit as well? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UT

Test
Sorry for the trouble just trying to testing things out a bit, main thing I wanted to do was change UofL's logo. That old logo on the page didnt look as good.

More admin requests
Would you please hide the edits that these editors reverted: (I have to just say that it really irritates me when vandalism to this article and other YEC-related articles is labeled "good faith" by reverting editors; it has happened in the past). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I meant to get those this morning and forgot. I was going to semi-protect the article, too, but it looks like it's died down for the nonce. It isn't just YEC articles where I see this "good faith" language used on blatant vandalism. I'm pretty sure it must be some automated tool's default text that folks are not bothering to change. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The tool is Twinkle. I use it as well and it is very convenient, as it allows me to roll back multiple edits. When rolling back, we have the option of choosing three choices, treating the edits we're rolling back as good faith edits, vandalism, or just regular rolling back. Rather than choosing the latter two options, the editors I've seen on Ken Ham's article and others marked the edits clearly intended as vandalism as "good faith". --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Figured something like that. Having never used the tool before, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being lazy or careless instead of malicious. Still, it looks like the vandal has returned, so I've semi-protected Ham's page for most of the weekend. And apparently, for one of the troublesome edits, I removed the edit summary instead of the text. Oops. Looks like cleaned that up for me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk-page stalker) :-) BencherliteTalk 16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bert T. Combs scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Bert T. Combs article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 13, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Combs was definitely an interesting guy. I just looked at the blurb, and I really think it needs to include his post-governorship work on Rose v. Council for Better Education. That case was a serious blockbuster. I was in elementary school when it happened, and the subsequent Kentucky Education Reform Act was a monumental shift for education in Kentucky. Maybe we could shorten the details of the sales tax to make room. Should I just edit the blurb directly and use the associated talk page for discussion, or is there a more accepted way to hash out that kind of stuff? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dank keeps those blurbs in order, but I know from watching them that he'll be fine if you just go ahead and edit it directly; just leave an explanation in the edit summary, and he'll contact you if anything is an issue. Yes, he was an interesting guy; I remember reviewing this one at FAC.  Have you stopped taking the Kentucky governors to FAC?  I'm won't be active as a reviewer again till the autumn, but I would love to see you bringing some more of these to FA level.  I think it's one of Wikipedia's more impressive projects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, it has just proven too time-consuming anymore. I got most of the ones who had significant scholarly literature about them done already. That only requires pulling together a dozen or so sources for a nice, tight summary of the person's life and career, and maybe bird-dogging some sources on the more interesting tidbits for flavor. Probably all that's left with FA potential are the ones of a more recent vintage, and I have to put those together from newspaper articles and such. Given that there are hundreds of articles per month from their active time in politics, I just can't devote that kind of time anymore. I wish I could, as I'm rather proud of the project, but when I started, I had zero children (now I have two), I wasn't in multiple leadership positions at my church... and Civilization VI wasn't a thing yet! :) Most of my work anymore is article touch-up and adding pictures I take myself whenever I'm somewhere or with someone noteworthy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I used to be a Civ addict, many years ago; I have resisted acquiring Civ VI as I know I would go radio silent for weeks if I did. Is it an improvement on the previous editions?
 * It's definitely not where Civ V was after two expansion packs, but for an apples-to-apples comparison, it blows vanilla Civ V out of the water. The district system is really innovative, and the civilizations so far are very well-balanced, ability-wise. I actually started several games with "Random Leader", which I never did on previous editions because there were always a few civs that were just horrible. I'm baffled at some of the bugs that have persisted even through a few patches, and my lower-end laptop forces me to play on etch-a-sketch graphics settings, so I feel like I'm missing out there, but I still find most of my free time devoted to the game right now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand about life taking over. If you'd be interested in collaborating on whatever you think the most accessible one is, let me know; I might have time for that later this year.  How about some of the early 19th century governors?  Slow progress doesn't matter, after all; there's no deadline.  But if you're really too busy, no worries.  Maybe when your kids are in college! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to some kind of collaboration if we can find some sources I haven't already consulted. I find it so much easier to do politicians who have been dead and gone for a while as trying to keep current folks up-to-date or find summative sources on people recently out of the limelight. The best two potential candidates from that time frame are probably Gabriel Slaughter and Thomas Metcalfe. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, in September or October if I have time I'll come back and take a look at those, and ping you if so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for your interest. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and make the edit AC, and I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just threw together something quick. You won't hurt my feelings if you need to tweak it significantly. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great, but I don't know what "public school system being declared unconstitutional and completely replaced" means; it sounds like they tore down the schoolhouses. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hadn't considered that, but "declared the public school system unconstitutional" or wording that is substantially similar is what I see most often. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't feel qualified to phrase it more clearly. Would be open to suggestions. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine, I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, all the thoughts that went into it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Back kind of
Hey Acdixon

Have had some health issues. BUT I wanted to ask about what is or is not allowed as far as Building structures. Specifically, I was recenty able to get inside of the Capital Dome at Charleston WV and got some decent pics. My understanding has been that statuary is a no no on wikipedia. ANYthing else?? Many Tanks Coal town guy (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, friend. I thought maybe you had just given up on this place. I'm pleased to see that your hiatus is over, but bummed to know it was health-related. Hope you're on the mend.
 * Regarding photography of statues, my oversimplified understanding is this: A photograph of a statue is considered a derivative work. That means that if the statue itself is still covered by copyright, any pictures of the statue are also covered by copyright. If the statue is out of copyright (e.g. Venus de Milo), you hold the copyright to the derivative work and can release it into the public domain. If the statue is still in copyright (e.g. the statue of local hero Ephraim McLean Brank that was unveiled in my town a couple of years ago), I can't release my picture of the statue into the public domain because the statue itself is still under copyright. I think I've got all that right. Anyway, if you can prove that the statue was "published" – which in the case of a statue means "made available for public viewing", I guess – before 1923, that's probably the easiest way to show that it is free from copyright. Frustrating as heck, I know, and from browsing other conversations on the subject, I think some Euro laws are less strict about this than those in the U.S. If you'd like an explanation from someone who actually knows what the heck he or she is talking about, I'd post a specific question at Media copyright questions. That's what I do.
 * Welcome back, friend. Don't be a stranger. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, mind is willing body is not. Thats exceelent info, much appreciated. I was able to get some detil shots CLOSe up on a few of the building sturctures, so the eagle on the dome for example is part of the dome and not a "statue". Otherwise, I need a few days to get some thngs up. Inside shots of the dome, details of dome and building design. It should be OKCoal town guy (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actions searching
Hey Acdixon, do we have a place to search for articles that do not have a ref?? We used to but it looks as though that tool is gone now..Coal town guy (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the importance of referencing – and it seems like it's even gotten a higher degree of importance with many editors lately – I'd be surprised if it totally disappeared, but I never knew where it was and don't really know what, if anything, happened to it. Sorry. I'd keep asking around though. I can't imagine it got scrapped altogether. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin request
Hello Acdixon, would you please revert this edit on Political appointments by Donald Trump? If you go on the talk page, it is clear that there is a consensus against including appointments of career diplomats (as they are not truly political appointments). The article was fully protected due to edit warring, and the protecting administrator did not reply to my request to revert it as of the time of my writing. I think it is clear that this editor is not acting in good faith, he is a troll (as seen in his copying my edit summaries in the page history, as well as copying my comments at the Requests for page protection page. Would you please restore the consensus? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the IP editor has behaved badly, and his/her reasoning is childish at best. It also seems, from what I've read, that there is at least broad agreement against the edit that was the subject of the edit war. All that said, I'm rather hesitant about jumping in with my admin bit on one side or the other of an edit war that resulted in full page protection. Ensuring that one side or the other of the disagreement is reflected in the current article seems to me a bad reason to do so, especially when the protection expires tomorrow anyway. Do you know if a formal request for comments exists on this subject? I noticed that, at one point in the discussion, the IP had agreed to back off if there was no support for the edit. The results of a formal process like RFC might be enough to gain the desired effect, since it seems the result is likely to support the version of the article that you favor. Moreover, it seems like the appeal to consensus references several previous decentralized discussions. Having a central, formal discussion to point to from here on out might be a desirable outcome. Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint, and there is no WP:DEADLINE. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I will do a RfC once I learn how to do it. For the record, the user said he would stop before he acted at his worst (and before other editors sided against him). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Lawrence Wetherby, another Kentucky governor! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

... and today's Augustus O. Stanley! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always. If you liked these, note that Happy Chandler is scheduled for June 15. One of my favorite articles that I've worked on. A very interesting guy, and even in death, still beloved by many older folks in Kentucky. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, looking forward to that one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for Chandler, "a man who went from state senator to lieutenant governor to governor to U.S. Senator to Commissioner of Baseball and back to governor. Chandler was a seriously busy nonagenarian who influenced Kentucky politics for the better part of six decades." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SIX YEARS, thats rather cool. Thought I would be active more now, yell at me when you need a small KY town or placeCoal town guy (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to "see" you, CTG. I thought someone told me you weren't hanging around these parts anymore. I'm not nearly as active as I used to be either. Life gets in the way. I will definitely shoot you a note the next time I run up on some small Kentucky place red link that needs turning blue. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request question
Hello Acdixon, would it be OK if you hid this edit summary, which has nothing to do with the IP's edit? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm not sure if that qualifies under policy for hiding or not. I think most people could agree that it's tasteless – although in today's rhetorical climate, who knows? – but whether it rises to the level of "grossly offensive" material by Wikipedia's standards, I don't know. Certainly, it more than makes the bar for me, but as you know, I try to use cautious restraint with the admin tools. Perhaps one of my experienced talk page stalkers – I believe there are at least a couple – could offer some advice. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with annons
Me and another editor warned a annon of unexplained content removal on Newspeak then another anon decided to revert my changes too. Can you deal with them? I know of Assume good faith but I don't want to start a Edit War Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please forgive the lateness of my reply. I was offline most of the weekend. It seems as though page protection has been applied to stem the edit war, which was proper. I'm also pleased to see that a talk page discussion has been started, which is also proper. Having glanced through the disputed material, I cannot imagine it would survive a challenge. It is completely uncited and does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing FAC
Hi! I recently nominated Fawad Khan for FAC but now I want to have it peer reviewed. Can you please tell me how to withdraw a FAC. Amirk94391 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend dropping a note to one of the FAC coordinators – or  to notify them of your intention to withdraw. They will close the nomination appropriately. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
Hello Acdixon, would you please delete this redirect so I can accept this AfC draft to the same name: Draft:U.S. Route 85 in Colorado? I also know that there is an option to merge page histories -- please do whatever necessary so I can move this draft. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I was on vacation. If you just need the redirect deleted and the draft moved to the main space, I can do that. If the histories need to be merged, though, I've never done that before. I can try to look up how to do it, or you could ask someone with more experience. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would delete the redirect, that would be great. If you would allow me to accept the AfC request and move the article to mainspace, I would appreciate it, but if it works better for you to do everything yourself, that is also OK. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Someone else did all that work today and moved the draft to the mainspace location. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Birth (and death) dates
Hello. I have a question. There is a discussion in the Bulgarian Wikipedia about how the dates should be written. For now the dates are written mostly in the Biography section of a person and there are no dates in brackets in the beginning of the article right after the name of the person. I think the better alternative is the one with the brackets just as it is here in the English Wikipedia. Can you tell me why your alternative with the brackets is better? I want the things in the Bulgarian wiki to become the same as in the English one. If there is voting in the BG wiki, will you join me? --77.236.166.12 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm passionate about this issue, but I like being able to see at a glance when the person was alive so I get a sense of the historical context in which they lived. Also, if you are trying to disambiguate a name, you can easily see whether their vital dates make them a plausible candidate for the individual you are trying to find. All that said, I don't see myself jumping into a discussion on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, as I most certainly do not speak Bulgarian. Just English and un poquito de espanol. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, man, thanks for the answer! I appreciate it. It was helpful. --77.236.166.12 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis
Hello Acdixon. I am an agnostic so I am not promoting either Theism or Atheism but I am concerned that the official Wikipedia view of religious articles such as Answers in Genesis is not neutral. There seems to be a strong pushing of a militant atheist point of view. I doubt if I can do anything to change this but I thought I would let you know how I feel. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concern is duly noted and appreciated. If you can stomach the fervor of the discussions, more neutral voices are needed, not fewer. Despite my deeply held – and freely acknowledged – personal beliefs, I try to edit in a manner that comports with Wikipedia guidelines. I do not believe those guidelines dictate that only negative information about unpopular topics – even those regarded as pseudo-scientific – may be added to their articles or, conversely, that any attempt to make the existing language more neutral or even adding what little positive coverage is out there, constitutes advocacy. Others appear to feel differently. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction between being a Christian and being a scientist. Creation and evolution are both possible so I think it would be unscientific to reject either of them.  Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence Wetherby scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Lawrence Wetherby article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2, 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 2, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dan_Johnson_%28Kentucky_politician%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dan_Johnson_%28Kentucky_politician%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)